5 ms·

What is the end goal here? Companies being forced to publish and formalize pay tiers? Can Google publish a report on non-pay differences by sex at Google? Sick

by to_bpr 9y ago

What is the end goal here? Companies being forced to publish and formalize pay tiers? Can Google publish a report on non-pay differences by sex at Google? Sick (or personal) leave taken, overtime worked, vacation time availed of, etc. by sex? Obviously with everyone being equal and doing equal jobs, the above shouldn't really be an issue?

stale2002 9y ago
The end goal is a meritocracy where women arent discriminated against, and are paid what they are worth. The current situation is not a meritocracy and it needs to be fixed.
- romanovcode 9y ago
  In capitalism you are already payed what you are worth. If you agree for a shit salary that is your problem.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Actually, if a company is illegally discriminating against people based on gender, then it is THEIR problem. If they do that then they can enjoy their millions of dollars in fines for doing something clearly illegal.
    - romanovcode 9y ago
      Person A asks for 90 dollars per year; Person B asks for 100 dollars per year. Person A does not ask for a rise after one year; Person B asks for 10 dollar rise after one year. TBH I don't see how it is a company fault.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        They are at fault because they are systematically underpaying women of equal qualifications. It does not matter what the "reason" is. It does not matter if the bias is because equally skilled women merely ask for raises less often. If for any reason at all, you are systematically underpaying certain groups that are equally qualified and equally productive, you are legally liable and the onus is on you to fix it.
        romanovcode 9y ago
        I think that if the person is not asking for more money company has a right to not give him more. Isn't that how capitalism works?
        stale2002 9y ago
        Paying 2 different groups of people that are equally qualified is called illegal discrimination. It doesn't matter what the reason is for the discriminatory pay difference. It doesn't matter if it is capitalistic to illegal discriminate against certain groups. So no, they do not have that right, if the result is an illegal pay disparity. The company would be required to correct the pay disparity, even if the reason why the pay disparity exists is solely because 1 group didn't ask for more money.
bb611 9y ago
> What is the end goal here? Presumably these women would like more money.
- DevinTheDude 9y ago
  So what? I'd like more money too. Should I simply get more money because I want it?
  - bb611 9y ago
    I'm not sure why you are so grumpy and taking the questioning tone directed at me, given that my response simply proposed a possible explanation for GP's question. The courts are a lever to improve compensation just like negotiation is, if that makes you uncomfortable that's unfortunate, but it is how the US economic system is structured. Court cases have significant costs, they don't simply "want it" but hired (presumably) decently skilled attorneys to argue their case, have real social and personal risks associated with being publicly associated with this case, etc.

by to_bpr 9y ago

stale2002 9y ago

The end goal is a meritocracy where women arent discriminated against, and are paid what they are worth. The current situation is not a meritocracy and it needs to be fixed.

romanovcode 9y ago
In capitalism you are already payed what you are worth. If you agree for a shit salary that is your problem.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Actually, if a company is illegally discriminating against people based on gender, then it is THEIR problem. If they do that then they can enjoy their millions of dollars in fines for doing something clearly illegal.
  - romanovcode 9y ago
    Person A asks for 90 dollars per year; Person B asks for 100 dollars per year. Person A does not ask for a rise after one year; Person B asks for 10 dollar rise after one year. TBH I don't see how it is a company fault.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      They are at fault because they are systematically underpaying women of equal qualifications. It does not matter what the "reason" is. It does not matter if the bias is because equally skilled women merely ask for raises less often. If for any reason at all, you are systematically underpaying certain groups that are equally qualified and equally productive, you are legally liable and the onus is on you to fix it.
      - romanovcode 9y ago
        I think that if the person is not asking for more money company has a right to not give him more. Isn't that how capitalism works?
        stale2002 9y ago
        Paying 2 different groups of people that are equally qualified is called illegal discrimination. It doesn't matter what the reason is for the discriminatory pay difference. It doesn't matter if it is capitalistic to illegal discriminate against certain groups. So no, they do not have that right, if the result is an illegal pay disparity. The company would be required to correct the pay disparity, even if the reason why the pay disparity exists is solely because 1 group didn't ask for more money.

bb611 9y ago

> What is the end goal here? Presumably these women would like more money.

DevinTheDude 9y ago
So what? I'd like more money too. Should I simply get more money because I want it?
- bb611 9y ago
  I'm not sure why you are so grumpy and taking the questioning tone directed at me, given that my response simply proposed a possible explanation for GP's question. The courts are a lever to improve compensation just like negotiation is, if that makes you uncomfortable that's unfortunate, but it is how the US economic system is structured. Court cases have significant costs, they don't simply "want it" but hired (presumably) decently skilled attorneys to argue their case, have real social and personal risks associated with being publicly associated with this case, etc.