I left the publishing industry in 1989 because women were simply not promoted at Time Inc. and the gender gap in pay and career opportunity was so vast. I witnessed women who were within a few years of full pension get "early retirement", women publicly mocked by mail executives, and pockets of department overlords (some of them women) discriminate against young women when hiring. When I moved to other magazines outside that corporation, the deal was the same. I left to work in a non-profit organization where, after a few years, it became obvious that the Director took credit for all my work and ran the place like his personal clun (and harem). Everywhere I went, the women worked harder, produced more, and got paid less; it's not just the number on the paycheck, you see, but what women actually contribute to the job that is at question, as well as how women are denied promotions, opportunity, mentorship and, ultimately, power. Women need this solidarity movement, not just to put men on warning, but to remind ourselves that we are not alone. May women start to have the courage to speak out against unfairness and misogyny whenever and wherever we experience it.
For jobs that are well defined and have obvious performance metrics, this makes sense. But many jobs are no longer that clearly define. There are significant difference in performance, and employee perks such as flexible hours.
In the case of less well defined positions, reporting averages is likely to make everyone in the category who is paid less than average unhappy. Typically, that will be most of the employees, since the average will be higher than the median. If the median is used, then about half may be unhappy.
Compensation in many cases depends on many factors, and separating the different factors is complex. Moreover, a change in reporting may cause undesirable compensatory effects.
President Obama's regulation to press companies to close pay gaps followed enlightened policies to promote fairness in the workplace that have worked in other countries. But Trump our accidental president, groper-in-chief has to roll it back as he can't abide by being bested by a better man. As I believe we're living in a time of accelerated karma--I'm sure we women will have our day.
The answer to all this is extremely simple. If the same folks are doing the exact same job...like a mailman, then the pay should be exactly the same throughout.
If the jobs are in any way different, then same pay for all does not fly.
If the jobs are in any way different, then same pay for all does not fly.
2
I do not know why ANY company or business hires men. All they want is to get married and have a family. That's why men need a big salary that will support them when the wife stays home to take care of the children. If they don't get it, they leave the job for a competitor.
Better to hire a woman. She will accept lower wages and return to work after a meager maternity leave. Her lower salary will pay for the child care she needs and she will stay in the same rut of a job.
Sheesh.
Better to hire a woman. She will accept lower wages and return to work after a meager maternity leave. Her lower salary will pay for the child care she needs and she will stay in the same rut of a job.
Sheesh.
1
If an employer can find a reason not to pay someone, anyone, they will. Unions could assist in closing the pay gap and a few other gaps but in America workers are not represented by unions and workers tend to believe that unions are bad. But unions are what got us vacations, 8 hour work days, breaks during the day, sick days, and even better pay scales.
As long as Americans are left to fend for themselves in the job market women will continue to be underpaid, older employees downsized because of their age, and employers will get away with as much lying and cheating as they can. It's that simple. As employees we need to be represented, to have our voices heard. It's our time and hard work that's being used to help keep the country running. We ought to be able to demand and receive a decent day's pay for a decent day's work along with the other benefits that employees take for granted in other, more civilized countries.
As long as Americans are left to fend for themselves in the job market women will continue to be underpaid, older employees downsized because of their age, and employers will get away with as much lying and cheating as they can. It's that simple. As employees we need to be represented, to have our voices heard. It's our time and hard work that's being used to help keep the country running. We ought to be able to demand and receive a decent day's pay for a decent day's work along with the other benefits that employees take for granted in other, more civilized countries.
5
There is a very good reason not to report this--it is because most people are not intelligent enough to understand that the vast majority of the difference between groups is fully justified.
There are many people who believe that women only earn 77 cents (or 82 cents per this article) per dollar that a man makes, not realizing that most of the difference is due to education, or hours worked, or the types of jobs that men and women prefer (quite often the jobs dominated by men are more dangerous--like deep sea fishermen).
Whenever I see someone like this, I always ask them: "If there is such a real difference, why hasn't a smart woman created a company that hired only other women, and taken advantage of the huge pay difference to either get wildly rich or drive all their competitors out of business?" I usually get complete silence in return.
