Support NeoGAF

JGS · Jul 3, 2010

Big Baybee said:
I understand what they are trying to do, but this is kind of fucked up in an ironic sort of way. I don't know.

I get the same vibe but it's all good.

It's like they jumped on board George Bush's program to promote marriage.

If all you living in sinners were married, you wouldn't have the tax- SO GET MARRIED!

They then feel sorry for the ones that can't get married because marriage is just so doggone awesome (& cheaper), so they pay them more out of pity.

The thing I'm not sure about is why start it now (EDIT- nvm I thought this was for a future tax), but Google can do what they want and I imagine everyone is pretty well compensated. It's a lot of HR juggling though.

Pikelet said:
Why do we have tax breaks for people that are married in the first place? Removing that would limit any discrimination.

Because marriage is awesome!

The government will not acknowledge a non-marital relationship until there is something like a domestic partner law passed. The focus on gay marriage, while completely understandable, slowed down getting that stop gap measure until gay marriage is accepted/allowed. I'm assuming it will be worth the wait.

Google could of course pay the difference (Some companies do) on all non-marrieds, but choose not to which is their right.

GoldenEye 007 · Jul 3, 2010

Battersea Power Station said:
Hmm... along those lines:

Google has the lawyers to turn this into a constitutional issue, and can probably get it taken to the Supreme Court, where they might make some landmark decision, hopefully the right way. That would be cool.

I would be highly intrigued by such an action.

Escape Goat · Jul 3, 2010

"Oh, thats not my wife. Thats just my fag hag. yeah, I'm totally gay. I love the cock. Honest!"

Gaborn · Jul 3, 2010

I think this pretty much makes my case that "civil unions" and similar institutions created specifically to exclude gay couples from marriage are a form of institutional inequality.

It's also worth noting that as a private company Google should be fully allowed to pay it's employees however it wishes, if an employee is unhappy with this arrangement they're free to quit.

methos75 · Jul 3, 2010

Gaborn said:
I think this pretty much makes my case that "civil unions" and similar institutions created specifically to exclude gay couples from marriage are a form of institutional inequality.

It's also worth noting that as a private company Google should be fully allowed to pay it's employees however it wishes, if an employee is unhappy with this arrangement they're free to quit.

Your right, but there are laws in place that disallow unequal pay such as this, easy fix would be too extend the pay too singles also who are hurt by this. Granted this would be a easy fix if the federal government would step in and fix this whole domestic union issue. Funny is that I can see many praising Google for this, let AZ gets no praise for pretty much doing the samething with its Immigration bill.

RiskyChris · Jul 3, 2010

catfish said:
yes, it's their job to fix immoral bullshit, if they want, because they are richer than god.

;_; but companies are supposed to be in the business of being as morally repugnant as possible at the behest of its shareholders!

Fugu · Jul 3, 2010

Google wouldn't have any reason to descriminate against its employees if the government wasn't discriminating against them. I'm certain that Google employs this with the same weight that it does a married couple; the reason that straight people aren't allotted the same option is because the intent is to compensate for those who would be married, not those who are in a non-married relationship. Compensating straight people in a non-married relationship would be equal but completely arbitrary.

shintoki · Jul 3, 2010

Don't really know how I feel about this. I love the fact a company is actually doing more to fix the bullshit a gay couple has to go through than our government.

Yet, this is the same type of bullshit affirmative action is, where they are giving you the benefit for the wrong reason.

Gaborn · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
Your right, but there are laws in place that disallow unequal pay such as this, easy fix would be too extend the pay too singles also who are hurt by this. Granted this would be a easy fix if the federal government would step in and fix this whole domestic union issue. Funny is that I can see many praising Google for this, let AZ gets no praise for pretty much doing the samething with its Immigration bill.

but not unequal discriminatory laws against giving benefits to one type of relationship over another? Things like THIS are why people resent the laws in place in the first instance, they're designed for the benefit of one group over another, this is just trying to level the playing field.

Jex · Jul 3, 2010

The world is filled with inequalities.

When a national law benefits one group, but excludes another group without good reason, obviously that's problematic.

In a perfect world, the government would alter it's unfair laws so that all groups would be treated better.

However, when that can't or won't happen, I don't see why a company can't try to re-balance things.

Good on them.

An imperfect solution for an imperfect system.

