Oracle Responds To Wage Discrimination Claims By Suing US Department of Labor (theregister.co.uk) 125
According to The Register, Oracle is suing the Department of Labor for repeatedly accusing the company of discriminating against and underpaying women and minorities. From the report: In a lawsuit [PDF] filed Wednesday in a Washington DC district court, Big Red accuses the U.S. Department of Labor of "unprecedented overreach by an executive agency," and claims the agency doesn't have the authority to cut Oracle out of government contracts for its discriminatory practices or sue it for underpaying certain staff. With one hand holding the constitution and the other bashing its chest, the database giant warned perilously that "the rise of the modern administrative state has altered our government structure" but that it had "not undone our constitutional structure."
The folks at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have "created a coercive administrative enforcement and adjudicative regime" the lawsuit bellows. "Without authority from any Act of Congress - indeed, in contravention of congressional legislation - a group of unelected, unaccountable, and unconfirmed administrative officials have cut from whole cloth this adjudicative agency enforcement scheme." The lawsuit is just the latest in a brutal battle between Oracle and the Labor Department that started in 2017 when the government sued the database biz for pay and employment discrimination. According to federal investigators, Oracle pays its white male employees more than women and minorities even when they are in the same job with the same title. It studied Oracle's hiring practices since 2013 and concluded that there were "gross disparities in pay even after controlling for job title, full-time status, exempt status, global career level, job speciality, estimated prior work experience, and company tenure."
The folks at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have "created a coercive administrative enforcement and adjudicative regime" the lawsuit bellows. "Without authority from any Act of Congress - indeed, in contravention of congressional legislation - a group of unelected, unaccountable, and unconfirmed administrative officials have cut from whole cloth this adjudicative agency enforcement scheme." The lawsuit is just the latest in a brutal battle between Oracle and the Labor Department that started in 2017 when the government sued the database biz for pay and employment discrimination. According to federal investigators, Oracle pays its white male employees more than women and minorities even when they are in the same job with the same title. It studied Oracle's hiring practices since 2013 and concluded that there were "gross disparities in pay even after controlling for job title, full-time status, exempt status, global career level, job speciality, estimated prior work experience, and company tenure."
Not subject to suit (Score:5, Interesting)
Big Red accuses the U.S. Department of Labor of "unprecedented overreach by an executive agency,"
I look forward to seeing the courts throw this one out, because the federal government is immune to being sued.
That is: Except on matters to which the federal government have consented on being sued, and there's no consent that the federal government has made to authorize persons or companies to sue the government claiming the executive is not empowered to enforce its labor regulations.
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they could just pay the same irrespective of gender or race, which is what the investigators found wasn't happening. "Job X pays Y, except if you're female / black / definitely if all the above" is the crux of the matter. Yet they think that's fine and try weasel wording to justify it.
#FuckOracle
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just pay the same irrespective of gender or race, which is what the investigators found wasn't happening.
Those inspections are notoriously biased and fail to account for time in industry, time on the job, vacation/sick days taken by individuals, etc. Across the entire tech sector when adjusted for those things women average 15-20% higher pay than men consistently.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Those inspections are notoriously biased and fail to account for time in industry, time on the job, vacation/sick days taken by individuals, etc. Across the entire tech sector when adjusted for those things women average 15-20% higher pay than men consistently.
You are posting unauthorized and non-government-approved facts contrary to accepted social norms. This is a serious non-crime criminal hate incident.
If you are in Canada, the EU, or in the UK, please turn yourself in at the nearest constabulary as soon as possible as it will look better for you if they don't have to send constables around to collect you.
If you are in the US be prepared to be doxxed. for you and your employer to be harassed, to be deplatformed from social media platforms and major financial/
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:4, Insightful)
The communist filth advocating this racially divisive garbage will eventually be dealt with the way the Romanians handled their communist leader. Merry Christmas.
Romanian here: Hopefully not. Cold-blooded executions are definitely not the way of dealing with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Ion Iliescu, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Traian Bsescu was also a member of the Communist Party.
Emil Constantinescu too.
During the entire 30-year period following the fall of Communism, we had only one president who had not been a member of the Communist Party. Sad, but true.
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you get from "irrespective of gender or race" to "irrespective of education and experience"
If you have a third person - a woman who also has a PhD and 20 years experience doing the same job as the Chinese guy, she should be getting paid comparably to him.
