======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
Something is rotten in the state of Goldman, and it isn’t the ludicrously expensive caviar one of the execs left in the decadently furnished break room fridge. The company, currently on the receiving end of the class-action scorn of its female employees, is apparently not so good with the gender equality. No one is surprised.
In the suit brought by former VP Christina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich, a former associate, the company has allegedly created a “boys club” atmosphere that discriminates against and denigrates women. The VP’s account of the institutional issues even includes her being personally sexually assaulted after a co-worker’s promotion party at a topless bar. The shining beacon of a company embracing corporate responsibility there.
Beyond behavioral issues, pay for women is 21% lower and about 23% less women get promoted to manager director positions from VP. Basically, Goldman is trying to run their company like this is the 1950s, and it’s finally coming back to bite them in the ass. Have the guys running the show never had a girlfriend or wife? The last thing you do is piss off a woman, especially in an industry that attracts driven, type-A, no bullshit professional women. They will find a way to get justice, as this suit is now proving very clearly.
Goldman could be in some deep shit here. Class action suits are expensive, and if they have to pay it, it could be to the tune of millions upon millions, especially if they violated the rights of their workers and overlooked some really sketchy illegal behavior on the part of their male employees. It’s like they’ve never even heard that saying “Hell hath no fury like a woman who can’t break through the glass ceiling.”
[via Reuters]
Respond
Jack Quesinberry
Recent graduate from the University of Maryland working in the biotech industry. I like to spend my weekends in DC ensuring my future political career will be one filled with a number of great scandals and equally great Sunday brunches. My alter ego is Whiskey Ginger.
@JQwhiskeyginger
To be fair, GS shits on male employees too. Kind of the Banking culture.
Managing director*
Women paid less because they ask for less upon hiring and won’t take the risk to leave the firm when they aren’t being paid enough. Fewer promotions? Probably because they aren’t as gung-ho and won’t leave the firm when they don’t receive that promotion. U of Marlyand grad bound to oversimplify the problem. And by the way, Goldman can spare the millions in court.
I suppose one asshole has to white knight discrimination and sexual assault. Step up and claim your prize, Jewishboy.
Can’t figure out that I was refuting your point on discrimmination rather than “white knighting” it? Sterling is right anyways, banker culture is not welcoming – they aren’t saving the fucking manatees.
And thanks. I would claim my prize if I had one. Glad I am level headed I won’t succumb to progressive arguments that too heavily sympathize with a minority. We dont live in an idealistic sand box guys.
And generalizations shouldn’t be too foreign to this site anyways. Remeber the recent video posted of the comedian generalizing bridesmaids and all the lists generalization the work force? C’mon guys. Anyways, there will always be people who do not conform to arguments but that is no reason not to acknowledge a majority.
Anyways, U of Maryland is a shit school. Is it even top 50? hahaha
The difference being that those articles are jokes written by comedians for a post-grad comedy website. Do you really not see how implying that women are paid less because women are less assertive is completely offensive or are you being deliberately obtuse?
And you can lay off the U of Maryland jokes (as if anyone cares where you went to school once you’ve graduated), your insecurities are showing.
Nobody cares – that’s why he put it in his bio right? You must not work in corporate America.
Whether used for comedy or not, generalizations are often accurate. Do they encompass everyone or everything? No. They can easily be correct for the majority though. The real purpose of my argument is that there are bigger factors at play here than simply one person is the opposite sex and therefore deserves less pay. And yeah of course I can see how it could be offensive, but the sooner women/men acknowledge strengths and weaknesses in the sexes, the sooner they can overcome obstacles and create the equality so needed in our society.
I mean do you really refuse to recognize differences in the sexes? That men have more testosterone and that leads to a more assertive attitude? Do you really believe that the only 1 factor between the differing salaries is sex? I’m ready to acknowledge that sex does play a part but it’s definitely not the only factor.
Your “that’s how it is so why bother trying to change it” argument shows your school of choice did a shit job of educating you on the finer points of being a contributing adult.
And, If you must know because of your massive collegiate insecurity complex, We are. Especially for biology.
You’re actually ranked #62 by U.S. News. Nice try tho – you STILL go to a bad school. Nobody cares about your biology program if you can’t even land a job in “the biotech industry” that pays enough for you to quit your journalism gig. And don’t tell me it’s a hobby. Your short article wreaks of “I’m trying to quickly make another 100 bucks for bar cash on the 4th”
And certainly not. The system definitely needs change but I don’t think government needs to step in and regulate wages. I think people need to acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses and work to improve them to be on equal playing fields. Once that occurs, sexism will stop altogether because the sexes will be equal.
Damn, Jewish boy is going to Bethlehem on that Ginger.
Let me know how changing human biology works for you.
Come on Josh, cut him some slack. I mean, its not like he’s blaming the individual for being victim to a way of thinking that’s 6000 years in the making. Oh, wait…
Yeah because it could never be the individuals fault – unless it’s your side of the argument, in which case individuals decide to pay other individuals less because of their sex. The way of thinking will change when women stop blaming “the man” and take responsibility and out perform their counterparts.
Don’t need to change biology – just change mindsets.
…and graduate of wherever you went to school bound to make up generalizations about women in the workforce.
Goldman Sachs is a puppet of the federal government. Or is it the other way around? I don’t know. But what I do know is the federal government, and those closest to it, are above punishment and accountability. This suit is going nowhere.