The Technomancer · Jul 3, 2010

Are the people who are talking about heterosexual domestic partnerships seriously basically saying "well they should just get married if they think its unfair"? Um, chances are if they're in a long term domestic partnership they probably have a reason for not getting married yet. Your argument is founded on the premise that every gay couple in a domestic partnership would get married immediately if they could. For Google to be fair, they either have to extend it to all domestic partnerships, hetero or homo, or else Google has to interview every one of these gay couples and get them to swear that they would get married if they could. Those that would still stay in a DP even if gay marriage was legal don't get the pay benefit.

And that second option is quite obviously ludicrous.

GregLombardi · Jul 3, 2010

Pikelet said:
Why do we have tax breaks for people that are married in the first place? Removing that would limit any discrimination.

Its been shown that economically it is more efficient and better for society for people to couple up a some level.

Edit: Wow lots of controversy in this thread. Anyone that thinks that companies operate equally needs to take a look at the payroll of any company on the planet for similar positions.

Gaborn · Jul 3, 2010

The_Technomancer said:
Are the people who are talking about heterosexual domestic partnerships seriously basically saying "well they should just get married if they think its unfair"? Um, chances are if they're in a long term domestic partnership they probably have a reason for not getting married yet. For your argument to hold any water, then Google has to interview every one of these gay couples and get them to swear that they would get married if they could. Those that would still stay in a DP even if gay marriage was legal don't get the pay benefit.

This is a great move on Google's part, but it really needs to be extended to all partnerships.

The thing is that Google seems to be doing this as a form of protest against the idea that gay couples are excluded from federal recognition for their marriage no matter what. Heterosexual couples CHOOSE whether to get married or not. EVERYONE has a reason to get married or not get married, but only gay couples have a legal prohibition from doing so. (excluding underaged couples of course). Well, and couples that are already married but then they can't enter into a domestic partnership anyway.

methos75 · Jul 3, 2010

Gaborn said:
but not unequal discriminatory laws against giving benefits to one type of relationship over another? Things like THIS are why people resent the laws in place in the first instance, they're designed for the benefit of one group over another, this is just trying to level the playing field.

Oh I agree 100% with you, its just that sadly the laws are skewed against Gay paternerships getting equal treatment, much as rthere are against unequal pay. The point is as I stated that morally Google is in the right here, but sadly legally they are in the wrong and this could backfire. I understand the issue, but if Google wants too fix it they have too make it look as if they are not favoring one group over another, are they are open too lawsuits.

The Technomancer · Jul 3, 2010

Gaborn said:
The thing is that Google seems to be doing this as a form of protest against the idea that gay couples are excluded from federal recognition for their marriage no matter what. Heterosexual couples CHOOSE whether to get married or not. EVERYONE has a reason to get married or not get married, but only gay couples have a legal prohibition from doing so. (excluding underaged couples of course). Well, and couples that are already married but then they can't enter into a domestic partnership anyway.

Mhm, I don't totally disagree with you. Its a great symbolic move on Googles part. I edited to better reflect what I was trying to get across.

RiskyChris · Jul 3, 2010

Gaborn said:
The thing is that Google seems to be doing this as a form of protest against the idea that gay couples are excluded from federal recognition for their marriage no matter what. Heterosexual couples CHOOSE whether to get married or not. EVERYONE has a reason to get married or not get married, but only gay couples have a legal prohibition from doing so. (excluding underaged couples of course). Well, and couples that are already married but then they can't enter into a domestic partnership anyway.

If only people would get this indignant about institutional US discrimination as when the shoe is on the other foot.

Fugu · Jul 3, 2010

The_Technomancer said:
Are the people who are talking about heterosexual domestic partnerships seriously basically saying "well they should just get married if they think its unfair"? Um, chances are if they're in a long term domestic partnership they probably have a reason for not getting married yet. Your argument is founded on the premise that every gay couple in a domestic partnership would get married immediately if they could. For Google to be fair, they either have to extend it to all domestic partnerships, hetero or homo, or else Google has to interview every one of these gay couples and get them to swear that they would get married if they could. Those that would still stay in a DP even if gay marriage was legal don't get the pay benefit.

And that second option is quite obviously ludicrous.

Their two options, barring the legality and/or absurdity of others, are this:
1. They indiscriminately pay employees. This helps no one, hurts no one.
2. They pay gay employees in a relationship committed enough that would cause the employee to follow through. Though it is discrimination, it hurts no one and helps those disallowed marriage by law. It helps more people than it intends to, but nobody's getting hurt here.

JGS · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
Your right, but there are laws in place that disallow unequal pay such as this, easy fix would be too extend the pay too singles also who are hurt by this. Granted this would be a easy fix if the federal government would step in and fix this whole domestic union issue. Funny is that I can see many praising Google for this, let AZ gets no praise for pretty much doing the samething with its Immigration bill.