You can't catch everything in formulas, but It's not that hard to do a little statistical analysis and see if e.g. white men are consistently being paid more than black women for the same job description. There'll obviously be some variations due to things not captured by the formulas used, but those *should* average out over the employee base - e.g. according to the formula there should be as many white men getting "underpaid" as are getting "overpaid", and the same for black women.
Similarly - even if you pay everyone the same for the same job - if your higher-tier, better-paying jobs are disproportionately occupied by Hispanic women - then that's compelling evidence of sexist and racist discrimination in the hiring process.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a third person - a woman who also has a PhD and 20 years experience doing the same job as the Chinese guy, she should be getting paid comparably to him.
Nope. What if the Chinese guy puts in 60 hours a week while the woman only works 35? What if the Chinese guy's PhD is from MIT and the woman's is from Podunk U.? What if the Chinese guy gets his projects done well under time and budget, but the woman always goes way over? What if the woman's code always requires 10 extra iterations of review, while the Chinese guy's is bug-free most of the time? There are tons of reasons why people with identical qualifications on paper have widely different value to t
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, yes. In practice, it isn't always that simple, particularly when you're looking at large groups of people in aggregate, rather than specific individual cases. There are very real statistical differences in the way men and women approach work-life balance, on average, that can affect job performance in aggregate. For example:
And so on. Obviously any specific woman should get paid the same as a man, assuming all else is equal, but that's really, really hard to measure in aggregate, because the average behavior of the two populations is dissimilar enough to make direct comparison challenging. Of course, women do tend to get lower performance ratings, on average, than men who produce similar output, so there's little question about whether there's bias, but quantifying that bias is likely to require some pretty complex statistical modeling, not just grouping people into a few buckets and tossing an average at the problem.
Again, you're assuming that there aren't any statistically significant differences in behavior, education, intellect, etc. between people of one race and another who get hired for a particular job. But can you prove that this is always true? If you take two arbitrary people of different races, but comparable social skills, comparable intellect, comparable physical fitness, etc., and give them the same exact education, then yes, you would expect similar pay on the other end, but:
And so on. This is not to say that Oracle doesn't discriminate (I have no idea) — just that you can't jump straight from "the averages are different" to "the averages are different because of discrimination". :-)
Re: Not subject to suit (Score:2)
Experience will never even out between men and women of the same age while women still have babies, which is the usual comparison. There is also likely to be historical issues effecting comparisons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not subject to suit (Score:2)
Found the Nazi!
Re: (Score:2)
Now prove the predicate -- that out of 137,000 employees, on average men in the same positions doing the same work on average have superior "personal merits and qualities" so that the determined wage gap could be government overreach.
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they work in the same positions at the same level as the women?
They must not be obsessed with career advancement, because I specified "in the same positions doing the same work," and because the study of Oracle employees linke
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:5, Informative)
No, we're not. We're in a country governed by the rule of law where Oracle has been proven to systematically underpay women in the same position [wired.com] and now needs to demonstrate an acceptable reason for doing so.
No, I really don't:
"The analysis shows that women are paid less even after controlling for career level, performance review scores, office location, tenure at Oracle, and overall work experience, in violation of California's Equal Pay Act."
I don't have to re-litigate anything with random Slashdotters. Especially ones who have no actual information concerning Oracle's pay rates and employment structure.
Re: (Score:2)
That's likely to be some pretty serious discrimination if it still is skewed after controlling for career level and performance review scores. Usually, those two factors are enough to hide actual discrimination, because women often get worse performance reviews for equal work, and are less
Re: (Score:1)
women often get worse performance reviews for equal work
This statement is literally impossible to back up with actual data. The only valid way to make such a determination is to have an independent person familiar with the performance of each man and woman in such a study, and have that person's evaluation of their relative performance conflict with the score they were given in a substantive way. There's no way that happened on the scale required for a proper randomized sample large enough to get r2 above 0.90 at a minimum.
No wonder liberal arts majors end up
Re: (Score:2)
Which the professor in the article has, and which you do not.
Unless, as reported in the article, you have Oracles own HR data with Oracle's own employee evaluations, position and location data, and salary data.
Whoops.
Re: (Score:2)
I was unaware that you'd been appointed as a Federal judge overseeing the lawsuit against Oracle.
Because otherwise presenting data to you would be a gigantic waste of time.
