by raleighm on 2/2/21, 1:41 AM with 45 comments
by username90 on 2/2/21, 2:37 AM
> Oracle is budget conscience and seeks to make money, but there is no evidence that this is driven by discriminatory intent or that Oracle intentionally discriminates in order to save money.
> Lower-level managers are the primary decision makers in compensation outcomes and the potential mechanisms of discrimination that are available to Oracle's higher-level executives and HR personnel (budgeting, instructions, approvals) are not likely means for the sort of discrimination alleged.
https://www.hrdive.com/news/judge-shuts-down-labor-departmen...
by ipsum2 on 2/2/21, 2:37 AM
This is interesting, because Google was underpaying male employees just 2 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-...
by b9a2cab5 on 2/2/21, 2:17 AM
by caseyross on 2/2/21, 3:19 AM
(For the sake of completeness: Google is also required to set aside a cash fund for salary fairness adjustments over the next 5 years, though it's tiny and there is no guarantee any of it will actually be paid out.)
by xenihn on 2/2/21, 3:03 AM
by chaganated on 2/2/21, 1:46 AM
$3.8M for 5k+ employees at Google rates seems low.
by fallingknife on 2/2/21, 3:03 AM
So that's 2.585M / 5541 = $467 per employee. Assuming an average comp of $250K, that's a 0.2% difference. How can that be determined to be discrimination? Is that even a statistically significant difference?
by Pinegulf on 2/2/21, 7:46 AM
by cccc4all on 2/2/21, 2:33 AM
$3.8 million is just pocket lint to Google. The sum is so low, it's like someone walking by and ignoring a penny on the ground.