Slashdot Mirror


After Iceland and Germany, Now France Declares War on the Gender Wage Gap (fastcompany.com)

France says it wants to make good on at least one-third of its motto of "liberte, egalite, and fraternite," by ensuring pay equality. From a report: The French government announced it is devising a "tough, concrete" plan to make the gender pay gap as much a thing of the past as Madame DeFarge's knitting habit. Per the Associated Press, France's plan for pay equity is still a work in progress. However, legislators may require companies to release the average salaries of their male and female employees and analyze them for disparities.

293 comments

  1. Fair Comparison by dentree4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as they release salaries *and* hours worked for a fair comparison, I'm ok with this.

    1. Re:Fair Comparison by erapert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They must go further and quantify and release data about actual productivity.
      It should go without saying that age, experience, and skill set stats must also be included.
      And while we're at it, we should also make a note to release all info about who knows who and for how long as well as stats on who has been on which project for how long.
      Y'know, now that I think about, it's probably also crucial to get some figures on who lives in which neighborhood because the cost of living and thus also salaries varies by region.


      What if we just cut to the chase and straight up mandate how much companies must pay their workers?
      Surely that won't drive jobs away... because we'll all be so multi-cultural and anti-sexists that our utopia will be the only place that anyone will ever want to work!

    2. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And please consider the performance/results!

      To me this gender mainstream is at least in parts like tilting at windmills. There can not be a perfect equality while we all stay individuals. Best we can do is to create equal rights, which is mostly achieved in the western world.

    3. Re:Fair Comparison by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, they must go even further and release data about employees pursuing raises and promotions, actual histories of changing jobs for better pay or positions, being willing and actually doing less desirable jobs for better pay (night shifts, rotating shifts, etc) . And, then correlate this information across entire employee careers to quantify the exact effect each of these things have on compensation.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re: Fair Comparison by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same, because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out. Of course there will be outliers, both people earning more and people earning less, and both types will have deserved and undeserved reasons, but for the vast majority it should statistically be about the same.

      It's possible that there are careers that would favor one gender over another, but those are mostly lower-skilled jobs that require brute strength. Even a lot of low-skill jobs should be roughly at parity, because there are a lot of labor-saving devices that any able-bodied individual can use. A worker in an automotive assembly plant attaching doors to car bodies uses a gantry to pick up, move, and position the door, and probably uses a machine to drive-in and torque the fasteners. Just about anyone able-bodied that has reached adolescence could operate that machine, there is no need for greater strength or dexterity. Neither gender really has any advantage over the other in this scenario, so there should be no reason to pay either gender more than the other for this sort of work.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Fair Comparison by umghhh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This goes a bit further: you normalize for position, experience and company (the same job and skills set but different companies and you may have different wage etc) and you get at proper result. In a study after study this has been around 2% in Western Europe. So you go and fix that and I am ok with that. The problem is that most of the warriors for a better future are fighting to fix difference that is allegedly about 20% (socialists in Germany claimed 17% last year). This has no relationship to reality but in a world where for claiming reality you get James Damored you should not expect justice. How current injustice against men fixes previous injustice against women I am still waiting to see.

    6. Re:Fair Comparison by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are multiple issues which are regularly conflated in these discussions, and often some of those issues are almost deliberately hidden in order to push the discussion in one particular direct (that direction being that any disparity is bad).

      The UK just forced the top 500 companies to release this sort of information, and at a glance some of them are really bad - EasyJet (a budget airline) has a gap of over 50%, or in other words the average difference between wages paid to women is 50% that of wages paid to men. Except that men tend to be employed in the company as pilots, and women as cabin crew, which have massive differences - and it remains to be proven if that is a company culture issue or not (my guess is, not, as many airline pilots are ex-military pilots, and we are only just seeing an improvement in female military pilots, so perhaps this will resolve itself in due course).

      Then you have the issue of the career gap, where women take time off to have children and return to work a year behind their male counterparts in experience, exposure etc. A very difficult one to solve - do you gift those women a year, do you hold back men for a year, what?

      And yes, there are the outright legitimate arguments about women simply being paid less because they are women, and there are also the kinda legitimate arguments about different negotiating styles between sexes being an issue (but then that all depends on the job - my wife is a doctor, and a quick straw poll of her friends suggests she can demand a higher day rate as a locum precisely because she is female - more women want a female doctor for female issues, which is a good negotiating area for the locum).

      Solving the legitimate issues doesn't however solve all the issues, but no one has worked out how to solve those ones without penalising companies and male workers (but some wouldn't see an issue with that at all).

      Just publishing the wage gap is meaningless flame bait without a lot more information around that gap.

    7. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just hang out in a men's room at 8am. You'll have plenty of customers you can give blowjobs to. But you'll have to set up the coffee pot somewhere else.

    8. Re:Fair Comparison by polar+red · · Score: 1, Troll

      > How current injustice against men
      yeah, equal is unfair for men.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    9. Re: Fair Comparison by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same,

      Why?

      because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days, work in less pleasant environments or more dangerous conditions. Particular groups also push more for raises or change jobs for increased pay.

      If those groups don't represent men and women equally, their "statistical centers" would be skewed apart.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Fair Comparison by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And the job worked. I kinda have a hunch that high voltage electrician is better paid due to not really needing a pension plan if you ain't one of the more careful people on the planet is better paid than, say, hairdresser.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re: Fair Comparison by XanC · · Score: 1

      There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same, because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      Citation needed. If it's the case that in general women prefer different things from their job from what men prefer (greater flexibility at the cost of higher pay, for example) then the centers would not be the same.

    12. Re: Fair Comparison by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Talk for your own office.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Summary of your position: if men make more, it's obvious that it's deserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if women insist on equity, it has to be carefully justified.

    14. Re:Fair Comparison by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Equal? No. Having to hire women instead of men if qualifications are equal? Yes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Fair Comparison by polar+red · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Having to hire women instead of men if qualifications are equal?
      BS. this is about wage. There is no mention of having to hire women.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    16. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total Bullshit. Woman has to rise children. She simply is closest body on the earth for their child. In that nobody can compete to she. And that's why she cannot compete to the man, who always (almost always) have somebody (she) who takes an eye for his child. So more woman will take care of she's child, - so better mom she be. So better values she will give to the society. That CANNOT be expressed into money. - Any money.
      So it is absolutely normal if woman at any moment of life brings she's business apart and takes care of she's child. That is not absolutely normal for a man.
      Stupid selfish populists simply does not understand that difference in between genders. They tend to catch simple minded people on the stupid and not proved principle that anybody should be equal. That is simply not true. And will never be so.

    17. Re: Fair Comparison by TWX · · Score: 2

      I'm referring to jobs/workers/wages in a particular field. I am not comparing different types of jobs.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    18. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Chinese coworker works a lot harder than me. He also gets paid more than me so I don't feel bad about it.

    19. Re: Fair Comparison by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Gender and racial inequality holds across all job classifications.
      Chart #7 of this series http://www.epi.org/publication...

      On average, black women workers are paid only 67 cents on the dollar relative to white non-Hispanic men, after controlling for education, years of experience, and location (using 2016 data). This distressing statistic reflects the dual inequities faced by black women—they are subject to both a racial pay gap and a gender pay gap. A key focus of those committed to a fairer economy should be closing these gaps and accelerating economic progress for black women. A number of myths block steps toward real solutions, including the myth that racial and gender pay gaps are simply due to black women making unconstrained choices to pursue careers that pay less. In reality, occupational segregation is not simply a voluntary choice, but is clearly affected by discrimination both before and after people begin their careers. Further, racial and gender pay gaps persist even within occupations.

      The chart shows the average wages of black women and white men in a range of occupations. In every occupation shown—both female-dominated and male-dominated—black women earn less than white men. White male physicians and surgeons earn, on average, $18.00 per hour more than black women doing the same job ($54.94 versus $36.94). The gap for retail salespersons is also shocking, at more than $9.00 an hour ($20.12 versus $10.99). The data confirm that black women are underpaid, period.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    20. Re: Fair Comparison by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      What part of what I wrote refers to different jobs in different fields?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    21. Re: Fair Comparison by p3ngwin · · Score: 1

      because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      That's exactly how the myth of the "gender wage gap" was started, ignoring the fact different people WITHIN THE SAME JOB, worked different hours, etc. So which is it: 1) the gender wage gap exists and is proved when we examine the average worker in each job, ignoring hours worked. ... 2) "individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out." Pick one.

    22. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When did GP make any sort of men/women distinction?

    23. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I want the blowjobs from men, not giving them to men! You faggot!

    24. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      Sure, let's just assume the fucking conclusion we want. Why not? I see no problem there.

    25. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just publishing the wage gap is meaningless flame bait without a lot more information around that gap.

      This. One of the easier ways to look through the BS is to compare compensation per hour worked. Suddenly much of the difference falls away, because relatively more women choose to work part time.

      Let me skip a long and detailed argument, and mention that the executive summary is "emergent behaviour": By and large the opportunity is equal, but the outcome isn't. I'm fine with this. If people get a choice and the results of their individual choices just happens to be that enough women end up working less, thereby earning less, that it becomes visible in naïve statistics, so be it. It's their choice. There is no "oh you're a woman so it's housewife for you!" like there used to be. There's "have some schooling and a career if you like, there's a good kid" and that goes for boys and girls alike. That was what the drive was all about: Equal opportunity. We have this.

      But that equal outcome is what the gender gap warriors are all about. I disagree with them.

    26. Re: Fair Comparison by magzteel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gender and racial inequality holds across all job classifications.
      Chart #7 of this series http://www.epi.org/publication...

      I picked one line from that chart, retail salespersons. According to that chart, black female retail salespersons make $10.99/hr while white males make $20.12/hr

      The bureau of labor statistics charts explain why: https://www.bls.gov/oes/curren...

      If you are working sales in a retail store the average wage is around $11/hr
      But if you are working sales in the manufacturing industries the salaries are $20+/hr

      The EPI chart clearly doesn't adjust by industry. As usual, if you want to make more get a job that pays more.

    27. Re:Fair Comparison by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whoever makes the claim should make the case. All of this "listen and believe" crap we get is why fewer and fewer take the accusations at face value.

    28. Re: Fair Comparison by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing industry sales people are not "retail sales people".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    29. Re: Fair Comparison by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You may very well be wrong even when talking about a particular field. There's no reason to a priori assume the aggregates would turn out identical.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >There is no mention of having to hire women.
      There will be.

      If employers are convinced they pay men and women equally for equal work, then forcing them to pay women 20% more will result in them hiring fewer women, which will result in quotas - either de facto or de jure - for hiring 50% women in all positions.

    31. Re: Fair Comparison by magzteel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Manufacturing industry sales people are not "retail sales people".

      The bureau of labor statistics disagrees with you. Read the charts
      https://www.bls.gov/oes/curren...

    32. Re: Fair Comparison by umghhh · · Score: 1

      easy, easy - we live in 21st century so all is possible with bit of patience and effort - we can even reach situation where big part of blow job desiring population gets it from people they desire to get it from, this includes all combinations. OC there will be some left that will need to get their satisfaction elsewhere but such is life. There is no reason to go ballistic on this this and oppress people because of their choice of bj giving party.

    33. Re: Fair Comparison by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That may very well be true, but if both those pages are summarized according to the same criteria, removing the manufacturing industry sales people from the group will invalidate said chart #7.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    34. Re: Fair Comparison by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same, because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      This is a false assumption because it assumes that men and women are essentially the same minus some plumbing. This couldn't be further from the truth. Sex is an example of diversity so it puzzles me why progressives expect equal outcome. Trying to force it is illiberal and immoral. It demonizes men and infantilizes women.

      It's possible that there are careers that would favor one gender over another, but those are mostly lower-skilled jobs that require brute strength. Even a lot of low-skill jobs should be roughly at parity, because there are a lot of labor-saving devices that any able-bodied individual can use.

      There are fundamental biological differences at work. It's not just plumbing and muscles. The neurology and endocrinology is different too, and that affects temperament and imperatives which in turn affect life choices and priorities.

      Neither gender really has any advantage over the other in this scenario, so there should be no reason to pay either gender more than the other for this sort of work.

      From this I can tell you've never worked a day in a factory of any sort.

    35. Re: Fair Comparison by umghhh · · Score: 1

      They may be - there is always a chance however small that may be. There will always be a difference. This is incomprehensible for majority and used on purpose by minority. It is wrong to discriminate for any reason of course. I started to be discriminated against because while in Germany where I live normalized difference between wages is below 2% the target as described by leading politicians, activists and media is said to be 20%. Clearly after fixing that difference I will be heavily discriminated against. I hope we never get there but with current way of leading any discussion we may just very well be heading this direction.

    36. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Neither gender really has any advantage over the other in this scenario, so there should be no reason to pay either gender more than the other for this sort of work.

