How can the wage gap between men and women be closed?

[pmbryant]

I assume most, if not all, of us all familiar with the fact that women overall are paid significantly less than men, and that the bulk of that difference is not accounted for by differences in education and experience and is due to discrimination. (Not to mention that differences in education and experience themselves are, in part, due to the side effects of discrimination.)

The gap has apparently been closing over the last couple decades, but at an extremely gradual pace---a pace that has actually been slowing down in the last decade.

Apparently the legal enforcement of pay equity between men and women is based primarily on the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But enforcement of this is notoriously difficult, and individual workers are in a terribly weak position to fight for these rights. No doubt this is a major reason why the wage gap has been so slow to close.

How can we accelerate the closing of the wage gap, so that women in today’s workforce and their daughters can be treated more fairly?


To read more about this issue:
There is a lot of excellent information on this issue at the National Committee on Pay Equity, including arguments debunking many of the most common claims used to belittle or dismiss this issue. I also found an interesting discussion of the wage gap at a blog called Alas, a blog; I particularly recommend Part 9, which summarizes much of the evidence that this discrimination is very real.

--Peter

[MrPrax]

1. Isn't discrimnation illegal?

If it is, then why is it still a problem?

Why aren't the 'actual' cases of gender discrimination (like, say, entry level wages by Wal-Mart employees, which last time I looked, were the same for both sexes) being prosecuted or litigated.

Or is the problem a little more complicated?

[pmbryant]

2. How to better enforce it?

Here's an answer to why so many cases of pay discrimination go unremedied:

From the NCPE (emphasis added):

Claim: If women have been subjected to wage discrimination, they can sue for remedies under the Equal Pay Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Response: This claim implies that taking your employer to court to resolve pay differences is as easy as taking an antihistamine to relieve the symptoms of a common cold. However, taking an employer to court is too difficult for most workers.

Plaintiffs are retaliated against or fired for pursuing fair pay, and often their reputations are ruined as a company seeks to defend itself against allegations of wrongdoing. Monetary awards in equal pay cases can be severely limited, making it impractical to sue and hard to find an attorney on a contingency basis. Thus, although the current laws are very important, they still leave workers with far less power than large companies in a lawsuit. As a result, many workers do not sue.

Other workers suspect that they are being underpaid, but don't know for sure. Because the laws are complaint-driven, and employers largely keep the salary information needed to file a complaint secret, working people can be left without many options.

So my question, more specifically stated, then becomes, how do we make it more practical for individuals to pursue these cases? Clearly the way things work at the present is far, far from ideal.

--Peter

[Heddi]

5. It's hard to do anything about it

because the boss will always say "Well, HE is more qualified/educated/experienced/better customer service/blah blah blah"

I've worked jobs where I"ve run circles around my male counterparts who got sometimes 2x's the pay that I did. I out sold them, out schooled them, and out customer-serviced them, but it didn't matter...they were always 'better' than me in some way. I imagine that 'betterness' had to do with the fact that I have a uterus and ovaries, and they have a penis and testicles, but it's very hard to prove that in court.

Wage discrimination is just like Sexual Harassment was a few years ago---remember when no-one took it seriously for years and years and years, then suddenly they DID?

Well no one takes wage discrimination seriously. Even people on DU harp the old "Well, wimen git knocked up and stay otu of the work force for 10+ years, of course they're gonna be underexperienced" and blather like that.

The only people who take wage discrimation seriously are the ones who see the full effect of it. ALOT of women, and Many men---but not all women, and sadly, not all men.

Sexual Harassment was at least PROVABLE---someone touching your ass is physical act. Being intimidated about your job is a physical/mental act.

Getting paid less---that's so abstract. There are SO many supposed 'qualifiers' put on job hirement, level of promotion, level of raises, level of starting pay, level of benefits, that someone like me, who KNOWS they're being paid less for NO reason other than because I'm an inferior woman type has a hard time proving that I'm being paid less for reasons that aren't included in the 10,000,000,000 things you're critiqued for on your job, or hired for, etc.

