Apple, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft Sign White House Pledge For Equal Pay (fortune.com)

In honor of Women's Equality Day, an anonymous reader shares with us a festive report from Fortune: More than two months after the White House first announced its Equal Pay Pledge for the private sector, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and other major industry players have signed on. By taking the pledge, which was first introduced at the United State of Women Summit in June of this year, companies promise to help close the national gender pay gap, conduct annual, company-wide pay analyses, and review hiring and promotion practices. The new signees were announced in a White House statement on Friday -- which also happens to be Women's Equality Day, the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Apple, which announced earlier this year that it has no pay gap, released a statement promising to dig even deeper into compensation. "We're now analyzing the salaries, bonuses, and annual stock grants of all our employees worldwide. If a gap exists, we'll address it," the company said in a statement. Twenty-nine companies signed the pledge on Friday, bringing the total number of signatories to 57. The pledge is part of a $50-million, White House-led initiative to expand opportunities for and improve the lives of women and girls. The consortium members issued a statement via Whitehouse.gov's press release: "The Employers for Pay Equity consortium is comprised of companies that understand the importance of diversity and inclusion, including ensuring that all individuals are compensated equitably for equal work and experience and have an equal opportunity to contribute and advance in the workplace. We are committed to collaborating to eliminate the national pay and leadership gaps for women and ethic minorities. Toward that end, we have come together to share best practices in compensation, hiring, promotion, and career development as well as develop strategies to support other companies' efforts in this regard. By doing so, we believe we can have a positive effect on our workforces that, in turn, makes our companies stronger and delivers positive economic impact." The consortium members include: Accenture, Airbnb, BCG, Care.com, CEB, Cisco, Deloitte, Dow, Expedia, EY, Glassdoor, GoDaddy, Jet.com, L'Oreal USA, Mercer, PepsiCo, Pinterest, Rebecca Minkoff, Salesforce, Spotify, Staples, Stella McCartney, and Visa.

Comments

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they work equal time?

Cause in my experience there's a lot more "oh my children" time given and no "Hey I am a single white male" time compensated.

Re:Cool

[Ol Olsoc]

Can they work equal time?

Cause in my experience there's a lot more "oh my children" time given and no "Hey I am a single white male" time compensated.

Hopefully, the work itself will have some impact on compensation. I was the highest paid person in my department by far. That's because I would put in the work needed to get the job done. Trying to get a female co-worker to put in anything over 40 hours was almost impossible. The reasons it was impossible was that "I have to cook dinner for my husband/pick up the kids at day care/I have a golf match/group therapy/I'm in a car pool/I have a headache. The same for most field trips.

To the point where in over 30 years, I recall one time a female co-worker worked overtime. She even cried about it.

After 5 was a sausagefest, as they say. So I'd be interested in seeing some equality in that area as well.

And that's a big issue, because although I'm retired now, if my co-workers who couldn't be bothered to put in any extra when needed were paid the same as me, I'd either need a promotion, or would also have to cook dinner for my wife.

Ok

[geek]

Fine, as long as it works both ways. There are two women on my team who earn more than me with less qualifications and are on my team solely because they are women. Diversity! I should expect a raise right?

Re:Ok

[Plus1Entropy]

If you really think you're underpaid compared to your co-workers, then yes, you should ask for a raise (not simply "expect" one). Whether they are women or not, the "correct" answer doesn't change.

However, you've probably never asked because you're afraid that the answer will be that they are actually more qualified and/or better at their jobs than you are.

Re: Ok

[Calydor]

You are getting dangerously close to 'Sins of the fathers' territory with that logic.

The solution to inequality is not an equal amount of inequality to the other side.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in this exact same situation and no, the female developer is not more qualified or better at her job. The response was "you need to be more sensitive to current climate".

I am now looking for a new job after being informed that they're looking to expand their diversity efforts. I've already had one hiring manager casually tell me that my 'optics' put me at a disadvantage in his hiring criteria. (Optics meaning that I'm 'fucking a while male!!!')

Take all of your SJW horseshit and cram it right where the sun don't shine. I've spent my entire life advocating for equality of opportunity and trying to combat racism, sexism and bigotry wherever I saw it. My reward is getting told that I'm somehow responsible for the entire world's ills, which they conveniently can't quantify or demonstrate in any way whatsoever.

And the other end of the deal?

[Stormwatch]

So, did women pledge to work as hard as men do? Did they pledge to take as many overtime hours? Did they pledge to pursue the same risky and physically demanding careers, such as construction or mining?

Re: And the other end of the deal?

