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”?
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.
This proposal reminds me of the Google gender discrimination case a couple years ago where
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.
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.
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.
Google Refused to Give Feds Sex Discrimination Data
From the Reuters article on Harris’ proposal:
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.
Yet they were still able to confidently proclaim that “systemic disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce” 
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.
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.
A judge could assign a billion dollars a day fine. The officers can be sent to jail.
But they didnt refuse a summons.
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.
The only person talking about a summons is you.
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.