I think I'm having a hard time putting this in words---

It's a bit easier to prove discrimination re: housing---black guy applies with good credit, white guy applies with bad credit, white guy gets the house, or the loan.

That's plain discrimination.

But jobs is harder. There's no easy way to define 'experience' or 'customer service' or 'job skills'. I mean, there is in a way, but is someone who worked 5 years as a receptionist, without any college, necessarily any more qualified than someone who went to college for 4 years and worked as a receptionist for 8 months?

How do you gague experience?

Because of that quandry, bosses, companies, HR execs are ALLOWED---basically ENCOURAGED to pay people on unfair payscales for a VARIETY of reasons--gender, age, race, social status, how pretty you are, etc....

[pmbryant]

9. Fabulous post, Heddi

You've captured many of my concerns. The way the current law is set up, it is extremely difficult to prove a case of discrimination. And given the risks to one's future career that one entails just by making a public complaint of discrimination, I personally find it amazing any such cases are ever successfully pursued.

Are new laws needed to help change this dreadful situation?

--Peter

[rucky]

19. In Civil Court, you don't need absolute proof

And like sexual harassment, it's the lawsuit itself that the companies fear.

[pmbryant]

22. Bringing a lawuit is not exactly an easy thing to do

It involves risking being blackballed from hiring by other employers, and thus destroying your future earnings prospects, and of course it also involves having enough money and time to consult extensively with a lawyer.

--Peter

[TLM]

21. That's not hard at all to prove...

"I've worked jobs where I"ve run circles around my male counterparts who got sometimes 2x's the pay that I did. I out sold them, out schooled them, and out customer-serviced them, but it didn't matter...they were always 'better' than me in some way. I imagine that 'betterness' had to do with the fact that I have a uterus and ovaries, and they have a penis and testicles, but it's very hard to prove that in court."


You take your sales record, your level of expereince/education, and your seniority, then compare it to theirs, if your records are same or better, you have more/same seniority and more/same expereince, yet you get paid less, you've shown gender discrimination.

Unless your employer could show other reasons for your pay level that had nothing to do with your gender... like maybe you're not as productive or something like that.

Seems that would be a rather easy thing to prove.

[Heddi]

55. Well, it's not easy to prove

Because no boss is going to open up their files and show you what employee X's commission schedule is, or what their base pay level is, or what their yearly earnings are.

So I can go in there and harp and whine and do all the complaining that women like me need to learn to stop doing :eyes: and it will get me nowhere.

Of course, how do I KNOW these male counterparts earned more than me? Because I've seen their paystubs. I've heard them talking about their 8.5% commission rate as a newbie salesperson when I, an experienced salesperson is only bringing in 5% commission.

Go to the boss, and say "John is making 3.5% more commision than I am" and the boss will say "show me". I can't show HIM (hint hint) because I'm not privy to that employee's personal file.

So it's a catch 22. You can take them to court if you can prove it, but you can't prove it unless you take them to court.

And again, education and experience are very hard to gauge when talking about why someone got a raise when someone else didn't.

I have 5+ years of solid sales experience. But I don't have a degree in marketing.

There are people that have degrees in Marketing/Sales, but have no sales experience.

There are people with AA degrees in sales/marketing and minimal experience.

There are people with no degrees and no experience, but that have connections that allow them to generate sales.

How is one person better than the other? Are they all worthy? Is one more worthy than the other?

It's a very intangable thing, which puts the onus on ME to prove that they (the employers) are in the wrong. That is very difficult when I have no access to any records on the employees that are getting paid more than me. I can't see the resume they sent in, I can't see their college transcripts, I can't see their diciplinary records, I can't see their level of raises, etc. because of laws prohibiting me from seeing such things.

It makes it rather difficult to prove

[juajen]

54. Propose and attempt to pass legislation that makes it

illegal to keep salaries secret; must be posted at workplace and/or viewing place for everyone's perusal. That should keep them honest.

[SharonAnn]

88. Clarence Thomas was in charge of enforcing it as EEOC head

So, guess why discrimination still happens?

It has to do with lack of enforcement. If a law's on the books but no one enforces it, what is actually legal?

