Author Topic: Google sued for discrimination  (Read 1553 times)

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Google sued for discrimination
« on: January 09, 2018, 11:33:46 AM »
James Demore, who was made famous for a memo he wrote on how to attract more women in tech, is suing google for discrimination.

I personally thought that google was wrong for firing him over the memo. I think they did it to virtue signal and appease the mainstream media and populace. His memo was reprinted by the media with the citations and figures removed and grossly mis-characterized. The media wrote about how he thought women didn't belong in tech or wouldn't make good programmers. He was not saying that at all, his main point was that men and women value different things and to attract more women to tech you must strive to provide the things that women value. These days can we not say that men and women have innate differences without being called sexist, even when the research shows otherwise?


Thoughts?
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2018, 12:30:08 PM »
Generally, what I've read of Damore's memo sounded reasonable (https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f).  The problem (I suspect) wasn't the content of the memo, but how he went about for several months attempting to force management to adhere to his view of how things should be.  It sounds like this caused problems with the majority of the people he had to work with at Google.  People who need to work in highly collaborative environments who regularly go out of their way to piss off co-workers don't tend to last too long because they are a detriment to the company.

The other plaintiff in the lawsuit (Guderman) was fired by Google after he accused a Muslim employee of terrorism based on his religion.



Doesn't sound particularly damning on the part of Google.  If I was an employee of the Catholic church and I started making regular comments about how God wasn't real, petitioning my co-workers regularly, I'd expect that the tension this caused with other church employees would get me fired.  (Yes, granted you can make the argument that a technology company should obviously be held to a higher moral standard than a religious organization . . . )

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2018, 12:59:10 PM »
You have it half right. From the way I read it Gudeman replied that there was no evidence that the FBI targeted him because he was muslim, and that they may have had a reason to investigate him, if they really were at all. That's not exactly accusing someone of terrorism, but that is what google claimed. I guess it comes down to the question of it being harassment based on religion or not. That's hard for us to do since we don't have the full exchange.

"Mr Gudeman was fired in December 2016 after a confrontation with a Muslim coworker on an internal Google forum, according to the lawsuit. The coworker said on the forum that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had targeted him for being a Muslim, and he expressed worry about his personal safety, the lawsuit said. Gudeman responded with skepticism, saying the coworker had provided “zero evidence” for the claim and suggesting the FBI may have had justification.

A human resources employee later told Mr Gudeman he had accused his coworker of terrorism based on religion, and that he was being fired as a result, the lawsuit said."

"According to the suit, Google human resources said the comments suggested Gudeman was linking the colleague to terrorism. The lawsuit does not contain the full exchange but says Gudeman claimed “the FBI could have possibly found something interesting” related to the colleague’s trip to Pakistan."
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2018, 01:33:02 PM »
The lawsuit does not contain the full exchange but says Gudeman claimed “the FBI could have possibly found something interesting” related to the colleague’s trip to Pakistan."

Does this comment by Guderman not pretty clearly link his colleague to illicit/illegal activity?  Even if you don't agree with that assessment, would you characterize this type of comment as acceptable in the workplace?  At what point should an employer be able to fire an employee for being an asshole to others?

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2018, 01:53:04 PM »
The lawsuit does not contain the full exchange but says Gudeman claimed “the FBI could have possibly found something interesting” related to the colleague’s trip to Pakistan."

Does this comment by Guderman not pretty clearly link his colleague to illicit/illegal activity?  Even if you don't agree with that assessment, would you characterize this type of comment as acceptable in the workplace?  At what point should an employer be able to fire an employee for being an asshole to others?

This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

"Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted)."

Again, without the full exchange we cannot know how severe the harassment was.



“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2018, 02:04:30 PM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2018, 02:23:23 PM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

Based on what's been written here isn't it possible that he was only trying to defend the FBI's decision to investigate, which could have been based on something other than the Muslim coworker's actions? For example they could have bad information that linked him to someone who was involved with a crime near a place he visited. He wouldn't have done anything wrong and the FBI would have had a reason to investigate other than profiling.

Again, I don't know the context and it's sounds plausible that he was unfairly profiled, but suggesting there is a reason for investigation isn't directly implying wrongdoing.

On the other hand asking for evidence that he was being profiled? How in the world would he be able to provide evidence? Most likely Guderman was being an asshole, or at least insensitive to the profiling that many people endure.

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2018, 03:13:02 PM »
The full lawsuit can be read here: https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsuit

It's even worse than I thought. The suit alleges that Google even awarded peer bonuses to employees who disagreed and disparaged Damore.

There is also more info about the Guderman part of the story:

On November 9, 2016, a few days after President Trump was elected as President, Sarmad Gilani (“Gilani”), a Google employee, posted the following message on a Dory thread (an internal forum where Google employees can ask questions that other Google employees can respond to): “As someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim, I’m worried for my personal safety and liberty. Will Google take a public stand to defend minorities and use its influence, or just issue the usual politically nuanced statements about our values.” 96.
 
Gudeman responded skeptically to Gilani’s claim that he was targeted solely due to his religion by asking, “In the administration of the most pro-Muslim president in history you were targeted just for being a Muslim? Why didn’t you file a civil rights suit? The Justice Department would take your side if it really happened.” 97.
 
Other Google employees immediately misinterpreted Gudeman’s post and responded  by stating:
 
“‘If it really happened’? Come on David, let’s give our coworkers the benefit of the doubt here and not suggest they’re lying.” 
 
“‘Pics or it didn’t happen’ isn’t a very constructive comment here.”
 
“Reminds me of that ‘why you didn’t report sexual harassment to the police?’ argument. Pfff.”
 
Gudeman attempted to explain that he was not suggesting that Gilani was lying, and affirmatively stated that he “would not suggest [Gilani] was lying without specific knowledge of the case.”

Gudeman further stated that at the suggestion of another Googler, he searched Gilani’s story of being profiled, and found “zero evidence for the claim that [Gilani] was targeted just for being a Muslim.” Gudeman posed more questions about the FBI’s motives for looking into Gilani such as the fact that Gilani had recently visited Pakistan, and that the FBI could have possibly found something interesting about Gilani’s trip or the region that he visited. 100.
 
In response to Gudeman’s legitimate questions, a fellow Google employee became hostile and stated that she had to escalate this thread, meaning that she reported it to Google HR



So obviously this is way more complicated than "he said I'm a terrorist because I'm Muslim".
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2018, 03:57:46 PM »
Google looks like a pretty terrible place to work, with some pretty terrible co-workers. Those comments just look like the worst parts of Tumblr given a physical form.