Re: (Score:3)
this would be the equivalent of a government agency deciding on the wage of a given employee
Many countries set the minimum wage for certain employees. Since employers usually pay as little as they can get away with, government is essentially setting the wage by setting the minimum. Here is the list of wages [mtss.go.cr] in Costa Rica for 2019, by occupation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is, does a company have an obligation to pay everyone with the same job title more just because one person had the temerity to ask for a raise?
Everyone? No.
Men and women? Yes.
It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently for doing the same job on any basis other than their ability to do the job. Claiming that you paid the men more because they asked for raises more often is not a valid excuse.
Re: (Score:3)
It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently for doing the same job on any basis other than their ability to do the job.
While that sounds nice, the challenge is that in reality employees do not get paid based on their ability or value to the company. They are paid based on what it takes to get them to join the company and what it takes to get them to stay. Basing pay on anything but these two factors artificially increases pay and therefore the cost of doing business. Pay equality isn't the only artificial force adjusting wages; minimum wage and laws protecting organized labor are other examples.
This issue is particularly se
Re: (Score:1)
I am a proponent of improving pay equality
What suggests to you that pay is not equal already once you factor in education, training, experience, and hours worked?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's not already equal [wired.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle's employees are salaried. They pay for results, now how long it takes for employees to achieve them.
Re: (Score:3)
What suggests to you that pay is not equal already once you factor in education, training, experience, and hours worked?
Of course it's not equal. That is quite clear based on research in the subject.
The reason for the equality is where there is more gray area. I would argue most of the maliciously discriminatory factors have been removed from our society, but many persistent cultural factors are still in play. One example is that a bossy man is thought of as leader and a bossy woman is thought of as a bitch (a generalization for sure but largely accurate). Another is how women are less likely to ask for raises or negotiate a
Re: (Score:1)
a bossy man is thought of as leader and a bossy woman is thought of as a bitch
Assertiveness is a masculine trait that women generally learn from their fathers. There is a fine line between being assertive and aggressive. Ironically, feminine people tend to be more aggressive than assertive. Assertive people stand their ground, and are open to a good argument. Aggressive people lash out and don't listen.
Doing a quick google on the topic and I am finding studies indicating assertiveness and confidence are treated roughly the same between men and women, but people tend to negatively v
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently for doing the same job on any basis other than their ability to do the job. Claiming that you paid the men more because they asked for raises more often is not a valid excuse.
That's pure idiocy. Think about the consequences of your stupid communist ideas before you go advocating them. Imagine I'm a small company with three employees. I have Fred, Frank, and Mary. They all have the same job ... baristas. They are all making minimum wage, let's call it $n. One day Fred walks in and asks for a raise. He's been with my company for 10 years and so I grant him a 10% raise. Now Fred makes 1.1($n). Now the average male wage is 1.05($n). So I have to give Mary a raise too so I'm not in v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even if I concede every point that you are attempting to argue, you are "literally" forced to pay Frank 1.05($n), where Fred=1.05($n), Mary=1.05($n), and Frank=1.05($n). You are literally bad at math.
Dude, you can't be that stupid and find your way to a polling place by yourself.
If you concede every point, you have to concede that I gave Fred a 10% raise, which is 1.1($n). It appears that you are unaware of the inequality (you guys are usually so obsessed with seeing inequalities): 1.05 != 1.10
What you're suggesting is that your "utopia" is one where I have to tell Fred to fuck off with his request for a raise because the government doesn't allow me to reward his years of service. If I want to give
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you have a female employee who you are able to pay only 1.05($n). Surely you are a smart enough businessman to only pay the marginal rate of labor, and therefore incentivized to pay Fred only 1.05($n) or else replace him with a woman barista at that rate.
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "systematic" if your system is to pay everyone as little as they will agree to work for
Yes it is. Plenty of class action lawsuits have been won by plaintiffs for pay bias, and NONE of were won by defendants claiming "Hey, the women agreed to work for less."
One reason both women (and blacks) are reluctant to ask for raises, is that they feel less secure in their jobs. Often for good reason: blacks are often "last hired, first fired". So paying them systematically less because they fear being fired is not an excuse likely to hold up in court.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that females otherwise probably will agree to work for less money (by not asking for more), but I don't think that's the fault of the company.