There are many people who believe that women only earn 77 cents (or 82 cents per this article) per dollar that a man makes, not realizing that most of the difference is due to education, or hours worked, or the types of jobs that men and women prefer (quite often the jobs dominated by men are more dangerous--like deep sea fishermen).
Whenever I see someone like this, I always ask them: "If there is such a real difference, why hasn't a smart woman created a company that hired only other women, and taken advantage of the huge pay difference to either get wildly rich or drive all their competitors out of business?" I usually get complete silence in return.
4
The answer to the the questions you propose is sadly the same as that which prevents other "non-preferred groups" from making progress: It's called bias, unconscious and conscious. It exists throughout the economy from top to bottom and also in banking. You know, the place where they lend you money to start a business? We are beginning to see some online money raising for women's businesses, which goes around the banking bias but it can only do so much. It is not a complete response, maybe not even an adequate response.
7
Because hiring only women would be, like, illegal? Because this is America where we got rid of the idea of "separate but equal" during the Civil Rights era? Maybe your conversations partners are completely silent because they cannot believe that you really mean what you just said.
My mother fought for equal pay back in the '60s. Divorced, 4 little kids, no skills, but doing a job mostly male dominated. She was a service manager/writer for a auto dealership. She complained, response~the men make more because they have families to care for. Didn't matter she did too as our father was a loser. I was a good mechanic. I joined the AF, learned to be an aircraft electrician which paid me well after I was discharged. I worked with female engineers that were paid well also. I get that not many women are able to do those jobs, but there are some that can put them on the same pay level. Do physicians/nurses/veterinarians/lawyers make less if they are female? Does Ivanka earn less then her brothers? She is irrelevant to the cause of equal pay. Someone born into what she is does not have to be. Looking forward to the day she fades away along with her family.
6
Seems you are comparing data on individuals with averages?
As to avg discrepancies? Pay Asian men less and women more -- that achieves justice =:)
As to avg discrepancies? Pay Asian men less and women more -- that achieves justice =:)
1
This canard about the gender pay gap still persists despite many years of work that show it is an urban myth.
The Economist magazine reported on August 1 of this year with the assistance of Korn-Ferry on the wage levels of over EIGHT million men and women - guess what?
I'll let the headline speak for itself:
"Are women paid less than men for the same work?
When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears."
The data simply suggests that the main problem today is not unequal pay for equal work, but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations.
The Economist magazine reported on August 1 of this year with the assistance of Korn-Ferry on the wage levels of over EIGHT million men and women - guess what?
I'll let the headline speak for itself:
"Are women paid less than men for the same work?
When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears."
The data simply suggests that the main problem today is not unequal pay for equal work, but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations.
6
The classic manner in which government and other institutions have chosen not to address an issue is by making sure there is no data to support the fact that there is an issue.
We saw this when the EPA removed climate change data from the internet shortly after Trump was inaugurated.
I saw it years ago when my state stopped counting runaway, incorrigible and truant children, and then closed all the agencies developed to help them. I ran one of those agencies.
Now we are seeing it in the issue of gender and racial wage biases. Trump and his daughter Ivanka have paid lip-service to equal pay, but this decision, like others, makes it clear that this is a non-starter for them.
We saw this when the EPA removed climate change data from the internet shortly after Trump was inaugurated.
I saw it years ago when my state stopped counting runaway, incorrigible and truant children, and then closed all the agencies developed to help them. I ran one of those agencies.
Now we are seeing it in the issue of gender and racial wage biases. Trump and his daughter Ivanka have paid lip-service to equal pay, but this decision, like others, makes it clear that this is a non-starter for them.
11
I would be interested in the "math" behind the following assertions:
people who were paid below the median reported lower job satisfaction . . .people who earned above the median reported no higher job satisfaction
Seems to be a logical impossibility?
people who were paid below the median reported lower job satisfaction . . .people who earned above the median reported no higher job satisfaction
Seems to be a logical impossibility?
1
She meant that it was relative to the median wage. Below the median, less satisfaction than median wage workers. Above the median, no higher satisfaction than median wage workers.
