U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#441

Post by uiri » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #399

Frondo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what, though? If we actually had equality of opportunity, it doesn't seem like we'd see the kind of disparity we do. Certainly not at a big corporation where there should be enough of an employee pool to have it at least somewhat reflect the general population of the region. But then, when I listen to the stories women in tech (for example) tell, and they do tell a LOT of the same stories, it's clear we're p…

If you start with $1 million in pennies and I start with $1 million in pennies and we play a game with a fair coin: heads I win, tails you win - with the winner getting a penny, guess what happens if we play the game over and over again? Over time, one of us will have $0, and the other will have $2 million. So, even with equality of opportunity, there can be gross disparity of outcome over time. The pursuit of happin…

A fair coin means that it is equally likely for you to take a penny from me as it is for me to take a penny from you.

For instance, if we play the game 1000 times, heads might come up 505 times and tails might come up 495 times. Over time, the difference between the number of times tails comes up and head comes up will go to 0.

Therefore, over time, we'll both stay at $1 million.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#442

Post by jdavis703 » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 3:57 PM UTC

dawnbreez wrote: post #430

jdavis703 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since graduating college I've stayed continuously employeed at several different Bay Area tech startups, so I'm pretty sure I have at least decent technology skills. Yet I've been to several interviews where questions about race/ethnicity were brought up (and I failed to get offers from those companies that ask such questions). I can only imagine what it's like being a woman going for these positions. My point, a lot…

Now, having done a few job applications myself: there is apparently a tax break or something for hiring a person of color, because race is always included in the job application, and always under the same header as questions for, say, disabled or veteran status. However, asking in the interviews is unheard of, at least in shudder retail. And while outright denyig someone for their race isn't as common as you might th…

There is no tax break in the US for hiring certain groups of people (at least in regards to race and ethnicity). This data is requested for reporting purposes only. This is how companies can release "diversity reports" or answer questions when EEOC investigators start asking questions.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#443

Post by ninkendo » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 3:57 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #243

ninkendo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Certainly not at a big corporation where there should be enough of an employee pool to have it at least somewhat reflect the general population of the region. That is a drastic oversimplification. The employee pool can only hope to be reflective of the pool of those who seek employment at that company and are qualified. Which can only hope to be reflective of the employee marketplace for that industry at large. Whi…

You're right, the problem is bigger than a company. It goes deep, society-deep. And I don't think anyone would say "poor black kids have a fair shake, right up until Oracle doesn't hire them". Of course not. Some groups get shafted from birth, by being born into poor communities, by being born into communities where the police split their heads for looking the way they do. You're right, it's not just on some tech com…

I totally feel you and I agree, I was just pointing out that it's really difficult to get a tech workforce that's reflective of the general population.

Maybe my defensiveness comes from the fact that I'm in a hiring position in one of these big companies, and I'm fully accustomed to how hard it is to find candidates outside the typical racial and gender mix you tend to see in tech.

Not that it isn't worth it to try, but I just think we should be careful about placing too much blame in any one place... because it's so easy to refute (since it's not 100% the company or hiring manager's fault) and then real subtleties can be lost in the discussion.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#444

Post by wang_li » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #389

wang_li wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of affirmative action organizations that would be very upset with anonymization of applicants.

Out of curiosity: do you know of any organizations that have voiced such opposition?

No, because I don't know of anyone who has made a serious suggestion that such anonymization be carried out.

There are plenty of advocacy organizations that badger, and attempt to shame, companies into buying their "consulting" services. Services that consist primarily of coming in, counting your employees by the hue of their skin, or whether their genitals are innies or outies. Then, after you've paid them stupid amounts of money, they provide a seal of approval. See Project Include or the Rainbow Coalition.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#445

Post by jdavis703 » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

michael_bluth wrote: post #435

johnward wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happened at an interview? I find this highly unlikely. Maybe I'm just in my own bubble but I just can't imagine this scenario.

I'm having trouble believing anything he's said so far ...

That's not even the craziest interviews I've had. I had one at a pre-funding startup in a warehouse. When I got in there were several rifles and pistols on the conference table. Allegedly they did security contracting and were looking to "pivot."

None of what I've said has happened at large companies I've interviewed with like Google or Uber, but small startups definitely have some "interesting" practices.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#446

Post by WildUtah » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:07 PM UTC

freditup wrote: post #123

That means we so far have: * Palantir sued for not hiring enough Asians [0] * Google sued for not turning over compensation data [1] * Oracle sued for hiring too many Asians While it's possible that discriminatory processes have happened at all these places, it seems these lawsuits can be targeted at whoever one wishes. It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire…

unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really).

Quota hiring is usually considered a safe harbor under the law. Non-discriminatory policy and equal opportunity, on the other hand, can still create liability under the civil rights laws. That's why quotas are so popular.