      Okay ... let's say that there's some innate skill that determines one's ability to use machines to assemble a car: a combination of motor skill, spatial reasoning, and attention to detail. Call it skill X. Let's assume that there's some natural person-to-person variation in X, and further assume that the distribution of X is the same for both men and women.

      Now, let's say that women prefer to spend a larger fraction of their time parenting than men do. Now the absolute amount of X among women is the same as that for men - but the availability of X is lower among women than among men. If an automobile factory hires and promotes people on the basis of X, they will end up with more men, or paying men more, or some combination thereof.

      If you then require that the factory pays men and women equally, it will be paying women more per unit X: that is, a woman will earn more than an equally-skilled man. The net effect is a transfer of wealth from men to women.

      To illustrate the point, consider what would happen if we adopted a converse policy: subsidise men acting as parents, by increasing government payouts to single fathers, and allocating custody in divorce cases to the father by default and requiring the mother to pay punitive child support ... which has a knock-on effect by giving husbands more leverage to force their wives to enter the workforce. This would enhance equality: more women would work, including those with high X, so numbers and wages in our hypothetical automobile factory would approach parity. But the net effect would be a transfer of wealth from women to men, so this option doesn't get mentioned: feminists want any change to advantage women, and there's no male equivalent that wants similar changes to advantage men.

    37. Re:Fair Comparison by umghhh · · Score: 1

      There is indeed not, Not in TFA. In reality I live in my boss has to justify employment of men. She does not have to do that for women. The dynamic is there.

    38. Re:Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You only need to pass one law really. All compensation (vacation, salary, money spent on training, paid and unpaid time off) must be published monthly with an annual total.

      If you pay your good employees less, they will leave when faced with that fact.

      It's not even legal in some states any more to fire employees who talk about salary.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    39. Re: Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3

      Why.

      Because, if you didn't know if you would be among the workers making 30% less,

      would you pick
      a system where 50% of the workers arbitrarily make 30% less pay for the same work
      or
      a system where the pay for 100% of the workers was roughly the same?

      I would pick the second system. I wouldn't want 50/50 odds of getting shafted.

      ---

      I *do* think that they need to consider all the benefits, years of experience, hours worked, productivity, and so on in addition to salary however.

      I once worked at a place where men were forced to work weekends without extra hourly compensation because it was considered too dangerous for females to work weekends. It pissed me off and took me about 9 months to find a new position.

      I didn't mind working weekends- but I did want to be forgiven from the 9am monday meeting after I worked til 10pm sunday night. Compensation would have been nice too. That never happened.

      But you may be rationalizing because you are currently a "winner" under the system. The system needs to be fair to everyone.

      And that means mostly gender neutral standards for pay and non-secret salary and benefits information.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    40. Re: Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Even you have to know it's not a myth.

      Some companies take advantage of female employees. Have for *decades*. That includes both male and female bosses

      Easiest solution is to publish salary and benefits compensation by employee along with the hours worked each month and year. Even that won't capture things like the brilliant idea person or the super salesperson- but they can be measured by other metrics.

      Women are no better than men at this. Before I retired, their tendency to hire 100% female staffs was blatant. Likewise those with mixed staffs to give plum assignments to their female supervisors.

      it was all in the name of diversity.

      It was abusive at the lower levels to the point where 70% of the supervisers were female up to the just below the executive level.

      But here's the problem.

      The executive level was literally *all* 50+ year old white males. Not a single minority or female (they had only one female when I started). I can't imagine why they were so freaky at the lower levels to try and "average" things out.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    41. Re: Fair Comparison by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      Ah... no. That would only hold true if the groups in comparison were known to be otherwise identical in distribution of all traits, something we DEFINITELY know is not true between sexes (hell it doesn't hold for pretty much all demographic group comparisons). It is impossible to tell from these aggregate statistics if any discrimination is going on or not precisely because of this. In fact, these exact same statistics could be equally well argued to show the demographics are not equivalent. That's the problem. These are useless numbers to use to look for discrimination.

    42. Re: Fair Comparison by p3ngwin · · Score: 0

      "Some companies take advantage of female employees. Have for *decades*. That includes both male and female bosses" Some do, the vast majority don't. Is that the standard for "institutionalised wage gap" ? I'm in favour of merit-based hiring, so i simply do not agree with the trend for "diversity and inclusion" as the current bandwagon exists. Apple fired a 20 year veteran, who was their "diversity chief" for only 6 months, because she would NOT discriminate against white males. “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” If you segregate people by race, colour, creed, sexuality, disability" and whatever other lines you want to draw, you get nowhere. You can't campaign for "equality" while simultaneously separating people into increasingly diverse boxes that prove they're "different" and somehow need handicap bonuses like affirmative action. It's as ridiculous as feminists one moment campaigning for "equality" by claiming they're equally competent as a man and literally "don't need a man", while simultaneously campaigning for lower standards to entry for everything from military, police, firefighter, etc. If you're equally capable, then you have the obligation to be equally tested. No handicap bonuses. Nobody is campaigning for "equality" and "equal representation" in the 100 meters Olympics: where the white people at ? So which is it, are women, blacks, hispanics, etc equal, or need help because they're inferior ? P.S. WTF, why aren't there any line breaks in my posts ??

    43. Re: Fair Comparison by p3ngwin · · Score: 1

      bugger, forgot link to Apple story about firing their diversity chief: http://fortune.com/2017/11/16/... P.S. seriously, no line breaks and i can't edit comments either ??

    44. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have the issue of the career gap, where women take time off to have children and return to work a year behind their male counterparts in experience, exposure etc. A very difficult one to solve - do you gift those women a year, do you hold back men for a year, what?

      Instead of only giving a few months of paid leave to the mother, forcing her to take longer no-pay time off on her own, you give BOTH the father and mother of a new born 1 year of paid leave (paid by tax dollars for companies smaller than a certain size, by revenue or by profit).

      Now the field is even.

    45. Re:Fair Comparison by greenwow · · Score: 2

      You are correct that the hours worked is important fact. I pulled our door badge logs a few months ago, and even with the report screwing-up and not counting men that worked more than 24 hours straight, men still worked about 106% longer hours than the women. I think the average for women was 36 hours a week and 74 hours a week for the male engineers. Of course the women are going to make less.

    46. Re: Fair Comparison by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Regarding line breaks, if I quote you, the preview shows separate lines. I'll see if it stays that way after posting.

      "Some companies take advantage of female employees. Have for *decades*. That includes both male and female bosses"

      Some do, the vast majority don't. Is that the standard for "institutionalised wage gap" ?

      I'm in favour of merit-based hiring, so i simply do not agree with the trend for "diversity and inclusion" as the current bandwagon exists.

      Apple fired a 20 year veteran, who was their "diversity chief" for only 6 months, because she would NOT discriminate against white males.

      “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.”

      If you segregate people by race, colour, creed, sexuality, disability" and whatever other lines you want to draw, you get nowhere.

      You can't campaign for "equality" while simultaneously separating people into increasingly diverse boxes that prove they're "different" and somehow need handicap bonuses like affirmative action.

      It's as ridiculous as feminists one moment campaigning for "equality" by claiming they're equally competent as a man and literally "don't need a man", while simultaneously campaigning for lower standards to entry for everything from military, police, firefighter, etc.

      If you're equally capable, then you have the obligation to be equally tested. No handicap bonuses.

      Nobody is campaigning for "equality" and "equal representation" in the 100 meters Olympics: where the white people at ?

      So which is it, are women, blacks, hispanics, etc equal, or need help because they're inferior ?

      P.S.
      WTF, why aren't there any line breaks in my posts ??

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    47. Re: Fair Comparison by p3ngwin · · Score: 1

      hmm, very odd, as all i see is this, even the "preview" strips all formatting out, so at least in that context it's "honest" :) https://imgur.com/a/CMozG how is anyone supposed to compose a post with this behaviour, or is it something only on my end ??

    48. Re:Fair Comparison by valnar · · Score: 1

      This always reduces to a lowest common denominator. The lower paid won't raise to the higher productivity. The higher productive will lower themselves.

    49. Re: Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is because I use unformatted text in my slashdot posts because using the html tag codes for line breaks was driving me crazy.

      In some ways Slashdot is very antiquated.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    50. Re:Fair Comparison by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you have ensured parents of both sexes compete fairly against one another.

      That doesn't account for single men, or men that refuse to take the time off however. And this is the main issue - men don't go through the rigours of childbirth, and thus don't need recovery time - they are also less likely to be the primary care giver for any child, again tipping the scales in their favour as they stay at work and miss fewer opportunities.

      I reiterate my question - are you going to force men to take time off just to level the field?

    51. Re: Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same, because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      So if I get you correct, this requires not only making the pay the same, but capping it as well.

      I made a lot more than my co-workers of the same job descriptions, but it was because I was a shitload more productive than they were. I would do the work that especially the women would refuse to do. They wouldn't travel, do dirty work, almost impossible to get them to work other than 8-5, or interface with the shakers and movers. nor did they have the experience.

      But they wanted to be paid the same as I was. From day one.

      This presents quite an issue for everyone concerned. For the women, it was upsetting because they were paid less than me. For the boss, it was a real problem because I was on record that if the people who refused to do the same work I did were paid as much as me, I would adjust my work and output to equal theirs. Which meant that the powers that be would have to hire yet another person specifically to do the things we were all refusing to do. That's the tricky part. A modern company does not simply fire women. I also had them on notice that I knew what I was worth, so I would be seeking work elsewhere immediately.

      This whole idea of everyone is paid the same no matter what is fine in a factory or a fast food joint. Eachj job is highly defined - but tell me, what about people who get bonuses and commissions or stock options? How does one make certain that no man is paid more than a woman? Frankly, this sounds a lot like Communism. After all, why should there be any pay differences at all? Your bread costs the same as mine.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    52. Re: Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same,

      Why?

      because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.

      Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days, work in less pleasant environments or more dangerous conditions. Particular groups also push more for raises or change jobs for increased pay.

      If those groups don't represent men and women equally, their "statistical centers" would be skewed apart.

      Okay, I see you just wrote the same thing as I did in answer to him. But this exactly. I did all of the hazordous duty in my group. I did the field trips and long out of town stays, I came in early and worked late, I lost vacation, and collected a half years unused sick leave when I retired. I'd also work with the suits, which for some reason they were afraid to do. I also on occasion finished their work, because they would just leave at 5, and if something was needed bu 8 am, it was me that finished it. Not complaining about working hard, but I did have an issue with lazy shits. Especially when they thought they should be paid the same.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    53. Re: Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm referring to jobs/workers/wages in a particular field. I am not comparing different types of jobs.

      But what of my situation. Same Job description, but wildly differing work outputs. One rather protected group, and another individual would would end up leaving or cutting way back on the work.

      Tell me how we were going to be paid the same?

      Let's take sex out of the equation This is the problem with mandating equal pay for everyone. The best tend to stagnate or leave, and then everyone settles down to whoever the laziest person is. I've seen it, and it ain't pretty.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    54. Re:Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Equal? No. Having to hire women instead of men if qualifications are equal? Yes.

      This is a good place to interject my question.

      The presumed wage gap is around 30 percent.

      We'll just accept that for the purpose of argument.

      It is not debateable that corporate America and other outfits want to pay as little as they can get away with. We have businesses declaring they will introduce automation specifically in order to get rid of payroll.

      If women are getting paid 30 percent less and I had a business or corporation, I would not hire men - it would be all women. The amount I could save on payroll would enrich me quite a bit.

      So why has this not happened? All other things being equal, who would hire any man?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    55. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    56. Re:Fair Comparison by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Summary of your position: if men make more, it's obvious that it's deserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if women insist on equity, it has to be carefully justified.

      Dang, where are my mod points when I need them? Someone please mod parent up faster than the trolls are modding it down.

    57. Re: Fair Comparison by murdocj · · Score: 1

      You may very well be wrong even when talking about a particular field. There's no reason to a priori assume the aggregates would turn out identical.

      Why wouldn't they? Unless you want to assume that one gender works harder / is smarter / is "better" than the other gender?

    58. Re:Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Such a fine grained level of meritocracy is impossible though. You can't even objectively evaluate a person's skills and experience with that degree of accuracy.

      When you see a job advert that says "minimum 5 years C++", do you interpret that to mean 5 years working on nothing but C++, or 5 years working with C++ but also in other languages? And does it mean C++ on big projects, or on lots of little ones with simple architectures? Does it mean using all the obscure features of C++, doing UML modelling etc?

      And when the interview comes up you will likely bullshit them anyway by not pointing out that your knowledge of C++ templates and vector optimization is a little bit lacking, and that you only ever used the MS compiler.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    59. Re: Fair Comparison by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I think its really tricky. One can imagine correlations between gender, age, and other protected characteristic with hours worked, or willingness to change jobs for higher wages. That sort of correlation is very difficult to separate from some externally applied bias. An additional complication is that these groups may have followed different past career paths - again possibly due to preference and possibly due to external bias.

      I think the overall goal is good, but that it will be tricky to implement in many situations.

