The Guardian reports:
James Finberg, the civil rights attorney working on the possible legal action on behalf of the female employees, told the Guardian they contend they have earned less than men at Google despite equal qualifications and comparable positions....
A class-action gender discrimination suit would build on a case brought by the US Department of Labor (DoL), which is arguing that Google systematically underpays women and recently convinced a judge to force the company to hand over a portion of the company’s salary records....
“[The prospective plaintiffs in the lawsuit] are concerned that women are channeled to levels and positions that pay less than men with similar education and experience,” Finberg said.... Several women he interviewed have said they make around $40,000 less than male colleagues doing the same work, with one woman saying she makes two-thirds of a male peer’s salary....
“I felt like I wasn’t playing the game in the ‘boys club’ environment,” said another woman who worked for two years as a user experience designer and recently left Google. She said she regularly dealt with sexist remarks, such as comments about her looks, and that she felt it was discriminatory when she was denied a promotion despite her achievements and large workload.
“I was watching male coworkers progress at a faster rate than myself. It was really disturbing,” said the designer, who also requested anonymity....
The women’s stories bolster the claims of labor department officials, who have said that a preliminary analysis found that women face “extreme” pay discrimination across the company and have recently raised concerns that Google’s strict confidentiality agreements are discouraging employees from speaking up.
I will repeat what I said in
a post yesterday about the firing of James Damore:
It's possible that what Damore talked about in his memo actually reflects what many people at Google privately think and are trying to hide and that he was treated harshly to manufacture evidence against a proposition that matters in the lawsuit.
I'd like to know a lot more, so I'll just throw out the hypothesis that Damore is being scapegoated not because Google is dominated by social-justice warriors but because there really is deeply entrenched prejudice against women in the tech field and Google is desperate to hide it.
पोस्ट्स
७५ टिप्पण्या:
Read the memo. It's mildly provocative, but nothing in that memo says anything the hack-D liar press are saying is says.
The memo
There may be something to this: if Google really valued 50% female rep in their engineer cadre they could have it at anytime. However I think they are both SJWs and sexists simulateneously. I don't think any moderate or conservative could tolerate that diversity froth for appearances only. Hypocrisy among the elite is hardly rare: eg Al Gore's carbon foot print is exhibit A.
oops
The Memo
Google fired the guy for pointing out wrong-think that happens to be correct. Google is not diverse.
Management could have virtue-signaled without routing the guy out and firing him.
but because there really is deeply entrenched prejudice against women in the tech field and Google is desperate to hide it.
Then why doesn't some woman stat a company, hire all those talented and discriminated against women, and clean up?
Where is the female Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Mark Cuban? Elon Musk Jeff Bezos?
To be fair to Google I threw the term sexist around too lightly, with little real evidence.
from link
"In an over-the-top attempt to prove that irony in Silicon Valley is officially dead, Google just fired one of its top scientists for writing an internal memo that criticized the tech giant for becoming an “ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.” VICE obtained a copy of the the memo and published it on Monday evening.
Rather than being a screed against women or minorities, as the media and their progressive allies have proclaimed, the internal memo from former Google scientist James Damore — entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” — encouraged Google employees to take account of their own biases as a means of reducing the so-called gender gap in tech employment. In fact, a major purpose of the memo was to brainstorm ideas about how to make Google a more friendly environment for women without resorting to explicit sex-based discrimination."
They seem to be making it up as they go. But painting imaginary Enemies of the People is not that easy a task. Why there is no good answer except Extreme Censorship of ALL MEN...it's for the women!
If Google openly admits to being sexist, it is sexist.
If Google denies being sexist, and institutes programs programs designed to explicitly discriminate in favor of women in hiring, it is sexist.
What do you think the chances of getting the job of being Google's director of diversity and inclusion is if you are a white male?
I get it, now.
Google's most damning act was exposing someone who imagined they were anonymous. Now eveyone who looks to their services must wonder if Google isn't playing Big Brother with it's customer base. They certainly have built the tools for a future tyranny and now they have demonstrated their desire to impose one.
"... despite equal qualifications and comparable positions..."
When positions are deemed "comparable" I wonder who is doing the comparing, and what they are basing it on.
Could it be that a Socially Woke Company handed out Titles to create the appearance of diversity and promotional opportunity in Management?