The last few paragraphs are the most relevant. Pay transparency doesn't help anyone. City government that do it saw increased turnover. Moral suffers and motivation decreases. From my perspective most government workers trade off motivational work for stability - the government will always be in business. They are not necessarily poor workers -they value stability more and since pay is based on specific scales such as experience and education instead of job performance - motivation or innovation is typically lower - that is my experience interacting with the government. I wouldn't want businesses to become as lethargic as government. Don't impose additional regulations to stifle business. I met many well qualified women executives in business who did very well - without government regulations.
2
I'm not sure they would agree, but this seems like an example of where disclosure would provide a "nudge" to employers by making them at least think about it. There's no mandate to actually equalize pay, and the "burden" argument seems specious in light of all other reporting that employers are required to do. Seems like another case of Trump's employer bias and nihilism.
6
Let the market place decide. If a company is discriminating based on race or gender, then they are not making the best use of available workers and will become less competitive.
Currently, Asian men, on average, are choosing professions that the market has a stronger demand. Maybe what some of them choose to do or the efforts they make is unpalatable to most of the rest of us. Who knows.
Everything changes, in the future more Hispanic women may pursue more marketable careers. If more of them want to do that.
Or maybe just forget about the whole race thing anyway. Their is an increasing number of multi-racial folks anyway. (Actually, most of us are multi-racial).
And 95% of women will cohabit with a man sooner or later, pooling resources. So what is the point.
We are long past addressing "discrimination" and well along the road of "gaming the system"
Currently, Asian men, on average, are choosing professions that the market has a stronger demand. Maybe what some of them choose to do or the efforts they make is unpalatable to most of the rest of us. Who knows.
Everything changes, in the future more Hispanic women may pursue more marketable careers. If more of them want to do that.
Or maybe just forget about the whole race thing anyway. Their is an increasing number of multi-racial folks anyway. (Actually, most of us are multi-racial).
And 95% of women will cohabit with a man sooner or later, pooling resources. So what is the point.
We are long past addressing "discrimination" and well along the road of "gaming the system"
2
Noone decent would disagree with equal pay for equal work. Nevertheless, I believe the figure tossed out are deceiving and very subjective. To say that white men generally earn more than all others without much else, does not account for anything. There are so many variations based upon level of education, training, skill, what area of the country, danger involved in certain work; that fact that certain occupations are not attractive or popular to women, etc, etc. There are multiple factors and this cannot be approached simplistically. The only thing I think we can all agree is that workers should be paid equally for equal work.
2
Please reread the article again. It states that Asian men earn more than all others not that white men earn more. All comparisons use white men as the basis - why? because the media hates white men - so even though the article is biased by using the 2nd to top earning group as the basis - at least the NYTimes includes enough facts to show their bias. Most media omit these facts.
I don't think the media does but I do and I am one. I am sick and tired of the carping and whining from a group whose only complaint should be that the competition they now face is beating them and instead of buckling down to improve themselves they complain.
It should be a crime for employers to keep any records about race, creed, color, sex, age, etc. People should be judged by ability and character. Of course, it might make discrimination litigation a little harder to prove - and that would be a good thing. Plaintiffs should have to prove intentional discrimination not statistical variations.
7
they would just LOVE that--no accountability. Without that information, sir, how would you prove discrimination? You should re-think your comment and/or conclusions.
7
arztin: My concern is that statistical variations can lead to fear of litigation and that can lead to reverse discrimination (a/k/a affirmative action). Some jurisdictions prohibit discrimination against LGBT. Shall we keep and report data on sexual orientation? Is it fair to keep data on some protected classes but not others?
2
Your reasoning is extremely murky.
We could then see AS A CLASS the significant variation.
Stick to the subject--we are SPECIFICALLY addressing wage discrimination, which is very real.
Those classifications to which you object, must be drawn to come to a conclusion. Ever hear of statistics?
We could then see AS A CLASS the significant variation.
Stick to the subject--we are SPECIFICALLY addressing wage discrimination, which is very real.
Those classifications to which you object, must be drawn to come to a conclusion. Ever hear of statistics?
