# The Kamala Harris thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** kamala-harris\ **Created:** [October 20, 2018, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236 "2018-10-20T03:08:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2019, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/341 "2019-05-21T02:25:45Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Then why aren’t you being promoted to supervisor, if you are the teacher of the less experienced? > > But what you are describing is higher performance, which should get you a bit more on the payband. Not because your years of experience or degrees. Because they have only so many slots for management. Senior staff are normally asked to train new employees, happened nearly every place I have worked. How do you judge “higher performance”? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2019, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/342 "2019-05-21T10:59:55Z")
Leave behind for a second if this is good or practical policy, and there is lots to unpack there with the “work of equal value” bit and much more, is it (inclusive of her promise to “use the president’s executive authority to force companies competing for federal contracts worth $500,000 or more to obtain the certification” assuming that Congress does not pass it) a likely effective campaign issue, in either the general or the primaries? I don’t think it will gain her significantly more woman voter support and across the board gets potential supporters to think of her a less strong general election candidate. It’s her ploy for attention, to show that Warren isn’t the only one _with ideas_ … but Warren’s ideas at least are of the economic populist sort that have potential to resonate in a general election broadly. I read it as a sign of how badly her campaign has failed to take off. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2019, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/343 "2019-05-21T21:07:09Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > No one wants to discuss her proposal to fine companies that pay men more than women? > [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-harris/kamala-harris-proposes-equal-pay-measure-to-close-gender-gap-idUSKCN1SQ0YH?il=0](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-harris/kamala-harris-proposes-equal-pay-measure-to-close-gender-gap-idUSKCN1SQ0YH?il=0) This proposal reminds me of the Google gender discrimination case a couple years ago [where](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-hit-gender-pay-discrimination-lawsuit-n801396) > [@](#): > > “Google has discriminated and continues to discriminate against its female employees by systemically paying them lower compensation than Google pays male employees performing substantially similar work, under similar working conditions,” the complaint reads. Google refused to give the government the information it needed to make a fair determination if there was a bias. Google would stall or give information that was not on point. Harris may be trying to solve this problem by making Google’s actions illegal. I can imagine this happening in lots of other companies, but I don’t know how easy it would be to prove. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/344 "2019-05-22T04:38:07Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > … > > Google refused to give the government the information it needed to make a fair determination if there was a bias. Google would stall or give information that was not on point. > … That wasnt in the article and Google cant refuse a summons. Of all places, Google isnt the problem. But even so, those cases wouldnt be solved by Harris law. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/345 "2019-05-22T13:39:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In my understanding, the data suggests that the entirety of the pay gap is probably not due to gender bias, but parts of it still may be. Further, the gap may be influenced by things that are not directly “gender bias”, but are still related concepts – for example, if relatively few women choose a certain lucrative education or industry path because they discover that this path generally treats women poorly, then this could negatively affect their salaries, even if it’s not directly due to bias by their employer. > [@DrDeth](#): > > I concur. Most of the gender gap isnt due to gender bias, but as long as it is "same pay for same job with same qualifications’ I am good with that. I mean, we had a woman complaining she was getting paid less than me for example (she was half kidding, she didnt file a real complaint) until I pointed out I had 10 years a a higher degree than her. My current client is French; they are required by a recent law to prepare and publish that kind of report, splitting the data several different ways. The internal email publishing the report indicated (paraphrasing from memory) that “while there are several axes where our situation is good, two provided unexpectedly bad results” and talked about further work being planned in order to analyze where the unexpected differences came from and if anything can-and-should be done about them. One of the things that surprised the people preparing the report is the extent to which certain jobs were gendered: for some jobs it was no surprise, for others it was. While it is possible that there is really nothing much to do, without the legal requirement they would just have continued working under the assumption that “all is good in the most perfect of employers” rather than have actual information. Note that this is in a country where collective bargaining is the default. The unions are one of the groups that are interested in the results of such a study, as it points out possible points of improvement. