Microsoft Improves Efforts To Offer Equal Pay For Equal Work To Its Employees (windowscentral.com) 201
An anonymous reader writes: One day before National Equal Pay Day, Microsoft has provided a new update on its efforts to provide equal pay for equal work for all of its employees. Kathleen Hogan, Microsoft's Executive Vice-President for Human Resources, wrote in a blog post: "Today, for every $1 earned by men, our female employees in the U.S. earn 99.8 cents at the same job title and level. Racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. combined earn $1.004 for every $1 earned by their Caucasian counterparts. Breaking it down even further, African American/black employees are at $1.003; Hispanic/Latino(a) employees are at 99.9 cents; and Asian employees are at $1.006 for every $1 earned by Caucasian employees at the same job title and level, respectively." Hogan said she is "encouraged by these results" and that Microsoft will continue to monitor the data and publicly disclose it as part of Microsoft's annual public diversity and inclusion information and data reporting. "Our announcement today is another step forward along the path of greater diversity and inclusion progress at Microsoft, and in society as a whole. Along with our industry peers, the mission of landing intentional, enduring and impactful diversity and inclusion initiatives is one will we continue to pursue vigilantly."
Well done! (Score:5, Funny)
Two things /. users love! The pursuit of social equality and Microsoft!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pursuit being the word. Their average employee age statistics were notably absent despite claims they've made in the past about addressing ageism in their hiring practices.
Re: (Score:2)
addressing ageism in their hiring practices.
I demand that companies hire engineers that refuse to learn CAD, switch board operators, buggy whip makers and blacksmiths!
If there's any common thread I've found among people that can't find jobs and claim it's because of ageism it's that they never kept their resume current. They're the guys that in their 20s were sufficient for getting the job done and never picked up any 'new tricks' into their 50s.
The guys that always spent a bit of their time learning the new stuff, they've had no problems getting job
Re: (Score:2)
Co-workers that I say "Hey, this way is new, faster and better. It's been vetted and is going to reduce our error". And they insist on doing it the 'old way'.
It's the engineers that insisted on hand drafting when CAD was being rolled out. You can only stick in the past for so long before you're just dead weight doing work that most people stopped doing decades ago.
Because in a field where layoffs are routine, you're not going to see the old people with up-to-date skills who didn't get hired at because of their age.
"Old People" with up to date skills are worth their weight in gold. People are known to retire and then come back part time because they're that
Re: (Score:2)
Stop insulting the generation that invented that about which the "new guys" sit in class and listen to lectures.
Because buggy whip manufactures were in very high demand while the automobile was rolling around.
Re: Well done! (Score:2)
Early automobiles certainly benefited from existing wheel engineering and shock absorbers. And there's a reason why horsepower is called that way.
Re: (Score:2)
End this crap (Score:2, Insightful)
Equality in pay for the same job and the same hours is already the law. In fact it has been repeatedly proven that women make more money in the same job as men when they work the same hours and have the same backgrounds.
Can we please stop perpetuating this bullshit about how everyone should be paid the same as everyone else, no matter what the job is. People need to pay attention to the source of this propaganda. Hint: The people pushing this crap down don't put their own money where their mouths are, a
Re:End this crap (Score:5, Interesting)
Equality in pay for the same job and the same hours is already the law. In fact it has been repeatedly proven that women make more money in the same job as men when they work the same hours and have the same backgrounds.
Can we please stop perpetuating this bullshit about how everyone should be paid the same as everyone else, no matter what the job is. People need to pay attention to the source of this propaganda. Hint: The people pushing this crap down don't put their own money where their mouths are, and won't. They are ultra rich, and you are a peon.
Try getting a job while obviously pregnant. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how that addresses his point. It may affect your ability to get a *new* job, and that can be a problem, but it doesn't affect your rate if you're hired. Or if it does, the law requires that the discrepancy be addressed.
Re: (Score:3)
if P(getting the job) is much lower for an equally qualified woman, then ExpV(being a professional in the job) is much lower for a woman. For the set of all people qualified, the women get less money because they're less likely to get hired.