3
The article quotes widely reported earnings differentials that suggest a dramatic difference in pay based on race and gender. But, in the next sentence, the article adds the significant caveat that the pay gap shrinks, but is not eliminated, after controlling for hours worked, education, and industry, suggesting that the data is too broad to permit informed inferences. Regretably, the article does not supply the adjusted numbers leaving us uninformed about the extent of the underlying problem. The eliminated regulations might have provided data that would help answer the question about the extent of the actual pay gap. The "burden" on businesses to supply this data on forms the article tells us they are already submitting cannot be all that significant and understanding and eliminating the problem is worth whatever trivial "burden" we're talking about.
3
Paperwork? How many companies with more than 100 employees keep their Human Resources records on paper anymore? Responding to this would probably require a mid-level employee a few minutes to generate the results of a database search. Another barely disguised attempt to discriminate against women and minorities and protect white men against competition based on merit and achievement.
22
@Jon
I have experienced 100s of these "simple" data searches. It isn't the data search that is complicated -- it is the interpretation and then the investigations that the interpretation brings on. Next thing you know there is a Department of Equal Pay and 20 employees working on meeting -- and documenting compliance -- with a Federal Regulation. All. Totally. Useless.
I read recently that almost 800 ridiculous Obama era regulations -- like this one -- have been frozen or reversed by the current Administration. Libertarians across America are elated!!
I have experienced 100s of these "simple" data searches. It isn't the data search that is complicated -- it is the interpretation and then the investigations that the interpretation brings on. Next thing you know there is a Department of Equal Pay and 20 employees working on meeting -- and documenting compliance -- with a Federal Regulation. All. Totally. Useless.
I read recently that almost 800 ridiculous Obama era regulations -- like this one -- have been frozen or reversed by the current Administration. Libertarians across America are elated!!
3
There is only one way to address gender pay gap. That is to based income measurements according to family income. When income was a matter of family income, the husband worked for the main income, and the wife used that income according to the household needs because she knew best what the household needed. The wife many times held jobs to supplement the household income but only if it didn't interfere with the needs of the home. The total income did not belong to just one mate or the other--it belonged to the family unit.
1
Having retired after working in the computer industry since the 1970's, I never once wanted to know what anyone else was making at a job. My only concern was if the amount I was being offered was commensurate with the job I was being offered. If it was, I took the job; if it was not, i did not. The other men and women working around me seemed to have the same attitude.
Wage fairness is not a group thing, it is an individual one. Every worker is different and every job is different. The fair wage is a combination of these two differences.
Wage fairness is not a group thing, it is an individual one. Every worker is different and every job is different. The fair wage is a combination of these two differences.
3
Another glorious day for Libertarians – another dumb Obama rule gone!
There is essentially no evidence the proposed rule would do anything except add additional burdens to companies, thus decreasing their ability to service customers. We need a very high evidentiary standard before we impose any regulation that the benefit would outweigh the costs – and that evidence just does not exist for this propose rule.
The entire concept of pay discrimination based on gender is illogical. It must come from an ivory tower economist who has never had a real job. If they had, they would know that if an employer actually could hire a workforce that got paid less but delivered the same output, any rational employer would immediately hire that workforce. This is why companies move work to low cost countries. If there was a lower cost cadre of female employees, all work would go to them and men’s wages would have to come down to compete.
As someone who has worked in large companies for 20+ years, we benchmark wages across our industry based upon job roles and offer pay packages based upon those benchmarks. In 20+ years, I have never once seen a proposed hiring package that was on the lower end of market rate because of gender, race or anything else except highly relevant role related experience. And I can assure you that the myth that women negotiate wages less well than men is both insulting to women and absolutely inconsistent with my experience! If anything, it is the opposite!
There is essentially no evidence the proposed rule would do anything except add additional burdens to companies, thus decreasing their ability to service customers. We need a very high evidentiary standard before we impose any regulation that the benefit would outweigh the costs – and that evidence just does not exist for this propose rule.
The entire concept of pay discrimination based on gender is illogical. It must come from an ivory tower economist who has never had a real job. If they had, they would know that if an employer actually could hire a workforce that got paid less but delivered the same output, any rational employer would immediately hire that workforce. This is why companies move work to low cost countries. If there was a lower cost cadre of female employees, all work would go to them and men’s wages would have to come down to compete.