[hsthompson69]

I suppose it depends on how you measure "hard".

If you mean "hard" as in "put in my own personal maximum effort", you've got a point. A five year old girl can "work as hard" as a 35 year old man, if they're both trying their best. Hell, a five year old girl can work even *harder* than a 35 year old man, if he's just slacking.

If you mean "hard" as in "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength", then, yes, there are some inherent sexual differences, and you can clearly see this in the over-representation of men in objectively hard, dangerous, physical jobs. Your "hard working" five year old girl might be putting 100% maximum effort to lift that 10 pound bag, and the "slacking" 35 year old man might only be putting in 10% effort moving around a 40 pound bag, but the 35 year old man is doing harder work.

I only point this out because GP didn't use the word "effort", which you seem to have interpreted into their comment.

In my experience, there is a significant difference in productivity for men and women, across quite a number of professions. Claiming that there is no difference in the productivity is quite misandrinistic. It's also false.

Re:And the other end of the deal?

[hsthompson69]

You do realize that the often reported "pay-gap" doesn't control for qualifications, workload, or responsibility, right?

The pay-gap exists because men and women make different choices, and these choices have consequences even when everyone is paid identically based on qualifications, workload and responsibility.

Now, if you really want to talk about equal pay, hows about union shops where seniority drives pay, rather than qualifications, workload and responsibility. Two people, both working the same job, both producing the same results, and one gets paid more simply because they have been there longer. Now that's a sticky wicket.

Re:And the other end of the deal?

[nctritech]

The myth that women don't have agency and aren't capable adults needs to die.

It is a choice to have children and the full consequences of doing so aren't a secret.

It is a choice to listen to people who try to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own future.

It is a choice to ask for a lower pay raise when you ask for a raise, as it is a choice to not seek a new job if your company doesn't appreciate you.

The last statement doesn't make any sense without more context.

Re:And the other end of the deal?

[nomadic]

What I find somewhat hilarious are the legions of resentful male developers who will complain for years that they are not hired or underpaid or overworked or not promoted or criticized or whatever, inconsistent with their true worth, because: (a) workplace politics, (b) human resources are idiots; (c) their boss doesn't like that they're smarter than them; (d) nepotism; (e) they don't have the right degree even though they're smarter than the PhDs they work with; (f) their coworkers undermine them; (g) etc..

But, the second a woman complains that she is unfairly paid less than them, these developers suddenly develop massive cases of amnesia and insist that their companies are true meritocracies where talent is universally recognized and rewarded, so obviously the accusations of discrimination against women are unwarranted.

Re:And the other end of the deal?

[AmiMoJo]

It's only a meritocracy if the merit it recognizes is yours.

How about the H1-B Equal Pay Pledge?

[SeaFox]

Yeah, I didn't think so.

If you are so sure

[s.petry]

What stops you from giving up your job so that the oppressed can work? Why does the progressive left always require other people to suffer to make up for suffering their policies have caused? I'll bet if your livelihood was threatened to support the narrative you would change your tune real quick. Strange how that works Comrade.

Re:If you are so sure

[Ol Olsoc]

Why does the progressive left always require other people to suffer to make up for suffering their policies have caused?

I'm curious. Why does it make you "suffer" because someone else gets paid as much as you do?

How does equal pay make you suffer?

Imagine me making a pro free market statement - so hold on to your hats!!!

In my situation I was very well paid - over 3 times what most of the people in my department of the same position.

But there was a reason for this. I worked outside my job definition as needed, I participated in research and coauthored papers, I interfaced effectively with all levels from the janitors to visiting dignitaries. I'd travel and work offsite, and spend as much time needed to get the job done. It was a very fluid situation, so you couldn't just throw more people at it - you needed that sort of dedication. And heaven help HR if they tried to make a job description.

So now we have to make an argument for a new person coming in being compensated the same as me. Or if the new person is female and doesn't want to work more than 40 hours a week. THe only female I know that regularly did that is my wife, an alpha chick of the "we are equal" variety, and I've worked with many.

Should this new person get the same pay as me? All of the typical suit's arguments asitde, that could be done. They could triple their wages.

But now there is me. My contribution was indeed worth more than theirs. I knew that, the people I worked for knew that. I would exercise my free market value and leave for higher pay somewhere else if the noob who wouldn't work more than 40 hours a week or work as hard or in as many areas with an expanded skillset. Or just work at the same level as they did.

On the other hand, there is no reason that a female doing the same thing shouldn't be compensated as much.

So they paid me more.

I do not know all of the details of this equal pay business, so I could be talking out of my ass - wouldn't be the first time. But its not remotely cut and dried. Let's hope it doesn't become a least common denominator situation.