Antidiscrimination isn't just about individual salaries of the people who happen to make it--it's about whether you're prejudicing the wages of an entire class of people for a discriminatory reason that society has decided it is not okay to use for discrimination.
Wrong! (Score:2)
This is where the salary myth goes haywire. For a whole lot of reasons women tend to work less hours than men. That general rule is backed by US Census data, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Labor, and every other agency that checks statistics including Universities, State agencies, Large companies, etc..etc..
Do you believe that you working 38 hours a week should make the same wage as someone working 45 hours a week? That is the only way that parity works, unless peopl
History (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you believe that you working 38 hours a week should make the same wage as someone working 45 hours a week? That is the only way that parity works, unless people work the exact same hours at the same job. Which they do not, for all kinds of reasons. Pregnancy for example, women take time off because they are the only gender that can give birth.
Know your history. Believe it or not, Congress knew and understood very clearly when they passed the Equal Pay Act that it cost businesses more to employ women because of Pregnancy, for example. They had statistics on it, they understood that a purely economic decision would have taken that into account.
And they decided to pass the equal pay act anyway. Because there are social goals that we are willing to pay money for and make the economy less efficient to achieve. That's why we don't allow slavery. That's why we don't allow child labor. That's why we allow antidiscrimination lawsuits around race.
It's not perfectly fair to men, of course--it necessarily means that men are cross-subsidizing women and getting paid less. But it's still something we've decided is desirable. If you want to change it, elect a new Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are social goals that we are willing to pay money for and make the economy less efficient to achieve. That's why we don't allow slavery. That's why we don't allow child labor.
Slavery is allowed. The 13th amendment has a provision to allow slavery as punishment for a crime. We have slave labor in prisons.
But you're wrong about the economic argument... slave labor is not more efficient than free market labor, particularly wage slaves and obviously machine labor. The reason slaves make license plates in prisons is that the prisons get a sweetheart deal and it pads their funding... but a wage slave factory in China could turn out better license plates for 1/2 the cost.
Slavery is an
Re: (Score:2)
>slave labor is not more efficient than free market labor
How exactly would do you expect a free person with some non-destitute standard of living to be able to do a job more cheaply than a slave who need only be provided with the bare minimum of food and shelter necessary to maintain productivity?
No, that doesn't necessarily address regional variations in the cost to provide that minimum maintenance. Nor whether some regions have such poorly organized labor that free men are willing to work for such mini
Re: (Score:3)
Slaves have poor productivity and zero incentive.
As an "asset", a slave has to be maintained. You can whip slaves and all of that, but all it does is put a slave out of commission. You usually aren't permitted to kill slaves, but even where you are, you just flushed the money you paid for them down the toilet.
"Free" but low wage workers must shift for themselves in terms of finding shelter, health care, etc. If that worker does not take care of themselves and dies or is sick, they don't get paid and are
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly would do you expect a free person with some non-destitute standard of living to be able to do a job more cheaply than a slave
I was talking about overall economic efficiency. It's true that a slave may do the job at hand more cheaply. No doubt that's true in some cases. However, when you pay someone to do the job, and in turn they pay for their own food, electricity, housing, clothing, etc.. you're growing your economy. By giving the person motivation to acquire more stuff (which slaves can't do), there's a decent chance they end up being more productive and competitive. After all there's only so much you can do to motivate slaves
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, historically Congress passed an unfunded mandate which effectively made women into a class of people who it costs more to employ, with no benefit to the employer.
And we are surprised that in a scenario where it is difficult to evaluate and confirm the reasons why employers aren't hiring women, that they are, in fact, not hired.
Now presumably there is some benefit to employing women which makes the extra cost necessary. And if someone could actually identify and quantify that particular set of benefits
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, historically Congress passed an unfunded mandate which effectively made women into a class of people who it costs more to employ, with no benefit to the employer.