As someone who has worked in large companies for 20+ years, we benchmark wages across our industry based upon job roles and offer pay packages based upon those benchmarks. In 20+ years, I have never once seen a proposed hiring package that was on the lower end of market rate because of gender, race or anything else except highly relevant role related experience. And I can assure you that the myth that women negotiate wages less well than men is both insulting to women and absolutely inconsistent with my experience! If anything, it is the opposite!
9
Since you think your experience proves everything for all humankind, I think the same about mine. My story is that I was hired at five thousand less a year than a male colleague with nearly identical credentials to my own--except I had more years of experience--who was hired the same time in the same position with the same job title. If I hadn't gotten a new boss four years later who had a considerably more scrupulous attitude about pay equity, I would not have received the raise that brought my salary up to my colleague's; I would not even have known about the discrepancy. At the time I received my raise, no one made any bones about it: it was an obvious matter of pay discrimination on the basis of gender, and nothing would fix it but a raise for me. Your idealistic assumption that employers always hire the least expensive person they can get sidesteps all sorts of nuances about human behavior and perception, one of them being that most if not all of us are sexist to some degree--which is to say, we hold biased assumptions that we neglect to challenge about persons of different sexes, and women get the worst end of it--and that may well be so deeply ingrained in our habits that we aren't even conscious of it when we act in sexist ways. I have no idea if the man who hired me at lower pay even knew he did it. I know he doesn't think he's sexist; but sometimes our fondly held beliefs about our own virtues only conceal from us the truth about our flaws.
15
My guess would be that you were not working in an environment where you received an hourly wage. In professional environments it is often the more assertive individual who receives more compensation. It can be very subjective. It is more individual to the employee and there is an agreement between the employer and the employee that they will work for a certain amount. The fact that another was more assertive and drove a harder bargain is just part of the way things work. I am much more concerned with those workers on the lower rung who work for wages and have a hard time scraping by, than I am for salaried executive types who have more individual options and bargaining power. People in the upper stratosphere have many more options and can "sell" their talents and services elsewhere if they feel that they are worth more than they are being paid. Women are not necessarily paid less in these situations - sometimes they are paid more. For many executive positions it is purely a function of the bargain that is struck between the employer and the employee.
5
No, it was not for an hourly wage. I am a university professor and so was the male colleague--a profession in which "assertiveness" obviously doesn't mean the same thing as it does in business, nor should it. Nonetheless I was quite "assertive" about trying to get as much as I could in salary when I was hired, and I was told that I was being offered the maximum available for that position. Obviously that was untrue, and since the university in question was a public institution, that kind of dishonesty coming from a representative is particularly troubling.
It's interesting, though, that many men who hear this story come up with a way to tell me that this obvious bigotry is my fault. And then we all pretend to wonder why the pay gap stubbornly remains.
It's interesting, though, that many men who hear this story come up with a way to tell me that this obvious bigotry is my fault. And then we all pretend to wonder why the pay gap stubbornly remains.
5
Computers generally can make the Obama rule easy to do. Unless, a company can prove it is onerous or costly, providing stats. is usually a good thing to do.
Having said that, it can be abused on both sides. The right will not like the Obama rule because it brings up a fact of life about differences in pay between sexes and races.
Liberals will love the Obama rule because it will give them ammo to socially engineer the work force where everybody is 100% equal in pay whether they deserve it or not.
Bottom line, root out obvious sex or racial discrimination that can be proven by law and always be on alert for it.
However, don't socially engineer society to get total 100% equally whether deserved or not.
There is a fine line between the two.
Having said that, it can be abused on both sides. The right will not like the Obama rule because it brings up a fact of life about differences in pay between sexes and races.
Liberals will love the Obama rule because it will give them ammo to socially engineer the work force where everybody is 100% equal in pay whether they deserve it or not.
Bottom line, root out obvious sex or racial discrimination that can be proven by law and always be on alert for it.
However, don't socially engineer society to get total 100% equally whether deserved or not.
There is a fine line between the two.
5
This was government overreach. Probably the biggest failing of the Obama administration was its propensity for overregulation. (Not that I don't miss Barry ever day!)
