Accused of Underpaying Women, Google Says It's Too Expensive To Get Wage Data (theguardian.com) 431
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Google argued that it was too financially burdensome and logistically challenging to compile and hand over salary records that the government has requested, sparking a strong rebuke from the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL), which has accused the Silicon Valley firm of underpaying women. Google officials testified in federal court on Friday that it would have to spend up to 500 hours of work and $100,000 to comply with investigators' ongoing demands for wage data that the DoL believes will help explain why the technology corporation appears to be systematically discriminating against women. Noting Google's nearly $28 billion annual income as one of the most profitable companies in the U.S., DoL attorney Ian Eliasoph scoffed at the company's defense, saying, "Google would be able to absorb the cost as easy as a dry kitchen sponge could absorb a single drop of water."
If women are paid so much less (Score:5, Insightful)
why isn't their entire workforce made of women, wouldn't it be cheaper that way?
Google doesn't know how to get data efficiently (Score:3)
>>Google Says It's Too Expensive To Get Wage Data
Yeah.
Google.
Doesn't know how to get data efficiently.
Google.
Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please dont say that too loudly, I dont want to have to deal with that headache..
Just Google the data (Score:2)
If only there was a computer to aggregate the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't privacy, do you?
Really Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that chances are they are discriminating, like 90 percent of all corporations do.
Thank you for proving parent's "the conclusion has already been drawn" point with your ridiculous statement.
Re: Really Google? (Score:2)
Google Knows (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Knows everything about everyone. Where you go, what you spend money on and everything else.
To say that it can't find out wage data is a pile of crock.
Google could if it wanted tell the FBI how much each Agent spent in expenses for the past 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Knows everything about everyone. Where you go, what you spend money on and everything else.
If that's true, Google should stop showing me ads for things I already bought.
Google does not Know (Score:3)
Google Knows everything about everyone.
If that were even close to true they would easily know enough about politicians that requests like this would never see the light of day.
*facepalm* (Score:2)
1) Google showed it was incapable of discrimination due to its process. *facepalm*
2) Google took a government contract and doesn't want to comply with the rules of doing so. *facepalm*
3) Google is spending way more effort/money to not hand of the information than if they had. *facepalm*
This is all kinds of retarded. *facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Google is not retarded, so you must be missing something here.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not "missing the point". He's showing that google's rationale is bogus, so anyone with half a brain should realize that google is lying. You can be sure they've already run the analysis and know that they're in for a world of hurt if they give it up.
Or are their systems so deficient that they can't provide the data? Or alternatively, purposefully designed so as not to be able to easily provide the data?
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. Of course, Google's rationale is bogus. That doesn't make them retarded.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Companies that track employee salary based on voluntary reports of income haven't found that to be the case.
https://www.glassdoor.com/research/does-google-have-a-gender-pay-gap/
The Department of Labor hasn’t shared their data or methodology showing how they came to the conclusion that Google has a gender pay problem. In this post, we show that men on average do earn about 16.3 percent more than women at Google.
But that’s not a complete or fair comparison, as it compares software engineers and marketing associates as if they’re in the same pay bracket. Instead, when we make an apples-to-apples comparison of workers with similar jobs and backgrounds, that 16.3 percent gender pay gap largely disappears.
We find an “adjusted” gender pay gap at Google of about 1.6 percent, which is not statistically significantly different from zero. Put differently, there’s no evidence in salaries on Glassdoor of a systematic gender pay gap at Google.
Men and women aren't interested in the same jobs as one another, and some jobs pay more than others, so you're inevitably going to end up with a difference in how one group is paid. Furthermore, stop trying to speak on behalf of real women, you neither think nor behave anything like them.
Re: (Score:2)
https://i.imgflip.com/1d7bh7.j... [imgflip.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Google's new logo (Score:5, Funny)
http://pm1.narvii.com/5779/c3a... [narvii.com]
http://i.imgur.com/c7lLo4w.gif [imgur.com]
One way to make it cheaper... (Score:2, Funny)
They could reduce the cost to $80000 by having women do it.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL wow
Simple reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's cheaper to send a lawyer to explain the data is too hard to collate
So it's cheaper to pay the fine or lose the contract
That must tell you something about the cost of "doing the right thing". Not that the cost of obtaining the information is too high, but the cost of fixing whatever the data tells the government is too high.