Not sure if there was a crime committed here or a viable civil case, though. The lawsuit has seemed to have gone from "discussion about workplace conditions" (which seems possibly defensible) to "discrimination against protected class" which seems a bit far-fetched. Maybe that part about complimenting departments with over 50% female representation and chastising under 50% representation, but that doesn't quite meet a "preponderance of the evidence threshold."


bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2018, 05:49:01 PM »
Google is also being sued by 4 women for unequal pay.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/google-hit-by-new-version-of-lawsuit-claiming-it-pays-women-less-than-men/

In any case, Damore's lawsuit is absurd. You can't be fired for being a conservative. Political ideology is not a protected class, even in California. Neither is being a dick.

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2018, 06:13:31 PM »
Google is also being sued by 4 women for unequal pay.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/google-hit-by-new-version-of-lawsuit-claiming-it-pays-women-less-than-men/

In any case, Damore's lawsuit is absurd. You can't be fired for being a conservative. Political ideology is not a protected class, even in California. Neither is being a dick.

California Labor Code 1101
Employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in  political activities or the exercise of any rights afforded him. California Labor Code section 1101  prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids or controls, or tends to control, their employees’ political activities.

California Labor Code 1102
California Labor Code section 1102 makes it illegal for an employer to threaten employees with discharge as a means of coercing or influencing employees’ political activities.



I suggest you actually read the lawsuit to understand how this took place through blacklisting encouraged by upper management.
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2018, 07:54:24 PM »
Google is also being sued by 4 women for unequal pay.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/google-hit-by-new-version-of-lawsuit-claiming-it-pays-women-less-than-men/

In any case, Damore's lawsuit is absurd. You can't be fired for being a conservative. Political ideology is not a protected class, even in California. Neither is being a dick.

California Labor Code 1101
Employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in  political activities or the exercise of any rights afforded him. California Labor Code section 1101  prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids or controls, or tends to control, their employees’ political activities.

California Labor Code 1102
California Labor Code section 1102 makes it illegal for an employer to threaten employees with discharge as a means of coercing or influencing employees’ political activities.



I suggest you actually read the lawsuit to understand how this took place through blacklisting encouraged by upper management.

I stand corrected.

The lawsuit has a lot of he said-she said in it and much of it is subjective.

Quote
The only lifestyle that seems

It SEEMS that way? Really?

There's a group chat/forum exchange in which the "hostile" comment was left out (p. 28). I'm sure the Google lawyers won't think to show the original exchange/comments.

I'd discuss more subjective nonsense, and there's plenty, but it's a long document. There's an aggressive email from a co-worker and some manager comments on internal forums/chats that look overly critical of conservatives.


Then we get to Damore's memo.

somewhat tl;dr summary:

He posts it.
He posts multiple versions.
He posts it in Coffeebeans, an internal forum.
He then emailed questions to leaders of various campus diversity groups asking them if what they/Google was doing is legal.
He then emails the Code of Conduct team.
He then attended a diversity training program where he presented his views. He was triggered there.
He submitted his memo again.
He submitted it to ANOTHER internal forum, "Skeptics."
It went public.

It's obvious that Google went out of its way to tolerate his views in multiple forums and multiple conversations and multiple programs.


Anyway, if we accept EVERYTHING the lawsuit suggests as truth, it doesn't look good. Google looks like a huge group-think employer. It's probably not as bad as presented (you can't discuss heterosexual marriages? seriously?) but there's likely some kernel of truth to the allegations. Unfortunately, a lot of it is not supported by actual evidence. Exhibit B looks like it's from dailykos but so what? Like-minded individuals are discussing the 2016 election. Where are the Google @conservative postings for comparison?

It'll be a hard sell to a judge that a company with over 50% white male engineers is discriminatory to...white male engineers, especially when the women engineers aren't getting equal pay. That knocks out 2 of 3 of Google's alleged discriminatory practices.

He may win under the above law, 1101. It could be a pyrrhic victory, however.


bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2018, 07:57:47 PM »

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2018, 08:37:25 PM »
He posts it.He posts multiple versions.He posts it in Coffeebeans, an internal forum.He then emailed questions to leaders of various campus diversity groups asking them if what they/Google was doing is legal.He then emails the Code of Conduct team.He then attended a diversity training program where he presented his views. He was triggered there.He submitted his memo again.He submitted it to ANOTHER internal forum, "Skeptics."It went public.



My understanding is that part of the reason Google has set up these employee forums is to encourage people to express their views on issues important to Google.  If so, then by posting his views he was doing something that the company explicitly asked employees to do - firing him for that is dubious.


I'm really confused by your bringing up him emailing the Code of Conduct team and raising the issue in a diversity group.  Have you worked for a company where you were discouraged from reporting potentially illegal activity?  Most large companies actively encourage employees to report potential legal or ethics violations, since it's clearly in their best interest to know about those things.  My understanding from reading about this was that he wasn't getting responses to his questions about whether Google's practices are totally legal under employment law, so he continued to bring it up and try to raise the issue (in the best interest of his employer).  Doesn't sound too crazy to me.  From what I know about Google from speaking with people who work there, I highly doubt that a Disabled Muslim Lesbian would have been fired for posting the exact same thing, which is discrimination in favor of this fictitious character, and against Demore.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2018, 09:08:45 PM »
He posts it.He posts multiple versions.He posts it in Coffeebeans, an internal forum.He then emailed questions to leaders of various campus diversity groups asking them if what they/Google was doing is legal.He then emails the Code of Conduct team.He then attended a diversity training program where he presented his views. He was triggered there.He submitted his memo again.He submitted it to ANOTHER internal forum, "Skeptics."It went public.



My understanding is that part of the reason Google has set up these employee forums is to encourage people to express their views on issues important to Google.  If so, then by posting his views he was doing something that the company explicitly asked employees to do - firing him for that is dubious.

He posts it, and he posts, and he posts it. He keeps posting it until he's made his point numerous times over many venues.

I'm sure part of Google's defense will be that he was way too persistent and even harassed some people trying to get his manifesto out there.


Quote
I'm really confused by your bringing up him emailing the Code of Conduct team and raising the issue in a diversity group.

That was the sequence of events according to the lawsuit.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2018, 09:09:11 AM »
Petty tit-for-tat ideological bickering aside (and it seems there was plenty on those internal google forums), this case begs the question - Will the preference for diverse candidates ever reach a point where it becomes unlawful?