Um... no. Women are a class of people who it costs more to employ in many jobs, because they take more leave. Congress didn't make that happen. Biology and social pressures did.
Now presumably there is some benefit to employing women which makes the extra cost necessary. And if someone could actually identify and quantify that particular set of benefits, then calculations on the hiring of women can be added to the calculations and appropriate measures can be taken to show that it is a benefit to the bottom line.
Yes, the theory is that it is a moral good to pay women equally for the same job, even though they take more leave on average. There may be some substantial second-order economic benefits, but the primary imperative was a normative decision.
And let's be honest, just saying "it's fair" is completely bogus. You could say that, *based on one set of priorities*. However, it is distinctly *unfair* if you evaluate another set of priorities. And then you ask yourself, whose priorities are they? Are they an employer's priorities or the government's priorities.
Yes, fairness and equality are inherently words subject to nearly infinite malleability.
Re: (Score:2)
If equal pay for equal hours was such a big thing, the CEO wouldn't be making 200x more than the grunts.
Re: (Score:2)
the women get less money because
Women get less money because most of them tend to make different personal decisions than other people. http://dadatho.me/notebooks/pe... [dadatho.me]
I'm making 80% of what my peers make. It was my personal decision to leave the work place while my wife kept working. It's not a grand global conspiracy it's Math and Averages.
Now, if you want to discuss *why* women are leaving that's a separate discussion. But pushing the 78% salary narrative doesn't help you do that because it leads you down the entire wrong path of disc
Good to see censorship is alive and well (Score:3)
You are attempting to conflate some very separate issues. The one I discussed is gender discrimination, and you are talking about a biological function. Which if you don't take time off for, I will assume there is something wrong with you. Given my assumption, and I realize this is difficult for social justice warriors to do, put yourself in the place of a business owner. Would _you_ hire a pregnant person? If it is not skilled work and easy to replace sure, but the majority of businesses would see th
Re: (Score:2)
My use of the term "social justice warrior" was rather intentional, grammatically correct. Plenty of references for the phrase's use, and if the shoe fits maybe you should re-evaluate your belief system instead of claiming I should put something in quotes.
I gave you the questions, and you refused to answer. 1) Would a man be hired if he was going to undergo surgery in a few months and would be out of work for at least a few months after (I don't care about you, I care about the average time for maternit
Try getting a job when you're as tall as Dinklage (Score:2)
As long as we're going for non-sequiturs, lets go all out. [lmgtfy.com]
For the same reason it costs more to employ men who are likely to take extended paternity leave or drop out of the workforce entirely for several years. And why they make less money when they rejoin the workforce, with less experience than their former co-workers.
Equality is nea
Re: (Score:2)
It would very much depend on the type of job. When my wife was 5-6 months pregnant she was looking for a new job. She found one, and got hired on. Less then a month into it, she went on bed rest, had the baby at 9 months, and decided not to go back to work at all and raise the child.
Meanwhile the company was forced to hold her position and were essentially down a person.
From her perspective it made sense, it was our first child. She was planning on having the baby, taking a couple months off and then going back to work. Reality changed that.
From the companies perspective, they should of never hired her. She wasted their time and essentially forced everyone else to work extra to take up the slack.
So yes, from a business perspective, in many cases I would not hire someone who's pregnant, especially if its their first pregnancy. It would be different if it was a skilled type job, and the person in question was the top candidate and had a great resume with a good employment history. In that case the investment and risk would be worth it. But the risk of them never coming back from maternity leave is very real.
Sure--but you'd still be breaking the law.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/type... [eeoc.gov]
Re:End this crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah if I had a company, and had to pay women only 77% of what men earn, for precisely the same work, then I would only hire women. It would be a giant cost saving benefit, my company would be doing great.
But oh, if I ran a company I were an evil capitalist who hates women and wants only men to work, and my hatred towards women would be so big that I only paid them 77 cents on the dollar.
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
But oh, if I ran a company I were an evil capitalist who hates women and wants only men to work, and my hatred towards women would be so big that I only paid them 77 cents on the dollar.
