Kudos to Mike Swift of the Mercury News for his important article about how Google “says the race and gender of its workforce is a trade secret that cannot be released.”
- Google and four other Silicon Valley companies opposed the paper’s FOIA request for summary equal employment opportunity data, while most other companies like Cisco, Intel, and eBay complied.
This raises some relevant questions for Google.
- Why does Google oppose discrimination on the Internet, but apparently does not oppose discrimination in its workplace?
- Why does Google support more public access to government information for its search engine, but oppose’s public access to government information on the race and gender makeup of Google’s workforce?
- Why does Google support FCC-mandated transparency for ISP network management practices, but opposes voluntary transparency for Google’s human resource management practices?
- Does Google’s vaunted hiring process provide equal employment opportunity to African Americans and Hispanic Americans?
- How does keeping Google’s EEO record secret square with Google’s vaunted committment to openness described in the recent Google post: “The Meaning of Open.”
- Does Google support open hiring systems?
- Why is Google open to discussing its workforce systems with Fortune for its feature “Best Companies to work for” but is closed to discussing its workforce systems relating to Google being an equal opportunity employer?
- Is employment discrimination somehow part of Google’s secret business strategy given that it cannot be disclosed for competitive reasons?
In sum, this latest Google episode, which highlights Google’s double standards, is also a quintessential example of why Google needs to be more transparent and accountable and why I created and publish www.GoogleMonitor.com to help accomplish that task.