This is the type of issue where there's a spectrum. Most would agree it's either neutral or good to have ethnically/religiously diverse candidates in advanced positions. Less would agree it's good to openly promote and implement strategies that exclude and disparage member of dominant groups.

It's true that google has a high percentage of white males in advanced positions, but it's also true some of their senior leaders openly exclude and disparage white males.

At what point is "Dude you're a straight white guy, you've got nothing to complain about" no longer a sufficient rebuttal? I mean, obviously if a comedian makes fun of white guys for having no rhythm, or that white guys are dorky etc, that rolls right off (or it should).

And I'm not necessarily saying the line has been crossed here. These guys got fired for reasons other than being white. There was a guy who never got the transfer he requested, and suspected it was because he was white, but there's no way to prove that one way or the other at this point.

I think informally managers sharing with each other that they sometimes need to keep a req open longer than they otherwise would so they can get ethnically diverse applicants is troubling, but hasn't really crossed the line. It's more just flirting with it. I think clearly crossing the line would be if Google's official policy was that they are not hiring any more white men. That sounds crazy, but when I think of how recent the Jim Crow laws were, it's not like we've got everything totally figured out, and I believe it's theoretically possible that we overcorrect and end up in the other ditch.


partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2018, 10:12:56 AM »
Google is also being sued by 4 women for unequal pay.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/google-hit-by-new-version-of-lawsuit-claiming-it-pays-women-less-than-men/

In any case, Damore's lawsuit is absurd. You can't be fired for being a conservative. Political ideology is not a protected class, even in California. Neither is being a dick.


Employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in  political activities or the exercise of any rights afforded him. California Labor Code section 1101  prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids or controls, or tends to control, their employees’ political activities.

Zoltani I think you are interpreting the California code incorrectly. While an employer is not supposed to fire someone based on who they voted for or political activities outside of work, they can certainly regulate political activity or speech at work, and in fact most do.

"Generally, private employers have wide latitude to limit or prohibit political discussions in the workplace, simply because there is no First Amendment right or statutory regime at play in most circumstances.10 Similarly, many employers adopt policies that preclude employees from initiating political conversations with clients or vendors.  While a complete prohibition on political speech may seem draconian, advising employees that political discussions should be limited generally appears reasonable.  This is because a limit on political speech in the workplace will often benefit employees of all political stripes, since there are workplace partisans on both sides of the political aisle.

Moreover, because companies generally have a property interest in their resources, employers often prohibit employees from using company property (like computers, printers, and office supplies) for political activities.  They often also restrict employees from using the employer's telephones for political fundraising, or making campaign calls to potential voters.  For the 2014 midterms and beyond, it is important for employers to have written, formal policies regarding such usage, even if it is encompassed in a broader limitation on the personal use of employer resources. "
from website littler

Danmore doesn't get to decide what he says is or isn't offensive or harassing to other coworkers. If other co-workers feel intimidated or harassed by his (continued) comments and report him, then it's the responsibility for the Employer to respond to that.  Or as someone else said, being a dick is not a protected class.


« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 10:17:59 AM by partgypsy »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2018, 10:21:34 AM »
Google is also being sued by 4 women for unequal pay.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/google-hit-by-new-version-of-lawsuit-claiming-it-pays-women-less-than-men/

In any case, Damore's lawsuit is absurd. You can't be fired for being a conservative. Political ideology is not a protected class, even in California. Neither is being a dick.


Employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in  political activities or the exercise of any rights afforded him. California Labor Code section 1101  prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids or controls, or tends to control, their employees’ political activities.

Zoltani I think you are interpreting the California code incorrectly. While an employer is not supposed to fire someone based on who they voted for or political activities outside of work, they can certainly regulate political activity or speech at work, and in fact most do.

"Generally, private employers have wide latitude to limit or prohibit political discussions in the workplace, simply because there is no First Amendment right or statutory regime at play in most circumstances.10 Similarly, many employers adopt policies that preclude employees from initiating political conversations with clients or vendors.  While a complete prohibition on political speech may seem draconian, advising employees that political discussions should be limited generally appears reasonable.  This is because a limit on political speech in the workplace will often benefit employees of all political stripes, since there are workplace partisans on both sides of the political aisle.

Moreover, because companies generally have a property interest in their resources, employers often prohibit employees from using company property (like computers, printers, and office supplies) for political activities.  They often also restrict employees from using the employer's telephones for political fundraising, or making campaign calls to potential voters.  For the 2014 midterms and beyond, it is important for employers to have written, formal policies regarding such usage, even if it is encompassed in a broader limitation on the personal use of employer resources. "
from website littler

Danmore doesn't get to decide what he says is or isn't offensive or harassing to other coworkers. If other co-workers feel intimidated or harassed by his (continued) comments and report him, then it's the responsibility for the Employer to respond to that.

There's a reasonable person threshold.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2018, 10:33:06 AM »
Yes, which seems to have passed. Me, as a woman working in science, I have encountered men in authority (usually older white dinosaur types) who have expressed in different ways "you don't belong here". His memo is a more "pc" way to convey the same beliefs. A fellow employee pushing this report, to promote his views that women are more emotional and neurotic, and therefore cannot handle high pressure situations, yes I would report that person. The issues that were important to me as a female and as an employee, were: Would my application be treated with the same weight as a male employee with the same experience/qualifications? Would I be paid the same as a man in the same job? was FMLA respected? Would I be allowed a private place to pump at the office after having giving birth? What is the work/personal life balance? For a long time the answers to those were not yes. Ironically Danmore's hostile workplace attitudes is a real reason why many women do not want to work in tech. You're a guy. I don't imagine you have experienced being harassed at work because you got pregnant and your boss didn't want to get pregnant, and get fired for being a mom. I have. That was 15 years ago, probably wouldn't happen now, and that's progress.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 10:47:03 AM by partgypsy »

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2018, 10:38:56 AM »
To me the really damaging thing are the blacklists. Maintaining a blacklist of people you will not work with, and actively try to get fired, because you don't like their political views is against the law. When this was brought up the concerns were ignored and the practice of blacklisting even encouraged by management. There were also training sessions taking place that did not allow men to attend, which is also illegal.

The bigger issue to me is the fact that we have a company where upper management refuses to work with people based on their views, breaks employment laws, pays men and women unequally, and is our doorway to information on the internet. I find it a stretch to trust that they wouldn't try and actively suppress views they don't agree with online.