[cally]

3. I wish I knew how

Wage discrimination is extremely complex. Some of it can be explained by women low pay scales in traditionally female occupations like teachers or nurses. Some can be explained by the glass ceiing. I think it is so much more complex than that. When my husband and I started our first jobs after graduate school, he was immediately asked to play tennis with the top partner at the firm. Then asked to play golf. There were no female partners at the consulting firm I worked at and I never got similar invitations. The male partners left the door open when we discussed my career and we never went to lunch or dinner without a few others present. I was treated well but I know that my male classmates connected better and had more intimate meals with those in power. I think mentoring matters a lot on pay scales in professional jobs.

[pmbryant]

6. Yes, a very complex issue

There are so many factors contributing to the gap, and perhaps each one only accounts for a relatively small fraction of the overall pay difference, or perhaps affects pay significantly but only affects a relatively small fraction of women. But added up, and a huge effect emerges.

I agree that mentoring is absolutely crucial, but in many fields and in many companies, women in high positions are rare, and when present, probably also suffer from the wage gap (especially since the gap appears to get larger as career's progress).

Perhaps more men need to become aware of the importance of this problem and how it affects them directly, by affecting the women in their lives. But how to make them aware if they are not already?

--Peter

[haele]

4. Well, in lieu of regulating the heck out of wages

The problem with most women's wages is not "same pay for same work", but "same opporutunity for same work" - including catagories within a job title. Most times where there's an inequality, it's due to catagorization and wages within them. Women are often relegated to the lower paying catagories that have a very low ceiling - or are not assigned tasking with the responsibilities that enable them to be seen as a valued employee, be able to advance into a higher level and otherwise get merit raises for their work.

The solution is to actually break down how much value a job catagory is within a company, and balance wages according to the value the job carries as well as allow flexability for advancing within a company. Encourage companies to pay their lower wage employees more and their higher wage employees less; no more practice of an upper level manager making 52 times what his (or her) mid-catagory level assistant who basically runs the department makes. Regulate third party benefits corporations so that the average employee does not have to give up a third of his or her pay just to protect the family and invest for a decent retirement.

These are the things that will fix the wage imbalance - both for gender inequality and racial inequality. The rules for equal pay for equal work are already in place and working - when men and women can compete equally for the same job. If there is found to be a pattern of discrimination within a company, unless the company can swing (illegal) political influence, there are serious reprecussions - and for the most part, managers are still constantly getting re-assigned or fired for gender discrimination.

As Hubby used to say when he was a manager, if he could get away with paying women less then men, he would have fired all the men and hired all women. As it was, he found it more profitable to hire and fire due to merit of employee, not by gender - and if his female employees worked harder than the male, they always made more money for the harder work.


Haele

[cally]

7. I'm amazed at how little a Secretary makes

When it was a mostly male job, it was a fairly high paying job. Now that it is mostly female, it does not pay that well. Employers ask for college educated, adept with computers, reliable, flexible, and very well organized but they want to pay very little. It's absurd.

[Nikia]

62. And good male secretaries get promoted

Good female secretaries stay secretaries. Almost all college educated men that have started out as secretaries, who do a good job, in an organization get promoted to a higher position in the company because the managers think that his skill show that he has "potential". A college educated female secretary that is good at her job is a good secretary. Women are suppose to be secretaries.

[pmbryant]

8. If only all managers were like him :-)

Unfortunately, I know from my own experience that there are plenty of managers who do pay women less than men for comparable work, who do refuse to fully recognize the quality work performed by women on their staffs, and who do deny and delay promotions to qualified women as well. And these managers are not punished.

I disagree that rules for equal pay for equal work are working. Individual workers have extremely little power and incur great risk in seeking remedies. No doubt it does happen on occasion that someone is successful in pursuing a case of discrimination. But the number of unreported and unsuccessful cases vastly outnumbers those.

--Peter

[Yupster]

10. To get to the scope of the problem,

I read the debunk site you provided and copied this.

"Recent studies show that between one-quarter and one-half of the gender wage gap remains unexplained even after taking such human capital differences into account."