But you can't run a tech company with strict quotas. There aren't enough decent engineers available at any price in many of the necessary categories.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#447

Post by WildUtah » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

uiri wrote: post #441

tomohawk wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you start with $1 million in pennies and I start with $1 million in pennies and we play a game with a fair coin: heads I win, tails you win - with the winner getting a penny, guess what happens if we play the game over and over again? Over time, one of us will have $0, and the other will have $2 million. So, even with equality of opportunity, there can be gross disparity of outcome over time. The pursuit of happin…

A fair coin means that it is equally likely for you to take a penny from me as it is for me to take a penny from you. For instance, if we play the game 1000 times, heads might come up 505 times and tails might come up 495 times. Over time, the difference between the number of times tails comes up and head comes up will go to 0. Therefore, over time, we'll both stay at $1 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#448

Post by dawnbreez » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #442

dawnbreez wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, having done a few job applications myself: there is apparently a tax break or something for hiring a person of color, because race is always included in the job application, and always under the same header as questions for, say, disabled or veteran status. However, asking in the interviews is unheard of, at least in shudder retail. And while outright denyig someone for their race isn't as common as you might th…

There is no tax break in the US for hiring certain groups of people (at least in regards to race and ethnicity). This data is requested for reporting purposes only. This is how companies can release "diversity reports" or answer questions when EEOC investigators start asking questions.

Ah, thank you.

I seem to be lucky in that I haven't directly seen any racist hiring policies. But, then again, I've only worked hourly retail jobs; for all I know, the higher you go, the less likely a hispanic man is to be hired. And it doesn't help that there's so many variables to control for--as other comments stated, it's filters all the way down. As an example ffrom the entertainment industry, I have never owned a computer powerful enough to handle both running a recently released game and recording footage of the gameplay, which means that my dreams of becoming a Youtube Star are rather limited. And don't even get me started on capture cards. The rich kid down the block can afford it because his parents buy it for him; my parents don't, and the reason for that could extend as far back as the lessons my grandmother learned when she had to work her way to the top of the Georgia Pacific packaging plant where she made her living.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#449

Post by soundwave106 » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #371

prutschman wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's surprising to you that there are women who want to work on oil rigs, and want that badly enough to go through the trouble of making a case out of it, then you may need to update your beliefs about what it means to be a woman.

Give me a break. You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women. 5 women and 1 court case (and no lawyer ever set up a lawsuit like that, right?) does not change all of those facts. You need to realize that your worldview and own person…

I unfortunately think you are undermining your own argument here with this focus.

It's clear that institutional biases and societal biases exist, and that some of these biases may act as steering currents for certain people to go into certain careers. However, there always will be some cases of people who like to "steer against the current" and work in a field that's outside the society-traditional bias in one way or another (gender or otherwise).

A good goal, I think, is to ensure that merit is the chief qualification for employment. Statements such as (paraphrasing) "oil rigs are a man's club" and "pretty women would be a distraction" is way too sweeping -- lazy group collective thinking at its most absolute, playing on stereotypes of both women and men. Humans have a wide range of abilities and behaviors and it doesn't always divide neatly in binary form.

From a personal standpoint, I would call this biased group-think sort of hiring practices as far from optimal. If someone can do the job well, they should do it if they are good at it. I do know someone, for instance, who's a female welder. Apparently, only 5% of welders are women. Well, she's one of them and from all indications she's good at it. Luckily, the place she works at doesn't have a "welding is a MAN's job" sort of attitude.

(Note that this bias can also apply in reverse. Think of the current societal bias with men teaching elementary school, for instance.)

Now, whether or not government enforced action (eg, to what degree, and what tools, governments should use to challenge the bias) is a good thing or not, I think that's more of an open question. The truth is, in some cases, some people hold onto stereotype so heavily, that they will literally threaten people who challenge this "norm" with harassment and violence. Clearly in this sort of case, the government should be involved.

However, for something like standard hiring practices, I'm a little fuzzy as to how much government should dictate anti-discrimination policy, if any. I wouldn't mind seeing more data in this regard; at this point, I don't know how effective various tools have been at eliminating lazy hiring groupthink, or whether they aren't terribly effective at anything but increasing resentment.

Re: U.S. sues Oracle, alleges salary and hiring discrimination

#450

Post by logandavis » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #378

logandavis wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly makes you think that a degree "means less" for a black job applicant than it does for a white one, when a white applicant is approximately 150% likelier to have a degree than a black one is? Are you attempting to assert causation in the absence of correlation?

I think he meant the following. Suppose that for University X, the minimal SAT requirement for white applicants was 700/700, and for black applicants was 400/400. Suppose that the SAT scores of all white students at X are uniformly distributed over (700-800/700-800), and those of the black students are uniformly distributed over (400-800/400-800). Now randomly pick one white student, and one black student. Which of t…

Your heart surgery question is ridiculous. As anyone who has taken the SAT can attest, it has nothing to do with ability to perform complex medical procedures.

As for your question about which number drawn at random from two differently distributed populations would be higher on average - yes, in this hypothetical college that admits black students with SAT scores below the black population's average but only takes white students who are 1+ STD above the white population's average, I would expect the white students to have higher SAT scores.

What I would interrogate is why you seem to be defining the worthiness of students by their SAT scores, which most elite colleges now essentially disregard, since studies have shown that it correlates alarmingly well with parents' income.

I also don't understand why so many people, when discussing the merits of college or job applicants, are so focused on the exact point of application, to the point of refusing to consider earlier opportunities and environmental effects.

Wouldn't you consider a 500 SAT score from a low-income family's student more impressive than a 500 SAT score from a high-income family's student, based on the relative availability of SAT prep classes to the two students? Shouldn't such contextual information be considered when evaluating candidates? Wouldn't you say that the candidate from the less advantageous background who has achieved identical "on paper" results is more deserving of selection, considering what they must've overcome to achieve such results? If the candidate from the less advantageous background is more deserving, why do studies find that, when presented with identical applicants, hirers will choose the one with the whiter name? [0] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/...