“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2018, 10:44:18 AM »
Well see what happens in court. Danmore may be unpleasantly surprised.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2018, 10:45:05 AM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

In theory, this is true for employment at will states. In practice, not so much. Unless past performance issues or violation of policy is documented you're pretty much inviting a lawsuit.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2018, 10:52:02 AM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

In theory, this is true for employment at will states. In practice, not so much. Unless past performance issues or violation of policy is documented you're pretty much inviting a lawsuit.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, doesn't mean you will win. California is an "at will" state: A presumption that employees are employed at will. This means that either the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or prior notice. So, Google can fire him, without cause. But not only that I'm sure in his employee file are complaints from other employees. They do have a cause. And being politically conservative is not a protected group.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 10:53:57 AM by partgypsy »

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2018, 10:53:40 AM »
Yes, which seems to have passed. Me, as a woman working in science, I have encountered men in authority (usually older white dinosaur types) who have expressed in different ways "you don't belong here". His memo is a more "pc" way to convey the same beliefs. A fellow employee pushing this report, to promote his views that women are more emotional and neurotic, and therefore cannot handle high pressure situations, yes I would report that person. The issues that were important to me as a female and as an employee, were: was FMLA respected? Would I be allowed a private place to pump at the office after having giving birth? What is the work/personal life balance? Would my application be treated with the same weight as a male employee with the same experience/qualifications? For a long time the answers to those were not a yes. Ironically Danmore's hostile workplace attitudes is a real reason why many women do not want to work in tech. You're a guy. I don't imagine you have experienced being harassed at work because you got pregnant and your boss didn't want to get pregnant, and get fired for being a mom. I have. That was 15 years ago, probably wouldn't happen now, and that's progress.

Actually the memo was more about exactly that, not saying that women shouldn't be there. His thesis was that if you want more women in tech then you need to appeal to what they value, and diversity should be based on more than identity. However the MSM spun it as an "anti-diversity" memo. You can say he is a dick, but I think he's just on the spectrum, saw inconsistencies in google's policy and brought it to the attention of management, but was fired for "promoting gender stereotypes". You do realize that it was written because feedback on their diversity training was encouraged by google? Google was not responding to the memo, they were responding to the outrage it produced, not by fellow employees but by the public. Apparently 56% of googlers do not agree with his firing.


Do agree with google providing training that is only available to women? Do you think that violates California law? What if the genders were reversed?
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2018, 10:54:26 AM »
Doesn't sound particularly damning on the part of Google.  If I was an employee of the Catholic church and I started making regular comments about how God wasn't real, petitioning my co-workers regularly, I'd expect that the tension this caused with other church employees would get me fired.  (Yes, granted you can make the argument that a technology company should obviously be held to a higher moral standard than a religious organization . . . )

FYI - religious institutions in the US are largely exempt from discrimination laws. Separation of church and state. If you're an atheist, don't expect to get hired or remain employed at a church. There are plenty of non-religious institutions where one can work.

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2018, 10:55:43 AM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

In theory, this is true for employment at will states. In practice, not so much. Unless past performance issues or violation of policy is documented you're pretty much inviting a lawsuit.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, doesn't mean you will win. California is an "at will" state: A presumption that employees are employed at will. This means that either the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or prior notice. He's not a protected group.

Actually he is a protected group, we all are. Gender and race are protected by the EEOC. You cannot discriminate based on gender or race, even white males. Do you disagree?
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2018, 11:01:02 AM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

In theory, this is true for employment at will states. In practice, not so much. Unless past performance issues or violation of policy is documented you're pretty much inviting a lawsuit.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, doesn't mean you will win. California is an "at will" state: A presumption that employees are employed at will. This means that either the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or prior notice. He's not a protected group.

Actually he is a protected group, we all are. Gender and race are protected by the EEOC. You cannot discriminate based on gender or race, even white males. Do you disagree?

Do you honestly believe that Danmore was fired because he was a white male? That's the first I've heard. Just because you happen to have a gender or have a race, doesn't mean you can automatically sue for discrimination. This is silly.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 11:04:07 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2018, 11:01:24 AM »
Doesn't sound particularly damning on the part of Google.  If I was an employee of the Catholic church and I started making regular comments about how God wasn't real, petitioning my co-workers regularly, I'd expect that the tension this caused with other church employees would get me fired.  (Yes, granted you can make the argument that a technology company should obviously be held to a higher moral standard than a religious organization . . . )

FYI - religious institutions in the US are largely exempt from discrimination laws. Separation of church and state. If you're an atheist, don't expect to get hired or remain employed at a church. There are plenty of non-religious institutions where one can work.

So religious organizations are legally held to a lower moral standard?  Seems counter-intuitive.

caffeine

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2018, 11:02:32 AM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

In theory, this is true for employment at will states. In practice, not so much. Unless past performance issues or violation of policy is documented you're pretty much inviting a lawsuit.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, doesn't mean you will win. California is an "at will" state: A presumption that employees are employed at will. This means that either the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or prior notice. He's not a protected group.

Actually he is a protected group, we all are. Gender and race are protected by the EEOC. You cannot discriminate based on gender or race, even white males. Do you disagree?

Do you honestly believe that Danmore was fired because he was a white male? That's the first I've heard.

Getting off track. He isn't stating that Danmore was fired because he is a white male. He is stating that Danmore is a part of a protected class in response to you were saying he is not apart of a protected class.

You've also edited your comment from "He is not a protected group" to "And being politically conservative is not a protected group." Which is correct. He belongs to protected group, but being conservative is not a protected group.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 11:06:29 AM by caffeine »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2018, 11:05:46 AM »
This lawsuit will deal with laws being broken, not assholes being assholes. The question is if that type of statement by Gudermean was a violation of the eeoc.

Why does it matter if laws were broken? I thought you could fire people for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly prohibited. I find it hard to believe "Implying the FBI thinks a coworker did some shady shit on a trip to Pakistan" is a prohibited reason.

In theory, this is true for employment at will states. In practice, not so much. Unless past performance issues or violation of policy is documented you're pretty much inviting a lawsuit.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, doesn't mean you will win. California is an "at will" state: A presumption that employees are employed at will. This means that either the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or prior notice. He's not a protected group.

Actually he is a protected group, we all are. Gender and race are protected by the EEOC. You cannot discriminate based on gender or race, even white males. Do you disagree?

Do you honestly believe that Danmore was fired because he was a white male? That's the first I've heard.