We promise!

[wonkavader]

I think if you read the actual agreement, I suspect it says "We promise to pay women just as much as we pay our male H1-Bs."

Re:There is no gender gap it's b.s.

[Crashmarik]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...

Yawn

I say equal pay

[penguinoid]

for introverts and extroverts.

The entire premise is pure BS

[Fallen Kell]

When will people wake up and stop eating up this stuff? The entire notion that there isn't equal pay for equal work is pure crap. If it wasn't crap, all these companies would have been hiring women all the time for every position because they could pay them less.

Lets do a little common sense here, I am a hiring manager and just interviewed two people with very similar qualifications, backgrounds, and work ethic, but one of them I can save ~20% on pay/benefits.... Wow, I wonder who I am hiring...

Wait, but you mean to say that the market doesn't work in this case, that all the financial market theory, best practices, etc., all cease to function once someone introduces the gender of an employee. Go back to college if you still think that (or more to the point go to college in the first place, just make sure you study a STEMS field, apparently we need more of them to drive costs down because we can't hire enough, and thus need more H1Bs, and yet wages are still mostly stagnant...).

Re:You forget that

[x0ra]

Sure... higher likelihood of death on the job, higher dropout rates, higher homelessness rates, higher legal obligation, higher deathtoll in wars, higher suicide rates, higher homicide rates, higher sentencing rates, less cancer research funding rates, smaller custody rates, higher victimization rates.

Enough ?

Re:You forget that

[guruevi]

Sorry, but you must be looking at different stats:

Contested cases where the Custodial Father (meaning the child currently lives with the father) retains custody: 17%
Contested cases where the Custodial Mother retains custody: 83%

The only articles I can find that say otherwise are ALL pointing to the same HuffPo article (not even a scholarly backed piece).

The "majority" of parents does indeed reach an agreement out of court, a little over 50% (Macooby & Mnookin) reaches a so-called uncontested agreement, that means at least 49% is contested. In SJW-world this would mean any contested cases should automatically go to the father right? Equality in numbers and all.

In a study of 705 cases, an uncontested request for maternal physical custody was made in 500 cases. The outcome matched the request for maternal custody in nearly 90% of such cases. In contrast, paternal physical custody was awarded in only 75% of the 47 cases in which there was an uncontested request for sole paternal physical custody. - So EVEN in uncontested cases (the mother agrees), the courts will 25% of the time override the parents' wishes and still grant the mother custody.

There are some 40,000 disputed custody cases every year which are decided by family court judges. These judges will listen to recommendations from court welfare officers who visit the family and write 35,000 reports every year. The welfare officers work in the probation service which deals with mostly male criminals, this makes it difficult to see fathers in a positive light. The result is that family courts award mothers sole custody in 71% of cases and fathers sole custody in 7% of all cases, joint custody is awarded in the remaining 21% of cases. Many fathers report giving up an expensive custody fight for their children after advice from lawyers who say they can't win. It is very common for mothers during custody battles to receive state funded legal aid. A custody battle is therefore a very unequal war of attrition. Many fathers report that efforts to have contact with their children are blocked by mothers, and the courts will not enforce the right of children to have contact with their fathers.

Re:You forget that

[Znork]

"Which is not to say I'm unsympathetic, but the issue isn't the disparity, it's the things that drive people to suicide."

That's saying that women are incompetent at suicide. It's not like it's a big secret that pills and cutting aren't very likely to actually kill you and getting information of easily accessible methods that will actually get the job done isn't more than a search away (automotive assisted decapitation ftw!). Being capable of researching options isn't a gendered thing (or we should re-evaluate a lot of things).

I suspect the reality is that the disparity is largely based on the rational projections of future life chances. There's a large difference in the likely development of a life for those who aren't completely capable of dealing with it for men and women. Women make an ultimately rational choice to keep chances high to get help, because they have a significant chance of actually getting help, and even women who can never support themselves will often be able to life a somewhat decent life, get support from parents, attract a mate, etc. While men... well, a failed suicide attempt isn't exactly CV improving material.

So, whether a fully conscious choice or not, the disparity is sociologically and probably biologically rational. Men have better reasons to be serious about it if they decide to check out.

And I really don't see any tendencies that it will change. Rather, I think our care for women is biologically hardwired, and the way society is progressing for the moment, being unsympathetic to men is more popular than ever. I mean, fuck, look at something like BLM; even if, in reality, the black men are mainly getting shot due to being male rather than being black, would you try launching a 'mens lives matter' movement? I think not.