I see what kind of person you are [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Employers who do think along those lines tend to also think that the other disadvantages outweigh the lower salary, e.g. maternity leave, more sick days taken, less willingness to do unpaid overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
... could it possibly be that maternity leave and more sick days and less willingness to do unpaid overtime have an economic cost? I wonder if there is a quantitative way to measure and express that economic cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Women decide on 80% of all purchases anyway, so who really cares about who makes the money if it's spent unequally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point I want to remind everybody that Equal Work Fatality Day for 2016 will be held 2037.
Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Informative)
How the hell did one of these equal pay stories get posted where they actually attributed for things like similar job and experience? If they keep this up the 77 cents on the dollar myth will be exposed for the lie that it is.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.... [washingtonexaminer.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/th... [wsj.com]
Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Its no lie. Its probably true that women get less paid for their work. But that has nothing to do with the fact that they are female. I think nobody is as mean and gives a co-worker less money only because they are female. I think it has another reason, very simple: many women work part-time or work in fields that don't pay much. This has nothing to do with the choice of the individual, I guess any female can have a career as successful as a man, its a question of individual choice not of discrimination.
Feminists should just realize that most women chose to raise a family instead of focusing their job as much as men. This is nothing bad or something that needs to be changed. Its free people doing a free choice, and feminists are constantly trying to take that freedom away.
By saying that females who chose to raise their children and do part time work instead of full time work and letting some stranger raise the child are limited and backwards-minded, the feminists just insult millions of females having chosen precisely that model together with their partners.
If a woman wants to let a stranger raise her children, or if she wants the man to take over those duties, its perfectly fine. Just feminists shouldn't dictate what's wrong or right.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Freakonomics guy you are partly correct but they found there's still about an 8% difference that can't be accounted for by anything but gender difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Men negotiate harder. That may be a "gender difference" but I don't see how you could fault men for it.
Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Men can negotiate harder. The same studies have shown that when women negotiate the way men normally do, they're written down as "bitchy" (whereas men get labeled as "assertive").
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it could be because of that. The word that we have for it is "cultural gender bias".
You can think any kind of crap, that's up to you. It's when crap you think starts affecting how you treat others that SJW gestapo has a problem with that. Verstehst?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you try to read the comment beyond that first sentence? It's fairly obvious that what I'm talking about is not some innate ability that men have, but rather different expectations that society sets for them. A better way to say it is that men are allowed to negotiate far more aggressively than women are, before aggressiveness starts having a detrimental effect on the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Really well put.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That does, however, mean shifting planning, pushing costs onto other people.
The US went through this when someone sued Social Security for paying less per month to women because they lived 7 years longer. This was declared a violation.
Fair enough, but the actuarial tables don't lie, regardless of social norms of the decade or century.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's part of it. When women act competitive men often see them as bitchy. Society penalizes them for negotiating like men do so they have a harder time getting raises, promotions etc.
Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is, for reasons you even list:
If a man worked part time or stepped out of the work force for ten years to be a stay-at-home dad, he, too, would make less money than his co-workers that went on with their careers - male or female.
What feminists are actually demanding is equal pay for less work. Less hours on the job, less experience, and in less stressful or physically dangerous positions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What feminists are actually asking for is that men take on a more equal share of the child rearing duties. If everyone who had kids wanted a good work/life balance and parental leave it would reduce the career damage it does. Rather than a choice between "man who is unlikely to want paternity leave" vs. "woman who might want maternity leave" it should just be "pick the best candidate and accept that most human beings have a family at some point in their lifetime".
Some northern European countries have made g
Re: (Score:2)
I have very rarely heard this position made explicit. For anyone holding this view, I would say they should stop focusing on "pay equity for women", which has (mostly) been achieved on a per-hour basis, and instead focus on "benefit equity for men":
Require companies to offer equal amounts of maternity and paternity leave for starters, maybe even make it mandatory to change cultural norms. Perhaps follow up with an push to eliminate the tendency of salaried men to work disproportionately longer hours - eit
Re: (Score:2)
Then they can work more hours so their partners can spend more time at home. But how is that addressed by the sloganeering of "equal pay for equal work" and "women make 76 cents on the dollar"?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're blatantly ignoring the fact that feminists leave experience, hours worked per week and hazard pay out of their calculations.