Getting off track. He isn't stating that Danmore was fired because he is a white male. He is stating that Danmore is a part of a protected class in response to someone saying he is not apart of a protected class.

Danmore is suing because he feels he was discriminated because he is conservative (and sexist). But neither of those are protected classes.

caffeine

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2018, 11:11:11 AM »
Danmore is suing because he feels he was discriminated because he is conservative (and sexist). But neither of those are protected classes.

Agreed. Unless he can show discrimination based on a protected class (that he is a part of) then he has no case. Being conservative isn't.

I was only replying because you originally commented he isn't apart of a protected group, but you've since clarified.

Also, I don't think Danmore would have been fired if that memo never went public. Otherwise, I'm not sure why it took so long.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2018, 11:37:22 AM »
Yes, which seems to have passed. Me, as a woman working in science, I have encountered men in authority (usually older white dinosaur types) who have expressed in different ways "you don't belong here". His memo is a more "pc" way to convey the same beliefs. A fellow employee pushing this report, to promote his views that women are more emotional and neurotic, and therefore cannot handle high pressure situations, yes I would report that person. The issues that were important to me as a female and as an employee, were: Would my application be treated with the same weight as a male employee with the same experience/qualifications? Would I be paid the same as a man in the same job? was FMLA respected? Would I be allowed a private place to pump at the office after having giving birth? What is the work/personal life balance? For a long time the answers to those were not yes. Ironically Danmore's hostile workplace attitudes is a real reason why many women do not want to work in tech. You're a guy. I don't imagine you have experienced being harassed at work because you got pregnant and your boss didn't want to get pregnant, and get fired for being a mom. I have. That was 15 years ago, probably wouldn't happen now, and that's progress.

If you read his memo and interpreted it that way, then that is not reasonable on your part.  Maybe it is understandable based on your past experiences, but it's not reasonable nor fair to impute some message to the author beyond what he wrote without a basis beyond I know other white male engineers who think something, and since he's another white male engineer, I bet he's just trying to say the same thing (even though he's objectively not saying the same thing). 

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2018, 12:28:56 PM »
If you read his memo and interpreted it that way, then that is not reasonable on your part.  Maybe it is understandable based on your past experiences, but it's not reasonable nor fair to impute some message to the author beyond what he wrote without a basis beyond I know other white male engineers who think something, and since he's another white male engineer, I bet he's just trying to say the same thing (even though he's objectively not saying the same thing).


It wasn't me that made that call, it was the CEO of Google. My background is in psychology, and after reading his memo, I suspect this gentlemen (in addition to being sexist) may be on the autistic spectrum. He doesn't seem to read social cues. He is in an organization that has, after coming under attack (and sued) for gender discrimination, is supporting a policy and corporate mission to increase diversity. Right or wrong, when you work for a company you try to work for their mission. If you don't agree with or attack a stated mission purpose, you are not a team player. 

The legality of having training for only certain genders or races, the legality of that I do not know.
 
Are there gender differences? I would say there is, the biggest one that women can bear children and men cannot, which causes a whole cascade of differences in the lives of women and men.
I scientifically do not believe he supports his premise, that biological differences are the primary cause of employment disparities (therefore should not addressed).

Some of the biological differences:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
Men’s higher drive for status

After sharing these generalizations he himself states: "Many of these difference are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."  However that doesn't prevent him for making a bunch of workplace suggestions that are misguided and painfully obvious that he never asked a fellow employee of the opposite sex of what THEY think critical workplace issues are.

He also makes the fallacy of never asking the question, whether the average woman who studies and work in tech are described by these generalizations and so whether these generalization are relevant at all.
He also states things that are just not factually correct, such as "women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men". Not only is that not true nationally, Google is being sued specifically for that issue.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 12:41:16 PM by partgypsy »

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2018, 01:30:41 PM »
Partgypsy, pointing out that differences between men and women may be innate is sexist? Can you please quote the parts you found sexist? Can you please quote where he said women shouldn't be in tech? Again, I think the main thesis is that google needs to appeal to women by offering the things women value, which is certainly different than men, as your list above shows.

As a psychologist I find it odd that you state that there are differences between men and women, the main one being that women can bare children and men cannot, but don't recognize how that may affect personality traits. My psychologist has talked to me about how women have more empathy, and that it is needed so that women will want to take care of their baby. If a baby is crying a mother must feel empathy for that child to want to care for of it and feed it, otherwise it is just a burden. Perhaps the therapist was just a sexist asshole, as that explanation seems to explain even the most complex issues, i don't know, but it made sense to me. It's known that fathers have more trouble bonding with their baby than mothers because they do not have the hormones and chemicals in the brain that allows for bonding. Do you suggest these hormones play no role in personality? Are we just empty vessels to be filled with whatever social conditioning?

In the end I think that the memo starts a conversation and asks if there is more to the employment disparities than sexism. Taking a complex issues and explaining it by one cause, sexism, is so simplistic and incorrect, and does us a disservice since we never get to the roots of the issue.

I would also like to know your thoughts about the wage gap. How is the wage gap calculated and what does it mean exactly? What do you think is the reason for the wage gap?


“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2018, 02:00:07 PM »
Partgypsy, pointing out that differences between men and women may be innate is sexist? Can you please quote the parts you found sexist? Can you please quote where he said women shouldn't be in tech? Again, I think the main thesis is that google needs to appeal to women by offering the things women value, which is certainly different than men, as your list above shows.

As a psychologist I find it odd that you state that there are differences between men and women, the main one being that women can bare children and men cannot, but don't recognize how that may affect personality traits. My psychologist has talked to me about how women have more empathy, and that it is needed so that women will want to take care of their baby. If a baby is crying a mother must feel empathy for that child to want to care for of it and feed it, otherwise it is just a burden. Perhaps the therapist was just a sexist asshole, as that explanation seems to explain even the most complex issues, i don't know, but it made sense to me. It's known that fathers have more trouble bonding with their baby than mothers because they do not have the hormones and chemicals in the brain that allows for bonding. Do you suggest these hormones play no role in personality? Are we just empty vessels to be filled with whatever social conditioning?

In the end I think that the memo starts a conversation and asks if there is more to the employment disparities than sexism. Taking a complex issues and explaining it by one cause, sexism, is so simplistic and incorrect, and does us a disservice since we never get to the roots of the issue.

I would also like to know your thoughts about the wage gap. How is the wage gap calculated and what does it mean exactly? What do you think is the reason for the wage gap?

