3 ms·
But the problem is that discrimination is a function of perception, and that is 9/10ths of reality. What the company was trying to do was correct a perceived c
by secstate 11y ago
But the problem is that discrimination is a function of perception, and that is 9/10ths of reality.
What the company was trying to do was correct a perceived culture wrong that some people were compensated less because their job was perceived as less important.
The reality is that those "less important" jobs frequently actually keep businesses running smoothly. Only a smoothly running business can afford to invest in strategy, thus smooth operation should be as important as strategy.
That (^) right there is another "perception" and is increasingly the one reasonable people are adopting EXACTLY because of what Seth notes:
"It's possible to create dignity and be successful at the same time."
- cjfont 11y agoBut the importance of a job isn't what determines the salary of a worker, it mostly a function of supply/demand. A job may be absolutely critical to running a business, but if there's an oversupply of suitable applicants for the position, that is going to naturally drive down the compensation since there will be more applicants available willing to take a lower salary.
- dropit_sphere 11y agoLive by the demand curve, die by the demand curve. The company will often have trouble when their model of the demand curve is (obviously) less precise than a worker's, and they are surprised when a worker leaves.