      In some situations where it is straightforward to measure an employee's productivity then this could and I think should be applied.

    60. Re:Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work like that in Europe. Pay isn't based on how often you ask for a raise, or how often you switch jobs. It's based on the market rate and experience mostly, which are somewhat subjective but at least easy to compare between similar employees.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    61. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, no one measures results.

      Employees are paid by input.

    62. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If expectations, workload, hours worked , etc is factored in -- I think it's a good idea.

      Working in IT I've had the pleasure to work with some pretty lazy , unskilled guys who bluffed their way into the job then couldn't produce.

      We got paid the same and our team was pretty toxic (two of the senior guys didn't like him).

      Things finally got better once he quit to be a full time stay at home father.

      So the moral of the story probably isn't gender wage gaps, but expecting full pay when you have competing priorities. ( ie family obligations, other stuff you do outside work, etc....)

      You only have a certain amount of time in the day to do stuff. Some spend more on work and get paid more, while others would rather spend time with friends, family or leisure time.

      So maybe time is money!

    63. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO Bosco women prefer not to work that hard. You spew SJW masturbation. Get a job ... and get off my lawn .

    64. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omg, your logs are sexist and discriminatory!

    65. Re: Fair Comparison by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Because the evidence shows that men work longer hours than women, have fewer days off sick and negotiate harder for raises. Why wouldn't that be true for people doing the same job role?

      It would be horrifically inequitable if one gender got paid the same for doing less work.

    66. Re: Fair Comparison by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      That's because they get extra victim privileges for the melanin.

    67. Re: Fair Comparison by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      How about whites underrepresented in the NFL or NBA where the salaries are in the millions. Where's the outrage?

    68. Re: Fair Comparison by Cederic · · Score: 2

      would you pick
      a system where 50% of the workers arbitrarily make 30% less pay for the same work
      or
      a system where the pay for 100% of the workers was roughly the same?

      Why would I pick one of those two systems, when there's a third alternative that's not only superior, but already the one that most closely matches reality: Workers getting paid according to their skills, experience and contribution.

      Only pay me the same as some people that pretend to be my peers and watch me drop to a 15 hour week, during which I'll easily match their level of (non)performance.

    69. Re: Fair Comparison by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What the chart doesn't show is that black women get paid less than white men for doing the same job.

      It's aggregated too highly. No control for industry or company, their methodology relies on a source of 'hours worked' that I'd need convincing is reliable, no factoring in whether the jobs are full time or part time, no reference to whether career breaks are included as 'years experience', very crude assessment of 'education' and doesn't explore the quality of the experience acquired (e.g. someone working 50 hour weeks as a lawyer will gain more experience than someone working 30, even if they've both been lawyers for four years).

      It's interesting and it would be good to explore more deeply and add some scientific rigour and certainty to it. Instead they posted inflammatory bullshit about women having to work 7 months into the following year to earn the same amount, resulting in the authors' credibility plummeting and forcing resultant scepticism in their findings.

    70. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gap. Gender *GAP* - ouch!

    71. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of f'ed up workplace lets people work more than 24 hours straight?

    72. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple fired a 20 year veteran, who was their "diversity chief" for only 6 months, because she would NOT discriminate against white males.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      bugger, forgot link to Apple story about firing their diversity chief ... [fortune.com]

      Your link hardly supports your claim. It quotes a comment she allegedly made which demonstrated she was wildly out of her depth (at the very least as regards the requisite political skills) in that role. Having a diversity officer who publicly demonstrates she doesn't even get "diversity" doesn't help the corporation even fake a forward thinking image for itself. Obviously she had to go (thereby making Apple more white and male ironically).

      Apple did not fire her because she "would NOT discriminate against white males", Apple fired her because the publicity value they were getting in return for the salary she was demanding was negative. Welcome to capitalism son.

      I simply do not agree with the trend for "diversity and inclusion"

      In which case the role of a "diversity officer" would not be a good fit for you ... you'd not last 6 months.

    73. Re:Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "All of this "listen and believe" crap we get is why fewer and fewer take the accusations at face value."

      Yes, that's the point of it. They want you to listen to them and assume they are not lying for long enough to do an actual investigation. They want you to examine their claims, instead of ignoring them.

      It sounds like it's working.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Fair Comparison by gweihir · · Score: 1

      This is not about fixing anything. The gender pay gap does not exist these days. For example in Germany, if you actually do the statistic honestly, you end up at something like 2%, which is below the margin of error. The way the "20% gap" lie is generated is really interesting. For once, people working part-time just have their salary counted as if the worked full-time. As more women work part-time, that creates a strong skew. Then, any jobs in public administration (where all wages are fixed and the same, hence zero pay-gap) are excluded. And then you compare apples to oranges by counting all jobs the same.

      The motivation to declare another demented war is easy and the same as the other ones: By declaring war on things you cannot get rid of, you have an endless way to misdirect people away from real problems. Just with the gender pay gap lie, it is even more clever: You cannot win a war against something that does not exist. Hence you can fight it forever and you can use it to give the appearance of going something noble forever. This is advanced clever manipulation of a population that in general cannot even recognize cheap manipulation.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    75. Re:Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Easy Jet has a pilot training programme, which seems to be the main issue with the low number of female pilots.

      As for time worked, ideally both parents would take substantial time off and it wouldn't badly affect their careers. Young children benefit from having their fathers around too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    76. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's the case that in general women prefer different things from their job from what men prefer ... then the centers would not be the same.

      Equally if women qua women are the victims of systemic discrimination in employment the centres would not be the same.

      The starting hypothesis must be that over a large enough sample things should even out. If that is not to be so then explanations for the disparity such as "women prefer different things from their job from what men prefer" are no less in need of evidence than explanations such as "when asking for pay rises men are perceived as enterprising go-getters, while women are perceived as greedy bitches and this tacitly understood social perception acts to inhibit women from asking for pay rises."

    77. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why has this not happened?

      It hasn't?! Maybe check out recent trends (by sex) in unemployment and hiring statistics.

    78. Re: Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.

      I'm Europe employers are expected to be fair to employees, including not expecting excessive hours and not rewarding self-harm. You may be surprised to learn that working more than 48 hours a week is illegal here, and there is discussion about lowering that number.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    79. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If employers are convinced they pay men and women equally for equal work

      We don't know employers are convinced of that. Quite the opposite, employers probably know full well that they are getting away with paying women less for the same work. Which could be one factor in the downward trajectory of male employment.

      quotas - either de facto or de jure - for hiring 50% women in all positions

      But, presuming equal productivity, forcing them to pay women the same amount should result in 50% male/female hires without having to have quotas, and by the way, if current trends continue that would be quotas to hire 50% men!

    80. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are multiple issues which are regularly conflated in these discussions, and often some of those issues are almost deliberately hidden in order to push the discussion in one particular direct (that direction being that any disparity is bad).

      The UK just forced the top 500 companies to release this sort of information, and at a glance some of them are really bad - EasyJet (a budget airline) has a gap of over 50%, or in other words the average difference between wages paid to women is 50% that of wages paid to men. Except that men tend to be employed in the company as pilots, and women as cabin crew, which have massive differences - and it remains to be proven if that is a company culture issue or not (my guess is, not, as many airline pilots are ex-military pilots, and we are only just seeing an improvement in female military pilots, so perhaps this will resolve itself in due course).

      Then you have the issue of the career gap, where women take time off to have children and return to work a year behind their male counterparts in experience, exposure etc. A very difficult one to solve - do you gift those women a year, do you hold back men for a year, what?

      And yes, there are the outright legitimate arguments about women simply being paid less because they are women, and there are also the kinda legitimate arguments about different negotiating styles between sexes being an issue (but then that all depends on the job - my wife is a doctor, and a quick straw poll of her friends suggests she can demand a higher day rate as a locum precisely because she is female - more women want a female doctor for female issues, which is a good negotiating area for the locum).

      Solving the legitimate issues doesn't however solve all the issues, but no one has worked out how to solve those ones without penalising companies and male workers (but some wouldn't see an issue with that at all).

      Just publishing the wage gap is meaningless flame bait without a lot more information around that gap.

      this is spot on.
      A recent study (sorry I dont have the link handy) showed that in Scandinavian countries (I live in Sweden) where progressive issues related to gender equality are far more advanced than most other countries, and where women are given equal opportunities much more freely, the actual effect is the opposite of what youd expect, which is that the separation of women and mens career choices is iNCREASED not decreased, and that women DO in fact, gravitate BY CHOICE towards roles which are lesser paid (and this is known in advance, its not like salaries are secret). Of course there are still very many inequalities, and lots of complicated issues left to tackle, in terms of training, recruitment, and the like, nobody is saying things are perfect here, but it was a very, very clear difference in that the gender based career choices are absolutely exaggerated in societies featuring what would be called more progressive and equal gender socieities (Sweden spends a lot of time discouraging even from the age of young children encouraging "gender norms", though obviously we feel there is still some way to go). Then you get these ridiculous flame bait articles lumping in air stewards against pilots, but the fact is that the number of women getting on the first rung for pilot careers are a few % of the total, so its nothing weird if most pilots are men, and vice versa for stewards. And guess what, pilots earn more than stewardesses. Who knew? Where I Work, feminist nurses complain about low pay compared to doctors. This is when you realise that many stupid people just dont think what theyre saying and have been brainwashed into feeling theyre being ruled by some evil patriarchy class. If you want doctors wages, fucking train to be a doctor, as you have absolutely an equal ability to choose that, get trained and educated as any man in this country, fact.

      Businesses the world over run on making as much profit as possible. If women were available to do the same job for a much l

    81. Re:Fair Comparison by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Pay in Europe is also based on how well you can negotiate, and how much competition there is in the work force, on top of how much experience you have.

    82. Re: Fair Comparison by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.

      What if someone works the same hours, but just produces better output ? Differences of a factor 10 are not impossible, even in people with same experience on paper.

      And it's not exploitation if you reward them accordingly.

    83. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK. You've failed in my probability class. See you next semester!

    84. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be surprised to learn that working more than 48 hours a week is illegal here, and there is discussion about lowering that number.

      Yes. That is why, China will kick your asses in 2018.

    85. Re:Fair Comparison by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The issue with the EasyJet pilot training program is that the candidate pays for the training - it's not paid for by the airline. This is actually pretty standard in the airline business, where pilots typically pay for their own training.

      And again, making the father take time off as well as the mother doesn't resolve the issue with single men and men who don't have children or men that don't bother taking the time off. The *need* for the mothers time off is very much physiological and mental recovery, but the man just needs the time to bond with the child and take over childcare duties, but they don't have to.

    86. Re:Fair Comparison by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So are they paying women less or are they not hiring enough women? Which is it?

      Both makes NO sense at all from a capitalist point of view.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    87. Re:Fair Comparison by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give it time, the EU is working on it.

      Quotas mean by definition that at some point you will be forced to hire a person based on something other than their qualification. Do you have any idea how insanely difficult it is to get a woman in the IT security field? They are really few and far between. I'd guess we're talking 1:10 and when you get out of the academic field and research it gets even worse.

      Imagine a quota in this area. This would essentially mean that I'd be forced to hire unqualified people just so I can hire more qualified people.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    88. Re: Fair Comparison by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Where's the outrage?

      Right here on slashdot from people like you.

      The solution to bias is not to have an opposite bias somewhere utterly urelated so there's no "average" bias in some global sense. The thing to do is get rid if it in the first place.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    89. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you see a job advert that says "minimum 5 years C++", do you interpret that to mean 5 years working on nothing but C++

      No, I interpret that as an old job advert from 2 years after the original release of C++.

    90. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea how insanely difficult it is to get a woman in the IT security field?

      That's when you hire a music major to do your IT security.

    91. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      48 hours a week is still a lot more than the 37-ish that we consider a normal work week.

    92. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The executive level was literally *all* 50+ year old white males. Not a single minority or female (they had only one female when I started).

      Qualifications.

      The is no C*O education, the only way to get the qualifications is by experience, and the only way to get the experience is by being a C*O.

      Which looks from the outside as an impossible set of conditions. Except it's not, because there is a way to become a C*O without having the qualifications: Start your own company. It does not need to be a successful one, but you need to get the experience.

      So, who is preventing women from starting their own companies? Men? Or women ourselves?

    93. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The patriarchy" /s

    94. Re: Fair Comparison by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      Get rid of what, bias? Would you also like to get rid of pinky fingers? Stupid Marxist.

    95. Re:Fair Comparison by Kartu · · Score: 1

      And yes, there are the outright legitimate arguments about women simply being paid less because they are women

      And why would you ever hire men, if you could hire women to do exactly the same job for less money?

      In South Africa, where black population was actually paid less than whites, they had to enforce quotas for whites.