A reasonable argument, assuming that all companies in a given area have similar statistics. They are all hiring from the same pool, after all.
However, if one company stands out, well...
Re: (Score:2)
If we postulate that males take more risks/are better at negotiating than women, nothing prevents us from guessing there could be other significant differences too (besides the obvious physical ones...). So I would not go that way, if I were to defend the agency claim.
Moreover I think that is one of the management tasks to decide if a demanding employee must get a pay raise or a boot. A good company knows if it is better to keep that emplo
Re: Not subject to suit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A nit -- it is possible for more than 50% of the people to be above average, it is not possible for more than 50% of the people to be above the median.
As in your experience, my experience that the less people deserve more money or responsibility, the more they demand it or complain about the lack of it. Long before Dunning and Kruger published their study resulting in the phenomena now being known as the Dunning–Kruger effect, the effect was obvious to me just by looking at my employees, colleagues, a
Re: (Score:2)
"Average" can mean mean, median, or mode depending on what the speaker wants it to mean. Often they don't know which it means (when quoting someone else), or the statement is hyperbolic and they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, pay is a negotiated amount. Companies don't go around making sure everyone gets paid the same amount.
Right, only governments do that. Job descriptions are fit to pay scales, which are narrow. You move your way though the pay scale for your position, and then in order to move up you have to certify somehow that you can perform the duties of the next bracket. So you go from Bucket Scrubber I to Bucket Scrubber II, and move up to the next pay grade.
That is the future we're working towards for all jobs, though. The government does it to avoid claims of impropriety.
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you don't work in a sector of the software industry where aggressive schedules and demands are common and required for the survival of the company (such as smallish startups).
In software development, two people doing the "same" job and with similar years of experience often produce vastly different results in terms of quality and/or quantity. Job descriptions are generally of the form of a list of requirements or tasks and a promotion requires taking on additional tasks (such as leadership, mentori
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you don't work in a sector of the software industry where aggressive schedules and demands are common and required for the survival of the company (such as smallish startups).
Most of which do not in fact survive. I have worked for small companies, though. Two got bought out, one simply went under.
In software development, two people doing the "same" job and with similar years of experience often produce vastly different results in terms of quality and/or quantity.
They're really not the same job then, are they? You seem to allude to awareness of that by using quotation marks.
moving from Bucket Scrubber I to Bucket Scrubber II involves different skills, not just better skills.
Right, and two people doing the "same" job actually have different skills, not just better skills. Maybe (in keeping with the model being discussed) one of them is a Programmer I, and the other is a Programmer III. Each position would have its own pay scale. That avoids the c
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked mostly at startups in my career. One is still chugging away making a profit and employing thousands of people internationally about 40 years later and is in the enterprise space. One of the others, effectively, just went out of business (it was technically purchased, but I think it was mostly for the staff, not the technology and it had never gone public). The rest went public or were bought on quite attractive terms and the products survived for many years - some to this day, albeit heavily mod
Re: (Score:1)
And, it's equivalent to the government deciding other forms of compensation as well.
Companies "discriminate" by letting women essentially take an extra 3 months of vacation because they made the personal decision to have a baby.
But then, this was discrimination, so they started letting men do the same when they had a baby.
So now, it's just the people deciding not to have children that are discriminated against, and don't get the extra 3 months off.
Personally, I think these people -should- get less pay, beca
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between "one person negotiated a bad salary for themselves" and "the numbers show that members of specific groups regularly get a worse salary than members of other groups".
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There is a difference between "one person negotiated a bad salary for themselves" and "the numbers show that members of specific groups regularly get a worse salary than members of other groups".
That's like saying it's discrimination that black horses get hotter in the sun than white horses. Evidence of a difference between specific groups by itself is not evidence of discrimination. Evidence of discrimination requires evidence that the groups do not actually differ in a material way. Simply stating that there is a difference is not evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies "discriminate" by letting women essentially take an extra 3 months of vacation because they made the personal decision to have a baby.
Or two years in my country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle is the company equivalent of Hitler. It doesn't matter how much of a principled person someone is. Oracle will make almost anyone set those principles aside.