So we can infer that there IS an issue here. It is also reasonable that Google knows this, or it wouldn't be baulking at providing the data (and exploiting the P.R. benefits of showing "there! we do pay people fairly").
The question is whether Google would consider the odds of getting found out and having to pay people more, AND paying a fine for obstructing some dam' law or other, is worth the effort they are going to, to behave in such a manner.
Degrees: gender studies != engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Although feminists will tell you otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is, you think there was really all of these other genders? They have 'socially' engineered them. O.o
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think this thread is a nice example of how in any thread about bias in tech the comments always lend evidence to there being bias in tech.
Already complied? (Score:3)
I'd just like to point out that this is a long-running story. As with all complex issues, there are two sides.
Yes, Google has to provide a certain amount of information to the government, as part of its government contracts. however, they have already provided quite a lot of information. The DoL is now looking for historical information, and wants to interview a wide range of employees throughout the company. This is beyond the usual level of stuff that government contractors have to provide.
The DoL claims that this is because they find discrepancies in male/female pay at Google. Now, I have zero knowledge of Google's internal pay practices, but on the face of it, this is extraordinarily unlikely. First of all, the IT industry wage-gap has already been thoroughly debunked: a gap only exists if you deliberately ignore things like years taken off for childcare, which result in less experience and missed promotion opportunities. Second, Google is big enough, and under enough observation, that their HR department will be extraordinarily careful about issues like this.
All of which leads me to suspect that there's a hidden motive here. Maybe someone in the DoL is trying to make a name for themselves? Maybe there's a private lawsuit waiting in the wings, hoping for a big settlement? Maybe someone is just hoping to be bought off, possibly via a revolving door? Dunno what the agenda is, but I'll give odds that it's something at least borderline corrupt on the part of the DoL...
anxiety harp string (Score:2)
A universal lightning rod offered up to people who are tired of thinking.
In my experience, either a person already views the world through this lens—in which case it's redundant—or a person tries extremely hard not to open this appalling box until some directly corroborating evidence forces the issue—in which case floating the possibility prematurely without offering up a smoking gun (or at least a lipstick-stained cigarette
Let me help them out.... (Score:2)
Select * FROM employeeDB where Gender='M' ORDER BY role, year DESC
There you go.
Re: (Score:2)
That'll be 10 "Our Mothers" and 20 "Hail Dworkins" as penance.
Can't the government use tax data? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government already knows how much everyone makes and whether they are female. They should get it from the IRS and mine it themselves.
I wonder if this was said with a straight face? (Score:2)
Spurious correlation with incentive-based pay (Score:4, Interesting)
If you study the google a bit, it seems obvious to me (after reading many of those books) that the extreme incentive policies could easily create the appearance of gender discrimination that reflect actual compensation results. To summarize briefly, if a particular googler is involved in an extremely successful project, then that googler will get obscenely more money than others, even though they are doing the same kind of work. I don't think this favors men because they are inherently more skilled, harder workers, or even luckier. The two most likely causes are related to gender, however: Willingness to take extreme risks and prioritization of work over life. On that basis, I think has two primary secrets they are trying to conceal here:
(1) How they protect losers from failure because they want to encourage risky behaviors. (And even with that insurance, I think women are more risk averse on average.)
(2) That work-life balance at the google is really a lie and the company is dominated in every way (including in compensation) by workaholics.
The strong incentive pay just makes it look worse and might make the google look more EVIL than it is. If that is possible. Makes me sad how the unbounded love of money turned the good google into such a monster. The motto of today's google: "All your attention are belong to us."
The ultimate threat is when people realize that all of the world's information has been prioritized to the BS info the advertisers are paying the google to shove down our throats by abusing our privacy and by raping our personal information. All in a futile quest to solve an unsolvable problem. There is no biggest number and there is no profit that is big enough to "solve" super-greed.
As usual, today's Slashdot has been disappointing, though at least it isn't evil as we measure the google. In particular I lament the lack of funny comments. However I just got the weird idea for units of EVIL measured in googlevils? Should be shorter, but something along those lines.
