Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Improves Efforts To Offer Equal Pay For Equal Work To Its Employees (windowscentral.com)
An anonymous reader writes: One day before National Equal Pay Day, Microsoft has provided a new update on its efforts to provide equal pay for equal work for all of its employees. Kathleen Hogan, Microsoft's Executive Vice-President for Human Resources, wrote in a blog post: "Today, for every $1 earned by men, our female employees in the U.S. earn 99.8 cents at the same job title and level. Racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. combined earn $1.004 for every $1 earned by their Caucasian counterparts. Breaking it down even further, African American/black employees are at $1.003; Hispanic/Latino(a) employees are at 99.9 cents; and Asian employees are at $1.006 for every $1 earned by Caucasian employees at the same job title and level, respectively." Hogan said she is "encouraged by these results" and that Microsoft will continue to monitor the data and publicly disclose it as part of Microsoft's annual public diversity and inclusion information and data reporting. "Our announcement today is another step forward along the path of greater diversity and inclusion progress at Microsoft, and in society as a whole. Along with our industry peers, the mission of landing intentional, enduring and impactful diversity and inclusion initiatives is one will we continue to pursue vigilantly."
Does this include H1B visa holders?
Two things /. users love! The pursuit of social equality and Microsoft!
"Old man yells at systemd"
Equality in pay for the same job and the same hours is already the law. In fact it has been repeatedly proven that women make more money in the same job as men when they work the same hours and have the same backgrounds.
Can we please stop perpetuating this bullshit about how everyone should be paid the same as everyone else, no matter what the job is. People need to pay attention to the source of this propaganda. Hint: The people pushing this crap down don't put their own money where their mouths are, and won't. They are ultra rich, and you are a peon.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How the hell did one of these equal pay stories get posted where they actually attributed for things like similar job and experience? If they keep this up the 77 cents on the dollar myth will be exposed for the lie that it is.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
They might as well let salary = f(job_title, job_level) and get 1.0000000000000.
Right. The following water cooler dialogue comes to mind:
- How goes it, Joe?
- Alright, just scored a 3% raise.
- How come?
- Well, Bob, it turns out my great-great-grand-mother was Japanese. So, I ticked the right box on the "race" questionnaire as there are just so very few of us here in the Mid West.
I haven't had an entire week off since I started here in 1996. The vast majority of my Indian coworkers get to take two to three contiguous weeks off e very year to go home to India. I understand travel takes so long and is so expensive so you need a long time off to justify it, but it sucks not being able to take any time off because so my of my coworkers take weeks off every year.
Happy Happy Klansman day!
So, if it's equal pay for equal work, then why is there disparity between the segmentation? It seems like a company as big as Microsoft could do the math and get it to average out to a flat 1.00 for everyone.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
I'm not sure how to explain this without sounding like a misogynist, but careers are often more important to men because men are more often judged by income. There is strong social pressure on men to work hard for raises and promotions because of this. Women tend to be socially judged on looks, not earnings, and thus they focus more on that.
This is not saying women are inherently lazy, only that there is less social pressure on them to succeed in the work-place, and thus more women on average just coast in their career.
Women also end up having to deal with family issues more, in part because they care more about family and home, and in part because men are on average domestically flaky. This means women will focus on domestic issues more, distracting them from career.
I'm not sure how to measure or address these, but if they are not addressed, there could be some unpleasant side-effects.
Table-ized A.I.
if they're salaried it's not equal pay for equal work as women take more sick days. First link I found says SIGNIFICANTLY more. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
After reading just the title I was prepared to be floored by an announcement that Microsoft had cut executive pay by a huge amount and given raises to everyone else in the company. Instead it's just another gender story, of how many? Great.
I mean, I guess what they're saying is good and all, it sorta sounds good(ish), but it's hardly noteworthy. You can achieve gender/race parity just by offering fixed salaries for given roles and refusing to negotiate. It's a pretty common practice.
Minor differences like that can be expected. Larger ones, even. Worrying about this kind of thing is counter-productive and has to be hurting moral. You know what, pay everyone else 100 and 1 percent what I make. I won't complain. Because 1% of my pay is far overshadowed by other aspects of the environment. My boss being a slightly cooler guy is more important. My workplace being less uptight is worth more than that. Knowing we're not wasting money counting pennies is worth more than that. So here's my 2 cents. Keep it, because you're worth it.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Pay is likely set by level and roll, so that they match isn't very telling. It would be informative if they were to show that all segments are promoted at the same rate also. Women tend to ask for / propose their promotion less frequently (and I possibly other segments of staff have similar differences) so regardless of performance, they lag in pay by not getting/seeking promotion.
http://www.theguardian.com/mon...
