5 ms·
I haven't read the whole thing but stopped at this sentence: > So if men are more likely to work from the office, and managers retain a bias towards in-office
by jstanley 6y ago
I haven't read the whole thing but stopped at this sentence:
> So if men are more likely to work from the office, and managers retain a bias towards in-office workers, we should expect to see managers over-rewarding male employees at the expense of female employees
This is frustratingly wrong in at least 2 different ways.
1. If an employer over-rewards a group of employees, it's at the expensive of the employer, not the other employees.
2. Even if you believe that other employees are responsible for paying the wages of the over-rewarded employees, then if the over-rewarded employees are those who work from the office we'll just see managers over-rewarding in-office workers at the expensive of from-home workers. A woman who works from the office would be over-rewarded, and a man who works from home would be paying. To say that men will be over-rewarded at the expense of women is to throw away a high-quality signal in favour of a lower-quality signal.
- BoorishBears 6y ago> If an employer over-rewards a group of employees, it's at the expensive of the employer, not the other employees. I don't know where you got this idea... Most places I've worked have at the very least a vague definition of a budget for talent acquisition and retention If you give person X more of a bonus, there's less to go around for everyone. It's not that complicated.
- vidarh 6y agoIt's been very explicit some places I've worked. I was given an allocation of X thousands pounds of raises and Y share options. This was allocated based on a certain percentage of the current remuneration of the overall team, and combined with a set of guidelines for how to allocate it based on team performance. If I wanted to go above my allocation, I'd have to justify it a couple of management levels up, and if approved they'd recoup it by adjusting someone in another team in my group down.
- enkid 6y agoNone of what you are saying actually contradicts the sentence. More men would be over-rewarded, because more men work from the office. This is bad for the employer, but it is also bad for the under-rewarded employees (they would be missing out on the normal rewards which should go to them).
- mywittyname 6y agoI don't agree with your argument. Salaries are paid largely from a finite pool. If a group of people gets a larger slice of that pie, for any reason, legitimate or not, then that leaves less money for raises and salaries of other groups.
- reader_mode 6y agoThat's a zero sum view of a person who probably contributes little to the bottom line. I've worked on projects where I was directly responsible for landing client deals worth millions and I got compensated accordingly.
- sudosysgen 6y agoIn the vast majority of companies at some level (generally the project or department) there is a fixed pool that managers get to spend on things including salaries. Your position was either not at all that of a programmer, or the structure of your company was exceptional.
- onion2k 6y agoI've worked on projects where I was directly responsible for landing client deals worth millions and I got compensated accordingly. I bet you didn't. I've known people who've done the same sort of thing (technical architect in pre-sales), and their bonuses were about 1/20th of the salesperson's bonus for the same deals. Unless you've negotiated a bonus structure where you're compensated based on what work you land you never really get the sort of cut you should.
- BoorishBears 6y agoThe painful irony of this comment. The view of the person you replied to is the view of a person who has information generally considered "above your pay grade" - Also generally your comment doesn't make sense, what does "compensated accordingly" even mean? How does it rebut the idea that compensation comes from a pool? If anything it affirms it, you're saying the deal was worth millions, do you think your employer just had a check for the millions of dollars and was prepared to divy it up for bonuses? Or do you think they budgeted a certain percentage of the cashflow for retention to ensure it landed smoothly? Like any competent business would?
- wastedhours 6y agoWhilst completely ignoring common second-order effects that have been shown time and time again to be true. The point made is 100% valid: men are more likely to work in the office than women, and if there's a systemic bias toward office-workers, that's very definitely a systemic bias against women. Not as the first order problem, but the second order problem. Equity vs equality - equality has it that women should therefore work from the office. Equity questions why you're not actively seeking to address a bias that disproportionately affects a demographic.