    96. Re:Fair Comparison by Kopp · · Score: 1

      Most of the big companies in France have salary grids, so it's hard to get a different salary based on gender. And then, if salary is open to negotiations, how can you have equity ? Anyways, that's tackling the problem the wrong way. We'll have equal salaries when men will take as much care of children as women. So far, in France, it's mostly the woman that is impacted at job, because she'll be the one leaving job when kid is sick, etc, in most families ... Once that's dealt with, you will have equal salary. If there are even more constraints to hire women with any kind of salary struggles, result will be less female employed. No lawsuit for sexual harassement, no lawsuit for unequal salary, etc.

    97. Re: Fair Comparison by Kopp · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem is that most of the stats about gender inequality in wages usually only give one value, and it's global (because it has an agenda, of course) In reality, the gap isn't as big as advertised...

    98. Re:Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It really isn't, at least not in large organizations. They usually have standard salary levels for a particular job type, and might have some flexibility if it can be justified but will generally just say "sorry, that experience is not relevant to this job" and you can either accept that you are over-qualified for the role or take the lower salary.

      To handle competition they have to raise the salary for everyone doing that job already.

      This makes pay much more fair and transparent, at the expense of some people feeling that they are underpaid. Such people often become contractors where they can negotiate their rate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    99. Re:Fair Comparison by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      They usually have standard salary levels for a particular job type

      Each company will have their own levels or pay bands for a particular job type. But, those pay bands can be quite wide, I've seen $15,000.00 per year wide bands.

      The size of the range allows for, you guessed it, hiring better workers for lower skilled jobs and off schedule pay raises . The company will want to pay as little as possible and the employee will want to be paid as much as possible. If an employee know he is on the lower end of that band and is doing a really good job, he can ask for an off schedule raise. Conversely, if an employee does a really good job over the year, he may get a much better raise than his peers without needed a job title increase*.

      Then end result is that if an employee is more money driven and more aggressive about negotiating initial pay, requesting raises, justifying higher raises at review time, and willing to jump jobs for better pay, that employee is more likely to be paid significantly more than his coworkers.

      *: Where I work we have systems administrators, senior systems administrators, and systems engineers. SA get paid less than SSA who get paid less than SE. Their pay bands overlap by a very small amount. If one is at the very top of one job title's pay band but not eligible for the higher title, one may get a very small or no raise.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    100. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter what the advert says, matters if the candidates have the skills you need. The advert is to get people to apply who have at least some of what you're looking for.

      Then you perform the interviews and determine if the candidate has the skills the team needs. Every job position I have ever filled had a predefined pay range we offered. Generally we offer a starting pay for the new hire somewhere in the lower 1/3rd of the range to give growth room. If the candidate accepts it, that is what (s)he gets paid.

      If the candidate wants to negotiate we see what they want and if it fits our range. Usually if it is in the range we go ahead, but if someone wants a pay rate outside our range then we will do a deeper evaluation of the skills and see if the above range is justifiable then ask for an increase from finance/HR. If we don't fee the candidate has skills to demand they pay range we pass and look at the next most likely candidate.

      This whole gender gap is bullshit. There are just as many gaps between two men with same title in most offices as there are between men and women. You could have one guy that was hired during a tight labor market and his starting pay was higher than another guy who got laid off when his former employer went bust and he was willing to take a lower salary just to have a salary. Both doing the same work, both similar experiences, different pays. Anyone whining about that situation?

      A hiring manager doesn't have an obligation to offer you more money than you are asking for, so if you are willing to accept less then someone else for the same job, that is solely on you. The reality is you earn what you are worth and what your company is willing to pay you. If you don't negotiate the highest starting pay or bust your ass each year to be top of the increase pool that is your problem, not the company's.

    101. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary of your position: if men make more, it's obvious that it's deserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if women insist on equity, it has to be carefully justified.

      "If women make less, it's obvious that it's undeserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if somebody insist there is already equality, it has to be carefully justified."

      Fixed that for you.

    102. Re:Fair Comparison by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      Not really, its recognising that pay is often down to many factors and a simplistic average is meaningless.

      For example, imagine a company of 3 people - 1 practice owner and 2 receptionists to equally man the phones and ensure someone is always on duty to take calls. The boss is a man and pays himself $1m, the receptionists are a man and a women and they get paid $40,000.

      If you look at the averages you'll see that there is a massive gender pay gap at that company where men get $502,000 each and the women get £40,000!!!

      Obviously that means the female members of staff must be paid more... so you end up with a boss on $1m, a female receptionist on $502,000 and a male receptionist on $40,000. and that, apparently, fixes the "gender pay gap".

    103. Re:Fair Comparison by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      It varies - typically lower paid/skilled jobs are banded into fixed roles and salary levels based on experience or tenure. These are not the issue about gender pay gap. In these cases, in the UK at least, paying people differently for the same job has been illegal for decades.

      That only comes into play in more well-paid professional roles, for example, as an IT engineer I never got paid a calculated amount, it was always based on what I already earned within the constraints of what they were willing to pay. It was always a flexible number.

      at the moment the gender pay gap seems to be much more about people earning large amounts, like the BBC where the rank and file staff are paid in bands, but the ones squealing about gender pay gap all are paid well into the 6 figures.

    104. Re:Fair Comparison by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I've only worked in small companies, and I never had standard salary levels. It was all up for negotiations.

      They usually have standard salary levels for a particular job type

      If that were true, they wouldn't have any wiggle room for a gender gap.

    105. Re: Fair Comparison by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Unless you want to assume that one gender works harder / is smarter / is "better" than the other gender?

      There are certainly biological differences that make one gender better at doing certain tasks. Look at chess. In the top-100 rating list, there's only one woman, Hou Yifan, at place 64. Part of that is differences in brain wiring that make men better at it. Part of it is that men are more interested in dedicating their entire life to a useless game.

    106. Re: Fair Comparison by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Stop whinging and get some data.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    107. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > at a glance some of them are really bad

      That's when people don't know what wage gap means or rather what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean any specific gap. It means literally any gap.

      In practice the definition is any gap you can find where women come of worse. If you hired one man to pick strawberries and one women, they both picked a hundred each in the same time but you only paid the woman half then yes it would be something to be angry about. In reality that's not the definition of the wage gap people are talking about in the media. When you define it by that example you don't really get a wage gap.

      The wage gap you're talking about is in fact:

      WAGE_GAP = MAX(0, male - female);

      Where male and female are derived from:

      SELECT gender, AVG(salary) FROM employees GROUP BY gender;

      What this means is that if you have a company in a primarily male dominated high paid fieldRemember the actual definition in practice is any gap unfavourable to women. If the AVG does not reveal the wage gap then you can try and simplify further with:

      SELECT gender, SUM(salary) FROM employees GROUP BY gender;

      What people would expect at least for a crude approximation is:

      SELECT gender, role, AVG(salary / hours) FROM employees GROUP BY gender, role;

      Ideally you want actual productivity and contribution but measuring that is really difficult, it's case by case and that's usually what companies do.

      By far the only real wage gap there is out there is between different roles, companies, positions, hours worked, productivity, years worked, etc.

      There isn't a wage gap as much as there is a role gap and that sort of thing. The problem is a lot of that gap is decided by biology. That which is societal, so what? If women want to be women and men want to be men and then decide to take certain paths more often who is anyone to argue? Is society defined by the people in it or something else? If women don't want to program as much as men who is anyone to say that women must program more to keep up with the men? If women want to program more or pilot planes more then they will. Clearly they don't. Why is there this call to make women do things they clearly don't want to do?

      Sally asks her manager if she can work part time. Sorry Sally, no can do, we have that wage gap to close. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.

    108. Re: Fair Comparison by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The starting hypothesis must be that over a large enough sample things should even out.

      Go check out youtube hobby projects. Watch a bunch of home videos of people doing woodworking, model trains, Arduino kits, knitting, pastry making, and scrapbooking. Notice huge gender gaps.

      And if you want to argue that society pushes gender roles, then why do so many gay men end up in fashion and modelling, instead of coal mining ?

    109. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Norway both parents should take leave time, so you can penalise, if men doesn't take, he will loose his vacation (but time isn't equal for both). But males and females are different, men will not give birth and therefore won't need recovery time (as you said). And it wont work with singles, they don't have kids...

    110. Re:Fair Comparison by jarlsberg71 · · Score: 1

      Your Logic is as faulty as your math... It'd be $520,000 not $502,000

      If the owner and his wife ran the company, it tends to be $1m for the owner, $40,000 for everyone else.

      --
      E8B8B
    111. Re: Fair Comparison by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      We listened, we examined, and we found that it's mostly bullshit. Now what?

    112. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, they must go even further and release data about employees pursuing raises and promotions, actual histories of changing jobs for better pay or positions, being willing and actually doing less desirable jobs for better pay (night shifts, rotating shifts, etc) . And, then correlate this information across entire employee careers to quantify the exact effect each of these things have on compensation.

      And how about:
      - Taking care of children (they are future employees and customers)
      - Chores around the house (equal pay should also mean equal distribution of work when at home outside work)

      the amount of parameters is so staggering, it is probably impossible to take them all in account.

    113. Re: Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Except that Weinstein guy, right? And all the other ones.

      Now what?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    114. Re:Fair Comparison by Eldragon · · Score: 2

      Except there is ample evidence that support the argument the pay-gap is minimal (3-5% depending on the study) after you adjust for experience on the job.

      So summary of your position: "NA NA NA NA I CAN"T HEAR YOU"

    115. Re:Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's the idea, there isn't any discrimination because everyone gets paid the same amount for the same job.

      That has helped, but the other issue is that women often find it hard to get the better paid jobs for other reasons, or end up doing basically the same work but with a different job title.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    116. Re: Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.

      I'm Europe employers are expected to be fair to employees, including not expecting excessive hours and not rewarding self-harm. You may be surprised to learn that working more than 48 hours a week is illegal here, and there is discussion about lowering that number.

      Sounds like a tyranny of the weak to me.

      As for exploitation, I've heard that one before. Yet I've been able to travel to a lot of places, meet and work with really interesting people, and perhaps make a difference. I can be depended on. In some instances, the work was dangerous. That was more exciting than anything else..

      Money? Its such a paradox regarding the equal pay for equal work laws. As in all of these matters, the thought is that "If we mandate equal pay, we'll all be making as much as that jerk guy who is making all of the money." In the end, overall wages would be lowered, and almost certainly the value of the work.

      In the Educational environment I worked in, it was understood that even in a utopia, there are people with different levels of ability, dedication, and willingness to work. You were not going to make great breakthroughs with the people who were there only to pick up a paycheck, and would do the minimum amount of work to continue getting the paycheck.

      They also understood that top notch employees were willing to put in the work to get the job done. And given that the top notch employee is sort of a valuable rarity, that employee needed compensated, lest they leave for a better place. So they had a somewhat complicated system of grades and levels within a grade.

      Who would benefit the most from these limits on work? Who would benefit the most from paying the person who does maybe 2 hours of work a day while someone else out of a sense of duty, puts in a honest day's work.

      Exactly - the worst employee. It's a workplace race to the bottom.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    117. Re: Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If one person is doing vastly more work then they are being exploited. If they have to work that hard to get raises, that's exploitation.

      What if someone works the same hours, but just produces better output ? Differences of a factor 10 are not impossible, even in people with same experience on paper.

      And it's not exploitation if you reward them accordingly.

      I can't speak for everyone, but at least in my work environment, the laziest people were the ones who were loudest about pay equality. Hmmm, wonder why that was?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    118. Re:Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "The patriarchy" /s

      Must be pretty powerful to put up with having to pay the enemy H^H^H^H^H^H^ men 30 percent more.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    119. Re: Fair Comparison by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Wtf does Weinstein have to do with equal pay for equal work?

      Are you actually capable of having a reasonable discussion on this subject, or are you just going to hand wave and Gish gallop?

    120. Re:Fair Comparison by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Pay equality is not an adequate solution. We need to pay women 26% more than men to make up for the hours and days used in raising families.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    121. Re: Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, you know that's bullshit.

      Outside of union shops, piecework shops, and jobs with high turnover, 50% or more of your pay has to do with how well your boss likes you.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    122. Re: Fair Comparison by Cederic · · Score: 1

      While true, good ways to get your boss to like you
      - do your work
      - do your work well
      - be competent
      - help the team deliver its objectives
      - help the company deliver its targets
      - get good feedback from others

      All these things are good for the company and most of them make the boss look good, which is also a useful way to get them to like you.

      Sure, you can also build a personal relationship, but that's just good management. You do manage your boss?

    123. Re:Fair Comparison by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just like the USA then.

      Negotiating pay indirectly (via job title) makes no difference.

      It's normal to first determine pay required to hire, then determine job title to justify that pay. It's part of 'big company' ass backwards stupidity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    124. Re:Fair Comparison by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Another benefit, employees who only think they are good, will get butthurt and leave on their own.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    125. Re:Fair Comparison by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I worked for one as a kid ('Worlds of Fun' amusement park in Kansas City). We snuck out/in with the customers, stayed on the clock for _days_.