Then the wives should work more so their husbands can work less and spend more time at home. The math here isn't hard....unless you're a feminist.
Re: (Score:2)
Bit of a disconnect there, but maybe you just had a real as
Re: (Score:2)
If the parents wants to let a stranger raise their children, or if they decides that either one of them take over those duties, its perfectly fine. Just feminists shouldn't dictate what's wrong or right.
Equal :)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a long history of jobs primarily occupied by women being worse paid than jobs primarily occupied by men, even when the jobs have similar requirements, difficulty, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at historic times, there has been undoubtedly discrimination of the sexes, so its not a good comparison to take for the present.
But more importantly, Correlation does not imply causation. It is possible that the field got less paying because of the presence of women, but it is also possible that the women populated the field because it became less paying, the men leaving for fields that became higher paying.
As a possible explanation: In the past, and still today, the prevailing model is that the
Apples to the entire plant kingdom? (Score:2)
This statistics used here are for within Microsoft, not for either the industry or the workforce as a whole. I'm not aware of any claims that women or minorities at Microsoft were making 77 cents per dollar their white male colleagues get.
Even if what you claim - that the 77 cent thing is a myth and a lie - is true, your ideological bias is showing really, really strongly here. If you want to be taken seriously, try to avoid equating two completely unequal things (Microsoft's compensation and the workforce
Re: (Score:2)
There are two numbers, the adjusted number where the average is about 95-96% and the unadjusted figure that is in the upper 70s. Both have their uses.
The adjusted figure shows that when women do get jobs they are paid about 5% less on average. It can be attributed to things like salary negotiations favouring men or other institutional biases.
The unadjusted figure shows that women end up in different kinds of work than men. This is more controversial because some argue that it's natural, while others argue t
Re: (Score:3)
Equality and raises (Score:2)
Right. The following water cooler dialogue comes to mind:
- How goes it, Joe?
- Alright, just scored a 3% raise.
- How come?
- Well, Bob, it turns out my great-great-grand-mother was Japanese. So, I ticked the right box on the "race" questionnaire as there are just so very few of us here in the Mid West.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I ticked the right box on the "race" questionnaire as there are just so very few of us here in the Mid West
It's easy to make any conversation happen when it's between strawmen in your imagination.
Huh. I was always under the impression there would be quite a few straw men in the Mid West, given all the farms out there.
Equal Pay for Equal Work (Score:2)
Social pressure (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how to explain this without sounding like a misogynist, but careers are often more important to men because men are more often judged by income. There is strong social pressure on men to work hard for raises and promotions because of this. Women tend to be socially judged on looks, not earnings, and thus they focus more on that.
This is not saying women are inherently lazy, only that there is less social pressure on them to succeed in the work-place, and thus more women on average just coast in their career.
Women also end up having to deal with family issues more, in part because they care more about family and home, and in part because men are on average domestically flaky. This means women will focus on domestic issues more, distracting them from career.
I'm not sure how to measure or address these, but if they are not addressed, there could be some unpleasant side-effects.
Re: (Score:3)
Women also end up having to deal with family issues more, in part because they care more about family and home, and in part because men are on average domestically flaky.
Whoa now, I get where you're coming with this, but your wording choice is poor. Time was there was a gendered based split of responsibilities; men brought home the cash, women took care of the children and house. That isn't men being "domestically flaky". Now a days that's even less true; more and more men are working their asses off, m
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought a good measure of the health of a society is the extent to which obvious truths can be articulated and obvious falsehoods challenged. The fact that you (quite justifiably) feel you have to preemptively shield yourself from allegations of misogyny for stating something this obvious is a sad commentary on our times.