Thank you for still engaging me. Saying there are sexual differences is not sexist, but what he was doing with that data, is sexist. He takes studies that show small differences, to explain employment, pay, achievement differences of men versus women, when actually there are more obvious, parsimonious explanations for those differences (historically men worked and were hired for tech, and it is a relatively new thing that women are entering these parts of the workplace. And there is probably resistance to that). While Google can't do anything about innate individual differences, it can certainly address what may be work culture or discriminatory practices. So focusing on biological differences and not trying to rectify what are more achievable and obvious issues like, are women being paid less for the same job position, is wrong-headed.
It's insulting. I'm a woman. I also work in science. I am NOT saying that there are no gender differences in personality, interests, but I am stating those studies are not relevant to what I, as an individual can contribute to the workplace. I want to be judged on my own merits, not by biases, assumptions, and generalizations. The memo would at the very least, make me feel he could not be "fair" and neutral in dealing with a female employees. That's a workplace issue. To understand why this is problematic, think about if James wrote the same memo, but insert black/white for gender differences. Do you see why creating a memo like this is problematic, and may create at the very least the appearance of a hostile workplace?


James Danmore is not really interested in knowing what would retain female employees at Google. Which, if he asked, is the SAME things that male employees want. To be treated fairly. To have the same opportunities to get experience and achieve. And to not work in a discriminatory or hostile workplace. Now, I don't work at Google. I don't know what it is like to work there, and he has specific issues regarding that I can't address. I don't even know if I agree with his firing. I think it should be due to whether other employees felt harassed by him, not what opinions he has, so long as it doesn't affect his job performance and ability to work with others. 
 

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2018, 02:12:39 PM »
For every male psychologist there are 2.1 female psychologists. Is under representation of males in your field a problem? Is it because of sexism?
Why do you think more women than men are drawn to fields like psychology?

It looks like you changed what you value in a job between what you posted in #18 and what you posted above. You stated "to have the same opportunities to get experience and achieve" is important, and that is exactly what was NOT happening at google. Training and opportunities were available only to people based on gender and race.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 02:15:22 PM by zoltani »
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2018, 03:06:02 PM »
For every male psychologist there are 2.1 female psychologists. Is under representation of males in your field a problem? Is it because of sexism?
Why do you think more women than men are drawn to fields like psychology?

It looks like you changed what you value in a job between what you posted in #18 and what you posted above. You stated "to have the same opportunities to get experience and achieve" is important, and that is exactly what was NOT happening at google. Training and opportunities were available only to people based on gender and race.

I work in experimental psychology and in that area it is probably more equal regarding the sexes. Probably clinical psychology has more female/male ratio. I can't speak for other females, but I was interested in neurobiology (yes, I've taken courses in that), animal cognition, and understanding perception. I feel like the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe, so there would be no end to studying it : ). I think there is an issue with a person with one gender wanting to pursue a certain interest, and being discouraged to do so, whether from feedback from teachers, or institutional biases. I don't have any problem with there being more female teachers and nurses, and more male construction workers and sanitation workers, unless someone from the opposite gender was discriminated from doing that job just because of their gender. And just because a woman CAN be a sanitation worker, and decides instead to be a stay at home parent, that's not sexist if that what SHE chooses to do.  All choices, including traditional ones should be supported.

And again, I don't work for Google. I don't know the legal ramifications of offering additional support and training for some employees and not others. I imagine it has to do with their policy of increasing workplace diversity, and addressing a problem with retaining female employees. I've never had personal experience with something like that, and can't really speak to that. Maybe you can peel that off into a separate topic.   

I thought this was an interesting article. For me there are a lot of things going on why there are disparities in promotion. In my personal experience, a huge hurdle is that if woman want to have both a career and a family, typically the woman doesn't have the same support at home, as a man who wants both a career and a family. There are practices that the corporate workplace can do, to minimize that impact.
http://graphics.wsj.com/how-men-and-women-see-the-workplace-differently/
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 03:28:32 PM by partgypsy »

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2018, 05:08:14 PM »
Doesn't sound particularly damning on the part of Google.  If I was an employee of the Catholic church and I started making regular comments about how God wasn't real, petitioning my co-workers regularly, I'd expect that the tension this caused with other church employees would get me fired.  (Yes, granted you can make the argument that a technology company should obviously be held to a higher moral standard than a religious organization . . . )

FYI - religious institutions in the US are largely exempt from discrimination laws. Separation of church and state. If you're an atheist, don't expect to get hired or remain employed at a church. There are plenty of non-religious institutions where one can work.

So religious organizations are legally held to a lower moral standard?  Seems counter-intuitive.

A Wiccan Coven needs to discriminate on the basis of religion otherwise they might end up hiring a Christian. And vice versa. A black congregation understandably wants to be discriminatory in it's racial hiring preferences. There's a reason the government steers clear of these.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2018, 12:27:29 PM »
It wasn't me that made that call, it was the CEO of Google.
    And I highly doubt he interpreted it that way.  I suspect he just made a decision that it was easier to jump on the witch hunt than try to be a voice of reason.

My background is in psychology, and after reading his memo, I suspect this gentlemen (in addition to being sexist) may be on the autistic spectrum. He doesn't seem to read social cues.
  Possibly autistic, possibly just not the go along to get along type.  He's basically a whistleblower, and if he's not autistic, he very likely could have the same off putting personality that is common among whistelblowers.  Or maybe his career isn't important to him because he has money or for some other reason and he is just trying to do what's right. 

He is in an organization that has, after coming under attack (and sued) for gender discrimination, is supporting a policy and corporate mission to increase diversity. Right or wrong, when you work for a company you try to work for their mission. If you don't agree with or attack a stated mission purpose, you are not a team player. 
  He was explicitly supporting the stated mission purpose and trying to propose less problematic and more efficient and effective ways to increase diversity. 

The legality of having training for only certain genders or races, the legality of that I do not know.
 
Are there gender differences? I would say there is, the biggest one that women can bear children and men cannot, which causes a whole cascade of differences in the lives of women and men.
I scientifically do not believe he supports his premise, that biological differences are the primary cause of employment disparities (therefore should not addressed).

Some of the biological differences:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
Men’s higher drive for status

After sharing these generalizations he himself states: "Many of these difference are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."  However that doesn't prevent him for making a bunch of workplace suggestions that are misguided and painfully obvious that he never asked a fellow employee of the opposite sex of what THEY think critical workplace issues are.
  First, this is illogical on your part.  The fact that you can't say anything about an individual given population level distributions is a reason not to discriminate on an individual basis.  It's not a reason not to try to make workplace changes that you think would make your workplace more inviting to people that share traits you are trying to appeal to. 

