There are very few Hollywood movie stars. There is far more such discrimination across all industries than that, but none of it compares to the differential due to discrimination in opportunity.
If you want to accomplish something then concentrate on the real problem, not a few rich people who complain about not being richer.
Good, and thank you.
It is infuriating to hear the phrase “gender pay gap” being used, by people who should know better, as a shorthand for women being paid less than men for the same job. They aren’t, legally they can’t be and the equal wages law has been in place for nearly 50 years in the UK. So many times in the media we see otherwise knowledgeable professionals failing to grasp the key differences between the two concepts or even willfully conflating the two for political reasons.
The requirement in the UK for large companies to publish figures on the gender pay gap seems to carry with it the possibility of unhelpful perverse incentives. e.g. one way of easily improving your stats would be to *reduce *the number of entry-level women you employ. Is that the behaviour that these figures are intended to drive?
If I were tasked with decreasing the “Gender Pay Gap” in golf for example, the easiest way to achieve it would be to reduce the field size and reduce the number of tournaments in the women’s game. Simple.
So, I’m really not sure what these published figures are intended to achieve, there doesn’t seem to be a legal requirement to close the gap…yet, and to put such a law in place seems idiotic.
The “gender pay gap” in Ryanair is huge but it pretty much all hinges on the fact that lots of the highest paid positions, the pilots, are men. Do Ryanair discriminate against women pilots? no. Do they pay them less? no. As it stands more little boys want to be pilots than little girls and it may never be the case that, even given a completely free and non-sexists society, we are ever guaranteed to see a 50/50 balance in any particular profession.
The only lesson the Ryanair figures teaches us is that it might be good idea to encourage women from a young age to consider aviation as a career, why would anyone not want to tap into that potential?
The “gender pay gap” concept as currently collated and reported is simplistic and unhelpful. At best it diverts conversation from what really matters, at worst it may be counterproductive.
…yet you accept that women get paid less than men for doing the same job correct? That they get paid less not based on the work that they do, but for their perceived value.
You don’t have to prioritize. Both are a problem. Deal with both.
If you want to accomplish something then acknowledge the real problem and don’t simply dismiss because of “rich people.”
I’ll add you to the list of people who “don’t care.”
I guess you have heard of the Peter’s principle. Giving to someone who is good and experienced at his job a different higher level job isn’t necessarily a good idea.
And of course, that you can replace the experienced teacher by a unexperienced one doesn’t mean that you don’t lose value in the process. In what field do you work where experience doesn’t add any value?
“The work you do” is a subset of perceived value, not distinct from it.
An actor who the studio believes will draw more fans has higher perceived value than an actor who will draw fewer, even if it is the same movie.
If they hire the actor and the movie bombs at the box office, perceived demand for the actor is going to go down. OTOH Chadwick Boseman made $700K for his first appearance as the Black Panther, and several times that for his starring role in the movie of the same name and subsequent films (cite).
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I’m curious what Omar Little thinks about environments like begbert2 described where everyone is in charge of negotiating their own salary.
I work in a similar environment, and my take (generally) is that men have more incentive to ask for more money, and men with families even more so. Every single one of the raises I’ve requested has not been based on a personal belief that I’m worth X to the company, or in relation to my peers, it’s been 90% driven by the fact that I have mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay and as a man I’m expected to bring home that bacon. I hate asking for raises, but I’ve had to suck it up and force myself to do it.
My wife, on the other hand, is perpetually underpaid because she has not forced herself to ask for more. She doesn’t need to, because I’m bringing home that bacon. She bitches about her pay, and she bitches about men getting paid more, but at the end of the day, if she doesn’t ask for a raise and isn’t willing to quit if she doesn’t get it, she’s never going to get more.
Now I’m not saying she or any other woman are weak of character or something, but society has condition men and women differently and I think this is a result. But I’m curious how the OP would fix that. Should we focus on getting women to demand more money? Make them suck it up and walk into their manager’s office asking for a salary sufficient to buy a house and raise a family, like men have to do? Or is there some broader change that needs to happen, like making salaries public and ensuring some equality regardless of negotiating ability?