      That was one stupid automated payroll system.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    126. Re:Fair Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How much of women doing more child-related activities is a result of the woman being paid less, so it's less expensive to have her do it?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    127. Re: Fair Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days,

      But does that make particular groups any more productive? Do we have one group tiring themselves out and spreading disease in the office and another getting their work done during normal working hours and keeping their germs to themselves?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    128. Re: Fair Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure. How does that apply to salaries? If there's more men than woman in a high-paying field, is it because women generally don't want to be in that field, or because women are discouraged from being in the field (or some of both)? We don't live in a perfect world, so the status quo is almost certainly not perfect. If we want to improve the world, we can't assume that it's the best of all possible worlds.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    129. Re: Fair Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As a progressive, I've noticed a few things.

      First, when we've seen inequality of outcome we have often (not always) found some sort of inequality of opportunity. I want as much equality of opportunity as we can get.

      Second, people benefiting from the status quo will tend to defend it, regardless of its merits.

      Third, there is sex discrimination and racial discrimination in the US. This means that the status quo is skewed from optimum by those. The status quo is not the best possible status quo.

      Fourth, we simply don't know how important fundamental biological differences are, since they're mixed in with cultural factors and discrimination. Maintaining that the status quo is because of such differences begs the question, and is at least partly false.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    130. Re:Fair Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The gender pay gap does not exist these days. For example in Germany, if you actually do the statistic honestly, you end up at something like 2%, which is below the margin of error.

      That involves controlling for some factors, not others. (Typically, this is controlled for hours worked, not productivity., for example.) There's also the possibility that the factors controlled for are skewed by gender.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    131. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go check out youtube hobby projects.

      That is not quite what I had in mind as evidence for the contention being argued.

      And if you want to argue that society pushes gender roles

      What I wanted to argue was that introducing unnecessary and unproven assumptions into your null hypothesis (no matter which bias the entertain) fails and fails not merely upon the principle of parsimony. "The starting hypothesis must be that over a large enough sample things should even out." Once we see something else then we need in turn to prove our various explanations, merely throwing them up unproven before the hypothesis is even formulated is incorrect.

      But since you mention it ... Taking the accepted definition of gender in this context as "[t]he state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones;" [OED] I would no more argue that than I would that !A != A. That should be redundant, a tautology "argues" for itself.

      OTOH if logic is not your scene could you at least provide me with a citation for your claim that my wearing trousers, jeans and shorts, but never skirts or a dresses is a function of my chromosomes?

      I would have thought there is no physical/biological impossibility in normal gender-conforming heterosexual men (such as myself) wearing a dress, but that our reluctance to do so is rather a function of our socialisation? If I were a cross-dressing gender-non-conforming fag ... or alternatively socialised in a society where normal heterosexual men wear kilts ... it shouldn't be a problem.

      why do so many gay men end up in fashion and modelling, instead of coal mining

      Well the obvious answer would be that by virtue of being gay they are likely non-gender-conforming, though there is a minority of "straight-acting" homosexuals of course. Kinda shows the opposite of what you want when you think about it.

    132. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no reason to a priori assume the aggregates would turn out identical.

      Sure there is. It's called the null-effect presumption ... now a posteriori they might turn out not to be identical, but a priori equivalence must be presumed.

    133. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are they paying women less or are they not hiring enough women? Which is it?

      If that were a forced choice --since I have just claimed the opposite of the latter (I spoke of the "downward trajectory of male employment"), --it would have to be the former, yes?

      Perhaps it would be a good idea to read and take the time to comprehend a comment before responding to it?

    134. Re: Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Don't have to manage my boss. I retired at 51. But I was corporate for 12 years and small company for 18 years before that.

      Everything you say is helpful.

      Yet we have all seen people who did all those things and got shafted anyway.

      And when they do the above and they get shafted we often find racism, gender bias, age bias, religious bias, etc.

      One way to detect that bias is with large studies.

      Another easy way to prevent bias is non-secret salaries and benefits.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    135. Re:Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      And folks are more likely to report lazy co-workers who are running a consulting business from their desk (true story) if that person is making more money than they are.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    136. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have >7 Billion people in the world, please explain why we need to pay anyone to breed?

    137. Re:Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were to claim there was an invisible fairy in my house, would it be reasonable for me to expect you to suspend your disbelief long enough to investigate my claim?
      Don't you think it would be more sensible (and this is the standard, BTW) that if I make a claim I have to back it up or it can be reasonably ignored / disregarded?

    138. Re:Fair Comparison by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      So... Your point is that he typo'ed a number, and your correction makes his point stronger. Then you skipped pointing out the faulty "Logic" part entirely. Bravo!

    139. Re: Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If someone is not doing a reasonable amount of work then that's grounds for disciplinary action. Simply paying them 20% for 80% less work doesn't seem like a very good solution.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    140. Re: Fair Comparison by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Nice red herring. This has nothing to do with Weinstein and your attempt to inject that into this discussion means you can't support your arguments.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    141. Re: Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Listen and believe" was in reference to women reporting sexual harassment and rape and not being believed, and thus there not being any investigation and guys like Weinstein continuing to get away with it for decades. Also turns out the same thing happened with a lot of children abused in "care".

      It was never used in relation to the gender pay gap, because there is clear, hard data to support that and it's widely accepted, hence articles like this one and efforts by governments to tackle the issue.

      I don't know why it was brought into this discussion because it isn't really relevant to it, as you say. I was merely pointing out that it did in fact have the desired affect, and that the claims being made in fact turned out to be mostly true. You should ask c6gunner why he brought it up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    142. Re:Fair Comparison by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      If that were true, they wouldn't have any wiggle room for a gender gap.

      Depends on how the levels are defined. A salary level that has a pay band would allow for some employees of a particular class to be always be paid at the bottom and those of another class to be paid at the top.

      And, that doesn't even address things like the fact that one gender may be more likely to work in an industry where the job pays less. It is a fact that women are take jobs at warm and fuzzy companies, like non-profits, that generally pay their workers more. Women are also more likely to base the decision to take a job on factors other than pay, i.e. good child care, the ability to work at home more, it isn't an "evil" corporation. That alone will lead to pay imbalance over the industry and can lead to pay imbalance in a single company because a woman who has spent her career working in such positions will come in expecting a lower salary and that is what she will get because unless she does research on pay, she won't know she is getting the bottom of the pay band.

      Unless the government is going to define the job titles and the pay and duties of each job title, I see no way to fix this.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    143. Re:Fair Comparison by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      As you are asking a rhetorical question instead of making a claim or argument and have zero information on the subject, I will say none and wait for you to prove me wrong.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    144. Re: Fair Comparison by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      "Listen and believe" was in reference to women reporting sexual harassment and rape

      For your post, that is true but this isn't about sexual harassment or rape. You are engaging in a red herring because you have no real argument. You have no real argument so you tried to change the subject, which is called using a red herring.

      An AC made a comment:

      Summary of your position: if men make more, it's obvious that it's deserved, and no evidence is needed to support it. But if women insist on equity, it has to be carefully justified.

      Which very obviously seems to be saying "listen and believe without evidence". There was a response:

      Whoever makes the claim should make the case. All of this "listen and believe" crap we get is why fewer and fewer take the accusations at face value.

      In this case, the poster is boiling down the post to which he replied to it's basic message: "listen and believe without evidence" and using it in the response.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    145. Re: Fair Comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Oh, okay, you want something in support of the AC. Well, okay, the AC is right.

      We have this mountain of statistical evidence. Hard data. Hundreds of studies and papers written about it. Careful analysis done over decades to understand the problem. On the other hand, we have some armchair statistician grade stuff claiming that it's all wrong. The argument against is both wrong (if you compare exactly like-for-like employees the gap is still a few percent in most industries, equivalent to multiple weeks of free work every year) and fails to address the point that many of these differences are themselves injustices, not mere biology or completely free choices.

      epyT-R claims to have listened, but I don't think he did... At least, I've never heard him, or really anyone much on Slashdot, address the two points I made above. Well, some people dismiss a 4% gap as nothing, but I wouldn't do two weeks work for free.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    146. Re: Fair Comparison by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If someone is not doing a reasonable amount of work then that's grounds for disciplinary action. Simply paying them 20% for 80% less work doesn't seem like a very good solution.

      The problem is that there are often Governmental or special interest groups in the mix, and then there is the problem of what to do with the driven people. For the first issue, disciplinary action against protected people tends t be responded to with 'ism accusations, and is a minefield. So it is avoided. Then the non-protected people do the "what about?" thing if you try to discipline them.

      So any kind of discipline is saved for very tangible things like getting caught stealing.

      And then there are those driven people. Do they need throttled so that they aren't doing too much? Fired because they worked more than 48 hours a week? As a driven person, I love solving problems, and don't think about it as an 8-5 proposition. I dream solutions to problems. And enjoy it.

      But somehow, some way, that is bad. For some folks, I'm "being taken advantage of". Damn, seeing interesting places, doing interesting things, playing with expensive and fun toys, and respected and considered the go to guy who solves your problems, and well paid too.

      Shit - I feel so used and abused! Or not.

      Then there is my hypothesis. In my career, the people who were the most annoyed by my productivity shared two traits. They were pissed because they thought I made them look bad, and they were not particularly productive themselves. They were trying to collect a paycheck, and their idea of success was collecting that paycheck with the minimum about of work.

      From that, I decided that they were just below average work inclined, and wanted everyone else to emulate them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    147. Re:Fair Comparison by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Assume we have a husband and a wife, both with full-time jobs. The husband makes 40% more than the wife. It seems desirable to keep one home to take care of the kids. Which one will have a greater effect on the finances, now, and in the future?

      I'm not actually trying to prove anything here. I'm showing that the situation is more complicated than GP seemed to think.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    148. Re:Fair Comparison by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is a full, careful analysis by some competent statisticians. I was just giving the highlights. The whole thing is a politically motivated lie. At least in Germany.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    149. Re:Fair Comparison by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The only potential downside I see: Managers are subject to social pressure. Work could become 'high school', if your employee/manager population is venal enough.

      For a bottom line focused office, it should work. For a political type office, no.

      But if your employing 'those kinds', your fucked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    150. Re: Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have this mountain of statistical evidence. Hard data. Hundreds of studies and papers written about it. Careful analysis done over decades to understand the problem. On the other hand, we have some armchair statistician grade stuff claiming that it's all wrong.

      Drink! AmiMojo talking like Trump, saying how great his side is but how the other side are not good people! Boo armchair statisticians! Get 'em outta there!

      epyT-R claims to have listened, but I don't think he did

      Drink! AmiMojo refusing to listen and believe another person when he was just discussing "listen and believe"!

      At least, I've never heard him, or really anyone much on Slashdot, address the two points I made above.

      Drink! AmiMojo talking like a climate change denying Trumpster! "I don't remember it, I haven't seen it, I don't believe it, therefore it's not true/real!"

    151. Re:Fair Comparison by Kopp · · Score: 1

      yes, it is a kind of chicken and egg problem. But instead of having some weird lows regarding equal pay, that are hard to enforce, there should be laws making it easier for dads to take care of children (Like they have in Sweden for example, where either parents can take the parental leave in the same conditions) There are some biological facts that cannot be changed, as it is the women who carry children, but there are societal changes that can be done. In my last position, I had a few colleagues having kids at around the same time, one male and several females. Later on, it was mostly the women who had often to leave job or even not come at all. And they were all on higher positions than the guy. (Don't really know about their relatives positions in the family circle, but I also think the guy had the lowest there). it's clearly too small a sample to make statistices, but it gives an idea.) Also, when half your staff goes on maternity leave at the same time, that's an issue, unfortunately.

    152. Re:Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Managers are most professional businesses can't bring themselves to fire people. It's left to upper management to have a layoff where they drop all low rated workers, unpopular workers, old workers, and outdated workers at the same time.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    153. Re:Fair Comparison by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That hasn't been my experience. It's the upper managers that make the decisions, the middle managers that act as 'bad guys'.

      The best way to get rid of an air thief? Get the competition to recruit him away from you. Not easy, but worth it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    154. Re:Fair Comparison by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      We are sort of both saying he same thing.

      The upper managers have to make the tough decision because most middle managers in businesses without high turnover are unable to make the tough decision.

      So the upper manager makes the decision and then either hires a person to implement it or tells a middle manager to do it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  2. Wait, what? by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hadn't heard about France declaring war on Iceland and Germany!

    1. Re:Wait, what? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Welcome to 1939. Although that Iceland part is confusing still.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Wait, what? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Welcome to 1939. Although that Iceland part is confusing still.

      Once Germany overran Denmark, they technically controlled Iceland also, which is why the US and UK invaded and took control.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In 1939, Denmark controlled Iceland. In 1940, the Germans overran Denmark with so little resistance that the Allies didn't know whether to consider Denmark a conquered country or an ally of Germany. That left Iceland in a really dubious diplomatic position, and indeed the Allies invaded it or occupied it or something (they sent troops).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. United States GS equivalents? by OffTheLip · · Score: 0

    The US could do this too by demanding a company categorize/list salaries by federal GS (General Schedule) equivalents. For instance, a computer scientist with n years of experience would equate to a GS 12 with a defined pay-grade. Gender would not figure in. Granted, categories would need to be expanded for some jobs or salary amount extrapolated for certain cases.