Could it be seen that some of these Titles may not be perceived as valuable as others, and this is made evident in pay?
From a comment I posted yesterday:
Places like Google need more women employees.
There are not enough women in the programming field.
Thus, hire women in the HR fields, where their education leads them.
So: more women in the workplace means more HR to talk about how more women are needed in the workplace.
The Moebius Strip of Workplace Diversity.
I am Laslo.
If women aren't biologically disadvantaged in the workplace, why are there targeted training sessions and mentoring for women as remedies to the disparity in the workforce?
If men are creating the disparity, it should be the men whose deficiencies are targeted while the women should be left alone to do their work.
For every six women who get an associates or bachelors degree, four men get an associates or a bachelors degree: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
The stat cuts across all racial and ethnic groups. It has to be due to "structural bias," especially a college atmosphere that is less welcoming to men than it is to women. Men simply are not taught to look at a college and say "Hey! That's a place for me!"
The government really needs to look into this. Quotas may be necessary.
No justice, no peace.
I expect Google is simply elitist and what may look like various "isms" is just plain snobbery.
Blogger Laslo Spatula said...
"... despite equal qualifications and comparable positions..."
Gee, I wonder why they didn't mention hours worked per year or years of experience?
I would be curious to see a study of commissioned sales compensation, and its gender breakdown. Exclude real estate. That has become dominated by women. My experience tells me, males are much more willing to take huge risks, relative to reward. Families need male, and Female guidance. Men bring a needed male perspective, that when absent, hurts the child. Same for families lacking female guidance. I know that my wife and I reinforced, and tempered each other, as is designed by nature.
Males, and females are different.
Quick anecdote. My son entered engineering. At orientation, both of us accompanied him. One program had all the engineers and parents in the same lecture hall. One more than half of the Freshman class were female. My son later told me that almost half were Valedictorians. Fast forward to graduation, females graduating represented 6% of the class.
Not because the women could not do the work, but because they did not like the work, they just don't get the same reward as the men in the field.
Men and women are different.
Like it says in the Constitution -
"To each, according to her needs."
Blogger Lewis Wetzel said...
Men simply are not taught to look at a college and say "Hey! That's a place for me!"
The government really needs to look into this. Quotas may be necessary.
No justice, no peace.
No Lewis. Leave the men alone. Many of them are out getting training and/or experience in skills that will earn them money. Not racking up tens of thousands of debt learning skills that, marginally, qualify them to ask "Do you want fries with that?"
Women do that. They do pursue college more than men but they also pursue useless degrees far more than men in college. xxx Studies, literature, social studies and the like. Not science, programming, engineering and such.
The greatest thing President Trump could do for education in the US would be to end the student loan program. Or, leave it in place so he doesn't get accused of being a heartless SOB but end the no bankruptcy provision. That would have the effect of ending student loans without much of the sturm and drang.
John Henry
We need more women in the Tech fields because they will be best suited for deciding what acts a sex robot will or won't do.
Then the male programmers will write that code.
I am Laslo.
Approximately 16% of computer sci graduates are women, so 84% are men (without getting into the pseudo genders). One would expect that Google would find equal percentages of highly qualified candidates in each subset resulting in 16% female/84% male in their workforce. They would need to hire the top 50% of females v. the top 10% of males if they wanted equal numbers of male/female programmers. As a result, 40% of the females would be inferior to the male hires. why would anyone, including the top 10% of female grads want that?
I would have thought many google employees had to negotiate their annual salary, could this be women not asking for enough during contract time?
And I agree with Lewis Wetzel in that they are leaving out a lot of info, as a few people pointed out yesterday, it is mostly males who put in the long hours at work and sacrifice their leisure or family time.
Laslo Spatula said...
When positions are deemed "comparable" I wonder who is doing the comparing, and what they are basing it on.
"Comparable" means "different".
Google, like all companies, attracted the best people when they started. These people built the company.
Then, like all companies, the non-owners got bored. These people cashed-out and started their own companies, or joined the next greatest thing.
Meanwhile, Google is now an entity, and they try to stay relevant by trying to hire the best, but these new-hires are not invested in the company. They are just "employee's".
