641–650 of 680 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it really makes no sense If you have jealous and spiteful family you might feel differently. Unless you like hearing sob stories or being blamed for other people's problems.
> If you have jealous and spiteful family you might feel differently. You can choose to distance yourself from these people you know? Blood is no reason to keep these kinds of emotional vampires in your life.
I'd prefer to see this go in the other direction and make all salary information public. Right now, employers have far more information than employees, and I don't think this law will do much to change that. To me, it's similar to real estate - imagine if only sellers had access to the database of exactly what every house sold for and when, but buyers had to go with unsubstantiated, scattered rumors. Or vise versa. T…
This is how you empower the envious to bring everyone down to their level of mediocrity. The vitriol directed at the successful is already damaging us, why should we further encourage it?
I just counter this by offering up my Salary during the first few interactions unprompted.
Example:
Hi Mr. Nice Recruiter/Employer,
Thanks for getting in touch. My current position pays X/year and offers (1 very important perk to me).
It sounds like a great opportunity and I would love to learn more ...
See how easy it is? The best will give them the "Premium Pricing" advantage and everyone else will now fight from rock bottom.
I can't wait to see the results in a few years time when meaningful studies have been done.
My prediction:
- Total pay goes down (inflation adjusted).
- It will create a larger gender eage gap since aggressive and ambitious males will game these bullshit red tape.
Date of measurement: December 1 2021.
This is not going to be nearly as helpful as people think, as long as it's still legal for employers to verify salary once it's been revealed. People who know or suspect that their salary is above the average applicant's will volunteer it to the prospective employer. Other people will choose not to disclose. We will reach an equilibrium where non-disclosure will be an honest signal of lower current salary. The main d…
Bring the data. And I will continue to volunteer my salary information at the very first interactions with my prospective target/clients/employers.
What a joke. This makes it basically easier to appear bold and "transparent" on my side.
Seriously love how these political correct activists keep skewing the playing field to my favor.
Really wish this would extend to apartment rent applications. I'm fine with a credit check, but they don't need to know how high they can increase my rent before I'll need to move. edit I am referring to my experience renting apartments from Property Management run communities. (Think Essex or Prometheus) Rent increases every year with them.
You realize that a lot of people have NO sense of budget and will be DOA the moment they take possession of a rental?
We literally look at the tenants ability to STAY A FLOAT so we do not harm them, their credit and also our pockets too.
You took the most cynical and 1 sided outlook.
There are WAY more people that would get themselves under water (financial and budget illiterate) vs. the situation you describe.
Your bias is betraying you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling this a gender issue is like saying "we're raising the minimum wage to help women". The law benefits male employees just as much as it benefits women. Lawmakers and PR teams just like to spin everything as addressing the gender gap to appeal to society-wide damsel in distress syndrome.
Not sure about that. It helps anyone who has been systematically discriminated in hiring against over time. When you start a new job, it's not uncommon for your new employer to offer you a salary that's X% higher than your old one, using that as a base. If your old salary was lower due to discrimination, you'd start with a lower base, and would get less in the new job than someone who was not previously discriminated…
I wouldn't necessarily call this exploitation since I think there's a broader issue in play, but it's not exactly like everybody, except this one isolated discriminated segment, is just thriving. And in particular I thinking framing this as an issue of discrimination works as a red herring against the aforementioned broader issue. That issue being that general increases in productivity and the percent of qualified individuals are resulting in a downward pressure on wages. The rapid growth in outsourcing, increases in foreign workers, free trade, and other such things also work to compound these issues.
I do not believe there is any clear solution, but I think it's a shame that the focus is rarely placed on this issue. And when it is, it's often more in the context of jingoism than the issue itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge about sexual orientation." Don't employers already get most of that from doing in person interviews? Even through phone screens you can gather most of that information.
In the US, those are protected categories about which a prospective employer may not inquire. This point was explicitly called out and repeatedly reiterated in the training I received a few years back about how to participate in an interview from that side of the table. Some of that information can be obvious, as in the case of visible disability and occasionally ethnicity. But it's not permissible to inquire in any…
No, they aren't. First, it's questionable whether sexual orientation is a federally protected axis of discrimination, and, second, it's illegal to discriminate on protected axes (except where they are bona fide qualifications, or some other exception to the general rule exists), not to enquire on them (HR will generally avoid enquiry not necessary for a clearly legal purpose to mitigate the risk that that will be viewed as evidence of discrimination, not because it is illegal in and of itself.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>And I am telling you women already do similar work to janitors. No you claimed Housekeeper is similar to Janitor, and I explained in great detail why a janitor will make more than a housekeeper and it has nothing to with the gender of the employee but the fact that it is different work with a different value proposition to the people hiring do to the work >So, I regret trying to engage you I understand, I would hat…
> I understand, I would hate to be proven wrong as much as you have been in this exchange. What a revealing sentiment. It speaks to your desire not to engage people here, or share insight or build consensus, but rather a desire to score debate points. What's more, your entire argument is about addressing tangential (and debatable) inconsistencies and not actually addressing the larger point. If you think observers ar…
Outside extreme left authoritarian circles, which this site seems to be extremely slanted towards, that is an accepted fact, so I do not buy the overton window has shifted at all. You likely believe that because you live in a echo chamber probably on either the East or West coast.
As to providing an "alternate hypothesis", to what? The claim is that employers pay their female workers for the same work less than their male workers. This claim has been proven to be incorrect and instead only exist if you take all female wages added together across all roles, and compare that to all male wages across all job roles which only shows that women generally enter into less paying professions. Liberal Authoritarians then make the illogical leap that is because of sexism and the "patriarchy" with out any evidence to support that claim. That there is some grand conspiracy to suppress wages in any occupation that is dominated by female labor, and to keep women out of male occupations. I have yet to find any creditable evidence for these claims
To narrow the focus more to what we seem to normally come to "Why are there not very many female programmers", that is not a symptom of employment sexism, that demographic is not going after those jobs. Now we can debate the reason for this, often tracing it to High School or other teenage development factors, not to employment sexism.
I am not denying sexism in general or even sexism in the workforce, I am denying it is a factor of pay for the same job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing wrong with HR having that information. It's only illegal to base hiring/firing decisions on protected information, it's not illegal to have it. Obviously it gets really tricky to prove someone did or did not use protected information in their hiring/firing decision, so it's clearly safest for HR to avoid having any of that.
Why would a resource department need information from payroll? They aren't the bosses of the employees so it's not like they are making the ultimate hiring decisions.
And I have worked at places where HR could unilaterally veto a given employee based on certain criteria (education, background check, etc).