    1. Re:United States GS equivalents? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the US couldn't do this. Compensation agreements are a matter of consent between private parties and many businesses (and many individuals) view that information as a trade secret or an equivalent. Forcing its disclosure for all employment agreements would cost private citizens and private businesses a competitive advantage and thus revenue, in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

      Also: WTF? Not all people perform the same quality of work in the same job category. In some white-collar jobs, it even defies quantification with GS ratings. So what a regulation like that would do (if it were even lawful, which it's not) is destroy fairness by preventing performance-based pay, destroy any incentive structure a business might have for motivating employees, and impose an additional paperwork burden that a) no one in government would even pay attention too since it would be a flood of information but also b) open up employers to liability and capricious enforcement from politically motivated government appointees and grandstanding politicians and bureaucrats looking to score points.

      This is a horrible idea that will create chaos without solving anything. Do you work for the federal government? Have you ever had a real job in the private sector? Do you have any understanding of how business works or any respect for the idea that government's job is to serve its citizens and not to harass them? How in the world could you think this was a good idea?

    2. Re:United States GS equivalents? by OffTheLip · · Score: 0

      I am not an advocate of what I wrote; I was just tossing out the possibility of a way to shed light on salary. I understand the impact such a system could have on a capitalistic economy. We are discussing fairness in wages so everything should be debatable.

    3. Re:United States GS equivalents? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Everything within the framework of what's legal and in line with our values as a free society. I wouldn't entertain a debate about things like nationalization of all industries and business to ensure uniformity of wages, for example, because those alternatives, while possibly effective, are not in line with how we do things in this country.

    4. Re:United States GS equivalents? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great idea, tie salaries directly to age or number of years at the company. That will totally not backfire at all.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:United States GS equivalents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The social justice communists would think this is a great idea.

    6. Re:United States GS equivalents? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great idea, tie salaries directly to age or number of years at the company. That will totally not backfire at all.

      Why not? It works perfectly when unions do it, according to Slashdot groupthink. At least, that's what my moderation history suggests.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:United States GS equivalents? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It works perfectly when unions do it, according to Slashdot groupthink.

      No it doesn't. You're falling into the America-centric trap in assuming that the noisiest, crappiest American unions are representative of all unions. Look abroad for how to do it better.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:United States GS equivalents? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. You're falling into the America-centric trap in assuming that the noisiest, crappiest American unions are representative of all unions.

      Every time I complain specifically about American unions enshrining mediocrity, people attack me for being some kind of conservative assface. Only, I'm about as liberal as you can get, and I just don't like seeing corrupt union bosses run away with our education money, for example.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:United States GS equivalents? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're complaining about the crappiest US unions, attributing their failings to all unions, and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you is practicing groupthink.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. 'equality' *snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody ever wants to talk about equality of _productivity_.

    1. Re:'equality' *snort* by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

      In my admittedly anecdotal experience, both men and women may be actually paid more for less productivity, if they have offset that poor level of productivity by socializing with their superiors.

      The world is not the meritocracy that it should be. Sharing in the boss's favorite sport or hobby or spending time with them off-hours counts far more than it should.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:'equality' *snort* by polar+red · · Score: 1

      >not the meritocracy that it should be
      yeah. I really don't see how CEO's get to take home hundreds to thousands time more money than the lowest level employee.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    3. Re:'equality' *snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In my admittedly anecdotal experience, both men and women may be actually paid more for less productivity, if they have offset that poor level of productivity by socializing with their superiors.

      The world is not the meritocracy that it should be. Sharing in the boss's favorite sport or hobby or spending time with them off-hours counts far more than it should.

      Interestingly, this might have something to do with the wage gap. Not that men smooze up to the boss more than women; but, a study that came out last year showed that women harbor resentments against coworkers more than men do. Men are less likely to report having coworkers they feel hostile towards (or that they feel coworkers are hostile to them). Women are just a capable as men, but whereas men will argue and work a problem out- women will hold on to a problem with a coworker for years. When one of these coworkers is a boss or at a different level, this can be a problem.

      If you're a woman and have a hostile relationship with others that's probably going to impact your pay (if unfairly) at some point down the line.

    4. Re:'equality' *snort* by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We were considering paying people by their productivity. Until we noticed that if we did it, CEOs would qualify for food stamps.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:'equality' *snort* by Obfuscant · · Score: 2
      Because their decisions and skills make a hundred to a thousand times more impact on the company as a whole.

      CEO botches a deal, it may cost the company a million dollars. Joe bungles the widget he's working on, maybe it costs a hundred dollars to fix, if that.

    6. Re:'equality' *snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this. people don't understand this. i get payed a lot more than the people who work under my but their fuckups cost 10s or 100s mine cost 1000s or 10000s. and on top of that their fuckups are my fuckups because i wasn't on the ball enough to catch it before it made it into sold product.

    7. Re:'equality' *snort* by greenwow · · Score: 1

      > boss's favorite sport

      Like cricket especially if the company has a team. About 20% of our technical employees were hired only because of their cricket skills. Yes, it's really cool to watch us a small company beat up on larger companies at cricket, but day to day it sucks having to make-up for people that can't do their jobs.

    8. Re:'equality' *snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever be in a chief executive position? You only get hired because the company is in the piss poor state. It's high risk, high reward work because your very next job could ruin your career. Of course people at the bottom of the company just see x person come in, make changes and the company fail, fact of the matter is the company was most likely failing way before that, hence why they were hired in the first place.

      Double that with the fact that you are responsible for everything. Literally every shitty job done by an employee, there is no "off the clock time", you need to live and breath work.

    9. Re:'equality' *snort* by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck productivity, where's the equality in income tax?

      The Office of National Statistics states that there is a gender gap on median hourly earnings of 9.1%
      https://www.ons.gov.uk/employm...

      Yet men pay over 72% of income tax (from https://www.gov.uk/government/... )

      Don't hear the fucking feminists demanding equality there.

    10. Re:'equality' *snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO WAY is that worth 1000* my wage.

    11. Re:'equality' *snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those CEO's dodge the shit and drop it to the level below. AND THEN THEY GET FIRED WITH A GIGANTIC BONUS. why you ask? simple : cronyism, favouritism.

  5. Thanks Europe! by Jfetjunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good to know our U.S. government aren't the only idiots to declare war on ideological and intangible things.

    You want to fix a problem, then work towards a solution instead of chest-beating and pretending to "declare war" on it.

    1. Re:Thanks Europe! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't even a real problem.

      analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher

      The thing about a real market economy, is that if you could end up paying women whatever % less than men, you'd hire more women, everything else being equal.

      The problem is, not everything else is equal. Women will forgo wage increases to stay closer to home, with the kids, during the 18 years or so it takes to raise them to adulthood. That has profound long term effects on wages. BTW, Stay at home dads suffer just as much, but get no sympathy from the Feminists.

      This isn't about equality, this is about "feelings" about equality. After all, if you're against "wage fairness" you're obviously a misogynist" who hates women. Facts don't matter.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Thanks Europe! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      It isn't even a real problem [time.com].

      analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher

      You forgot to mentioned a rather interesting piece of that Time article:

      The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.

    3. Re:Thanks Europe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I've always found it weird how the U.S. can wage war against anything, as if that's something you'd declare lightly. It's almost as stupid as appending -gate to anything perceived as scandalous.

      Anyway, the article doesn't mention that anywhere, that's just your U.S. editors spicing up a headline to make it more palatable to their core audience.

      From my point of view, I should probably just go ahead and call this practice Wargating!

    4. Re:Thanks Europe! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You mean, liberal elite Bay Area is ... behind the times? GASP NOOOOOOO

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Thanks Europe! by Muros · · Score: 1

      Good to know our U.S. government aren't the only idiots to declare war on ideological and intangible things. You want to fix a problem, then work towards a solution instead of chest-beating and pretending to "declare war" on it.

      I didn't see anything about anyone in the French government saying anything about "declaring war", just some trashy American news site I'd never heard of before in the linked article. The same article that makes the bullshit claim in the same headline that France makes no attempt at the liberty & fraternity parts of its motto. How the hell does drivel like that end up here?

    6. Re:Thanks Europe! by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

      Fair point... Darn it. Looks like the U.S. is still leading the bonehead charge on this one.

    7. Re:Thanks Europe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The thing about a real market economy, is that if you could end up paying women whatever % less than men, you'd hire more women, everything else being equal."

      lol, good point.

      It still seems to hold true for news anchor however, i think both CBS and local are now all female.

    8. Re:Thanks Europe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it, James! Facts are not welcome in this discussion.

    9. Re:Thanks Europe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight, of ALL the information in that article screaming 'reverse discrimination' (e.g. men doing worse then women) you identify the one attribute that you can still cling to as suggesting some kind of discrimination against women? Seriously? How SJW are you? Or put another way, why are you not concerned that there is now a 92% 'wage gap difference' where men are earning less then women in the vast majority of the cities studied? Or how about the discrimination against men implied by the statistic that of every 2 men that graduate college, 3 women do? Why aren't we talking about promoting programs to get more men in to college & graduating?

      O, I get it, it doesn't 'fit the narrative' does it? The world must be a patriarchy right? Regardless of information to the contrary it just has to be that way or it just doesn't make sense to you does it?

    10. Re:Thanks Europe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Europe does that it is good and you should support it or you're a nazi. Because, Europe.

    11. Re:Thanks Europe! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The thing about a real market economy, is that if you could end up paying women whatever % less than men, you'd hire more women, everything else being equal.

      That's an ideal rational market economy. In fact, if people can run a business the way they want, and make enough money, they won't normally optimize profit. We've seen enough cases of people doing things the same old way in business, and other people finding new ways to do them. Remember the middle-management-stuffed businesses of the 1960s? Pretty much everybody was doing that, until some businesses got rid of a lot of middle management and made more money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Thanks Europe! by skam240 · · Score: 1

      And yet there have been any number of female high profile media personality that work comparable hours to men and earn vastly less. A good example is one that just popped up today for me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      But still do a quick search and look up the average wages of Hollywood celebrities.

      The top earners are all men and the top earners for the lady's are all half that of the men.

      And media is the easy one to view this in as all these people have megaphones.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  6. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will I get to take years off for maternity leave, and expect my job waiting for me?

    Because in the real world, I lost my position because I took two months off to recover from having spinal fusion to have a tumor removed from my spinal cord.

    That's the fucking real world, where a baby is a "special kind of tumor".

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I lost my position because I took two months off to recover from having spinal fusion to have a tumor removed from my spinal cord.
      let me guess. you work in the only western country that allows this.

    2. Re:Awesome by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You should have told them you identified as a pregnant woman/ new mother. Then call your local news channel to champion your cause.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re: Awesome by kenh · · Score: 1

      In America, not France where we are talking about in this article, you would have had A JOB waiting for your return because of the Family Leave Act, Buy your employer is not obliged to hold your previous position for you indefinitely.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Canada? UK? France? Every single country there is?

      Nobody has a right to expect their position to be there when/if they return from STD/LTD.

      Changing business needs, etc.

    5. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks to be you, but the US has a motivation to help women who become pregnant: we want women to be able to have children and still be a full part of the workforce. Either the birthrate would drop to Japan-like levels, or we'd effectively lose half the workers.

      Personally if my wife couldn't work at the level she is capable of despite having children, I would be forced to move to the middle of America where poor people live. She is smart and capable and shouldn't be forced to work in a typing pool or whatever the pre-maternity-leave option was.

      Holding jobs two months for people with cancer is the right thing to do, but it isn't as important an issue as allowing Americans to have children without financial suicide.

    6. Re:Awesome by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you get fired for "failing to meet performance expectations" or some other bullshit, not "because I took maternity/sick time".

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people above businesses. IDIOT.

    8. Re:Awesome by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      If they tried that here and can't justify, shit will hit the fan. Americans crack me up.

    9. Re:Awesome by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Will I get to take years off for maternity leave, and expect my job waiting for me?

      Because in the real world, I lost my position because I took two months off to recover from having spinal fusion to have a tumor removed from my spinal cord.

      This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with poor industrial relations laws (basically the US system is set up to oppress the worker).

      Here in the UK you cant be fired for having a legitimate medical illness and men are permitted to take paternity leave (which is just called parental leave for brevity's sake). Most new fathers take a month or two in order to help out with a newborn, but rarely more than that.

      Your problem isn't that men don't get paternity leave, it's that you refuse to take power away from the bosses.

      The issue France (as well as Germany and Iceland) is that women are often being paid less than men whilst doing exact same job (and it has nothing to do with parental leave as many are not parents).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  7. Best Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want to eliminate a gender wage gap, eh? Let me guess, companies that end up doing this would end up lowering whoever's wages are higher to the level of the other one. This would eliminate any gaps while saving the company money. Hmm. Don't they say to be careful what you wish for because you might just get it?