When you end-up with a company of "employee's" it's a sewer. All they want is minimum hours and maximum wages and benefits. They don't care if the company succeeds. When Google gets sold off, like HP and thousands of other companies, these people will take their saddle and go sit on the next horse.
Fuck em. I'd fire 10 or 20 of them a day just to keep them hungry. Hell Google can get thousands of work visas for hungry European's, they don't need fat peasants.
i think it more likely in its race to "collect em all" in the minority stakes Google has ended up with a higher than rate of special hyper sensitive individuals and it is those sorts of people that see bias, misogyny and racism everywhere that are bringing the lawsuit. People that get treat someone using the wrong pronoun as if they were physically assaulted, a man getting a position instead of a woman is proof of the patriarchy etc etc.
It's a measure of the degeneration of our society that saying something as obviously true as men and wonen are different is somehow offensive.
Cameron,
I think you have a point: hiring a collection of special snowflakes is asking for a HR problem down the road.
Blogger John said...
. . .
No Lewis. Leave the men alone. Many of them are out getting training and/or experience in skills that will earn them money.
. . .
You are missing the point, John. Since the sexes are equal in every measure, any discrepancy between achievement can only, ever, be due to sexism, explicit or implicit.
Women, on average, live longer than men. That means that women are literally stealing years of life from men.
There can be no other explanation. According to this Vox article, https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo, to suggest otherwise is to endorse the eugenics program of Nazi Germany.
Etienne - Careful - Google might fire you for wrong-think.
Sadly - you just nailed much of the American attitude in the tech work-place.
The deeply entrenched prejudice against women sort of ignores that men like women working in tech, and no business would hire men if it could get women cheaper.
Twice over no motive.
The Jackie Robinson effect did not happen with women.
You let one black in the majors and very quickly there are lots of them. They can do the job.
With women in tech, no flood.
Last year's primary campaign had progressive technologically smart men who didn't have a lot of respect for women professionally.
They called them Bern Bros.
There is a total lack of women riding the back of garbage trucks in my neighborhood. This must be remedied.
Being adequate in a Tech related field requires a rather eclectic set of skills and attitudes.
First off, you have to enjoy solving problems and be able to do so. That requirement alone eliminates most of the population.
You then need to be at least one, preferably two deviations above average IQ. The average IQ for people majoring in Computer and Information Science is 124.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
And despite the howls of SJWs, it has been scientifically established that men or more likely to be represented on the left and right of the bell curve while women tend to cluster towards the center.
For this reason alone you are never going to get parity in Tech between men and women.
I remember reading an article awhile back. A woman who had been in the IT field for a couple of decades working as a programmer stated that when she told women who were new to the field that she had never experienced any discrimination the newer women would get angry with her.
Women get about 18% of CS degrees in the US.
Women make up about 20% of the Google workforce.
If it feels like a "boys club" due to the number of men...well, there's not a ton that can be done about that without intentionally hiring a vastly disproportionate number of women (vs. their share of CS grads).
I guess that's what's supposed to happen, but it'd be refreshing to hear that said out loud.
Of course you cannot say these things. That was made clear with the Larry Summers/Harvard thing a few years back.
I've worked on the periphery of tech for more than a few years now for a major firm (with developers especially)
The work itself is abstract, problem-solving, quite visual and logic based.
I can't think of a time in life where I've been around smarter people on average, nor a place that's more objectively fair in the true sense of the word. You either can or or can't do the work intellectually on some level. You either have the skill or learn it fast enough to stay afloat or move ahead.
I see plenty of women (smarter/with a better skill set than mine...from lesbians to girly girls) who do aspects of the work and move pretty high and who have a quite favorable work environment, but very few doing the hardest grinds, the most difficult builds, the real nuts and bolts of code/hardware (the kinds of people who write the book).
1. If you think in terms of individuals and skills not sex and irrelevant abstractions to the task at hand...this all falls away)
2. I haven't read the piece, but it would help explain much of what I've witnessed
3. These firms have to deal with politics and pay tribute to many interests who expect the firms to behave/appear in a certain manner....I consider the Cult Of Equality a big one, but not the only one.
The whole thing just makes me kind of sad.
I think you are dealing with this well: proceeding cautiously, clearing things up.