"Women in 20s earn more than men"
Women are already making more than men as is
If you set things so you can't pay women less than men, it's inevitable they will earn more.
What you say is true, but almost never acknowledged by the SJW crowd. A man in our society is expected to work hard his entire life to be the "bread winner" of the family. He is looked upon poorly if he doesn't have a job or doesn't make much money. Some men literally kill themselves working. Meanwhile, a woman can coast along as a "homemaker" her entire life and not be judged harshly. And sure, everyone plays up how "hard" it is to maintain the home and raise kids. We all know the truth.
This statistics used here are for within Microsoft, not for either the industry or the workforce as a whole. I'm not aware of any claims that women or minorities at Microsoft were making 77 cents per dollar their white male colleagues get.
Even if what you claim - that the 77 cent thing is a myth and a lie - is true, your ideological bias is showing really, really strongly here. If you want to be taken seriously, try to avoid equating two completely unequal things (Microsoft's compensation and the workforce as a whole).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
by hatchet, axe, and saw
You know what I see when a gigantic corporation with tons of employees both on the books and laboring away as contractors and consultants put out a statement like this? I see a corporation that at its highest levels got interested in meeting some agreed-upon labor statistic and then combined various business pressures together in an efficient way to solve those issues simultaneously. Business pressures demanding you get rid of higher-paid, older workers? Higher-paid, older workers happen to be largely Caucasian males? Win win for these purposes!
Need to get minority pay rates up in line with Caucasian pay rates? You COULD pay the minorities more.. and certainly you might spend some effort making sure there's no egregious cases of under-compensation going on, especially if there's reason to suspect it might harm bottom line.. but to just offer a net increase in pay to minority workers for the work they've already been doing for less? That's not very Gordon Gecko of you.
Instead, when hiring new workers and unable to source a viable minority candidate ALSO don't pick the most expensive white male candidate even if they're the best fit for the job because we've already got a statistical disparity so, hire the youngest and cheapest one you can, male if you must; when its evaluation season make sure any efforts to cut dead weight focus on the older white less long-term and thus better compensated employees first; similarly make sure that budgets for raises are systematically in line with minority, gender, and age, with little or not even lip service paid to actual skill or work done -- after all, if you stop compensating the older worker he's far more likely to quit, move around internally (and thus not be YOUR problem) or take early retirement than the younger worker for a slew of reasons up to and including the youngest of our workers are pretty much indentured servants that are so deeply in debt and barely surviving paycheck to paycheck that we know we have them over a barrel. Keep this up for a few years? You can achieve your 'better pay for minorities' statistic without ever having to actually pay a minority worker an extra dime for work done. Why would you ever pay minorities or women more if there's a discrepancy being complained about? Lower the pay of the other plebs to the same rates. Silly workers, so dumb, don't know we've been slowly eroding their compensation for a half-century.
How much fucking effort does it take to change a number in a ledger??
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What you describe are exactly the kind of gender stereotypes and expectations set by them that those evil "SJWs" are arguing against.
(And yes, they do raise the issue with male stereotypes, as well. If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been looking.)
You are attempting to conflate some very separate issues. The one I discussed is gender discrimination, and you are talking about a biological function. Which if you don't take time off for, I will assume there is something wrong with you. Given my assumption, and I realize this is difficult for social justice warriors to do, put yourself in the place of a business owner. Would _you_ hire a pregnant person? If it is not skilled work and easy to replace sure, but the majority of businesses would see that as a costly hire. No, not because of gender discrimination, but because of a huge problem with investment which potentially has zero return. If a guy was getting hired in and said "hey, I need to have leg surgery in a few months and will be out of work for a few months" would they be hired? NO, and for the same reason which is exactly not discrimination.
In most jobs you are not productive within your first 30-60 days. Once you start you have to be introduced to everyone, do days worth of mandatory training, do all your paperwork for banking, insurance, federal and state taxes, get your necessary gear and materials, get trained on your specific area of responsibility, learn the chain of command, learn the priorities, learn your bosses style, etc.. etc.. etc... If you are 5-6 months pregnant (you said obvious and most people are not obviously pregnant until then) by the time you get the hang of things and start to produce you are out on leave. By the time you return the manager may be different, accounts and teams get moved around, and if and when you return there is another decent amount of unproductive time. I know plenty of women who never returned to work after having a baby, and many others take a year or more off of work when they have a baby.