Re: Not subject to suit (Score:2)
"If the government asserts that contracts are determined on Oracle's merits and qualities (which is theoretically true, and, to some extent, actually true)"
Oracle is still fucked, this whole argument is beyond pointless, and this article is nothing more than bait for bigots that get excited about anything that mentions race or gender, and omfg both? They are really frothing at the mouth right now to attack some feminists or whatever they call the windmills they tilt at, I'm not even sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but here the company is demanding government contracts with their business. The lawsuit is frivolous. I wish the judge would dismiss it on such grounds and fine the company for wasting the court's time.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not "demanding" government contracts, they are simply demanding a level playing field where they are not being discriminated against by a government spending taxpayer dollars taken, involuntarily and effectively at the point of a gun, from the populace.
Government has an obligation to get the best value of the buck and not consider factors irrelevant to that goal. Private business is, of course, free to factor in politics or whatever they want when considering who to grant a contract to.
Re:Not subject to suit (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems more like a press release than a lawsuit.
They always use hyperbolic language like "irreparable harm" (but we'll take some cash anyway, small consolation that millions of dollars will be) but this one seems specifically targeted at winning the PR war because their lawyers surely know that it has no legal basis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Equality laws have already been well tested in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Fry v. United States [findlaw.com] and the interstate commerce clause say that it does have that authority.
Oracle Has Burned Karma Like Cordwood (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One of my clients just turned all their employees into "human capital", and so have signed up to Oracle's Human Capital Management product (from PeopleSoft). I don't use it, but it seems to be going okayish - although it seems to need weekend-long upgrades every so often, which seems very strange for a cloud product.
With the likes of Amazon making it possible to run-like-on-Oracle, but without Oracle database, one would hope their days are numbered, but they probably aren't as there seem to be people willin
Re: (Score:2)
You're addressing the wrong audience. Nobody here is in a position to decide not to use Oracle, which gets contracts by schmoozing executives, the same as Microsoft. Don't you know how this works yet?
Oracle sues because of overreach? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oracle sues because of overreach? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oracle will sue you if wear bluejeans on Saturday. They don't sell software or solutions, they're legal system mobsters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oracle sues because of overreach? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they think there is some systemic problem, e.g. that women are inherently penalized by some system bias in the job market/freedom of enterprise/fair payment/etc. system, they should try to fix the system, by changing its _general_ rules. What they are doing here is keeping the system, they implicitly say it is wrong, while forcing companies/citizens to overlook its rules (e.g. job market); rules the government claim to respect and that it should enforce.
No, the government is not overlooking the rules. The laws against discrimination exist. And if a company systematically pays members of protected groups lower wages then those companies break the law.
If just one or two women or one or two POC would have a below average wage, that would be a sign that they were just bad a negotiating. But if the numbers show that this is systematic, then it's the job of the government to interfere and make the company follow the law.
If Oracle thinks the government is incorrect, they can disprove the governments arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the government is not overlooking the rules. The laws against discrimination exist. And if a company systematically pays members of protected groups lower wages then those companies break the law.
If just one or two women or one or two POC would have a below average wage, that would be a sign that they were just bad a negotiating. But if the numbers show that this is systematic, then it's the job of the government to interfere and make the company follow the law.
Ugh, I'll use a Slashdot evergreen: "correlation is not causation". If certain numbers show that women are on average paid less than men for certain jobs in a certain company, that does not mean that they are paid less _because_ they are women, that is the precondition for the enforcement of the laws against discrimination. The agency cannot use such statistics as a _proof_ of discrimination or wrongdoing on part of the company; as a consequence, if they are accusing the company without evidence, the wrongd
Re: (Score:3)
This is a civil process, not a criminal one. It's "preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". So if it looks bad, it is up to Oracle to demonstrate that it's not what the government makes it out to be. All a preponderance of the evidence needs is to be more likely than not. It does not have to rule out edge cases that could, in fact, be innocent in nature.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, they're suing because they didn't get a fat contract. Is this something to do with Amazon?
Admit? (Score:5, Interesting)
"the agency doesn't have the authority to cut Oracle out of government contracts _for its discriminatory practices_ or sue it for underpaying certain staff."
am i reading this correctly and did Oracle just admit that they do discriminate but that it's none of the governements bussiness?
Re: Admit? (Score:2)
But does one actually _have to_ work for Oracle to survive? Is it your human right, I mean? I believe that whoever gets employed by Oracle signs a contract that outlines their compensation package. And that's the end of it. No like no sign, go to Google or McDonald's or something.