    1. Re:Best Solution by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Hell, I would just lower all wages to minimum wage levels, and then make them work their way back up again. But every employee in a group gets the same raise, and no one gets it if one person in the group doesn't deserve it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Best Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social justice communists would be all over this.

  8. What about the pay gap between same sex coworkers? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2

    Will they tackle that as well? This is a serious question. I work with two other guys. I am paid less than one and more than the other. We all have different backgrounds doing the same work in the same position in the same location, in the same company. If we get a woman, who's pay should her's be compared to and why?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  9. what gender pay gap? by Cederic · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is going to get messy. How do France surrender to something that doesn't exist?

    1. Re:what gender pay gap? by aicrules · · Score: 1

      By creating/joining a war on it, they are in fact surrendering to that which does not exist.

  10. There is no wage gap by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is a myth being sold to cover up yet another governmental power-grab. Equal pay for equal performance is the only possible outcome in anything resembling a free market. If a woman could be payed less for the same job, there would be near 100% male unemployment in just about every job besides sperm donor. Any aggregate disparaties between wages of *all* men and *all* women are the outcomes of individual choices made by consenting adults evaluating what's best for them in terms of career and life outside of work and any disparties if compensation for the same job title are largely the result of individual choices about the level of effort and amount of brownnosing applied to the job as opposed to having a life outside of work.

    1. Re:There is no wage gap by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It is a myth being sold to cover up yet another governmental power-grab.

      A noun, a verb, and "government power-grab".

    2. Re:There is no wage gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet does not agree without you: there is a lot of video circulating with woman collecting sperm for their business!

  11. Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our fucktards in Bundestag jumping the hype train again. How about we declare a war on these fucked up taxes, assholes, at least it's something that really exists as everyone can tell.

  12. Re:What about the pay gap between same sex coworke by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Her pay is dependent on boob size, just like you three.

    :^P

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  13. Recipe for disaster by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, legislators may require companies to release the average salaries of their male and female employees and analyze them for disparities.

    This type of analysis was tried in the US a few years ago, the politicians found pay disparities on gender when they simply did as discussed above (no surprise), but once they factored in things like comparing same jobs and years experience the pay disparity went away.

    To save face, proponents liedand claimed the initial comparison was for men and women doing 'exactly the same job' (when it clearly wasn't) and those that believed there was gender-based pay inequities never challenged findings they already believed.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      This chart (#7) finds pay disparities on race and gender across all occupations:
      http://www.epi.org/publication...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      across all occupations

      So, you are saying that the whole USA workforce is divided into 10 categories which are also accounting for other issues like seniority, skills or overtime.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:Recipe for disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the page you provided a link to:

      "As the chart shows, low socioeconomic status (SES) children begin kindergarten already well behind their high-SES peers."

      That is the root cause of the disparities. The solution is for parents to spend time educating their children from the age of 3 months. Anyone that is interested can lookup the techniques to use that involve holding up cards etc.. It's easy to do, doesn't require much time and it works.

    4. Re:Recipe for disaster by magzteel · · Score: 2

      This chart (#7) finds pay disparities on race and gender across all occupations:
      http://www.epi.org/publication...

      It doesn't adjust by industry. Different industries pay different rates for a job that may have a similar title.
      A software developer on wall street gets paid a lot more than a software developer at a school

      Here's the charts for "retail salespersons" https://www.bls.gov/oes/curren...

    5. Re:Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that there is race and gender inequality no matter how you slice and dice it.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    6. Re:Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      ... and regardless of industry or occupation, there is significant race and gender inequality.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re:Recipe for disaster by magzteel · · Score: 2

      ... and regardless of industry or occupation, there is significant race and gender inequality.

      Repeating that proves nothing.

      The EPI report is misleading because it doesn't differentiate by industry.

      I made much much less doing software development for a computer manufacturer than I did working for a bank. It wasn't because the computer manufacturer was discriminating against me. They paid me according to their salary scale for the position. so I left to find a higher salary scale.

    8. Re:Recipe for disaster by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      And yet, above, a convincing argument has been made why your chart #7 may be skewed: the categories themselves are aggregates of diverse individual occupations which may have uneven representations of groups.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 0

      Your argument may have convinced you but all I see is denial.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    10. Re:Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The report does differentiate by industry. Your arguments are specious.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    11. Re:Recipe for disaster by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Ah, a tourist in Egypt! How's the weather this time of year?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Recipe for disaster by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      No, it doesn't, and the BLS category page makes it as clear as day: industries are below the occupation category reported for in the EPi report.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Please provide some authoritative evidence instead of bringing up irrelevant minutia.
      I don't think you can.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re:Recipe for disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The race pay scale is going to be much harder to figure out.

      Half of the businesses in the US are small businesses. Small businesses generally serve a small area around them. Blacks in the US are still highly segregated in the neighborhoods they live in. Black neighborhoods are, in general, significantly poorer than other non-black neighborhoods. Locality + poverty means that small business in poor neighborhoods will not, and possibly cannot pay wages that richer neighborhoods can.

    15. Re:Recipe for disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you don't believe that people selling Lularoe stockings and John Deere tractors are making the same commisions?

    16. Re: Recipe for disaster by magzteel · · Score: 2

      Please provide some authoritative evidence instead of bringing up irrelevant minutia.
      I don't think you can.

      It's clear you are not interested in the facts when you don't consider "The Bureau of Labor Statistics" to be the authority on labor statistics.

      The report does differentiate by industry. Your arguments are specious.

      The EPI report chart differentiates by occupation, not industry. Of course you don't believe that, even though the chart is titled "Average hourly wages of black women and white men by OCCUPATION"

    17. Re:Recipe for disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women take disproportionate time off for having kids, and when you exclude women with kids, the disparities disappear.

      The problem is that it is those who employ *women* who are being targeted here. The point is, if you hire more women, then, on average, you need to *spend more on maternity support*. By "maternity support" i mean all the costs that employers absorb such as providing flexitime, replacing or filling in for employees that take time off, childcare, etc. All of those things cost a lot of money to handle. And if you're spending more on things that aren't wages, the amount you have to give as raises is a lower amount.

      The big wage gap is between different industries, because industries with more women must bear the brunt of providing childcare for society than industries with more men. The "same job" gap is nearly non-existent, because if women really only cost 80% for the same job compared to men, nobody would hire men for those roles, at all.

    18. Re:Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      race and gender inequality

      This is still a too generic statement which should only be applicable under well-defined conditions. In general terms and in the US, it seems evident that there is a tendency towards white males earning more, but this can also be explained by other generic trends like a big number of women leaving their jobs relatively soon (mainly because of getting married/children); this has been the standard scenario until recent times and even nowadays seems quite common. The direct consequence of that fact is that men are more likely to keep working on the same job for much longer than women, what is associated with higher salaries and promotions. There are also generic gender-related personality traits like men being more aggressive, ambitious, competitive; and women tending to prefer safe and comfortable conditions. Regarding black people, it seems also clear that, in the USA, a big proportion of people in this minority tends to belong to lower classes (because of history, racism and similar). Logically, there are tons of exceptions to all these ideas, but this is precisely my point: trying to generically define a so big and diverse number of people makes little sense.

      It isn't a matter of actually having or not a gap in general terms, it is a matter of adequately understanding the situation to determine whether that makes sense or not under the given conditions. Otherwise, any attempt at solving the situation would be useless or even unfair under quite a few scenarios (I am a man who has never supported any kind of discrimination, why should I be arbitrarily discriminated against?). This might even be analysed in different ways like why choosing these specific features and not others like education, social status, family wealth, etc.? Why can you find people dying in the streets living in the same city than others having more than enough resources for 1000 lives? Or you could even see it in a different way: how can you criticise discrimination when you are actively defending similar means to accomplish your goals? Even a different approach: how can you (black woman) consider yourself identical to others (white men) when you are expecting an extra advantage, a paternalistic sample of arbitrariness to unconditionally favour you?

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    19. Re:Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      You mean you don't believe that people selling Lularoe stockings and John Deere tractors are making the same commisions?

      Clearly not. Who on the hell would want to buy a tractor? LOL.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    20. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Long-winded rationalizations are a waste of time.
      Do you have any data?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    21. Re: Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      ?! Do you want me to support my critic to your generic assumptions based on no relevant data with data? Don't you see the irony there? You expect others to deliver what you don't! Also you are doing a curious onus probandi inversion, something like "Elephants can fly. Don't you believe it? Show me that they can't!"

      No, I don't have any worthy data and don't think that anyone does; at least, not for honestly coming up with the impossible simple and undoubted answer which you are looking for. On the other hand, with bad data and a gullible audience, some people can prove anything and right the contrary. I am not too much into this sub-world myself (because of my solid principle, dignity and all that), but you shouldn't have many problems to find a scammer or someone with flexible enough values willing to "prove" whatever needs to be proven.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    22. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I provided data.
      Do you have anything other than speculation?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    23. Re: Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I provided data.
      Do you have anything other than speculation?

      This isn't proper data, this is a extremely simplistic summary with no real meaning for a so complex reality. These results can be explained in many different ways (= all of them are meaningless = data source is irrelevant). The whole point of my original post was precisely highlighting that fact. You thinking that any worthy conclusion can be extracted from that graph is speculation; I simply provided other reasons which might explain the observed differences, never by expecting them to be taken as absolutely valid.

      By default, everyone is assumed to be treated equally in the USA (otherwise, they could sue their employers); if you think that this isn't the case, you would have to prove it. My opinion? There are quite a few differences because people are different and do/expect different things. Perhaps I am wrong and there is a systematic non-justifiable difference in salaries uniquely motivated by gender/race, but you would have to prove it. You would have to get proper(ly stratified) data, perform a comprehensive analysis by bringing many different factors into account and confirm that your expectations hold for a relevant part of the population. Your graph doesn't do anything of that. If adequately analysing this whole situation needed 1 million steps, your graph wouldn't be even step 1.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    24. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Can you read?
      The reference is to multiple studies backed up with real data.
      Stop whinging and read then try to find some data to support you speculation.
      Here's the data.
      http://www.epi.org/blog/black-...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    25. Re: Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      This is a different link, but providing pretty much the same: nothing. I am not saying that these aren't real figures, but irrelevant ones. Without a proper stratification/analysis, almost any conclusion can be extracted. Most of black women earn less than most of white men? OK. This seems consistent with the black/white, women/men wealth distribution in the States. Does this fact mean that black women are systematically, unfairly and unmotivatedly being paid less than white men while doing exactly the same job? No. That conclusion cannot be reasonably extracted from such a simplistic data set and you can (or should) not use saying-nothing data to support whatever idea you prefer.

      I think that my point is already crystal clear and don't see why I should continue this chat, so hopefully you don't mind if I stop it here.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    26. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      You have no data to support your hypothesis. It's just biased speculation.
      You are right. No point in continuing this conversation until you can come up with some data to support your ideas.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    27. Re: Recipe for disaster by kenh · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that there is race and gender inequality no matter how you slice and dice it.

      OK, let's take two postal workers, with the same time on the job, same performance ratings but one male, one female (same race/ethnicity) - I contend they'll have equal pay - prove me wrong. Instead of male, female, how about a white male & a black female - I contend they'll have equal pay. (If they don't, they can take employer to court, under 50 year-old equal pay rules.)

      How about we look at the NBA - do white players make more than black players? No. Do women in the NBA earn less than men? Yes. But neither proves pay inequity.

      --
      Ken
    28. Re:Recipe for disaster by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You want to make money as a peddler? Sell something nobody really wants...if you can do that, you'll take home more than half in commish. (e.g. funeral plot sales sales people, scumbags yes, but super overpaid scumbags. Well over 50% commish for the really stupid products...bronze boxes, buildings to decompose in etc.)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Recipe for disaster by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Sell something nobody really wants

      It seems like a perfect plan. I will start tomorrow morning, right after paying for my brand new bridge. LOL. Seriously though, I am a horrible salesman and don't like anything related to persuasion, promotion or similar.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    30. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Any time there is any latitude for discretion in awarding compensation (and there is always the ability to modify compensation based of some intangible factors) the data shows that you will have discrimination against women and people of color.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    31. Re: Recipe for disaster by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      That should be awesome!! Why don't you open a company where employee pay is a significant cost, employ only women, and kick the ass of all your competitors with your new-found advantage ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    32. Re: Recipe for disaster by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Because I'm not an asshole

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    33. Re: Recipe for disaster by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      How is that relevant ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  14. Not a Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As long as they release salaries *and* hours worked for a fair comparison, I'm ok with this.

    they don't.
    Doing a fair comparison is _not_ the motivation behind these legislative initiatives.
    This is SJW / neo-feminism at their best, hiding a social constructionist goal to eliminate the free choices of men and women as they interact with the labor market behind feel-good words, which shuts off the logical thinking of people while hiding the real numbers.