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/346 "2019-05-22T13:52:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That wasnt in the article and Google cant refuse a summons. > > Of all places, Google isnt the problem. But even so, those cases wouldnt be solved by Harris law. [Google Refused to Give Feds Sex Discrimination Data](https://www.reportfocusnews.com/tech-news/google-refused-give-feds-sex-discrimination-data/) > [@](#): > > The Department of Labor sued Google in January when the company initially resisted to release data on its wages as requested by a standard audit that applies to all government contractors. The audit reviews employee information to measure corporate compliance with anti-discrimination laws. > > The government originally asked Google to provide job history, salary history, and contact information for employees at Google’s headquarters in 2015. Over the next year, Google released portions of the requested data. > > The data showed “systemic disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” testified Janette Whipper, regional director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the watchdog arm of the Department of Labor. From the Reuters article on Harris’ proposal: > [@](#): > > U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, one of two dozen Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination, on Monday proposed closing the gender pay gap by requiring companies to disclose pay data and secure an “equal pay certification” or be fined. By shifting the burden of proof, the government wouldn’t have to sue companies to provide salary data. Google provided the data in forms that was difficult to sort and find meaningful information. This proposal would require the companies to provide meaningful data without the government having to expend resources to get it. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/347 "2019-05-22T14:22:38Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Google provided the data in forms that was difficult to sort and find meaningful information. Yet they were still able to confidently proclaim that “systemic disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce” 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/348 "2019-05-22T14:31:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That wasnt in the article and Google cant refuse a summons. Or what? What happens if Google defies a summons? Will Google be put in jail? :dubious: Google can do any ddamned thing it wants and no one can or will stop them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/349 "2019-05-22T14:44:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Or what? What happens if Google defies a summons? Will Google be put in jail? :dubious: > > Google can do any ddamned thing it wants and no one can or will stop them. Google carries a lot of weight but losing the ability to work on government contracts hurts even them. I doubt Google wanted to drop Huawei from its Android family. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/350 "2019-05-22T15:28:32Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > [Google Refused to Give Feds Sex Discrimination Data](https://www.reportfocusnews.com/tech-news/google-refused-give-feds-sex-discrimination-data/) > > By shifting the burden of proof, the government wouldn’t have to sue companies to provide salary data. Google provided the data in forms that was difficult to sort and find meaningful information. This proposal would require the companies to provide meaningful data without the government having to expend resources to get it. That’s not refusing that’s requesting a summons to protect themselves. You dont hand over sensitive data without a court order. Yeah, that means sensitive data is there for the asking. No thanks. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/351 "2019-05-22T15:30:02Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Or what? What happens if Google defies a summons? Will Google be put in jail? :dubious: > > Google can do any ddamned thing it wants and no one can or will stop them. A judge could assign a billion dollars a day fine. The officers can be sent to jail. But they didnt refuse a summons. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/352 "2019-05-22T17:53:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s not refusing that’s requesting a summons to protect themselves. You dont hand over sensitive data without a court order. > > Yeah, that means sensitive data is there for the asking. No thanks. OK. Then Kamala Harris’ proposal might provide the legislative incentive for companies to provide the salary data which would otherwise require a court order. You’re making the case for why the proposal might be warranted. According to you, companies don’t want to give sensitive data if they’re not required. (I’m not convinced that’s true.) This proposal creates a requirement. I didn’t post that Google refused a summons. I posted that Google refused to give the government information. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Google refused to give the government the information it needed to make a fair determination if there was a bias. Google would stall or give information that was not on point. The only person talking about a summons is you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/353 "2019-05-22T18:15:20Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > OK. … > > I didn’t post that Google refused a summons. I posted that Google refused to give the government information… And rightfully so. You just seem anti-Google. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236/354 "2019-05-22T18:38:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And rightfully so. You just seem anti-Google. I posted an article that had similar circumstances to the linked article that someone recently posted about Harris proposal. The company in the article that had circumstances similar to Harris’ proposal happened to be Google. I didn’t post about my feelings or thoughts about Google in this thread one way or the other. The topic of the discussion is Harris’ proposal, not my feelings about Google. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kamala-harris-thread/823236.md?page=17)