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:5, Funny)
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's easy to get the numbers for the salaries, but how are you going to accurately get the numbers for job type, productivity, experience and skill level ?
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:5, Insightful)
>how are you going to accurately get the numbers for job type, productivity, experience and skill level ?
Traditionally... by ignoring productivity and experience, and using seniority as a stand-in for skill level.
In other words, there is no practical way to do it since you need to individually perform a detailed historical analysis of each person's output, including adjusting for where others have helped or hindered. It'd be faster just to do the work over again.
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, there is no practical way to do it since you need to individually perform a detailed historical analysis of each person's output, including adjusting for where others have helped or hindered
Which makes the whole debate pointless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
because a systematic bias will show anyway if there is one,
If you don't compensate for job performance, the bias is meaningless. You need to learn a lot more about statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:4, Funny)
Man, those women who get pregnant for 2 years must be pretty pissed off.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality has a systematic bias, while social "sciences" have a systematic bias towards being retarded.
An unfortunate combination when they get to give evidence to judge you of thought crime.
Re: (Score:2)
In a large organization like Google there will usually be multiple people working on similar, if not identical things. So there can be comparisons between those people.
Beyond that, they can look at things like qualifications, time at the company, projects worked on, and annual reviews. It's imperfect, but also far better than doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that, they can look at things like qualifications, time at the company, projects worked on, and annual reviews. It's imperfect, but also far better than doing nothing.
Brace yourself for people claiming that the review process is sexist.
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-feminists want you to think that bias is undetectable and that all methods of evaluating it are flawed. They would prefer we didn't even try, it seems.
You don't have to be anti-anything to see that a major part of the issue is that some of the more 'enthusiastic' feminists are quite happy to lie about statistics, even when they're easily disproved: "Full time women make 78% of what full time men make" is true, but they have to add "for the same job!" which makes it false. Twisting the results of possibly useful studies into "1 in 3 men would rape it they could get away with it" and "25% of college women are raped" [psychologytoday.com]. With a single false story Rolling Stone
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to be anti-anything to see that a major part of the issue is that some of the more 'enthusiastic' feminists are quite happy to lie about statistics, even when they're easily disproved:
So? Some of the most enthusiastic anti-feminists and MGTOWs are also prepared to lie about statistics and completely make shit up. If you only focus on the nuttiest people you can find, then you will find that everyone you look at is incredibly nutty.
If members of a movement make false statements,
You can dismiss literally any movement, no matter how sensible, with that. Anything large enough to be a movement is large enough to attract at least one total nutcase. Even if the proportion is low in terms of raw numbers any large movement will have a lot of nutcases.
Re: (Score:3)
It has been my experience that any significant bias is already known and an accepted part of the culture, not some well-intentioned effort unknowingly failing to be fair.
And the review processes are usually HR bullshit. And the people pushing them use bad logic and misleading stats to push an agenda.
What you really need is to have a company not run by assholes... or given how rare that is, at least a company whose particular brand of assholes aren't sexist.
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:5, Informative)
For a lot of companies that might work as a line of reasoning. But Google's bread and butter is data analysis of behaviors. Their ability to find this data is more powerful than anyone else's and they already have it and use it to make money. So, yes, it is literally their job.
Identifying gender pay disparity is the kind of project they used to knock off in an afternoon, release to the public, then abandon after three years because "only" a few million people used it.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like the kind of thing that should be given to an Analytics company. Preferably one that knows a lot of details about everyone on the planet. Seriously, experience? Skill Level? I'll bet you Google could correlate the breakfast its employees eat to their coding style, let alone such basic things you suggest which are stored in a company database somewhere and can be sucked out by an intern with 5min of SQL.
Re: (Score:3)
What the? This is a government reportable, not a money making product. You do the bare minimum and if it doesn't work you claim the "well we tried" card.
But SQL isn't going to tell you whose annual review misrepresents their value to the company because the reviewer had subconscious biases.
That's also not what the government is asking for, and rule one of providing things to the government: Never provide more than you absolutely have to.