So you’re not getting raises based upon tenure. As I stated in the OP, performance is a criteria for compensation differential. I’ve seen lots of employees that their performance isn’t exceptional, just because they’ve been with the company longer. We all hope that’s the case, but giving annual raises based on one more year with the company is foolish.
Also, if you can get a job elsewhere for similar pay, then that’s the market for your role. And why wouldn’t a new person not be paid at market?
No, it’s the market for someone with my experience. Someone without that experience can probably do the basics of my job, but they are not going to be as good at it as me. Therefore, they shouldn’t get paid the same amount as me.
There’s a difference between experience and tenure at a particular company. Companies hire people with experience all the time and pay them a market wage for the role they are filling which necessarily assumes experience. But paying someone more simply because they have been with your specific company for 10 years vs. someone that was recently hired but had 7 years of experience elsewhere is stupid. People should be paid based upon performance and contribution.
But is it only experience at your company? I’m assuming that you’re not still at an entry level position after 5 years. That you have been promoted in some respect, and this is your new role. Hiring someone else at your same level, they should receive a similar pay.
There is a market range for almost every role out there. Janitor, accounting manager, CNC operator II, HR talent manager, etc. etc.
The data is accumulated for almost every role and region. It lets you know what the range of base pay and total comp for that role. In my world the starting point for offering or raising peoples compensation for those roles is at the 50th percentile. People with higher performance can move up within that range.
People that underperform, will likely miss out on merit raises in coming years, so that they fall to the lower end of that range.
Why would I negotiate for someone outside of the market range? I should be able to find and attract new people that will be glad to take that role within the market range.
nm
I don’t think that answers the question, though. What’s the market range? Let’s say it’s 50-75k. You’ve got a guy fresh out of school to do job X, you offer him 50k and he’s happy to get it because he’s 22 and that’s a lot of money. You’ve also got a guy, 32 years old, who’s coming out of a different career. He’s got the same specific experience as the 22 year old (none) but he’s got a family and a mortgage and demands 70k.
Is this not something that happens in the real world all the time? I’m not in HR but it seems to be the case in my company, and my wife’s experience going back to work after a 7 year hiatus as well. You can say you just wouldn’t hire the older guy for 20k more but at the end of the day there’s a limited supply of humans and companies seem willing to negotiate on an individual basis.
But what is similar pay? When I first started, I listed my salary requirement with a $20k spread. If someone got the low end of that, and I got the high end, would you consider that “similar”?
Also, I don’t see anything wrong with a company rewarding workers annually for staying with the company.
The gender pay gap does not exist. The reason women collectively make less money than men are because they have different priorities and make decisions that reflect those priorities. Men work more dangerous and more unpleasant jobs, men work longer hours, and men stay in the workforce longer. Thus men make more money than women.
The first equal pay act was passed in 1963. Since then very few elections go by without somebody promising to pass a new one if elected. Maybe one day people will get wise to this racket but I am not holding my breath.
You typically don’t see ranges that wide for an entry level position in any given market. Probably narrower to $50-60k. If there is an abundance of new college hires that are willing to take the $50k salary, why would I even consider negotiating with the person demanding $70k.
Of course it is all subject to supply and demand of labor, which is very much a factor in determining market wages. But absent some other factor I see no reason to reach toward to the top end of the range If I don’t have to.
As I said earlier, unless there were some other reasons, like lack of supply of candidates, I wouldn’t offer you the top end of the pay range to begin with, I’d start at the 50th percentile of my understanding of the market. Then after you worked here for a year or so, and I was able to determine your performance and contribution, then I would begin to differentiate your compensation from others.
Again, it’s not based on tenure or advanced degrees.
It sounds like you’re arguing that there isn’t a wage gap in these areas, then. I’m not sure the data supports that but I don’t have a cite handy.
You should read more.