Google like any employer can control (or at least try to control) what employees say, both within the company and in public, if they are identified as Google employees. Even if, to take one hypothetical, Google were hiring strictly on "merit," and nevertheless ended up with a disproportionately male workforce where it counts (the brainiest jobs), it would make sense for any organization to deal with possible issues:
1. Is the workplace too much of an echo chamber with sexual stereotyping, etc.? Does this make it less likely that women will be hired on their merits, and does it encourage male employees to think they do well because they're male? If so, this might hasten the decline of bright young males into complacent old farts.
2. Shouldn't a company, perhaps especially a big company, reflect its customer base, surrounding society, and indeed political/legal imperatives? Google can be sued by the government, by individuals, or by groups of employees--it simply makes sense to minimize that risk, and it is good marketing to say: we are like you.
3. This blog dealt recently with the issue of "reasonable accommodation"--especially in the case of breast-feeding in the workplace. Any approach like this requires acknowledging something about biology, and possibly less obvious things about behaviour--not as an excuse to keep people out, but as a way of including people, and building a workforce that is diverse in relevant ways. Yes, politically relevant.
Cynics among us, of which I am one, will argue that Google's actions in this case are intended as a prophylactic for the threatened lawsuit. The defense goes something like this: they are doing everything they can to eliminate discrimination, including ridding themselves of employees that don't toe the diversity line.
Shouldn't a company, perhaps especially a big company, reflect its customer base, surrounding society, and indeed political/legal imperatives?
No. They should hire the most qualified people possible so as to create a superior product.
"James Finberg, the civil rights attorney working on the possible legal action on behalf of the female employees, told the Guardian they contend they have earned less than men at Google despite equal qualifications and comparable positions...."
------
Time to sell stock in Google then, if their managers are so stupid as to continue to hire men when they can get women to do the job for less pay.
Watching the left devour its own is all well and good but I would really like to see the government criminalize the storing, tracking, organizing, and monetizing personal information collected by such as Google and Facebook. They are way too powerful and have become a menace to our democratic institutions.
OK to put up an ad on a page, but the levels to which they collect and analyze data using your web activity including reading your searches and messages and those to whom you are linked should be an illegal invasion of privacy.
"Men and women are different" is an offensive opinion that will get you fired ...
Unless you're a transgendered man who claims to be a women and has a women's brain and temperment.
In which case, not embracing that difference is an offensive opinion that will get you fired ...
There seems to be some confusion between unfair labor practices against women versus the lack of women in science and engineering. I think the engineer was saying that the lack of women in science and engineering are due to their lack of technical acumen on the whole. History past and present plus college enrollments suggest that he is correct.
So the question to Ann is when you say in the "field" what do you mean. Unfair labor practices or the lack of women in science and engineering?
Transgender people require others to acknowledge they are a certain sex. Otherwise, being transgender is meaningless. But the goal of the people in favor of "transgender rights" believe that there is no difference between men and women. If being male or female means nothing about how you look, sound, behave, the clothes you wear, or your role in society, why would any person want to be the opposite sex? What would be the point? Transgenderism reinforces the notion that men and women have different interior lives and external appearances simply because they are male or female.
Google despite equal qualifications
Qualifications tell you zero about whether the job is an all-consuming passion or just something that keeps you away from what you like, like your kids.
The former tend to be male and the latter female.
If the strongest word their own attorney came up with is "comparable," then that's pretty weak.
The Google doodles are evidence of a SJW presence at Google. The idea that they aren't there and pulling some strings is absurd. A lawsuit for discrimination or wrong doing isn't evidence of discrimination or wrong doing.
"Where is the female Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Mark Cuban? Elon Musk Jeff Bezos?
Her name is Elizabeth Holmes.
The name of the company is Theranos.
It's a giant ball of fraud. But it had great PR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos
I'd like to know a lot more, so I'll just throw out the hypothesis that Damore is being scapegoated not because Google is dominated by social-justice warriors but because there really is deeply entrenched prejudice against women in the tech field and Google is desperate to hide it.
Maybe it's because the disparate impact theories used in antidiscrimination law are at odds with a reality in which different population groups have different incidences of certain traits and proclivities, whether for cultural or biological reasons. So Google has to silence anyone who might puncture the fantasy -- that would be extremely unhelpful with lawyers or juries.
If these women would put the time and effort into their jobs that they expend on whining about inequality, they might get somewhere.