3
How would pay transparency be achieved by another report from employers directly to a government agency? It wouldn't increase employees' knowledge of what they should be paid relative to other similarly-situated employees. That could easily be achieved immediately by employees ignoring their employers' pleas (or quasi-rules) to keep their earnings secret and instead reveal to each other what they get paid! I did this once with several other employees at another firm and it was eye-opening.
10
Equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963. Many women have filed suits alleging pay discrimination and won or received settlements. That average pay for women is still less than for men is due to the fact that proportionately more women work in less lucrative professions and proportionately fewer in more lucrative professions, that more women take time off from their careers, that women work fewer hours, and other factors that don't have anything to do with discrimination. The inference that any remaining difference is the result of discrimination is more of an assumption. In any event, if any person thinks they are underpaid, they can get online and in minutes see what pay is being offered for their line of work to someone with their skills and experience. Then, if they find they are getting shortchanged they can go to an employment practices lawyer and see if they have a case. They can also ask for a raise or get a new job in the open market. If you can't get a job with higher pay, msybe the market is saying you are not being discriminated against. Excessive reporting requirements in this area are unnecessary and inevitably add cost. The more government penalizes companies for hiring employees the more it promotes robotics and employees leasing and other alternatives that are not in the interest of workers.
4
Equal pay for equal work doesn't work, Mr. Mars, when employers pay what they want to whom they want.
Over the years, since the 1960's, I've worked in marketing, advertising, publishing, education, and even the film industry. Always on the professional level, and often as an executive. I've had to fight very hard to get the jobs -- too often a man was chosen for the spot I knew I was more qualified for. I have never taken time off for anything or anyone.
I always managed to find out what the guys who worked alongside of me were earning. Every one of them earned more than I. When I complained to the bosses, I was told I had no right to discuss salaries; and was told once that "he has a wife and children to support, you don't." "Bull," I said, and quit. And went to live in Spain, where equal pay for equal work did work.
You don't know what you're talking about, sir.
Over the years, since the 1960's, I've worked in marketing, advertising, publishing, education, and even the film industry. Always on the professional level, and often as an executive. I've had to fight very hard to get the jobs -- too often a man was chosen for the spot I knew I was more qualified for. I have never taken time off for anything or anyone.
I always managed to find out what the guys who worked alongside of me were earning. Every one of them earned more than I. When I complained to the bosses, I was told I had no right to discuss salaries; and was told once that "he has a wife and children to support, you don't." "Bull," I said, and quit. And went to live in Spain, where equal pay for equal work did work.
You don't know what you're talking about, sir.
16
Re: "Equal pay for equal work doesn't work, Mr. Mars, when employers pay what they want to whom they want."
If they can ignore the law with women, they can do so with men.
You imply employers are greedy. So why don't employers hire only women if, as you imply, employers get away with paying females less?
Please see:
"Salary Secrecy — Discrimination Against Women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/salary-secrecy-discrimina...
If they can ignore the law with women, they can do so with men.
You imply employers are greedy. So why don't employers hire only women if, as you imply, employers get away with paying females less?
Please see:
"Salary Secrecy — Discrimination Against Women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/salary-secrecy-discrimina...
2
I know many men who fought for positions they wanted and were passed by. They too felt they were better qualified. You found a position you were qualified for and took it. Employers who hire the best qualified regardless of sex, gender, or race will do best. Making more regulations will not fix things. As a manager in tech industries for 18 years - I never heard anyone's family (spouse or children) discussed when discussing pay.
1
Why does anyone fund research to study whether one, small incremental policy change, such as transparency regs? Research centers are happy to take this money to do "more research is needed" studies, when the people who "quit and the people who experience "low morale" are responding rationally to unfair pay gaps. I'm happy these people have other options and can move on. Who doesn't do that? Why is that worth studying? All it does is slow down progress.
1
Because if you try to study a topic with multiple changes it's not possible to untangle which changes may be related to cause and effect. It is particularly difficult when you can't control the change itself and you must design a correlational study suggesting causation.
There is no "progress" if the wrong factors are identified which is why formal research methods are used.
Ledbetter didn't know she was paid unfailrly in relation to men for 19 years. Pay discrimination is pretty much ubiquitous, but since you can't prove it without access to data you can't take it to court. Small studies are one way to test for promising theories about cause and effect before sinking substantial money into larger studies - in other words it saves money. A large proportion of basic research is done in universities by graduate students who may have stipends on a level with what one would get paid at a fast-food restaurant - but much of their work is not funded.
