|
|
|
|
|
by username90
1962 days ago
|
|
Apparently you can avoid this entirely just by letting low level managers negotiate compensation instead of having a general rule across the board like Google. Also apparently it helps to say that paying workers as little as possible (including paying women as little as possible) is a key aspect of your business. > 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... |
|
>there is no plausible mechanism for systemic discrimination by the alleged wrongdoers. Lower-level managers...
If the suit is about systematic bias, this seems to be a pretty good line of reasoning. Complete chaos in compensation outcomes == no bias, or at least if there is, it's probably not coming from the top down