To steal from Instapundit, why are left wing organizations [like Google] such cesspools of misogynism and sexism?
"there really is deeply entrenched prejudice against women in the tech field and Google is desperate to hide it."
Where are you imagining this "prejudice" to be located? In the policy documents that Google issues to its employees? In the brains of its hiring managers? Perhaps in the Computer Science textbooks its employees read to learn about doubly-linked lists and radix sorts?
As others have pointed out above, these guys are all desperate for talent. They are lobbying their senators to let them import talent. You really think they refuse to hire all those women because they have tits hanging off the fronts of them?
What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that after all the concern with diversity and getting beyond sexist stereotypes that Google claims to represent they would deliberately low ball women on their salaries. What kind of a dickhead does that?
I read the "memo" and thought he made very good points about freedom of expression, allowing for diversity of view points, recognizing that women and men have in general differing priorities, allowing for part time employment for those who want more life/work balance, etc. Weird that his rational and reasonable ideas were so threatening to Google.
Once again, my favorite exchange from Futurama has endless relevance.
Lrrr: "She is an unmarried human female struggling to succeed in a human male's world."
Zapp Brannigan: "Maybe that's just her excuse for being incompetent."
Women of Google. It needs an illustration.
Perhaps little nipples on the oo
She said she regularly dealt with sexist remarks, such as comments about her looks, and that she felt it was discriminatory when she was denied a promotion despite her achievements and large workload.
Boy, did that comment take me back. Way back in the day I had recruited a young woman as a team lead. She was good at her job, but when the firm instituted casual Fridays she came to work looking like she was fired from the cheapest brothel in town for dressing too sleazy. She was in her thirties and had two kids but had the figure of a woman much younger. I'm sure she worked hard to get that figure, but ... wearing tight sweaters and Capris so tight that it's obvious you don't have panties on is not how a first level supervisor should dress, even on casual Friday.
She worked hard, she had technical talent, she accomplished every task she had on her plate, but she was not treated as a peer by the other team leads, male or female. And she was bitter about it. When I tried to counsel her about her unprofessional attire I got threatened with an EEO complaint. Well, to heck with her. She eventually quit and I had to fill her slot with someone not as good, but that's project management and at least I could stop walking on eggshells.
I found out later that the senior women on the project had tried to talk to this young woman about her choice of attire on casual Fridays, but she tuned them right out, too. They were sympathetic to my situation, and I unknowingly picked up points with them.
Lloyd W. Robertson:
Your list here reads like preliminary discussion for "lawyer full employment" legislation.
Even if, to take one hypothetical, Google were hiring strictly on "merit," and nevertheless ended up with a disproportionately male workforce where it counts (the brainiest jobs), it would make sense for any organization to deal with possible issues:
1. Is the workplace too much of an echo chamber with sexual stereotyping, etc.? Does this make it less likely that women will be hired on their merits, and does it encourage male employees to think they do well because they're male? If so, this might hasten the decline of bright young males into complacent old farts.
Where's the evidence that any of this is true, or probable? That's the problem, Lloyd. "Possible issues" should be "issues to be discussed and debated". Instead, this sort of airy (and entirely one-sided) speculation has already hardened not only into dogma but into law, for chrissakes, where it has forced companies to channel resources into unproductive activity, courrpted hiring practices, advantaged established players over smaller companies and newcomes, and allowed the flourishing of a large class of grifters. Aside from massively increasing the "pain in the ass" aspects of employment for millions of workers.
2. Shouldn't a company, perhaps especially a big company, reflect its customer base, surrounding society, and indeed political/legal imperatives? Google can be sued by the government, by individuals, or by groups of employees--it simply makes sense to minimize that risk...
Yeah, Lloyd, that's the problem. "Nice company you got there." Resources and time that have to be poured into "mininmizing risk" of being sued by legal grifters are resources and time that can't be invested in producing what the company is there for in the first place.
You seem to be fine with accepting "mordita" as our standard for appropriate "risk management" in this country. (Which is OK, if remaining a First World society is not a priority.)
...and it is good marketing to say: we are like you.
Wut? I sure as hell don't want the people from whom I buy my smart phone to "be like me". I don't know how to make smart phones.
She said she regularly dealt with sexist remarks, such as comments about her looks, and that she felt it was discriminatory ...