So therefore, half to three-quarters of the gap is pretty easily explained. Since this site is to show how big a problem the gap is, then I'd assume it would err on the side of making the gap appear biggest, so I'd assume the "explained" part of the gap is at least 75 % if not more.

I worked as a teacher, and for years was on the TCTA salary committee. We'd look at the numbers every year and sure enough the average male 30 year old teacher made significantly more (2-3,000) per year than the average female 30 year old teacher. And the gap got bigger as the teachers got older.

How could this be said I? We're all paid on the same salary schedule.

Well, the answer was that women were more likely to take time off from their careers. Overwhelmingly this was to take care of their kids when they were young. Not every woman did of course, but enough did to throw off the averages significantly.

My own family is an example of this. My wife and I each have master's in education degrees. She quit teaching 6 years ago when our kid was born and hasn't gone back to work yet. If she goes back to work when our kid reaches age 12, she will be about the lowest paid 47 year old with a masters in the school district but it wouldn't be because of discrimination.

Taking years off doesn't just hurt you on the salary schedule either. People move ahead of you in seniority for promotions and such.

I'm no longer a teacher. Now I'm a stockbroker working off a commission schedule. It's the same for men and women. Yet men still make more money. Why? I haven't looked into it as much as teaching, but my guess would be it's the same thing. My job means working almost every night and being away from my family. Basically the more nights I work the more money I make, and I make what most people consider a real lot of money. Maybe more women are willing to trade making a real lot of money for just making a lot of money and spending their nights with their families.

Anyway, to answer your question that you ended your post with. The quickest way to close the gap (or the at least half of it that is explainable) would be for women to stop taking time off and interrupting their careers for their families. Personally, I don't think that would necessarily make life better, but to each his own.

[pmbryant]

13. Can't shrug this off so easily

I'd suggest reading Part 9 of the Wage Gap Series from "Alas, a blog": http://www.amptoons.com/blog/000922.html

This brief essay summarizes many studies that show that the discrimination is quite real. Trying to shrug it off as the result of women's choices will not work. Other parts in that Wage Gap Series point out that even the "explainable" part of the wage gap is partially due to the side effects of discrimination. For example, from Part 3:

Anti-feminists claim that this shows that women make less money than men because they choose to work less. This is partly true, but it's not the whole story. In reality, employers have at least as much to do with how many hours a particular full-time employee works as the employee's choices. It is employers who decide who is and who is not offered overtime, for example. So while critics of feminism assume that how many hours one works is entirely the employee's choice, actually we have no way of knowing how much of women's fewer hours is due to women's choices, and how much is due to discrimination in who is offered hours of work.

--Peter

(EDIT: added 'partially' to be more precise)

[Yupster]

15. I don't doubt discrimination exists

but it's clearly not responsible for all, or even most of the wage gap. If the wage gap is 27 cents on the dollar and half to 3/4ths of it can be explained even by a debunk site, then the real wage gap is somewhere between 6 and 14 cents on the dollar.

If there were a campaign that said women only make 94 cents for every dollar men make, I don't think people would get as excited, and my guess is the real number is right around there for reasons I explained in my other post.

Still, I am not for discrimination, so if someone has a case, I think it should be aggressively pursued.

[pmbryant]

23. Evidence suggests problem is much more severe than that

From the 'Alas, A blog' series, Part 9:

One of the best studies of the sort the anti-feminists urge, considering as many economically relevant factors as possible, was done by the economists Robert Wood, Mary Corcoran and Paul Courant.<4> By looking at a very specific and detailed sample of workers - graduates of the Michigan Law School - they were able to examine the wage gap while matching men and women for many other possible explanatory factors - not only "occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce," but also childcare, average hours worked, grades while in college, and other factors.

The result? Even after accounting for all that, women still are paid only 81.5% of what men "with similar demographic characteristics, family situations, work hours, and work experience" are paid.

Now this particular study only applies to that one group of workers, but it still suggests the problem is not nearly as minor as you suggest with the '94%' number.

And, still, that's not even getting into how much of the 'explainable' differences in wages are due to the side effects of discrimination.