I remember having signed a contract which stipulated that I am not a member and will not be joining any syndicate let my contract be terminated. I didn't complain as the pay was excellent (for a first full-time job fresh out of uni
Re: Admit? (Score:2)
s/let/lest/g
Re: (Score:2)
And of course McDonalds can pay a completely different wage to blacks and women than they do whites, because after all, you don't have to work at McDonald's to survive, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
am i reading this correctly and did Oracle just admit that they do discriminate but that it's none of the governements bussiness?
Yes. Someone has been rubbing their hands together and chuckling for the last half day, I could hear it all the way up here in Canada.
Re: (Score:1)
cut Oracle out of government contracts
This is the gist of the story. If they lose a contract, for whatever reason, they're gonna sue
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything to reduce government power afaic is good for individual freedoms.
You mean the freedom to underpay workers solely because they have a vagina? That's not a freedom that advances the society in which you live.
Not so fast (Score:1)
Same job title, doesn't always mean same role.
Almost every low level employee at my company has the same job title.
That doesn't mean they are doing the same exact job, and doesn't mean they have the exact same amount of experience and skills.
One employee can handle a dozen different jobs and can work unsupervised, while another employee can only do a few specific low skill jobs and has to be constantly supervised, should they get the same salary because the government thinks it is discrimination? It would b
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with Oracle on this one. (Score:1)
What a surprise (Score:2)
Oracle suing something ? Who would have thought ?
From what i have just read they claim they cannot be cut from a government contract without a judiciary decision, among other things. But IANAL and my legalese is terrible. I think i have also read allusions of lack of congressional oversight over the administration in question.
Not sure where I stand on this (Score:1)
Thinking about this at my own company, nobody is paid the same even with the same job title, except for when you are first hired. Every year we have reviews where you are given a raise based entirely on your performance in various metrics. I know for a fact I didn't give any of my employees exactly the same raise and it didn't look to me like any of them were making exactly the same pay already.
If we were to pay everyone exactly the same, then I can guarantee you it would quickly be used in favor of the co
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe there's a tendency to give raises to those who actively ask for them and don't passively wait for raises to just happen. I know for a fact that in my organization, if you wait for a raise, you will most likely not get it. Maybe one gender tends to wait rather than ask and the other does not. I must add that raises are not only performance-based. Given two people with equal skills, if one threatens to leave the company and the other does not, you will give a small raise
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea what Oracle does, other than make way more money than my company.
They have refined the art of suing people (governments, universities, utility companies, other corporations, etc) into having to use their shitty products. That's the entire business model.
But Oracle is only H1B visa workers? (Score:3)
Heard of the APA? (Score:2)
What about accounting for empathy/being nice? (Score:2)
It is known that women in part get less because they aren't as aggressive when negotiating their salaries.
But this is not just true for women, but for everyone who doesn't want to be aggressive. E.g. me.
And it isn't true for all women either. It's not like there are no aggressive women.
Also, some people are more sneaky in their aggression, so you cannot equate a lack of open or short-term aggression with no aggression.
This should be easily testable.
And from what I've read, makes up a large chunk of the dis
One fine day in the mirror universe... (Score:3)
In a lawsuit [PDF] filed Wednesday in a Washington DC district court, Big Red accuses the U.S. Department of Labor of "unprecedented overreach by an executive agency," and claims the agency doesn't have the authority to cut Oracle out of government contracts for its discriminatory practices or sue it for underpaying certain staff. With one hand holding the constitution and the other bashing its chest, the database giant warned perilously that "the rise of the modern administrative state has altered our government structure" but that it had "not undone our constitutional structure."
The folks at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have "created a coercive administrative enforcement and adjudicative regime" the lawsuit bellows
This is a "news" article. How odd a journalist is so pwned they mock freedoms they depend on to throw in with government.
Tech companies just move to China and Israel (Score:1)
Used Oracle products to process the data (Score:2)
Therefore, it can be shown that the data was provably correct, and thus cannot be used for punishment.
Oracle... (Score:2)
OFCCPLOL (Score:1)
Could it be (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever asks if the higher paid person is payed better because they do better.
Yes, yes they do. And they did. They looked at performance reviews, and thereby eliminated performance as a differentiating factor by using data produced by Oracle itself. All of which you would have known if you read the fine summary, let alone the article. Are ye daft?
Re:Let's illustrate this (Score:4, Interesting)