5 ms·
If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying
by klmr 9y ago
If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying competitive salaries and won’t attract candidates (not just men — any job applicants).
But the situation is mostly hypothetical anyway because the real pay gap between men and women in the same position with same qualification is much smaller in junior positions (they only become bigger in senior positions, and, yes, companies actively try to fill these with women; which is hard because there are fewer applicants). In junior positions, the gap is too small to build a company on this business model.
That said, of course some companies predominantly hire women to cut personnel cost and consequently lower product prices. Most sweatshops are based on this premise.
- carlmr 9y ago>If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying competitive salaries and won’t attract candidates (not just men — any job applicants). You can just make your company seem unattractive to men. I once talked to a recruiting company that boasted that they were a company founded and run by women. This already seemed like a huge red flag to me as a man that I might not want to work with them.
- krageon 9y agoWhy was that a huge red flag to you?
- skookumchuck 9y agoIf you were the ambitious sort wanting a leadership position, would you want to join a company that boasted about being family-run?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- carlmr 9y agoExactly.
- skookumchuck 9y ago> If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. Technically that's true, but in a practical sense I doubt it would be actionable if you weren't too blatant about it.