4 ms·

>"Did the knowledge hurt my relationships with my coworkers? Yes. Of course it did. I felt cheated. I felt undervalued. I frankly felt I was the victim of a dou

>"Did the knowledge hurt my relationships with my coworkers? Yes. Of course it did. I felt cheated. I felt undervalued. I frankly felt I was the victim of a double standard."

hueving 11y ago
She failed to negotiate when she was hired. Is that really a double standard?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  "Double standard" is a fuzzy term, because you it depends on how you describe a situation. If you only accept even numbers, is that a single standard to decide if numbers are even, or a double standard of treating even and odd numbers differently? (yes this is an overly simple example, flesh it out in your head if necessary) But in objective terms, she had less pay because of negotiation skill, and negotiation skill correlates with gender.
- Falkon1313 11y ago
  Yes. It is a double standard. People do make more money by negotiating a new job than they ever could by excelling at the one they work at. Most of us are conditioned from the beginning not to negotiate, we can't do so until late in the game, and even then it can be difficult. Someone who enters a job straight from school (after having been conditioned to believe that parents, teachers, authority figures generally have your best interests in mind and don't negotiate) is less likely to negotiate. Someone who starts a minimum wage or entry-level job probably doesn't have a chance to negotiate because 800 other applicants are willing to take it for minimum wage. Later in their career, having worked their way up but discovering that others around them make more, they may realize that they're being cheated and negotiation could be a good idea. So they apply for a new midlevel job at a different company, negotiate, and do well. Meanwhile their new coworkers who worked their way up from a non-negotiable starting point make much less, even though they may have more company-specific or even industry-specific experience. Typical corporate policy limits raises by percentage, so they can never even reach equal pay no matter if they excel at their job. Therefore, having been cheated, they apply for a new midlevel job, negotiate, and do well. While their new coworkers who worked their way up make much less...
- dmak 11y ago
  She was saying that she was offered 35,000 less than the previous person for the same role. If she was truly valued, why was she not offered just as much if not more?
  - gamechangr 11y ago
    There is quite a bit lacking from your logic. For example, maybe the previous boss had been on the job 10 years. Maybe his starting salary was also $35,000 less than when he ended, in which case they would be valued equally!! Maybe she was NOT AS GOOD. I know many people who think they are equally as good as their boss and are no where close. Maybe those with the skill to sell themselves should make more? Why is that so offensive? Maybe the whole newspaper industry has taken a major hit and the company does not have the available operational budget that they were once able to spend. It's disappointing that all of these legitimate ideas are passed over and we proceed to assume it was gender related. Really?

>"Did the knowledge hurt my relationships with my coworkers? Yes. Of course it did. I felt cheated. I felt undervalued. I frankly felt I was the victim of a double standard."

hueving 11y ago

She failed to negotiate when she was hired. Is that really a double standard?

Dylan16807 11y ago
"Double standard" is a fuzzy term, because you it depends on how you describe a situation. If you only accept even numbers, is that a single standard to decide if numbers are even, or a double standard of treating even and odd numbers differently? (yes this is an overly simple example, flesh it out in your head if necessary) But in objective terms, she had less pay because of negotiation skill, and negotiation skill correlates with gender.
Falkon1313 11y ago
Yes. It is a double standard. People do make more money by negotiating a new job than they ever could by excelling at the one they work at. Most of us are conditioned from the beginning not to negotiate, we can't do so until late in the game, and even then it can be difficult. Someone who enters a job straight from school (after having been conditioned to believe that parents, teachers, authority figures generally have your best interests in mind and don't negotiate) is less likely to negotiate. Someone who starts a minimum wage or entry-level job probably doesn't have a chance to negotiate because 800 other applicants are willing to take it for minimum wage. Later in their career, having worked their way up but discovering that others around them make more, they may realize that they're being cheated and negotiation could be a good idea. So they apply for a new midlevel job at a different company, negotiate, and do well. Meanwhile their new coworkers who worked their way up from a non-negotiable starting point make much less, even though they may have more company-specific or even industry-specific experience. Typical corporate policy limits raises by percentage, so they can never even reach equal pay no matter if they excel at their job. Therefore, having been cheated, they apply for a new midlevel job, negotiate, and do well. While their new coworkers who worked their way up make much less...
dmak 11y ago
She was saying that she was offered 35,000 less than the previous person for the same role. If she was truly valued, why was she not offered just as much if not more?
- gamechangr 11y ago
  There is quite a bit lacking from your logic. For example, maybe the previous boss had been on the job 10 years. Maybe his starting salary was also $35,000 less than when he ended, in which case they would be valued equally!! Maybe she was NOT AS GOOD. I know many people who think they are equally as good as their boss and are no where close. Maybe those with the skill to sell themselves should make more? Why is that so offensive? Maybe the whole newspaper industry has taken a major hit and the company does not have the available operational budget that they were once able to spend. It's disappointing that all of these legitimate ideas are passed over and we proceed to assume it was gender related. Really?