Re: (Score:2)
What you have just said is that men get paid more in part because they're less competent. Just thought I'd point it out.
Re: (Score:2)
be less competitive in the workplace.
Some people are more naturally more competitive than others and not always money related. Some people will want to be the most productive person in a group, have the best, cleanest, most efficient and cost effective design and not for monetary rewards. But sometimes companies recognize this and compensate. I've gotten big bonuses before for coming into work after hours and being in the right place at the wrong time and being able to solve some major problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's fairly ingrained in women's biology, similar to how men naturally pay attention to a female's appearance. Lecturing isn't going change what makes our wanker happy, and our wanker has a hell of a lot of voting power in the male decision process, thanks to Mother/Father Nature.
Maybe the availability of porn and perhaps fa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A man in our society is expected to work hard.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What you describe are exactly the kind of gender stereotypes and expectations set by them that those evil "SJWs" are arguing against.
(And yes, they do raise the issue with male stereotypes, as well. If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been looking.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiiiight, just like all the 70's feminist who ran around demanding that women be drafted into the Vietnam War: zero. Go over to Jezebel and say buttkiss about a negative stereotype against men, and tell us how many times you're accused of being that dreaded spawn of Satan, a mens rights activist.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Riiiiight,
Um yes? I've frequently been accused of being an "SJW" and have frequently written such things. So sure if you ignore everyone who says something that co0ntradicts you then no one contradicts you! Neat-o.
just like all the 70's feminist who ran around demanding that women be drafted into the Vietnam War: zero.
The stupid... it burns.
It's quite remarkable how much dumbassery you managed to cram into a scant 19 words.
Plenty of self-identified feminists protested AGAINST the vietnam war. It would have
Re: (Score:2)
Not in any place that has SJW's, you haven't. Otherwise you would have been sneered as a mens rights activist, and/or told to STFU because women have had it worse.
Nice shovel you have there.
Don't twist your ankle in that hole you're digging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Google the definition of enlisting
2) Google the definition of being drafted
3) Serving in a hospital isn't the same thing as serving in a trench, or storming a beach
4) Tell us again who doesn't know what they are talking about
And yet remain exempt from the Selective Service Act. See 4) again.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the draft was over on (IIRC) June 30, 1971, and US participation in the war dropped pretty rapidly after 1968, they wouldn't have had much time to do so. My wife did object to not being subject to the draft, FWIW, although I didn't observe any other woman doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
She should check and see if there's a prize for being the first one to do so. As for being over in 1971:
Re:A man in our society is expected to work hard.. (Score:4, Informative)
"SJWs" like myself do raise this all the time. There are actually words to describe it, words that trigger instant down-mods.
The word to describe this situation is "patriarchy". It simply describes the way a society is biased towards masculinity, things like bread-winning over home-making, putting pressure on men to play certain roles and avoid others like being a stay at home parent. Things like running a household and brining up kids are undervalued, not seen as real work or something that only women do.
Feminism has studied this for decades and offers solutions. In fact there has been a lot of success, when you consider what the 1950s model father and mother were like. But for some people feminism is a trigger word, so they down-mod it hard and then complain that feminists don't care about these issues.
Re: (Score:2)
"Some men literally kill themselves working."
I sometimes wonder what would happen to the pay gap if you added the salaries from the population which committed suicide. Suicide rates being much higher among men.
Anyway, in my lifetime, working in tech, Microsoft is the norm. There has been no paygap along my career path, and there have been very, very few women, even though I interview and hire them preferentially. none apply.
I hope they pay their people hourly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, that reminds me, I've never worked for a company that offered sick days. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then they ought to be paying women MORE. Having toxic idiots "manfully" struggle into the office to spread disease everywhere and infect everyone else is a fantastic way of wrecking productivity.
Re:I hope they pay their people hourly (Score:4, Insightful)
Another way to look at this is that men don't take enough sick days. They would rather come in to work feeling unwell, be unproductive and infect everyone else, than ask for a day to recover. I used to be like that, until my boss encouraged me to take more days, and then I realized I can get over a cold in a day or two instead of a week if I just rest properly.
