
Google tried to block media coverage of gender discrimination case - YeGoblynQueenne
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/22/google-gender-discrimination-case-reporting-restricted
======
SA500
This is clearly a fishing expedition- and I am not surprised that Google
objects to the DOJ seeking publicity when they lack evidence as it stands

------
lucio
Why theguardian is making a hit-piece of this? This journalism 2017?

~~~
xster
I don't remember when's the last time I saw a non hit piece article from
corporate journalists. The audience demands blood.

~~~
malandrew
Yup, Apple, Uber, Facebook, Google, etc.

You really only understand how biased the media is once you've see it happen
to your own employer.

------
devereaux
I fail to see what is new or special about this.

EDIT: I mean that all companies will be bothered by the government, regardless
of what they allegedly did or didn't do. Prosecutors will go to the press and
risk causing extra damage to the reputation of the companies when a company
refuses their fishing expedition.

With the current administration, I would just have expected less zeal. But
sadly some things never change.

~~~
lawless123
Well i'm a bit surprised it was Google. It's something i really expect from
Uber.

------
b6
This stuff is cancer. I think Google made a terrible mistake trying to placate
those who want equality of outcome. It's not achievable or even desirable.

In an effort supposedly to combat sexism and racism, discrimination on the
basis of gender and ethnicity is now normalized and practically codified. But
equality of outcome still proves elusive, as it always will, so people say
Google still hasn't gone far enough. It never will be able to satisfy such
people.

But I think a huge amount of damage may be done in the process of trying, in
the form of making gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc,
_more_ important when we want to be making progress toward a world in which
those things are not considered very important at all.

~~~
pc2g4d
Another way of looking at it is that efforts at pay equality simply counteract
bias built in to the system. Though it's often unspoken, gender/ethnicity/etc.
already are hugely important in pay, even if the bias is unconscious.

There could be various reasons women are paid less which, from a business
perspective, make some sense, e.g. the likelihood the business will lose its
investment in the employee on account of her quitting work to raise children.
By pressuring employers to pay women more than they assess them to worth, it
may actually discourage employment of women and decrease diversity in the
workplace. But surely it's some of both: women looked at individually do have
some additional risk over your average man due to biology as well as the
desire to actively mother children, AND women are unfairly (if unconsciously)
discriminated against by men who assume they're less capable simply because
they're women.

I actually feel pretty comfortable with per-job-code on-average pay equality
between men and women. I think it's symbolically important, as well as
acknowledging that simply having more female voices in the organization has
worth in and of itself. But I would hope it could be enforced by social norms
rather than requiring onerous government action.

~~~
boolint
"Women looked at individually do have some additional risk over your average
man due to biology as well as the desire to actively mother children".
Hmmmm....

~~~
pc2g4d
"[T]he gender pay gap only exists for women over 40, suggesting it is less
about gender and more about something else entirely. Indeed, women in their
twenties currently out-earn men and it is only when they start a family that
the pay gap starts to emerge.

"Is this down to nasty employers undervaluing female staff once they’ve had a
baby or to outdated societal expectations that women are the main child
carers?

"Or could it just be that many women who become mothers prefer to cut back
their hours, work part-time, decline promotions, overtime and travel away from
home so that they can see more of their children? Every survey suggests that
women are doing this of their own free will but, hey, what do they know?"
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-
gender...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12153967/The-gender-pay-
gap-might-be-unfair-but-its-not-the-fault-of-sexist-employers.html)

It's a fact that only women can bear children. It's also a fact that women
(for whatever reasons---not saying it's right or wrong) opt at a higher rate
than men to reduce their hours or leave their career after the birth of a
child. So, from a business perspective, there _are_ some additional risks
associated with employing women that simply don't exist for men.

Women and men are different and in practice deal with parenthood differently
as far as work is concerned. If there's ever to be equal pay for equal work,
the discussion will have to include the issues as they are in addition to
egalitarian ideals.

Also: [http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-
can...](http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-can-affect-
women-who-never-even-have-child-n548511)

~~~
boolint
I just think it is extremely discriminatory to make hiring and salary
decisions based on the faulty assumption that all women want to raise
children.

~~~
pc2g4d
It is discriminatory and I think it's fair to feel upset at being painted with
such a broad brush.

It seems right now that the choice faced by society is framed as binary:
should we require equal pay across genders, or should we not? And each of
these possibilities has both costs and benefits. Here are some costs and
benefits of equal pay worth considering:

Costs: By requiring employers to pay women more than the employers assess to
be their worth, fewer women will be employed, this at a time when gender
ratios in many professions (especially IT!) are horrendously lopsided.
Essentially, equal pay can be implemented as a price floor, meaning that the
amount of female employment demanded will be less than it would at the natural
equilibrium. Legislating equal pay might change some attitudes, but just
entrench others.

Benefits: The women who are working get paid more. Society is seen as more
just which likely alleviates angst all around. Women's voices are seen as more
valuable because women are paid just as much as men, which disempowers sexists
in their discrimination. More women will want to work at the higher price
point, giving firms a better pool of applicants to choose from.

Invert these points to get costs/benefits of the status quo.

Both choices seem to incur both notable benefits and substantial costs. Surely
there's some third way?

------
moomin
"Don't allow your evil to make the morning papers" isn't quite as inspiring as
their old motto.

------
sitkack
This thread is full of so many Google employees. Please when you are employed
by Google and critical of the DoJ suit or the Guardian article, keep this in
mind. I understand HQs desire to fight this and put it under the rug, but at
the same time, they should have complied with the records request. Saying,
"just trust us, we are google." Isn't Googley. Numbers are Googley. A best
faith effort is Googley.

~~~
malandrew
I don't work for google. I'm not even a fan of google right now. No, google
shouldn't play along. The media surrounding such topics is so biased and self-
serving to the agenda a journalist is trying to push that the less you make
public the better off you are because you minimize what material you give for
journalists writing about these topics to twist in service of furthering their
agenda.

~~~
sitkack
Google is _very_ committed to gender equality. If there is systematic bias,
this would be huge news. The only responsible track to take is to own the
narrative and fix it. For whatever reason, some people at Google have played
into this by not releasing the numbers initially asked for before the suit.

~~~
malandrew
You can be very committed to addressing bias and still go about it your own
way without the meddling of armchair quarterbacks and the peanut gallery.

------
MichaelBurge
> Lawless, who is not involved in the Google case, also said the company
> should be more transparent about its compensation practices: “If you’re
> innocent, then you open your records up in such a manner that people can see
> that people are being paid equally.”

Why do these unrelated lawyers want access to Google's salary band data?

It looks like they're civil rights lawyers; they might want to use it as a
tool in their own cases. I wonder why Google's data specifically would help
them.

(edit) It's a string attached to government money, not an out-of-the-blue
demand for records or a lawsuit on behalf of any particular person:

[https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104](https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104)

~~~
snomad
Maybe it's too early, but for the life of me I can't find anywhere in the
article where the data will be shared with Lawless and Scwartz. As I read it,
the data only goes to DOL and those 2 were just asked for comments. Is is that
once Google gives the data to DOL Lawless and Schwartz can then request it
(maybe via FOIA)?

