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."
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...
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.
Not sure whether you have a contract but employers may not discriminate in determining who gets vacation. If your co-worker gets vacation (paid or unpaid) because he's Indian, you should get some too, otherwise stick your HR department on your supervisor or even your attorney.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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...
FMLA (Family Medical Leave) is not paid but you could get it as well even if you are male. Any policies regarding negative Paid Time Off would also have to apply to you.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Well, yeah, if you don't correct for education then of course people at the age of "right out of college" will earn more; more women get degrees! This is an unsurprising result of looking at the earning potential of those with and without a degree, and then looking at the gender ratio of college graduates. True, some of the high-paying skilled fields are male-dominated (software being an obvious example), but those don't make up for the relative dearth of men with a tertiary degree in general.
The fact that the trend reverses so sharply at 30 is interesting. One possibility is just that women in their 30s are far more likely to have kids and thus only work part-time jobs. Normally I'd say any study which failed to account for that was trash, but this study already appears to have failed to account for education, so yeah, it's trash. If part-time-working moms in their 30ss still make less than part-time-working dads in their 30s (especially at similar education levels), then maybe there's a problem. If childless 30-something women still make much less than childless 30-something men, then maybe there's a problem.
I say "maybe" in both cases because there's a ton of stuff to take into consideration. Education, part-time vs. full-time, and the field in which you work are all easy examples (easy to identify, not always to fix) but there are many others that may be relevant. Microsoft's work here is a good example of doing it right: by comparing title (which covers area of work, plus promotions) and level (seniority and past performance) with like title and level, they are correcting for many of the obvious problems.
Of course, as a whole, women at MS still make way less than men, but that's because there are ~4x as many man at Microsoft as there are women. That's an example of how easy it is to skew statistics, though, and nothing more. On an individual level, for the same kind of work, women appear to earn very nearly the same as men. That's an impressive achievement on Microsoft's part, especially since the tech industry is undeniably male-heavy and there's no reason to think that all the competing gender biases in such an uneven workforce would *exactly* cancel out and avoid preferential treatment for one gender.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Yes, because "not less than" is exactly the same thing as "strictly greater than", right?
Did you fail math in elementary school or something?
I am going to be unusually kind for me and suggest you actually try working this out.
You can try using two random variables and see what happens whenever 1 distribution defines what lowest matching value is in the 2nd
If you don't understand what I just said. Take two dice of different colors. Call one men, the other women. Roll 20 times, whenever the women die comes up with a smaller number than the men die, set it's value to the men die.
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.
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.
Yes, because "not less than" is exactly the same thing as "strictly greater than", right?
Did you fail math in elementary school or something?
When a statistical truth meets a political ideology, which do you think will come off better? Fact is, given two variables X and Y, if X is never allowed to fall below whatever Y is at that point in time, then it is a statistical certainty that X will always average higher than Y. Always.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
"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
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.