--Peter

[Character Assassin]

38. Here's another study that suggests differently

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/

[pmbryant]

43. Unsupported conclusions

From the study you cite:

When women behave in the workplace as men do, the wage gap between them is small. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's. Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points. Claims of unequal pay almost always involve comparing apples and oranges.

Confining the study to only "people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child" is awfully constraining. There are plenty of women in the workforce who are over 33 years old after all! ;-)

Women make different choices, and those choices affect how they work. Women often place more importance on their relationships - caring for children, parents, spouses, etc. - than on their careers. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime television found that 71 percent of women prefer jobs with more flexibility and benefits than jobs with higher wages, and nearly 85 percent of women offered flexible work arrangements by their employers have taken advantage of this opportunity.

These statistics are meaningless without more context. What percentage of men prefer jobs with more flexibility and benefits rather than higher wages? And who wouldn't take up the opportunity for flexible work arrangements when offered?

I don't find this study particularly impressive. Their conclusions that women purposefully choose "low-wage, low-prestige and part-time positions" because of the "flexibility" they offer is unsupported by the evidence they present. And I don't find it terribly plausible in a common-sense way either.

--Peter

[Character Assassin]

39. Here's another study that suggests differently

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/

[Cleita]

11. We need a women's labor union that

pulls all working women under one big tent with representatives from all working demographics, office, restaurant, factory etc.. It is time to do it without the boys.

[pmbryant]

12. This sounds like a good idea in principle

But I do think certain men should be allowed to be members. ;-)

How do we go about organizing such an entity? (Despite my avatar, I'm pretty ignorant about how to go about organizing unions.) The interests of each group, at least on specifics, are quite different, and the different groups might not see the need to band together very clearly. Unions have an extremely hard time these days organizing even groups with very similar interests, thanks to the corporate union-busting tactics so widely used.

--Peter

[Cleita]

14. I don't think men should be allowed initially.

I mean I loves all of ya dearly, but you guys do have a habit of taking over and changing the issue. Look at what happens to any abortion thread or feminist thread anyone starts here at DU. For instance, I started one about the partial birth abortion issue, saying that men who don't have uteruses shouldn't be able to have any say in what goes on in a uterus and therefore had no right to pass any legislation on it. Well, somehow the thread ended up about child support and the rights of fathers??? So this is why.

I really don't know how you start a union either. I always just joined up and paid my dues, but I am sure some young activist women do know and may want to do this. There are other women's organization, but none of them have a sole focus on working women and labor.

[Yupster]

16. Would it even be legal to have a union

which excluded one sex?

If there was a mens' union that excluded women, I'm assuming that would be illegal.

[Cleita]

17. It would probably have to take the shape of an organization

like AARP or NOW, not a traditional union, but with focus on labor and outting employers who are guilty of sex discrimination against women of any sort, especially where wages are concerned. They of course should do some bargaining with corporations too by educating them about the error of their ways. Men who do traditionally women's work like housekeeping or secretarial work would benefit by default. I don't think they need to be members initially.

[pmbryant]

20. Now it sounds like the 'National Committee on Pay Equity'

Here's their description from their web site: http://www.feminist.com/fairpay/about.htm

The National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), founded in 1979, is the national membership coalition of over 80 organizations, including labor unions, women's and civil rights organizations, religious, professional, education and legal associations, commissions on women, state and local pay equity coalitions and individual women and men working to eliminate sex- and race-based wage discrimination and to achieve pay equity. Our 33 member Board of Directors represents the concerns of over 20 million workers.


By coordinating efforts to educate the general public about the inequities in pay between the sexes and the races, NCPE has become a leading national advocate for pay equity.

Through its leadership and its public education materials, NCPE focuses local and national attention on pay equity. Through special publications and a newsletter, the coalition relays information and resources for achieving pay equity to its members and the public.NCPE provides leadership, information, and technical assistance to pay equity advocates, public officials, employers, the media and the public.

As a central clearinghouse for information on pay equity activities throughout the U.S. and the world, NCPE maintains data and contacts for hundreds of jurisdictions. A nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, NCPE is supported by dues, special contributions from members, and grants from charitable foundations.

