491–500 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.
This thread suddenly became gold. Don't you dare die on me, thread!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting retention in the manager's evaluation without also supporting his efforts (e.g. with an appropriate budget) isn't fair to the manager.
Oh, well then I guess we'll have to continue underpaying employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the reasons stated, I would not give in. This is a slippery slope. Raising the pay of one employee out of band will usually lead to group behavior, meaning others do the same for the same reasons. I was also mostly budget constrained in the past and could not raise budget to significantly (say 20%) pay raise several employees. If the employee for whatever reasons earns say 10% below average of the other employees…
A lot of employees would gladly choose to stay at their current company if the pay raise was fair. It's not easy for people to uproot their lives every 2 years. But there has to be an actual incentive (financial) to staying at a company long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With how thin the job market is, any time I interview a good candidate the situation is that they have competing offers and the hiring team/our whole company is the one applying to have the candidate. In my experience, good candidates ramp up very quickly (<1 month) and having them on board for 2 years is plenty of time.
Certain places place high value on domain-specific knowledge and trained employees. I work at a wholesale insurance company (middleman); we have over a hundred individual systems, some simple, some quite complex. Some of those systems can be maintained by any programmer that comes in. Others really shouldn't be maintained by someone who doesn't have good experience in writing maintainable code. But many projects requ…
So, you're saying that you get paid a lot more than you would make at other companies, and so do your other team members? That's what placing a high value on your knowledge would look like to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely honest: I would say every word of this to someone who took this approach to hiring. It is absolutely baffling to me that managers use this tact. Their reasoning is flawed and shortsighted, but has the benefit of keeping wages artificially low, so it also has the happy side effect of being very destructive. Is it civil? No, but neither is cutting the legs out of a generation of employees because you're too…
my expirience is in line with his expirience and i have been on both sides.
You can be 5% off of market or even 10% if its a nice place but once you go past that, do you really expect your employees to sit there and take it? I know my landlord's not gonna wait for me to get a raise before they raise my rent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, when someone has offers from other companies for 10% increase (which imo is pretty low usually it is 20% or more), the employee finally realizes their value. In these situations often the employee is getting raises that do not even cover inflation. So the employee now sees their market value and would like to continue working for the company, but they have realized they could take on risk for a 20-50% r…
I'm not disputing the realization of value, I'm only disputing the characterization that the employer " trying to take advantage of me", because it's unlikely to be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have that arse backwards - women aren't paid less because companies think they can get away with it. Women are paid less because they are valued less for doing the same job. Companies think the are less valuable. As a result they do not seek to hire people they value less.
Wait, you just said, "women are paid less because they are valued less". Sounds logical. But the grandparent's point is a sticky one: "it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women." And yet ... no employer ever does this . They hire men and women. Also logical. Either you're not telling me everything you know, or you're wrong. Without radical argument surgery, to make what you said squ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the constant call to go in with guns blazing doesn't seem helpful to me. Getting independent information of your value isn't "guns blazing."
Getting independent information consists of going on GlassCeiling or Dice to look at industry salary surveys, googling, etc.... maybe even talking with some recruiters about going rates. Going out and getting a job offer is a step beyond that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, you just said, "women are paid less because they are valued less". Sounds logical. But the grandparent's point is a sticky one: "it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women." And yet ... no employer ever does this . They hire men and women. Also logical. Either you're not telling me everything you know, or you're wrong. Without radical argument surgery, to make what you said squ…
The grandparent point is based on a false premise.
I think the point being made was, if women are paid less, and thus cheaper to employ, they'd dominate new hires - presumably because salary is the largest cost for most businesses. So, as as an employer you'd want to minimize salaries.
Men are still getting hired, and that's the logical fly in the ointment that one needs to overcome - unless we allow for other distasteful variables to float, as I pointed out above. Or, we can consider there is no pay gap.