Exception to rule 1: Provide absolutely everything and hope they never find what you didn't want them to see in the first place.
Careful What You Wish For (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/audi/statu... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers will show that girls have cooties.
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:4, Interesting)
This is big stuff in information economics. Liking numbers isn't enough.
People using information theory in business these days, people who read Stiglitz, understand that information as a cost. That is why wages stagnate instead of dropping during a bad recession; it would cost money to find out what the new balance of worker supply/demand is. If you go too far you would lose workers; by the time you get that feedback, you've already received the harm. There is no free warning system.
Same problem here; wages and worker supply is constantly changing, you'd have to do expensive studies on a continuous basis to ever have this information. No employer does that, and none would. It is just asking too much. Like the summary points out, the actual pay at issue is a tiny amount of money and there is no reason for google to avoid paying it. Which is true; they would certainly prefer to have wage fairness! But they also need to be using a pay system based on perceived merit, so that they have healthy feedback loops.
It might actually be better to have government track worker pay across the economy, and provide the wage information that they want businesses to consider in their hiring practices. Each worker is different and has different value, so you need a detailed system to account for what you value in a worker if you're really going to make decisions that would have improved outcomes. It isn't enough to pay based on an underwear check, because the Shapiro-Stiglitz efficiency wage model requires employers to target wages to minimize shirking. In a factory that is easier, but in professional work it requires individualized pay packages. Even if not personalized, you'd need a large number of pay levels that people can be placed at, and so it is effectively the same and will also have the same marginal problems with bias and fairness.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't ad hominem literally sexist?
Not necessarily. Latin homo can, and usually does, stand for "human being" in general. Male and female of the species are vir and mulier, respectively.
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:5, Informative)
The requirement to provide the data is part of the government contracts Google has taken on, so yes it is Googles job to do the governments bidding in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if the data is critical for this case, it can then be used for other government investigations such as those for tax evasion, H1B abuse, and potentially for civic lawsuits by current and former Google staff for abusive hiring practices. I'm not insisting that there is evidence of such abuses, but rather that the data would then be available for other investigations by other governmental or even private agencies who can subpoena the records.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, they have Kubernetes! And computers and stuff. Big coder-thinkers, and cars with no drivers! They can do it! C'mon, Googlies, you can do it!
All that big data stuff is full of great information for everyone! Especially the US Government. Wow, I'm sure they're going to do this, it would be so helpful to everyone, right? Do no harm! That's their motto! I love them! They'll do the right thing, I just know it!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not insisting that there is evidence of such abuses,
Google would be fiscally stupid to comply with the request, even if it wanted to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not Googles job to do the governments bidding. Furthermore, Google has no incentive to comply because even if the data shows that they are entirely innocent, such facts wont matter to the SJW's.
If Google wants to continue to do business with the government, then it is their fucking job to comply. That effort is either worth it, or it's not. Don't want to comply? Then step away from all government contracts. Plain and simple.
I suspect (Score:2)
The government may need Google more than Google needs them
Re: (Score:2)
And if google acts like they're a monopoly, they'd better be ready to suffer the consequences of being broken up in terms of loss of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no SJW but it seems to me that the difference between what men and women are paid to do identical work
You're assuming that they do identical work, with identical performance. Before you go any further, you'll need to provide proof that this is true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you prove his assumption, that a man gets paid more for the same job, isn't true?
Hey moron, the poster is making the assumption, so he or she needs to provide the proof, moron.
Re:Not Googles Job (Score:4, Informative)
There is plenty of proof that men get paid more, moron.
Nobody in this thread disputed that.
Proof that there is no pay bias? Hah!
There have been plenty of studies that looked at the wage gap and found that after adjusting for things like hours worked, travel/commute, work environment (indoor/outdoor), and non-financial perks there is only a 2-6% gap left unexplained - roughly the same as the difference between right and left handed people, tall and short men, and other gaps that we know exist but don't care about. And because every single time there was a trade-off to be made men were more likely than women to choose the extra money, it's quite possible that the remaining gap can be explained by some other factor that hasn't been accounted for.