This might be a little different as companies pay on the back end different rates on benefits based on the employee age, gender, health, position, etc.. all the time. This is an extention of that to me just involving orientation.

It's just funny how it also unintentionally(?) backs a pro marriage stance

Stridone · Jul 3, 2010

Gaborn said:
The thing is that Google seems to be doing this as a form of protest against the idea that gay couples are excluded from federal recognition for their marriage no matter what. Heterosexual couples CHOOSE whether to get married or not. EVERYONE has a reason to get married or not get married, but only gay couples have a legal prohibition from doing so. (excluding underaged couples of course). Well, and couples that are already married but then they can't enter into a domestic partnership anyway.

I agree. Google is a truly a great, morally aware company and I hope it stays that way. As a heterosexual I complete approve of this measurement. Funny how alot of people will be angrier about this than about the federal religion-based discrimination gays have to endure every day...

Flying_Phoenix · Jul 3, 2010

Gaborn said:
The thing is that Google seems to be doing this as a form of protest against the idea that gay couples are excluded from federal recognition for their marriage no matter what. Heterosexual couples CHOOSE whether to get married or not. EVERYONE has a reason to get married or not get married, but only gay couples have a legal prohibition from doing so. (excluding underaged couples of course). Well, and couples that are already married but then they can't enter into a domestic partnership anyway.

This is why I love Google. I'm completely heterosexual but I absolutely love this idea. It's funny to see when a certain group of people doesn't get benefits for multiple things and the majority go "Well that's the way it is!" or "It's not that big of an issue." but when one tiny thing happens in vice-versa it's "HOLY SHIT NO NO NO STOP THIS NOW THIS ISN'T FAIR!" nearly no matter the situation.

Stridone said:
I agree. Google is a truly a great, morally aware company and I hope it stays that way.

I'm still surprised that they pulled out of China in manufacturing and went into Hong Kong because of working conditions (they don't like the idea of sweatshops).

It's part of the reason that's making me choose Android for my future tablet. Love this company.

Deleted member 30609 · Jul 3, 2010

Flying_Phoenix said:
It's funny to see when a certain group of people doesn't get benefits for multiple things and the majority go "Well that's the way it is!" or "It's not that big of an issue." but when one tiny thing happens in vice-versa it's "HOLY SHIT NO NO NO STOP THIS NOW THIS ISN'T FAIR!" nearly no matter the situation.

You know, I hadn't thought about it like that. But yeah, well said.

Fugu · Jul 3, 2010

The straight white male has it so hard these days.

methos75 · Jul 3, 2010

Fugu said:
The straight white male has it so hard these days.

Technically it really is starting too lok that way, its almost a liability these days. I am glad that though I look white, I am hispanic so I get leeway.

RiskyChris · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
Technically it really is starting too lok that way, its almost a liability these days. I am glad that though I look white, I am hispanic so I get leeway.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Edit: :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

edit2: still lollin

-PXG- · Jul 3, 2010

Burger said:
Don't use the word 'reverse' when talking about discrimination, or racism etc.

It's either discrimination, or not. Even when it's against a majority of people.

Thank you

JGS · Jul 3, 2010

Stridone said:
I agree. Google is a truly a great, morally aware company and I hope it stays that way. As a heterosexual I complete approve of this measurement. Funny how alot of people will be angrier about this than about the federal religion-based discrimination gays have to endure every day...

Theyre not discriminated against largely because of religion which is largely bending over backwards to recruit them (Outside of fundamentalists).

Federally, they're discriminated against because, they are not a priority for politicians of either camp, but largely they are discriminated against because they're gay (Just like racial prejudice) which is more than enough of a reason for some.

I guess religion teaches heterosexuality as the norm but that's a bit of a stretch.

NotWii · Jul 3, 2010

Do they pay more to people who have kids?
Seems only fair...

Why should 1 gay man get more than 1 straight man who has to raise a kid?

Deleted member 30609 · Jul 3, 2010

JGS said:
I guess religion teaches heterosexuality as the norm but that's a bit of a stretch.

I'm gay, and yes, even to me that is a pretty much the atomic-wedgie of stretches.

Fugu · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
Technically it really is starting too lok that way, its almost a liability these days. I am glad that though I look white, I am hispanic so I get leeway.

What?