He also makes the fallacy of never asking the question, whether the average woman who studies and work in tech are described by these generalizations and so whether these generalization are relevant at all.
If you read his memo, the entire premises is pretty much that google's women tech employees will be more towards one extreme on one or more of the traits discussed.  The entire point of the memo is that if you want more women in tech, you don't need to approach it with a quota or affirmative action system, you need to change  the environment and work to appeal to more women, which means appealing to women closer to the middle of the distribution of the traits in question. 


He also states things that are just not factually correct, such as "women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men". Not only is that not true nationally, Google is being sued specifically for that issue.
  It's pretty close to true nationally, or at least not falsified.  Depending on where you look, there is a 3 to 5% disparity that is not explained.  That's significant, and I would be shocked if a significant portion of that 3-5% wasn't strictly due to sex discrimination, but that's not such a large unexplained disparity that I'd say you can claim it's factually incorrect to say taht men and women are paid the same for the same work.  There could be lots of variables other than sex discrimination that accounts for the disparity, and my hunch that a significant amount of it is not provably any more valid than his apparent hunch that little to none of it is or to other people's hunch that basically all of it is. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2018, 01:42:10 PM »
He also states things that are just not factually correct, such as "women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men". Not only is that not true nationally, Google is being sued specifically for that issue.
  It's pretty close to true nationally, or at least not falsified.  Depending on where you look, there is a 3 to 5% disparity that is not explained.  That's significant, and I would be shocked if a significant portion of that 3-5% wasn't strictly due to sex discrimination, but that's not such a large unexplained disparity that I'd say you can claim it's factually incorrect to say taht men and women are paid the same for the same work.  There could be lots of variables other than sex discrimination that accounts for the disparity, and my hunch that a significant amount of it is not provably any more valid than his apparent hunch that little to none of it is or to other people's hunch that basically all of it is.

I don't understand this comment at all.

A - Women are paid the same as men for the same work.
B - No they're not, look at the stats.
A - Women are paid less than men by 3-5%, probably because of sex discrimination.  But men and women are paid the same for the same work.

???

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Location: PNW
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2018, 02:28:11 PM »
The problem here is the rhetoric that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes and saying that it is due to systemic sexism. This is a case of lying with statistics to further an ideological agenda.

"The 77-cent figure derived from a federal government measure does not apply to men and women who do the same job. Instead it refers to the average disparity between what men and women earn, period. All women’s earnings compared to all men’s earnings."

"Just before Obama took office in 2009, the Department of Labor released a study because, as a deputy assistant secretary explained it, "The raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap." The study by CONSAD Research Corp. took into account women being more likely to work part-time for lower pay, leave the labor force for children or elder care, and choose work that is "family friendly" with fuller benefit packages over higher pay. The study found that, when factoring in those variables, the gap narrows to between 93 cents and 95 cents on the dollar.

"The raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action," said Charles James, the deputy assistant secretary. "Indeed, there may be nothing to correct."

Still, a study by the American Association of University Women controlled for a number of factors, including college major, occupation, age, geographical region and hours worked, and found a persistent 7 percent wage gap between men and women a year after graduating college.

The report explored discrimination and reluctance among women to ask for raises as reasons for the remaining gap, though those factors are hard to measure."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/15/politifact-sheet-gender-pay-gap/ 

This ties in with the memo because as stated many times in this thread the memo was about bringing more women in by appealing to what they value, which as stated in the quote above is different than what men value.

I make 4% more than my coworker doing the same job, and i started after him. I negotiated for a higher salary during the hiring process and he did not. The more accurate figures of 5-7% wage gap could be explained, at least in part, due to salary negotiations and not sexism. Facts don't matter when you are pushing an agenda though.

“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2018, 02:45:56 PM »
He also states things that are just not factually correct, such as "women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men". Not only is that not true nationally, Google is being sued specifically for that issue.
  It's pretty close to true nationally, or at least not falsified.  Depending on where you look, there is a 3 to 5% disparity that is not explained.  That's significant, and I would be shocked if a significant portion of that 3-5% wasn't strictly due to sex discrimination, but that's not such a large unexplained disparity that I'd say you can claim it's factually incorrect to say taht men and women are paid the same for the same work.  There could be lots of variables other than sex discrimination that accounts for the disparity, and my hunch that a significant amount of it is not provably any more valid than his apparent hunch that little to none of it is or to other people's hunch that basically all of it is.

I don't understand this comment at all.

A - Women are paid the same as men for the same work.
B - No they're not, look at the stats.
A - Women are paid less than men by 3-5%, probably because of sex discrimination.  But men and women are paid the same for the same work.

???

You're talking about upwards of more than 150M people in the work force in the U.S.  There is a limit to how precise they can get when they decide what work is "the same".  Certainly, in every work place i've been in, there have been more than 3-5% of difference in income between two people in the "same" position, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for stupid reasons, and often for reasons that would not easily be picked up and corrected for when trying to determine whether men and women were being paid the same for the same work. 

So I wouldn't say Dalmore is factually incorrect for stating that women and men are paid the same for the same work.  To be precise, I'd say his statement is not supported if not refuted.

I also think it wouldn't be completely unfair for him to mean that men and women are paid the same for the same work because 3-5% is "in the noise" enough for the statement to be true.  I would disagree with that, as if you look at what say an extra 2% to 3.5 percentage points on your savings rate will do, but I can understand why people would think that is basically within measurement error and that anything else you do to improve it is just as likely to be causing harm.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2018, 10:37:46 PM »
The issue is with attributing the female/male pay difference to gender based discrimination, instead of some different factor.  How the hell do you even test that?  Have five thousand people, half men half women, who are otherwise identical to each other, all work full careers, and compare their total pay against work produces, hours worked, after hours responsiveness, and the many other factors that can affect pay?  It's totally unreasonable to even think you can have two candidates who are equal, who interview equally, who act the same in the office (in the first place) and in the second place, nobody is currently measuring all of the relevant work outcomes.  So all we have to compare gender pay is shitty studies where people of different genders are grouped together and roughly compared against each other.  You can adjust for things like years in industry, sales volume, or time off for family leave, but you simply cannot measure all factors.


