throwawaaay

Right - I'm not saying Google is sexist. I think they try very hard not to be.

But, if the end result is that a man and a woman doing the exact same job with the same perf ratings at Google are paid differently, because the woman happened to be paid less at her previous job - is that fair?

There is a reason that NYC just outlawed companies asking for salary history.

My take is that Google isn't doing this intentionally - in fact, all salaries are generated by a "compensation team" which supposedly has an algorithm that generates an offer based on prior comp history, other offers, etc - and I believe it probably also specifies how much wiggle room there is for negotiating (granted, I have not seen said algorithm - this is based on my experience as a candidate). It's a system designed to be fair - gender is not taken directly into the equation. This is what Google means when they say that there is no gender pay gap - how could there be, when salaries are generated by an algorithm that doesn't take gender into account? A man and a woman with an equal compensation history and the same counter offers should, in theory, get the same Google offer.

However - it's entirely possible for the inputs into the algorithm to be skewed based on gender, and that's where I think the systematic gap may appear. A person's salary history can be incredibly gendered - women are less likely to negotiate for their first job (even if it wasn't at Google), and that initial gap can follow them for their entire career. Women are more likely to take time out of the workforce to care for family/children, which can result in lower pay when they return. Other companies known for high counteroffers (for example, Uber) may be biased against women and be less likely to give them a good offer. There are any number of reasons why a woman might have less negotiating leverage against Google than a man, and as long as offers are based on these inputs and not strictly on level and performance, it is easy to see how a gender gap might arise.