Inequalities like this pay difference exist solely because of inequalities in other places (in this case, the government). Affirmative action is only a function of the government because corporations can't be relied upon to do it themselves due to an extremely long history of discrimination.
It may seem like the man is getting you down but the fact is, it is unlikely that there has ever been a group less discriminated against than the white male. The white male has no glass ceiling, no negative prejudices (unless maybe you say g a lot and ride around in a '95 Sunfire with a giant subwoofer), and no lack of representation in the government. There are no opportunities closed off to the white man.

JGS said:
I guess religion teaches heterosexuality as the norm but that's a bit of a stretch.

I would argue that virtually every major religion teaches heterosexuality as the norm.

Gaborn · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
Technically it really is starting too lok that way, its almost a liability these days. I am glad that though I look white, I am hispanic so I get leeway.

Ummmmmmmmmm... let's go with "no."

krypt0nian · Jul 3, 2010

Without this policy:

Gay couples pay the tax with no way out. (no legal marriage)

With this policy:

Straight couples pay this tax, with a way out. (legal marriage)

So no it's not equitable, but it's far more fair in that with the policy, at least straight couples have an option, choose it or not.

Stridone · Jul 3, 2010

JGS said:
Theyre not discriminated against largely because of religion which is largely bending over backwards to recruit them (Outside of fundamentalists).

Federally, they're discriminated against because, they are not a priority for politicians of either camp, but largely they are discriminated against because they're gay (Just like racial prejudice) which is more than enough of a reason for some.

I guess religion teaches heterosexuality as the norm but that's a bit of a stretch.

You can't really deny the Abrahamic religions are the basis for gay discrimination. It wasn't even an issue back in the Greek and Roman times.

Count Dookkake · Jul 3, 2010

:lol at people getting butthurt over this.

RiskyChris · Jul 3, 2010

Wii said:
Do they pay more to people who have kids?
Seems only fair...

Why should 1 gay man get more than 1 straight man who has to raise a kid?

Because there are more protections in society for the straight male than queers. Google is doing the right thing.

All this crying about fairness is only going to highlight the institutional discrimination in US policy.

krypt0nian · Jul 3, 2010

Count Dookkake said:
:lol at people getting butthurt over this.

Especially the man putting the poor white straight guys down. :lol

Fight the powah!

Erebus · Jul 3, 2010

Great, now I love Google even more!

methos75 · Jul 3, 2010

RiskyChris said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Edit: :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

edit2: still lollin

You laugh, but look at the facts here. There is a concentrated effort these days too blame all social ills and issues on that demographics, and there is a very involved push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold. Just look at any political board nytime any issue is brought up, 80% of them will probably try too find some way too blame Whilte males on what ever social ill it may be, which is both unfair because it places all in that demogrphic into an unfair catergory and it reeks of rascism.

RiskyChris · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
You laugh, but look at the facts here. There is a concentrated effort these days too blame all social ills and issues on that demographics, and there is a very involved push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold. Just look at any political board nytime any issue is brought up, 80% of them will probably try too find some way too blame Whilte males on what ever social ill it may be, which is both unfair because it places all in that demogrphic into an unfair catergory and it reeks of rascism.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

:lol

Fugu · Jul 3, 2010

Wii said:
Do they pay more to people who have kids?
Seems only fair...

Why should 1 gay man get more than 1 straight man who has to raise a kid?

He shouldn't, at least not by default.

However, the government has explicitly denied a right specifically to gay people to receive a tax break that directly inhibits the effectiveness of equal pay for equal work. In other words, the government has forced Google to pay its gay employees more unduly (if it wants both straight and gay employees to be treated equally) due to the discriminatory nature of its laws.

While marriage is a unique institution and it certainly be recognized as such, its only relevance in the context of a pay stub is that of a tax break. It is a tax break explicitly being denied to gay people. Google is merely compensating for this.

The organization to get mad at here is the government, not Google.

Dali · Jul 3, 2010

Count Dookkake said:
:lol at people getting butthurt over this.

:lol

One of your better ones.

PhoncipleBone · Jul 3, 2010

Um, RiskyChris, I would change that derogatory slang term in your post a few posts up to say "homosexuals" instead. Just an FYI.

As for the whole issue, it is great that Google is doing something about the issue, but the problem is that there is an issue to fix in the first place. Perhaps in another twenty years this kind of problem will not exist.

krypt0nian · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
You laugh, but look at the facts here. There is a concentrated effort these days too blame all social ills and issues on that demographics, and there is a very involved push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold. Just look at any political board nytime any issue is brought up, 80% of them will probably try too find some way too blame Whilte males on what ever social ill it may be, which is both unfair because it places all in that demogrphic into an unfair catergory and it reeks of rascism.

Perhaps you should march on Washington?

Count Dookkake · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
You laugh, but look at the facts here. There is a concentrated effort these days too blame all social ills and issues on that demographics, and there is a very involved push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold. Just look at any political board nytime any issue is brought up, 80% of them will probably try too find some way too blame Whilte males on what ever social ill it may be, which is both unfair because it places all in that demogrphic into an unfair catergory and it reeks of rascism.

No one has blamed me for shit.

No more tears.

RiskyChris · Jul 3, 2010

PhoncipleBone said:
Um, RiskyChris, I would change that derogatory slang term in your post a few posts up to say "homosexuals" instead. Just an FYI.

It's not derogatory though. It's in a thread title on this forum for Chrissakes.

Fugu · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
You laugh, but look at the facts here. There is a concentrated effort these days too blame all social ills and issues on that demographics, and there is a very involved push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold. Just look at any political board nytime any issue is brought up, 80% of them will probably try too find some way too blame Whilte males on what ever social ill it may be, which is both unfair because it places all in that demogrphic into an unfair catergory and it reeks of rascism.

How many white congressmen are there? How many non-white?

Visualante · Jul 3, 2010

Wonder if they'll do the same for the UK. Didn't the conservative government plan tax breaks for heterosexual married families instead of accepted civil partnerships?

Gaborn · Jul 3, 2010

methos75 said:
You laugh, but look at the facts here. There is a concentrated effort these days too blame all social ills and issues on that demographics, and there is a very involved push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold. Just look at any political board nytime any issue is brought up, 80% of them will probably try too find some way too blame Whilte males on what ever social ill it may be, which is both unfair because it places all in that demogrphic into an unfair catergory and it reeks of rascism.

Please tell me you're not serious.

The perception that there is a "push to diminish all pull this demographic may hold" is based on... what? Larger representation of women in the work force? Larger numbers of credible black candidates running for and winning public offices? If any group has "pull" based on essentially nothing then it's a pretty hard thing to makea case that another group acquiring pull is a bad thing. Seriously, what group that has apparently acquired this "pull" from straight white males doesn't deserve it?

White males are also the largest demographic in the US, so they typically have the largest representation in any social ill AND any social positive anywhere you look. That's what comes with being the largest demographic.

PhoncipleBone · Jul 3, 2010

RiskyChris said:
It's not derogatory though. It's in a thread title on this forum for Chrissakes.

But not this one. And it is easily derogatory in the way it was used.

RiskyChris said:
Because there are more protections in society for the straight male than queers

Perhaps I am the only one that finds it derogatory.

Zzoram · Jul 3, 2010

I bet the amount of money we're talking about is pretty small anyways, it's only supposed to cover the tax paid on health insurance.

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole idea. I guess if it gets people talking about gay marriage and how homosexuals are not able to get all the legal benefits of marriage, maybe it'll motivate more people to try to fix the problem.

Personally I think government should rename legal marriages to "civil unions", allow homosexuals to do it, and marriage should be a word that loses all legal standing and is used only in a religious context.

If religious people believe marriage is a union under their god, they can call it such, but the government should not be in the business of legally stamping religious unions.

JGS · Jul 3, 2010

Stridone said:
You can't really deny the Abrahamic religions are the basis for gay discrimination. It wasn't even an issue back in the Greek and Roman times.

Well, sure Abrahamic religions think homosexuality is wrong per scriptural source, but that's not what's being written into the laws banning gay marriage (they aren't being discriminated against otherwise on a legal basis) since that wouldn't be constitutional.

I wrote about this a ton in the gay marriage thread, but rather than blaming religion, it would be more conducive to coax out a secular reason why out of the more liberal parts of the political establishment. I'm still amazed at the number of people that think Obama is for gay marriage.

The reason for discrimination is much simpler. In fact, it's probably the basis for the Abrahamic religions. Many heterosexuals are grossed out by homosexuality regardless of how religious they are.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece (& I'm not a scholar admittedly) was common but not in terms of marriage was it?

For the record before I'm branded a Dittohead, I can see no secular reason why gay marriage isn't legal, I'm just saying that no religious reason has been given as the reason for the law banning it.

Support NeoGAF

Google pays US gay and lesbian staff more than heterosexual employees

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

sparkle this bitch

Member

Member

card-carrying scientician

Member

Member

Banned

card-carrying scientician

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Similar threads