81–90 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to imagine (although it probabbly isn't true) that then I'd get less recruiter spam for jobs where they want to pay squat.... like "Did you check my salary and think you have something to offer? If so, let's talk." Granted, that probabbly wouldn't stop recruiter spam and of course there is MUCH MORE to a good job than pay.
So just put your current salary in your CV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that Google's workforce is 69% men, it's quite possible that they found 3 men underpaid for every 2 women who were underpaid (60%/40%), which would mean they gave more men than women salary equity adjustments while still having a bias in the direction of the original complaint.
It's not a contest of who is more underpaid. This would indicate that Google systematically underpays, regardless of gender. THAT is the real issue here.
I read the article first and then came in to read the comments. I feel that most people commenting did not actually read the whole article. To put it simply: It is not just about pay equity in a particular level. It is also about the ingress and egress rate of a level. As the article mentions, some woman was hired as L3 while all of her co-workers were hired as L4. Was she overpaid as a L3? Maybe. But she was underpa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got too distracted by the Simpson's Paradox reference to see the actual Simpson's Paradox in play. As sokoloff [1] pointed out in a below thread, Google having an overwhelming male workforce means that there could still be a large bias against women at the same time that more man are being underpaid. There is simply not enough information presented in this article to know whether there is truly a gender bias (in…
> There is simply not enough information... Hmm... "Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money . " So, yes, we do have that information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got too distracted by the Simpson's Paradox reference to see the actual Simpson's Paradox in play. As sokoloff [1] pointed out in a below thread, Google having an overwhelming male workforce means that there could still be a large bias against women at the same time that more man are being underpaid. There is simply not enough information presented in this article to know whether there is truly a gender bias (in…
> There is simply not enough information... Hmm... "Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money . " So, yes, we do have that information.
> Kelly Ellis, a former Google engineer and one of the plaintiffs in the gender-pay suit against the company, said in a legal filing that Google hired her as a Level 3 employee — the category for new software engineers who are recent college graduates — in 2010 despite her having four years of experience. > Within a few weeks of Ms. Ellis being hiring, Google hired a male engineer for her team who had also graduated…
So the L4 person probably had some better story/negotiation which allowed them to start at L4. It of course could be bias.
It was really frustrating for me to be at the same level as new grads, though on reflection, I was not at a the same level as other L4 employees around. Some transparency around these processes I think could help candidates a lot.
I think the bigger issue is that new-grad phds are almost always hired at L4. They are often less experienced at software engineering than someone with a bachelors and a few years of experience. So unless the person is being hired into an area that actually makes use of their phd, it seems that Google is just willing to pay for the title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is simply not enough information... Hmm... "Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money . " So, yes, we do have that information.
Yet we don't know what jobs women and men do at Google. There can be bias elsewhere in the system. For example women might be disproportionately hired as administrative assistants and men might be disproportionately hired as senior engineers. Both groups could then be compensated fairly and it would result in men receiving a disproportionately higher percentage of the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would quite quickly turn into yet another source of conflict between employees. The problem with "equal pay" is direct comparisons only work in jobs that are essentially assembly line work, e.g., person A and person B do exactly the same thing every single day, and their output can be measured in exactly the same way, namely how many widgets each person produces in a given time period. Finding a difference…
I think this only really comes up when pay disparity is as extreme as it is now, when some people at a company (outside of C-level) are making 300k and others are making 32k there is a good reason to be aggressive about fixing pay disparity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a contest of who is more underpaid. This would indicate that Google systematically underpays, regardless of gender. THAT is the real issue here.
How can everyone be underpaid? Does that even make sense?
To me the key takeaway is that google systematically underpays both men and women.