I might add that one's most productive software developers are typically socially inept males. Make that very socially inept males. If this drives women away from the field, then the choice is firing your most productive software developers -- from a software house! -- or teaching the female buttercups how to cope. Google should not view itself as being so far out in front of any potential competitor that it can afford to lose its best technical talent as readily as it can afford to lose someone who is a "designer of the user experience."
rhhardin said...
"Women of Google. It needs an illustration."
I expect it will be a feature in next month's Playboy.
I have always believed that the worst position for a black or a female to endure in a career position is to be assumed to have been hired or promoted because of race or gender. That's why affirmative action has been so unfair, not just to white males, but to deserving minorities and women. Because there are incompetent people who have been hired or promoted due to these ill-conceived laws, it becomes harder for those who are competent to distinguish themselves.
Because there are incompetent people who have been hired or promoted due to these ill-conceived laws, it becomes harder for those who are competent to distinguish themselves.
How smart do you have to be to be a manager, is the tech guys' response.
You're either doing the regular work, in which case you're judged correctly, or you're a manager and assumed to be stupid.
Peer review.
Guys I know were promoted and quickly asked to be unpromoted. Who needs days of meetings about nothing.
Some research departments rotate the department head role, just so that everybody puts up with the ugly job some of the time.
A quick search of my company's internal "social network" for "damore" shows no results, and offers "damage" as a possible autocorrection for what I meant to look for. Heh
Conversely, my iPhone attempts to autocorrect "damore" as "admire". Double heh.
Re: Winkleheimer:
I remember reading an article awhile back. A woman who had been in the IT field for a couple of decades working as a programmer stated that when she told women who were new to the field that she had never experienced any discrimination the newer women would get angry with her.
I would guess the biggest barrier for women who otherwise might want to enter tech is that they would find it alienating being in a workplace that is so overwhelmingly male. There are some women who are fine with that (and some women who thrive with that), but -- as long as we're being stereotypical here -- I suspect that the average woman would find that alienating, even if everyone around her was a perfect gentleman, as opposed to an Asperger-y nerd. I'd guess that on the margin, there are probably some Black or Hispanic coders who would also feel a little uncomfortable working in an environment that was so overwhelmingly dominated by Asians and Whites.
But ultimately, as long as there's no barriers other than their own reluctance to be surrounded by the Other, I don't see that as a problem to be solved, really -- it's just a bit of a pity.
And on the overt sexual harassment side, I also wouldn't be surprised if men who have minimal female interaction approach the handful of women around them in inappropriate ways. So I'm not saying there's no harassment. There are plenty of stories about women being approached in flagrantly inappropriate ways at tech conferences after all. And I went to an engineering school: I can imagine many of my ah, "non-neurotypical" classmates behaving inappropriately.
I'm just saying that I don't think sexual harassment is the biggest obstacle here. I think the biggest obstacle is just that people don't like being isolated in a crowd of those they think of as the "Other."
Even so, Balfegor, big girls--Fearless Girls--should be able to handle these issues.
Of course they are. Free money after all.
The democrat party continues to teach me to only interact, hire, do commerce with my tribe.
The interviews that Breitbart is doing destroy this hypothesis:
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/rebels-of-google/
>I'd like to know a lot more, so I'll just throw out the hypothesis that Damore is being
>scapegoated not because Google is dominated by social-justice warriors but because
>there really is deeply entrenched prejudice against women in the tech field and Google
>is desperate to hide it.
Ann, you just lost a lot of credibility with me with that nutty hypothesis. I have a son working in the computer science field and a daughter working towards a doctorate in C.S. at U of I - Champaign-Urbana, both of whom would also, considering our email conversations about this whole thing, regard your hypothesis as incredibly uninformed. Perhaps you should consider this - rational - Christina Sommers post about the whole thing from a few years ago, linked to by Power Line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA
She was good at her job, but when the firm instituted casual Fridays she came to work looking like she was fired from the cheapest brothel in town for dressing too sleazy.
I'm here to tell you that the other women in the office, including pretty ones, will be the ones who will do the ripping her kishkes out.
There are many software out there but Activity management software &performance monitoring software are in high demand since it helps a lot in tracking the regular activities of the employees. Visit here smartmanager.com.qa
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा