4 ms·

Unless you're wrong about the mechanics of the pay gap, which you are.

by jamiequint 7y ago

Jweb_Guru 7y ago
There is still a pay gap after you adjust for pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure is what you're thinking of.
- manfredo 7y ago
  It's harder to account for things like the price of benefits and measuring the amount of time spent on things like oncall. As a concrete example, when Google analyzed their wages they actually noticed that they were underpaying men.
  - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
    It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled to reduce the risk. Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point. Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this way they can pay both women and men less. Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled to reduce the risk. > Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point. You are misinterpreting my comment. It had been well documented that in job searches women prioritize benefits at a higher rate than men. So women might on average be getting $10,000 less in salary but also ~$10,000 less in benefits. This is not about utilitzation of the same benefits. This is about differences in men's and women's job preferences that result in unequal salary but equal overall compensation. > Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this way they can pay both women and men less Equal pay for equal work can also be violated by giving workers equal pay while allocating unequal work. > Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment. Google's analysis is conducted over all of their employees, for one. By comparison people typing their salaries into spreadsheets is 1) subject to people falsifying or misremembering their compensation, and 2) has a selection bias towards people who feel they are not compensated fairly. Furthermore, Google has the data to know the stock prices at the time equity packages are awarded, which affects compensation results (e.g. someone who started right before a rise in stock gets more money than someone after even though their original equity packages had the same dollar value).
      - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
        Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired, so this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the same role at the company. I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an excuse for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal pay for equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they should have different titles. Is there any evidence that would convince you that Google is not being honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there isn't, this is kind of a pointless conversation to have. Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises much more than men: https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-promotion-gap https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-pr... https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-harder-gender-pay-gap-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-harder-... Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career. This is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see people trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really uncontroversial fact.

Unless you're wrong about the mechanics of the pay gap, which you are.

Jweb_Guru 7y ago

There is still a pay gap after you adjust for pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure is what you're thinking of.

manfredo 7y ago
It's harder to account for things like the price of benefits and measuring the amount of time spent on things like oncall. As a concrete example, when Google analyzed their wages they actually noticed that they were underpaying men.
- Jweb_Guru 7y ago
  It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled to reduce the risk. Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point. Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this way they can pay both women and men less. Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled to reduce the risk. > Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point. You are misinterpreting my comment. It had been well documented that in job searches women prioritize benefits at a higher rate than men. So women might on average be getting $10,000 less in salary but also ~$10,000 less in benefits. This is not about utilitzation of the same benefits. This is about differences in men's and women's job preferences that result in unequal salary but equal overall compensation. > Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this way they can pay both women and men less Equal pay for equal work can also be violated by giving workers equal pay while allocating unequal work. > Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment. Google's analysis is conducted over all of their employees, for one. By comparison people typing their salaries into spreadsheets is 1) subject to people falsifying or misremembering their compensation, and 2) has a selection bias towards people who feel they are not compensated fairly. Furthermore, Google has the data to know the stock prices at the time equity packages are awarded, which affects compensation results (e.g. someone who started right before a rise in stock gets more money than someone after even though their original equity packages had the same dollar value).
    - Jweb_Guru 7y ago
      Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired, so this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the same role at the company. I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an excuse for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal pay for equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they should have different titles. Is there any evidence that would convince you that Google is not being honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there isn't, this is kind of a pointless conversation to have. Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises much more than men: https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-promotion-gap https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-pr... https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-harder-gender-pay-gap-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-harder-... Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career. This is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see people trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really uncontroversial fact.