Let us not neglect that in San Francisco it was just made law that the company has to pay you for 8 weeks of paid leave without exception. Start a job today, work for a few months, get paid for another 2 months for time off, and maybe never return to that job.
Now again, look at it from a hiring managers perspective. It's not a discrimination problem, that is a liability and cost problem. If you look at that from an unbiased view the reason not to hire is blatantly obvious.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is where the salary myth goes haywire. For a whole lot of reasons women tend to work less hours than men. That general rule is backed by US Census data, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Labor, and every other agency that checks statistics including Universities, State agencies, Large companies, etc..etc..
Do you believe that you working 38 hours a week should make the same wage as someone working 45 hours a week? That is the only way that parity works, unless people work the exact same hours at the same job. Which they do not, for all kinds of reasons. Pregnancy for example, women take time off because they are the only gender that can give birth. Men tend to work tons of extra hours to ensure that the family needs are taken care of during that time.
This dream of utopia where everyone all the time makes the same wage no matter what does not work. It has been tried countless times through history, but it can never work. Read some history books if you have doubts.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Do you believe that you working 38 hours a week should make the same wage as someone working 45 hours a week? That is the only way that parity works, unless people work the exact same hours at the same job. Which they do not, for all kinds of reasons. Pregnancy for example, women take time off because they are the only gender that can give birth.
Know your history. Believe it or not, Congress knew and understood very clearly when they passed the Equal Pay Act that it cost businesses more to employ women because of Pregnancy, for example. They had statistics on it, they understood that a purely economic decision would have taken that into account.
And they decided to pass the equal pay act anyway. Because there are social goals that we are willing to pay money for and make the economy less efficient to achieve. That's why we don't allow slavery. That's why we don't allow child labor. That's why we allow antidiscrimination lawsuits around race.
It's not perfectly fair to men, of course--it necessarily means that men are cross-subsidizing women and getting paid less. But it's still something we've decided is desirable. If you want to change it, elect a new Congress.
Riiiiight, just like all the 70's feminist who ran around demanding that women be drafted into the Vietnam War: zero. Go over to Jezebel and say buttkiss about a negative stereotype against men, and tell us how many times you're accused of being that dreaded spawn of Satan, a mens rights activist.
As long as we're going for non-sequiturs, lets go all out.
For the same reason it costs more to employ men who are likely to take extended paternity leave or drop out of the workforce entirely for several years. And why they make less money when they rejoin the workforce, with less experience than their former co-workers.
Equality is neat that way.
It's a basic law of physics you fucking behemoth hit stainsrains workinging for a terrible company that that has done more damage than Hitler
Riiiiight,
Um yes? I've frequently been accused of being an "SJW" and have frequently written such things. So sure if you ignore everyone who says something that co0ntradicts you then no one contradicts you! Neat-o.
just like all the 70's feminist who ran around demanding that women be drafted into the Vietnam War: zero.
The stupid... it burns.
It's quite remarkable how much dumbassery you managed to cram into a scant 19 words.
Plenty of self-identified feminists protested AGAINST the vietnam war. It would have been idiotic to advocate for women to be sent off to the slaughter like men, when the option was instead to advocate that men weren't sent off to the slaughter just like women. The thing is that actually fits your worldview even worse because then those evil feminists were advocating on behalf of men to get one of the "privileges" that women had.
Go over to Jezebel and say buttkiss about a negative stereotype against men
I have literally no idea what you mean.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"SJWs" like myself do raise this all the time. There are actually words to describe it, words that trigger instant down-mods.
The word to describe this situation is "patriarchy". It simply describes the way a society is biased towards masculinity, things like bread-winning over home-making, putting pressure on men to play certain roles and avoid others like being a stay at home parent. Things like running a household and brining up kids are undervalued, not seen as real work or something that only women do.
Feminism has studied this for decades and offers solutions. In fact there has been a lot of success, when you consider what the 1950s model father and mother were like. But for some people feminism is a trigger word, so they down-mod it hard and then complain that feminists don't care about these issues.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Regardless of the pay ratio for males vs. females, the greater disparity of pay is between countries.