    Sargon had an excellent piece on this which explains very well:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iaOk9QTHM

    1. Re:Not a Fair Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also see it being pushed heavily by dying labor unions. If you can remove merit from the pay equation, union pay systems based on tenure become the norm. There's then less argument against union membership if you no longer control your own destiny based on merit.

  15. Adjusted values, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's fine as long as they look at the ADJUSTED pay gap which takes into account factors such as hours worked, occupation, skills, length of employment or experience. However, media and politicians like to quote the unadjusted value because it gives them way more space for manipulations. The unadjusted pay gap does not make any f... sense in the context of statistics whatsoever.

    As for the equal pay, it is nearly impossible to compare two people in the same role. Again - skills, experience, commitment; there is no fair, deterministic way of evaluating and comparing these qualities between two individuals let alone in a given population.

    Lack of understanding of these fundamental flaws in the concepts of gender pay gap and equal pay makes them yet another useless measure which was created with people's well being in mind but got incorrectly understood, applied and taken advantage of by politicians who are trying to put everyone in the same bucket for their own purposes.

  16. queue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    chauvinists who think this isn't an issue

  17. EU working time directive caps legal hours by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    EU working time directive caps legal hours

  18. Nice. They're going to decalre war on a fiction. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Given that any real economic assessment of the so called wage game has systematically disproven it we're now left with the parts of the EU just using this as an excuse to pass any new regulation they want. That can't possible end in economic catastrophe when people are legally required to hire people passed on their physical gender instead of weather or not they're worth a damn.

  19. Re: What about the pay gap between same sex cowork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Will they tackle that as well?"
    No, this requires some work to be done. Work is too hard.

    "If we get a woman, who's pay should her's be compared to and why?"
    Root mean square. They're good at coming up with BS ideas, no?

  20. The government knows better by mi · · Score: 1

    Per the Associated Press, France's plan for pay equity is still a work in progress.

    Clearly, the government knows better, how you should be running your business. Not only do they already know, the gap exists, they also know it must be eliminated — as well as exactly how to do it.

    If only the cantankerous electorate stopped fighting the inevitable and simply allowed the government to run everything... Poverty, hunger, hate, and racism would've all disappeared, Global Warming stopped, and sex improved.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  21. Should be a short war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no gender pay gap.

  22. IT is very good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia already passed that phenomenon the results are the following:
    - 1 kid per woman across all social groups
    - 60% of women ware divorsed
    - men drank alcohol right at work, altogether with their immediate management
    We came to economical collapse and "Perestroyka", there is no such thing of salary gap anymore, but salaries varies from 500$ a month up to $6000 a month for the same type of work. Nobody speaks about equalization or gender gaps anymore.

  23. Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be liberte, equalite and sororite?

  24. France declared war on Iceland and Germany? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    When did this happen?

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Zero tolerance with generic prejudices by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    After reading articles like this or the previous one (for me, both of them are basically about people wanting irrelevant aspects to be relevant), my expectations on this front get further reinforced: zero-tolerance with generic victimism-, prejudice-, hypocrisy-based whomever/whatever at work (and pretty much everywhere else).

    DISCLAIMER: I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual, leftist, etc. man proudly ignoring all these and other features/ideas of myself or anyone else at work (programming/engineering). I am also a big fan of fairness and objectivity.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:Zero tolerance with generic prejudices by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Zero tolerance policies are how Damore got fired in the first place. Sounds like you're a hell of a lot more right-wing than you say you are. You certainly don't agree with left-wing core concepts.

      When you say you don't see race, youâ(TM)re ignoring racism, not helping to solve it.Our justice system is built on the idea that being blind is the same thing as being fair; our courts use portray justice as a blindfolded goddess, to symbolize the objectivity we equate with being unaware of appearances. She, too, is supposed to be colorblind â" but, given the disproportionate number of men of color in our prisons, and the tendency to prosecute them at disproportional rates, thatâ(TM)s not exactly true, either.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Zero tolerance with generic prejudices by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Zero tolerance policies are how Damore got fired in the first place.

      This is not what I meant. I meant only caring about what is strictly related to the given work. I don't really care about this whole Damore story, but in principle I don't like the behaviour of any of the involved parties: if you are working as a programmer, you and your company should only care about programming and related aspects like being nice to co-workers.

      Sounds like you're a hell of a lot more right-wing than you say you are.

      I am 100% sure that there isn't any conservative bit in me. I am also completely honest. On the other hand, you seem to have some (mis)interpretation issues.

      When you say you don't see race, youâ(TM)re ignoring racism, not helping to solve it

      I don't agree with that. I cannot say that I see a racial difference, because I truly don't see it. I do see lots of people, mainly in certain countries, with evident (at least to me) latent racism (never saying even a bad-sounding word, but behaving racistly in a systematic way). I do see people of certain races having a somehow common behaviour, but voluntarily because of feeling part of their community. I see societies which have been and still continue being very tough on certain races. I can recognise all that, but I cannot recognise that I feel in that way or that it makes any sense or that similar counter-measurements (positive discrimination) would be a good idea. I don't think that hypocrisy or in-denial approaches are even a temporary solution, but a way to perpetuate the problem.

      Have you suddenly opened your eyes, seen something you don't like and want to immediately solve it? Do you expect to look around you, locate some people to blame, come up with some magical solution and make everything fine for everyone? Sorry, but this isn't how the world works. The only way to solve an extremely complex problem involving a huge number of different people (when some of them might not even want to solve it) is: firstly, properly understanding it (everything, the bits being positive/negative to you), what also implies self-awareness/acceptance and stop looking for magical solutions or someone to blame; and then, doing things step by step, being very patient and accepting that everything will be changing very slowly.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  27. I don't get it. by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    Where I work, I had to negotiate my own salary - nothing was set. I know there are male developers that earn less money than me, I know there are male developers that earn more money than me. There are also female developers that earn less money than me and others that earn more money than me. We've all negotiated our own salaries. Mind you I think some people have obtained their salary not because of their ability to code, but their ability to talk (but that is a different issue).

    Perhaps we should just become communists, where everyone gets the same amount for a day's work, regardless of the work we do. I'm sure that would work out great.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    1. Re:I don't get it. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with negotiating your salary as long as the end result is public information.

      Unfairness thrives on secrecy.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  28. Re:Do we get paternity leave as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the guy who is in his 40s and doesn't have a wife or kids yet...

  29. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did France declare war on Iceland and Germany???

  30. safety gap by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the war on the gender occupational safety gap. You know, the one where men make up virtually all workplace deaths and a large majority of workplace injuries. Where are the vagina hat marches against this inequality?

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:safety gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Females evolved to be mothers, women know this. The psychopaths targetting females because they control consumer spending know this. Young men know this. The female empowerment myth is dying, the younger generation is favoring traditional conservatism because they eschew the mainstream media, they see women hitting the wall at 35 (when no decent man will touch them) and they understand that most men are decent. In short, younger females have the facts and will act accordingly.

  31. France Declares War by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Said no Frenchmen, ever.

    1. Re:France Declares War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Napoleon Bonaparte.... oh, he was Corsican born.... you're right.

    2. Re:France Declares War by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Vercingetorix had BIG balls.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. Can't do "egalite" and "fraternite" together! by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    In liberte, egalite, and fraternite, that last word is gender-specific. There's been a push in France to create “écriture inclusive” in recent years, which would strip words of their inherent gender when it isn't needed or wanted, but there's a lot of pushback against such a foundational change. It's hard to gauge just how big a problem it is... is the fact that "terrorist" is gendered male in French responsible for an observed pattern of less inspection of women at security stations? That's a hard question to answer. Humans are so guided by our languages, it's hard to recognize when those inherent word biases are pushing us in our actions.

    1. Re:Can't do "egalite" and "fraternite" together! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop with this "écriture inclusive" BS (which is not inclusive by no mean at all by the way)

      French say "terroristE" and it applies to both "un terroriste" (male) or "unE terroriste" (female).

  33. I agree this is workable in theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when you give blanket matches? You get bonuses that are mismatched...so, then you get a lower base pay, and higher bonus pay for performance. Therefore, having a man and woman in the same position where the woman kicks butt, and her peer is a slacker then you both get the same pay, but she gets a much bigger bonus whereas her peer gets a much lower bonus...which ultimately causes her peer to leave. So really, what is the "real" discrepancy between pay. Are there women who make more than a men for the same jobs? Of course there are, and this too shall stir the pot of condemnation.

  34. What Gap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny thing: When you compare pay to hours worked, job title, education, and experience, the pay gap disappears. This is newspeak for giving women the same pay as men for working less hours and having less experience. In other words, it's legislating a gender pay gap and garnering support by claiming the opposite. Onward soldiers! The war on masculinity must go on.

  35. As long as job duties and hours the same- awesome. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    However, if the men are being forced to come in on weekends alone while females get to work regular office hours because it's "too dangerous" for the females- then the men deserve more money.

    That's not a random example by the way.

    There are ways this can all be made gender neutral.

    Same hours, same pay is certainly a basic one.

    Another factor is employees who change jobs for higher pay are aggressive employees.

    Normalizing pay could reduce the benefit of going to a new job in terms of pay. So, by the rule of unintended consequences some other form of compensation would be found such as extra training when the person is onboarded. Some kind of signing bonus. Etc.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  36. In other news, France declares war on Bigfoot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  37. Re:Do we get paternity leave as well? by yo303 · · Score: 1

    Yes, if you live in Sweden you get the same amount of paternity leave. http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/27/...

  38. One way to achieve perfect pay equality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppose you need my skills and can afford the salary I'm asking for, except that doing so would throw your gender pay balance totally out of whack. No problem, just give my wife or daughter a no-show job and split my pay with her in whatever way works best for you.

  39. I "feel" like I'm a woman today. Pay me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because really, what is gender anyway?

    We all get to feel like being whatever we want these days so how can there be a pay gap?

    If women feel they're not paid enough they should just "be" men.

    Right?

  40. They are just talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously doubt Macron's government could actually do something good for workers. They just talk, they will not act.

  41. Equality versus Merit? by heretic108 · · Score: 2

    What should an employer do in cases where female employees take significantly more time out of the industry then male ones, to raise kids?

    If an employer has a female workforce with average experience of (say) 10 years, and males with average 15 years experience, and if it's a sector such as medicine where experience massively affects capability, how should the pay policy work?

    If the employer pays by gender equality, then female employees of lesser experience who took time out for child raising will be getting paid more than male employees of greater experience who stayed, continued their training and built their skills. Employees of greater merit will be suffering pay disadvantage.

    But if the employer pays by merit and experience, the average female pay will be significantly lower than average male pay, and the employer will be exposed to legal problems.

    What is an employer to do here?

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  42. Call me when by sproketboy · · Score: 2

    Call me when women are 50% in mining, underwater welding, septic tank maintenance, construction, etc... etc... etc....

    1. Re:Call me when by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested if enough would ever want those jobs that they would ever reach 5%

      Now I have worked at power plants that have schedules outages were they have large amounts of contractors, and a few women were in the crews to be construction laborers during those times...but I still haven't seen them in the trades like insulators, iron workers, welders, carpenters (who also do scaffolding), pipe fitters, electricians, etc.

      Now don't misunderstand, there were women at those plants, for white collar jobs like HR, management, scheduling, health and safety besides also security and custodian jobs.

    2. Re:Call me when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need gender quotas for those fields!

    3. Re:Call me when by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Call me when women are 50% in mining, underwater welding, septic tank maintenance, construction, etc... etc... etc....

      That will happen when men are 50% in childcare, nursing, personal assistants. I thought you Damore-worshippers recognised that there were differences between sexes and (ostensibly) acknowledged that a pay gap shouldn't exist.

      Crying out loud, when did Slashdot become a bunch of whining babies.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Call me when by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point. I think we agree. Childcare, nursing, etc... don't pay as well. This is a non problem except for your dislike for Damore since you're a doofus.

  43. Shemozle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shemozle - men do not.
    Like for like, men and women get equal pay, all things considered. including experience and productivity.
    Exceptions occur when housing/rent is sky high and low paid unskilled labor jobs are missing for certain age groups. Illegals get the worst treatment. Employers can exploit this, loose a job and you WILL be in the gutter, assuming you do not retrain as a drug pusher.

    The potentially litigious applicants are always screened out first, even if they are good lookers, then fatties in case they slip or do their back. Pick the fastest - this means applicants above 35 wont be chosen unless sparks fly. God knows, after C Forina of HP, a no to any senior role.

  44. Re:Do we get paternity leave as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well you get an amount of leave which you can decide to split how you want, actually theres still quite a push for more men taking a greater share, since the mandatory was only 3 months out of the 18 months available (only 12 months on the "good " 80% pay though). For a while you got something like a 1000 pounds bonus if you split the time 50/50, now its coming some rules to simply force men to take more of the time (or otherwise lose out on some of the total time, ie the woman cant just take whatevers left)