If men and women are truly identical then the difference is due to gender discrimination, obviously.  But who in their right mind things the genders are the same?  Does somebody need to slap their dick on the table and show their free testosterone levels to convince you that genders are not the same?  Should we explain how the genders develop differently in utero?  FWIW I don't think anyone here is arguing there is no biological difference between genders (but people are, elsewhere).


When you accept that men and women are slightly different, as groups, it's not a big leap to say that those different traits will result in different outcomes (again, as groups).  The differences are especially pronounced when you look at the fringes, where the differences are more pronounced.  As was pointed out earlier, women are much more likely to be therapists than men.  This is not necessarily discrimination, but could be due to gender differences.  Likewise, more men than women are in high-end tech jobs (which require a specific set of traits possessed by people at the fringe of human capability, for both men and women), which could easily be due to differences in innate personal characteristics which tend to skew based on gender lines, and have nothing to do with gender discrimination.


PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2018, 11:28:20 PM »
The issue is with attributing the female/male pay difference to gender based discrimination, instead of some different factor.  How the hell do you even test that?  Have five thousand people, half men half women, who are otherwise identical to each other, all work full careers, and compare their total pay against work produces, hours worked, after hours responsiveness, and the many other factors that can affect pay?  It's totally unreasonable to even think you can have two candidates who are equal, who interview equally, who act the same in the office (in the first place) and in the second place, nobody is currently measuring all of the relevant work outcomes.  So all we have to compare gender pay is shitty studies where people of different genders are grouped together and roughly compared against each other.  You can adjust for things like years in industry, sales volume, or time off for family leave, but you simply cannot measure all factors.


If men and women are truly identical then the difference is due to gender discrimination, obviously.  But who in their right mind things the genders are the same?  Does somebody need to slap their dick on the table and show their free testosterone levels to convince you that genders are not the same?  Should we explain how the genders develop differently in utero?  FWIW I don't think anyone here is arguing there is no biological difference between genders (but people are, elsewhere).


When you accept that men and women are slightly different, as groups, it's not a big leap to say that those different traits will result in different outcomes (again, as groups).  The differences are especially pronounced when you look at the fringes, where the differences are more pronounced.  As was pointed out earlier, women are much more likely to be therapists than men.  This is not necessarily discrimination, but could be due to gender differences.  Likewise, more men than women are in high-end tech jobs (which require a specific set of traits possessed by people at the fringe of human capability, for both men and women), which could easily be due to differences in innate personal characteristics which tend to skew based on gender lines, and have nothing to do with gender discrimination.
That's a comforting logic that could be used to explain all such differences.

The fact Anglo-Saxon, Christian, straight, males are, by and large and generally speaking, paid more on average and gain employment on average more quickly than women, people of colour and other ethnic and religious minorities must just be because they are different.  I guess they just naturally tend to more often have those sets of traits that are just worth more money on average and not due to systemic if unconscious and, if we are being being generous, not generally intentional, discrimination at all.

Glad we got that worked out and don't need any "shitty studies" to try to say different.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2018, 07:52:04 AM »
The issue is with attributing the female/male pay difference to gender based discrimination, instead of some different factor.  How the hell do you even test that?  Have five thousand people, half men half women, who are otherwise identical to each other, all work full careers, and compare their total pay against work produces, hours worked, after hours responsiveness, and the many other factors that can affect pay?  It's totally unreasonable to even think you can have two candidates who are equal, who interview equally, who act the same in the office (in the first place) and in the second place, nobody is currently measuring all of the relevant work outcomes.  So all we have to compare gender pay is shitty studies where people of different genders are grouped together and roughly compared against each other.  You can adjust for things like years in industry, sales volume, or time off for family leave, but you simply cannot measure all factors.


If men and women are truly identical then the difference is due to gender discrimination, obviously.  But who in their right mind things the genders are the same?  Does somebody need to slap their dick on the table and show their free testosterone levels to convince you that genders are not the same?  Should we explain how the genders develop differently in utero?  FWIW I don't think anyone here is arguing there is no biological difference between genders (but people are, elsewhere).


When you accept that men and women are slightly different, as groups, it's not a big leap to say that those different traits will result in different outcomes (again, as groups).  The differences are especially pronounced when you look at the fringes, where the differences are more pronounced.  As was pointed out earlier, women are much more likely to be therapists than men.  This is not necessarily discrimination, but could be due to gender differences.  Likewise, more men than women are in high-end tech jobs (which require a specific set of traits possessed by people at the fringe of human capability, for both men and women), which could easily be due to differences in innate personal characteristics which tend to skew based on gender lines, and have nothing to do with gender discrimination.
That's a comforting logic that could be used to explain all such differences.

The fact Anglo-Saxon, Christian, straight, males are, by and large and generally speaking, paid more on average and gain employment on average more quickly than women, people of colour and other ethnic and religious minorities must just be because they are different.  I guess they just naturally tend to more often have those sets of traits that are just worth more money on average and not due to systemic if unconscious and, if we are being being generous, not generally intentional, discrimination at all.

Glad we got that worked out and don't need any "shitty studies" to try to say different.

So disturbing to read exactly the same logic that OK'd racism for years and years.

On average more black people were slaves than white people.  Are we really going to pretend that there aren't obvious genetic differences between black and white people?  Frizzy hair, pigmentation, predeliction for particular disease.  Does a guy have to slap a differently coloured hand on the table to convince you that the races have obvious differences?  There are genetic differences, and therefore this must be why black people are incarcerated at higher rates, are more likely to be absentee fathers, less likely to be Nobel prize winners.

I know that this was not Hotstreak's intent . . . But that's where the same line of reasoning will inevitably conclude if we accept it.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Google sued for discrimination
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2018, 09:43:55 AM »
Here's the reference regarding Google pay discrimination.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/google-hit-lawsuit-alleging-gender-based-wage-discrimination-article-1.3736018

eta- this lawsuit was dismissed, stating it was "overly broad" in its scope.
I would suggest that Google address pay discrimination before engaging in weird touch feeling suggestions that James Danmore suggested in his memo. I don't believe that James Danmore was sincere in trying to have more female hires and retention. Really, based on what he attests, he asserts they are less qualified than males, such as being more 'neurotic and stressed". Therefore I do not think he was really trying to help with Google mission statement to rectify Google's not so hot track record with females and maybe other minorities. I could be wrong. What is interesting is that Google is considered a model company in a number of ways, hinting that the actual male/female disparity is worse in other tech companies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/technology/google-salaries-gender-disparity.html
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 09:52:00 AM by partgypsy »