There's a huge difference in pay for the same work between staff in "first world" countries (e.g. USA) and those in developing countries (e.g. India). There the pay ratio is more like 10:1.
"Some men literally kill themselves working."
I sometimes wonder what would happen to the pay gap if you added the salaries from the population which committed suicide. Suicide rates being much higher among men.
Anyway, in my lifetime, working in tech, Microsoft is the norm. There has been no paygap along my career path, and there have been very, very few women, even though I interview and hire them preferentially. none apply.
So Micro$oft imports tons of low paid L1 visa holders from their Vancouver office.
Then they say "OK, everyone will now be paid that badly."
Instead of raising pay, they'll cut it down to their lowest paid.
Equality...looking at the statistics that Kathleen Hogan paraded around of:
Woman white(?) wage = $.998
Guy white wage - $1
Guy(?) black wage = $1.003
Guy(?) hispanic wage - $.999
Guy(?) asian wage - $1.006
By looking at the numbers, aside from sloppy reporting of statistical data by Kathleen, would lead me to believe there is NO equality among ANY of the groups. If there was equality then would all groups be at equal wage? I dunno, maybe something like a nice, round $1?
Did I miss the social justice warrior / diversity memo where they released the logic formulas that declare such disparities as victory?
you only Preach that you Never ever practice it otherwise you'll have alot of senior loafers pissed.
I wonder if it's social pressures, or some other driving force. I can only go on personal experience, but I know a gal who was quite smart. At least as much as myself (no, not being egotistic, just comparative), and definitely better educated. We competed on grades in secondary school. Post HS, she took the same program in Uni as me plus others I didn't take.
However, afterwards, the job market was of course tough for everyone. We both initially ended up with fairly low-paying jobs (not minimum wage but only a bit better than) that were only somewhat related to our education. From there, that's where we diverged. I often gave up my "comfort zone" to take risks on better jobs. First, it was a job was better than my previous, but only offered trial contract where I split shifts with another person (and thus, I had two jobs that I worked part-time). I hung in with it and eventually the other guy quit, leaving me a decent full-time position. From there, I moved between various jobs - even moving across the country - generally improving my situation or sometimes staying in something similar but learning more.
My friend, on the other hand, was not into looking for a new job. Even when her hours got cut back, and it was a "writing-on-the-wall" scenario, she wouldn't look until things pretty much reached the end. Even after that, she went into a similar industry that didn't pay great and didn't make use of her education. I will also confess that for awhile, said friend and I dated, and throughout I was pushing her to try for something better as I knew she was more than capable.
Again, I only have person experience to go on, but I've found this the case with many female friends, relatives, and colleagues. There seems to be less risk-taking or changing of positions in general.
You don't know what you are talking about. Hundreds of thousands of women enlisted and served during WWI and WWII. The ban on women serving in combat roles was lifted in 2013 and women have applied for those roles.
Today, April 12th, is supposed to be Equal Pay Day. The day of the year that supposedly marks how much more a woman has to work this year to make up for last year's difference. The attention-grabbing figure is 79%. That would mean that a man makes 26% more than a woman. Doing the math, this date then should have been April 8th. At just after 2am if you're wanting to set off fireworks.
Since the draft was over on (IIRC) June 30, 1971, and US participation in the war dropped pretty rapidly after 1968, they wouldn't have had much time to do so. My wife did object to not being subject to the draft, FWIW, although I didn't observe any other woman doing so.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If they want to offer 100% pay, why don't they just do it? I mean they seem to be really close to it, what's the point in not saying "that's our contract, it was made before we knew your gender, because that's what you earn on that position"?
1) Google the definition of enlisting
2) Google the definition of being drafted
3) Serving in a hospital isn't the same thing as serving in a trench, or storming a beach
4) Tell us again who doesn't know what they are talking about
And yet remain exempt from the Selective Service Act. See 4) again.
She should check and see if there's a prize for being the first one to do so. As for being over in 1971:
Not in any place that has SJW's, you haven't. Otherwise you would have been sneered as a mens rights activist, and/or told to STFU because women have had it worse.
Nice shovel you have there.
Don't twist your ankle in that hole you're digging.
Hey. Dumbfuck. Plenty of men protested the war, too - but their choices were to go to jail, flee to Canada, or be sent overseas to kill people minding their own damn business, or be killed themselves. Not to mention the chickenshit cop-out of crying about being against the war when the point is that your ass is exempt from the draft.