More than 60 women 'consider suing Google in class action lawsuit, claiming [tr]

UK Daily Mail ^ | August 9, 2017 | Emily Crane

[C19fan]

More than 60 women are considering suing Google for alleged sexism, claiming female employees are being paid less than men despite having the same qualifications. The potential class action lawsuit from current and former Google employees comes as the tech giant continues to manage the fallout after a male engineer's 10-page memo became a viral phenomenon.

[T-Bird45]

Appreciate both of your replies and both spoke plainly to the matters at hand for both Google and broader business, too, IMO. One thing you overlooked, and most would step around like a land mine, is the basic biology of the situation: women are the source of the next generation. In coding terms, that’s because the function is right there in the source code and trying to avoid that detail is the same as trying to use code that’s not fit to the job. Their drive, as you discuss in your second post, is not that of competitive men and is always going to return to the biological imperative, i.e. creation of new life.

Some are able to integrate this into work life very well, others less well. Sometimes the work life is not even adaptable to the biological imperative. No matter how much we wish it to be all altruistic and even-steven for all, it just isn’t meant to be.

[DiogenesLamp]

All of our systems people are men as are our DBA’s. They are usually more highly paid than applications programmers. Application Programmers here are about 30% female.

Nature has decreed that men must compete for women, and over time men have developed abilities that help them win competitions, among them strength and intelligence. (Not always in equal measures.)

Women inherit these traits too, but they are less necessary for their successful passing of their genes, and so they are not necessarily conserved to the same degree as they are in males.

This is another fight between Liberals and Nature, and Liberals may win in the short run, but Nature is going to win in the long run.

[Lorianne]

Well said.
I have similar experiences in a different field.

It all comes down to how indispensable you can make yourself. The more they can not do without you ... or cannot do as well without you, the better off you are and the more negotiating power you have.

And of course you have to have the self awareness to know your own worth (or lack thereof).

I’ve been in situations were I was indispensable, others when I was somewhat indispensable and others where I was not indispensable at all (anyone else could have done as well or better than me) ... and I knew the difference.

You play to your strengths and make sure everyone knows what they are.

Of course there is still some discrimination out there but it seems a lot of women just want points for being women.

[Lorianne]

Tell me about it.

Among people with my exact same ‘qualifications’ there is a wide difference in ability and talent ... and drive.

But this is true in an all male work environment as well.

[aquila48]

“I was at a Fortune 500 company where candidates who negotiated well got wonderful salaries. Candidates who didn’t got some really low salaries by taking the first offer.”

And does that quality also make you a better performer?

[Moltke]

Having the “same qualifications” (i.e., pieces of paper) does not equal “same performance.”

[Moltke]

Ah, I should’ve scrolled down a bit before posting myself...

[w1andsodidwe]

Yes indispensability goes a long way, and so does availablity. I worked for a company who product you probably have in your kitchen cupboard. The President of the company would not let anyone but me touch his laptop and he often called me on the weekends if he had a problem or question. I always took his call as it only took a few minutes of my time, so why not.