There is no "progress" if the wrong factors are identified which is why formal research methods are used.
Ledbetter didn't know she was paid unfailrly in relation to men for 19 years. Pay discrimination is pretty much ubiquitous, but since you can't prove it without access to data you can't take it to court. Small studies are one way to test for promising theories about cause and effect before sinking substantial money into larger studies - in other words it saves money. A large proportion of basic research is done in universities by graduate students who may have stipends on a level with what one would get paid at a fast-food restaurant - but much of their work is not funded.
9
Any company that sees this type of reporting as a "burden" needs to hire better programmers and/or analysts. This should be a simple query to pull data from the payroll file and format it in a report. It's about a one hour task to write and maybe another hour to program. Run time would be measured in seconds. I've been retired for ten years but given the payroll file format, I could write the query in less than an hour.
This notion of "burden" says a lot about the quality and security of a company's computer systems. If something this simple is a burden, customers should pay cash, and shareholders should dump their stock. You are dealing with a company that is decades behind the competition.
One other note, the lack of this type of payroll information means a company's accounting department is failing to perform analytics on departmental expenses.
(disclaimer: I am a retired DoD senior financial systems analyst. We produced these types of reports for HQ and Congress constantly, usually with in 15 minutes to a half hour.)
This notion of "burden" says a lot about the quality and security of a company's computer systems. If something this simple is a burden, customers should pay cash, and shareholders should dump their stock. You are dealing with a company that is decades behind the competition.
One other note, the lack of this type of payroll information means a company's accounting department is failing to perform analytics on departmental expenses.
(disclaimer: I am a retired DoD senior financial systems analyst. We produced these types of reports for HQ and Congress constantly, usually with in 15 minutes to a half hour.)
17
Anthony - I'll go you one better. In a friendly administration I'm sure somebody could come up with an easily shareable program that could be used for what you suggest. "Here, use this, and you shouldn't have any problems."
Of course, we'll never have such thinking in this current administration.
Of course, we'll never have such thinking in this current administration.
3
LOL - former DOD person wants to add government regulations to private industry. We did it so can they. It is an extra burden - it isn't like businesses have programmers and analysts that could do it -it is that if the programmers are spending their time collecting and analyzing these statistics that is time they are not doing something that could increase revenue or profit for the company. Yes - why should a company spend its resources analyzing the race, sex, gender of every employee - it is a waste of time and it needs to be properly secured. Managers where I worked had no access to gender/race/sex/address of employees who worked for them - yet they had influence on the employer pay.
1
I'm pretty sure a company would only need to gather this information once per employee and request yearly updates. Race doesn't change much from year to year. Sex could change, as could addresses. Gathering this information and matching it with payroll hardly count as excessive burdens. The point is...the data is important. Proactively avoiding a lawsuit is worth the time and money it takes.
4
We need strong unions for blue and white collar workers. Companies have every advantage. There is no security, no pensions, no raises, and pay inequity. We see the tech giants of the 21st century are following the the same lame lane as the tech giants of the 20th century. Now the best scam - unlimited vacation is actually a pay-back to the company.
6
Strong unions exist for the union leaders - not for the union members. Unions are merely blue collar nepotism.
On the contrary, I have heard several interviews now from the UK where women feel encouraged by the new law even if it is in the aggregate. It's giving companies a bit of wiggle room to clean up their act now before the truth comes out more in full force as it would when such information is no longer so kept under wraps.
Yet one more reason to hate the trump administration as lying liars who look out for themselves exclusively.
Yet one more reason to hate the trump administration as lying liars who look out for themselves exclusively.
30
Workers have never been - 'given' - any benefits because they were powerless to negotiate with Management . Until, they fought, and even died, to form Labor Unions and became - equal - with Management power . Organized Labor gave America the 40 hour work week, elimination of child labor, safe work places, living wages, overtime pay, cost of living increases (COLA), health/life insurance, job security, job training, paid vacations, pensions, ad infinitum . About 30 years ago the Reagan Administration supporters, beginning with the PATCO (Air Controllers) strike, did everything possible to diminish their - only - countervailing force, Organized Labor, and they succeeded . If American Labor is to realize the America Way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for themselves and their families they - must - reconstitute the negotiating power of Organized Labor . How are - you - doing in the Work Force - all by yourself !!??