Hey moron ... Open your mind to facts instead of mindlessly believing shit? ... And it doesn't end at work ... Just another reason men die younger. Women get fed up and leave, and they lose their "built-in housekeeper" and can't fend for themselves. ... Or did you think that clean underwear magically picked itself off the floor where you left it, jumped into the washing machine, and snuck back into your dresser? You don't see the disparity because you're so used to it everywhere that you've become blind to it.
Someone asked someone else for evidence, and you responded with a series of bland insults, changed the subject, and went on a rant. The only positive thing I can say about this is that I prefer that bigots be open about their prejudice, and for that I thank you.
On the other hand, this rage against half the human race can't be good for you or the men around you. Please get help.
Re: Not Googles Job (Score:2)
Hollywood, of course, is exactly like the IT industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Google being publicly traided on a size borderline monopoly, has a tag line of not being evil. While may not be its job, it would be to their self interest to know this data and make sure to correct any inequalities in its workforce. Otherwise they may be opening themselves for future legal problems.
West Coast based IT companies are notoriously bad in diversity in their workforce compared to East Coast IT workers who are often older, more gender and race diversity.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds to me like the demand is getting into the "takings clause" territory, which prevents private property from being used for public purposes without just compensation. I'm guessing the reason it would cost so much is because Google doesn't want to return a simple "SELECT GENDER, SALARY FROM EMPLOYEES", but provide more detailed information that it believes supports its position.
Re: (Score:3)
WHAT????
I think that pretty much says YES, they must do the governments bidding. At least in this instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By what logic? That makes no sense! A limited liability corporation is a legal fiction that exists only because the government says it exists. You are not a legal fiction and exist no matter what anyone says.
Re: (Score:2)
With the possible exception of "Eat lead", "There can be only one", and other similar sentiments....
Re: (Score:3)
Corporation is not a person. Never was really. The idea that it is is just bad jurisprudence taken too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
google's not doing it for the money. They're doing it for a shitload of money.
Not really, if the men are making more money for the same job, a simple solution would be to lower their salaries to match their female counterparts. That would actually save money for Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Google signed a number of contracts with the government of their own free will. This request is being made under those contracts. If they didn't want to handle requests like this, they were free to not sign (and not take the money, of course).
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing that's not how court orders work.
It is not a court order. It is an administrative request from the DoL.
Re:Do women negotiate? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't just say "We paid the men more because they asked for more."
Can you just say, "we paid the people more who asked for more"? That's how salaries work in the US culture, for better or for worse. Malfeasance not required.
One sub-group that gets really screwed: aspies. Don't tell a class-action lawyer that's epigenetic, though.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It doesn't matter what you "say". It only matters what you "do". If you systematically pay men and women differently on any basis other than their ability to do their job, they you are breaking the law.
I'm not familiar with US law, but does it really say that it's illegal to negotiate about salaries ? Can you provide a link to that law ?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with US law, but does it really say that it's illegal to negotiate about salaries ?
No. Negotiating is legal, as long as it doesn't lead to systematic bias.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet you're arguing about it.
No, I'm not. I'm asking a question.
If you are systematically paying women with the job relevant skills in the same roles different amounts then it's illegal.
Even if the average woman makes less than the average man, that doesn't mean there's a systematic gender bias. It could simply be that the man performed better, asked for a raise, and got one. Does the law say that if one person gets a raise, that everybody else with the same job description should get an identical raise ?
Re: (Score:2)
It could simply be that the man performed better
If that is based on objective criteria, it is legal. Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications. If cannot systematically differ FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
Does the law say that if one person gets a raise, that everybody else with the same job description should get an identical raise ?
No. But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
If men are more assertive about asking for raises, then you either need to learn to say "no" or you need to give equal raises to similarly qualified women, whether t
Re: (Score:3)
If men are more assertive about asking for raises, then you either need to learn to say "no" or you need to give equal raises to similarly qualified women, whether they ask or not.
Why make an exception for women ? Why don't the non-assertive men get a raise too ?
But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
What if you give a raise to anybody who performs exceptionally well, and that happens to result in more men getting a raise ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why make an exception for women ?
Because the law says so. Gender is a protected class [wikipedia.org].
Why don't the non-assertive men get a raise too ?
