The title of this post seems a little inflammatory. The main story is the borderline-illegal heat she got from management for providing a forum to share salaries, and the difference in treatment regarding the peer bonuses, which may or may not have been "technically correct" according to internal Google rules.
The only comment relevant to the post title I could find was "pivot tables that did spreadsheet magic that highlighted not great things re: pay", and to go from that to "exposed company-wide pay inequity" seems like a bit of a leap. Absent any further details about what those things are, how is this not just speculation?
She's apparently never heard of sampling bias either. 5% of the company, self-selected? "Exposing company-wide inequity" is a dramatic leap. I was at Google at the time the sheet spread and I treated it as more of a curiosity than anything else (though I do think it was a cool idea).
Oh I agree. As I said, I found it rather cool. But perhaps when you have literally nothing else to go on, that's a signal that you shouldn't be using phrases as dramatic as "company-wide inequity".
The only comment relevant to the post title I could find was "pivot tables that did spreadsheet magic that highlighted not great things re: pay", and to go from that to "exposed company-wide pay inequity" seems like a bit of a leap. Absent any further details about what those things are, how is this not just speculation?