27
Allowing labor to be equal to capital must be recognized as the tilt toward communism that it is. Marx wrote that they were equals simply because one cannot exist without the other.
1
Labour unions have nothing at all to do with communism. If it had not been for the organization of unions in the 19th century, workers would still be suffering under inhumane conditions, because who would be so naive as to believe that companies and other employers are so humane as to improve the conditions of their workers? All of the good achievements we have for workers and employees have their roots in labour unions. I'm not a communist, but I say that if employeres will not fulfil their duties towards their eomployees, they have to be forced to do so.
8
Not so good. Massive layoffs are a wonderful way to shed expensive older workers before they become more costly (pay plus health insurance plus retiree benefits). Then repost the vacated positions but add a couple of tweaks so that you can say these aren't the same jobs and prevent your ex-employees from being rehired.
It's quite a poke in the eye to watch a company that wants loyalty dump people right before full retirement - and you can't prove a thing.
It's quite a poke in the eye to watch a company that wants loyalty dump people right before full retirement - and you can't prove a thing.
4
Women have been underpaid and that means a lower standard of living. The lower pay adds up year after year. A three percent raise is twice as high for someone making twice as much - and that compounded year after year. Social security is also based on wages. Merit pay often indicates that an employee laughs at the boss's jokes, roots for the same teams or plays golf. Time to reform and modernize.
30
"A study by economists at Princeton and the University of California, Berkeley, found that people who were paid below the median reported lower job satisfaction and were more likely to look for new jobs, and that people who earned above the median reported no higher job satisfaction."
This isn't really about job satisfaction. This is about equity, standard of living, and what happens to non-white and non-men in the long run once they retire. Paying women or minorities less means lower savings, lower pensions (if one exists), and lower social security. It also means less opportunity to buy a home, less money for education for themselves and their children, and fewer opportunities for leisure activities in museums, the arts, and vacations.
Did that study parse out whether the higher job change rate was due to finding out they were underpaid compared to their coworkers? Or was it a valid difference?
This isn't really about job satisfaction. This is about equity, standard of living, and what happens to non-white and non-men in the long run once they retire. Paying women or minorities less means lower savings, lower pensions (if one exists), and lower social security. It also means less opportunity to buy a home, less money for education for themselves and their children, and fewer opportunities for leisure activities in museums, the arts, and vacations.
Did that study parse out whether the higher job change rate was due to finding out they were underpaid compared to their coworkers? Or was it a valid difference?
16
It can turn coworkers into competitors—and not in a good way.
3
Pay gaps are because of sexual discrimination. Every company knows the scale they pay by. Women do not get the same respect men do in the workplace in equivalent circumstances.
20
The simplest motivation is this: if you can't see the problem, you can't fix it.
27
No surprises here. History has proven people & corporations will not do the right thing unless forced to do so under the threat of law, or being faced with punishment for their wrongdoing.
15
Everyone knows that companies pay as little as possible, just enough to keep their good employees from leaving. So if women really did more work for less money than men, then employers would be reluctant to hire men, and use women instead. That does not seem to be the case.
6
Wrong! Women are outnumbering men across the board so that now the workforce reflects pretty closely the approximate percentage of total population--except in top ranking jobs which have actually gotten a bit worse since the Great Recession. It's been well documented in many news stories in these pages. In other words, women aren't promoted and are kept in less desirable positions where the work men don't want to do is dumped onto her position. Then the job is under paid not compensating her because the work is so lowly respected rather than relieving the lazy louts who can get out of it being grateful for it.
So not, there is abundant evidence that employers hire women in lieu of men.
So not, there is abundant evidence that employers hire women in lieu of men.
9
Your logic is inconsistent with the hypothesis, which is that women get paid less to do the same job. if that were true, Jonathan is correct that there would be no men in those same jobs.
Do you think women managers are paying their male employees more than their female employees?
Do you think women managers are paying their male employees more than their female employees?
4