Plus, women tend to take on more childcare than men, so some of the time is used for that and again men should be taking more to look after their kids.
Bleh. Equal my ass (Score:2)
I mean, I guess what they're saying is good and all, it sorta sounds good(ish), but it's hardly noteworthy. You can achieve gender/race parity just by offering fixed salaries for given roles and refusing to negotiate. It's a pretty common practice.
What they are lowering womens wages ?? (Score:2)
http://www.theguardian.com/mon... [theguardian.com]
"Women in 20s earn more than men"
Women are already making more than men as is
BTW this was mathematically inevitable (Score:2)
If you set things so you can't pay women less than men, it's inevitable they will earn more.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because "not less than" is exactly the same thing as "strictly greater than", right?
Did you fail math in elementary school or something?
I am going to be unusually kind for me and suggest you actually try working this out.
You can try using two random variables and see what happens whenever 1 distribution defines what lowest matching value is in the 2nd
If you don't understand what I just said. Take two dice of different colors. Call one men, the other women. Roll 20 times, whenever the women die comes up with a smaller number than the men die, set it's value to the men die.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to be unusually kind for me and suggest you actually try working this out.
That is unusually kind of you.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, age is catching up with me. Just don't have the energy for angry any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because choosing what to pay people is determined by rolling dice, right? I appreciate your kindness but I question your capacity for reason.
To within trivial margins, it is entirely possible for two intelligently chosen values to be equal, even if one of them has a hard cap of "shall never be less than the other".
In fact, if you're paying any attention at all, you'll notice that's pretty much exactly what Microsoft is talking about here: they've gotten the gender pay gap to a nearly-trivial differen
Re: (Score:2)
Son there are lots of good strategies to deal with a mistake.
Yours isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because "not less than" is exactly the same thing as "strictly greater than", right?
Did you fail math in elementary school or something?
When a statistical truth meets a political ideology, which do you think will come off better? Fact is, given two variables X and Y, if X is never allowed to fall below whatever Y is at that point in time, then it is a statistical certainty that X will always average higher than Y. Always.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah, if you don't correct for education then of course people at the age of "right out of college" will earn more; more women get degrees! This is an unsurprising result of looking at the earning potential of those with and without a degree, and then looking at the gender ratio of college graduates. True, some of the high-paying skilled fields are male-dominated (software being an obvious example), but those don't make up for the relative dearth of men with a tertiary degree in general.
The fact that
and the trees were all kept equal (Score:2)
I don't see the point (Score:2)
If they want to offer 100% pay, why don't they just do it? I mean they seem to be really close to it, what's the point in not saying "that's our contract, it was made before we knew your gender, because that's what you earn on that position"?
Re:And what about vacation inequality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure whether you have a contract but employers may not discriminate in determining who gets vacation. If your co-worker gets vacation (paid or unpaid) because he's Indian, you should get some too, otherwise stick your HR department on your supervisor or even your attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It is understandable that they take so much at once, but the company does not get to shaft you to make up for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It IS against federal law. FLSA does not require anyone to get any vacation but it does require that any policies are not discriminatory. So if you get less vacation than your female or Indian co-workers, you could sue them for discrimination.
Re: (Score:3)
FMLA (Family Medical Leave) is not paid but you could get it as well even if you are male. Any policies regarding negative Paid Time Off would also have to apply to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange - that applies no place I've worked.
Re: (Score:2)
You did the right thing. I wouldn't begrudge the women their time off, especially if is part of their promised benefits, but *you* have a right to time off too. I don't take a lot of vacation, but I should never be in a situation where I cannot do so because someone else is always out.
That's when they hire someone else to pick up the slack, or have the manager suck it up, or I'd walk out the door.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's that way at all startups.
I have my own startup at the moment. Everyone there gets time off. Why? Because it's not civilised nor productive to have no time off.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because you're ignoring that P(promotion) might not be independent of gender.