Because they are not a legally protected class. If you want to change that, write your congressperson. Good luck.
What if you give a raise to anybody who performs exceptionally well, and that happens to result in more men getting a raise ?
If you can back up that claim with objective evidence, it is legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the links. According to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, there are plenty of legal ways to pay women less than men, as long as it isn't based directly on sex.
"(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
It doesn't say anything about negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
Do men "negotiate harder" or are men more likely to accept the risk of rejection? The former could be tested by having professional negotiators to separate the candidate from the employer for that part of the hiring process. But the latter can't.
If your negotiator comes back with a number and says they think they can get more with another round, at some point the decision belongs to the candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
if you do nothing, but a difference in the aggregate world is indirectly observable through your aggregate behaviour, you have still done nothing.
Whether is is "wrong" is subjective.
Whether is is "legal" is not.
Salary discrimination by gender is against the law, and the judge isn't going to give a crap about your rationalizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Salary discrimination by gender is against the law, and the judge isn't going to give a crap about your rationalizations.
What if a company determines salary by a completely objective method, independent of gender, that results in a systematic difference between men and women ?
Re: (Score:2)
What if a company determines salary by a completely objective method, independent of gender, that results in a systematic difference between men and women ?
If your hiring process results in a systematic difference in pay between equally qualified men and women, then you are breaking the law.
The process does not make it illegal. The end result does.
Re: (Score:2)
If your hiring process results in a systematic difference in pay between equally qualified men and women, then you are breaking the law.
If they used a 'completely objective method, independent of gender', and they find a systematic difference, then they must not be equally qualified.
Re: (Score:3)
Aspies are not a legally protected class.
They are in the UK. It's a learning disability.
Aspergers is not a learning disability, it is a learning advantage. I am an Aspie. Aspies can tune out distractions, and focus on learning and absorbing knowledge far better than neuro-normals. I have little difficulty memorizing copious quantities of information. I could crush any opponent at Trivial Pursuit, back when people still played it. When coding, I can remember the calling convention of every library routine. I can learn a new language in a weekend well enough to debug other people's programs.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly all jobs require social skills and anybody that wants to pursue a career beyond programming kind of needs them.
There are also significant differences in how Aspergers impacts people. Some people can mask their social skill gap, others are defined by it. A support group I used to attend had people present that could barely function in society - they had council appointed carers with them.
So although it may not be preventing you achieving success and being happy, it is recognised as a disability and tha
Re: (Score:2)
What if you negotiate a more challenging job ? For example, one person could get a job title that says "software engineer 150k", while another gets a title that says "software engineer 140k".
Re: (Score:3)
It is illegal to systematically pay equally qualified men and women differently.
Exactly, and since they're not doing that, they don't have information about why there might still be a difference anyway.
If they had a mind-reading machine, they could just scan the HR department and find out who had exercised a bias.
Traditionally, the company is informed that there is a problem by the employee, who provides some of the information. When there is a complaint in an actual instance, they have something they can look into. Here, they're being asked some really general questions that encompass
Re: (Score:2)
noooo the government would NEVER impose unnecessary restrictions on people/companies..
Re:Fucking Feminists (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet.. nobody can find evidence of wage gaps within an employer.
The internet should be full of examples. There should be dozens or hundreds just from the Fortune 500 companies alone.
Yet.. there isn't. There are isolated individual cases. There is bullshit about total career earnings, or comparisons between contact centre staff and board members.
Fuck this shit. I'm bored with it. I get paid less than my peers and I'm doing something about it: I'm quitting and getting another job. I'm not bitching about the fact that one of them is a different skin colour or that another is female, I'm doing something constructive about the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Estrogens also result in increased strength and muscle mass [nih.gov], same fashion testosterone does. But unlike testosterone, it doesn't give rise to unstable emotions, it actually reduces them. And also unlike testosterone, it increases lifespan by 3 years over women who aren't on HRT for menopause. Studies done on male volunteers with just a single 4mg estrogen patch showed a calming influence without any increase in emotional instability.
The "well-documented effect on all manner of behaviours" is bullshit if y
Re:Fucking Feminists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever seen a woman work an 80 hour week? I haven't.