So if we want to accelerate the process, perhaps we need to up the profile of this organization a bit (and perhaps a catchier name wouldn't hurt ;-) ) I'd never heard of it until earlier today when I did the research to put together this post.

:shrug:

--Peter

[TLM]

18. This is not correct.... the difference in pay is mainly due

to the fact that women do not work in a lot of the same high pay jobs that men work in. Show me the female crab fishermen, or the female construction worker... where is the female plumber or the female underwater welder... where's the female road worker digging up asphalt on a freeway in 70 mph traffic? I'm not saying there are none, but comparatively there are very very few. Most of the worst, hardest, and most dangerous jobs out there are done by men, so yeah on average men make more than women do because those kinds of jobs pay more.


But to extrapolate this statistic to act as if it shows that women working the same jobs with the same skill and the same workload as men are all making only 75 cents to the male's dollar is very misleading and inaccurate.

[Gulf Coast J]

24. I don't know how it breaks down, but I tend to agree

University undergraduates are pretty much split 50/50 now. Overall, I think there might be more incoming female freshmen than male freshmen. But look at specific majors, and you see a lot more males in the hard sciences and engineering fields. You see more females in the liberal arts and humanities. It's no secret which discipline tends to pay higher.

I think we should do a better job teaching young girls that it is OK to like science and math. I think there is still a stigma associated with girls being too smart in certain fields. That has to end before we can expect the pay gap to narrow.

[pmbryant]

27. Science/technology field

I think we should do a better job teaching young girls that it is OK to like science and math.

This would be a lot easier to do if more women were in prominent positions is science and technology fields. But, and here I have direct knowledge, these fields are among the most hostile to women that exist. The few women who do have the courage to pursue such careers have an extremely hard time of it compared to equally qualified males. And the pay gap in these fields is much larger than for the economy as a whole.

--Peter

[Hammie]

36. As a manager in a technology company

I call bravo sierra on your assertion that the technology field is hostile to women, much less more hostile that other fields. In my 15 years in a technology industry I've had women bosses and women colleagues, not to mention women professors in college. I've worked for three different companies and at every one of them advancement and (presumeably compensation) were strictly based on merit. Admittedly, at my previous company the figure of merit was ones skill at bussing the bum of those above you, however women did not seem to be handicapped in this skill. My current company has women at all levels of the company, including engineering, managerial, and executive.
You might have experience contrary to mine, but don't criticize my company or my colleagues, or indeed a whole segment of the economy, based on the small sample size of your own experience.

[Gulf Coast J]

45. My female engineering friends...

From the hiring angle: The females I know with an engineering degree had a much easier time finding jobs than the males with engineering degrees. I don't know how much of it was because of merit, but it seems as those most companies are bending over backwards to hire qualified females.

I still believe the problem begins at an early age.

[pmbryant]

47. Fair enough

My experience is only my experience. But I think in the science fields, in particular, my statements are quite generally valid.

In technology, I have lesser knowledge, and it is a much bigger field, and so could easily be in error. And I certainly don't mean to imply to every company or every organization shares in this problem.

Thanks for the information. :-)

--Peter


EDIT: Removed irrelevant sentence.

[Yupster]

31. Actually, women get over 100,000

more undergraduate degrees than men every year and the gap is widening every year.

Women also now outnumber men in graduate school.

However, women still tend to choose social sciences as majors like Education and English in greater numbers which lead to traditionally lower paid jobs whereas men are more likely to choose majors such as Engineering which lead to higher paying jobs.

[pmbryant]

25. Male vs female jobs

So why are these traditionally 'male' jobs so high paying compared to jobs that have a larger fraction of women? And why are there so few women in these jobs even in the 21st century?

I would suspect that hiring discrimination (by male managers in traditionally male fields) and societal discrimination (pressure on women not to aspire to these jobs) play a large role in the lack of women in these fields. Of course, this is just an educated guess on my part. It would be nice to see if there were some studies on this specific issue.


From the NCPE again:

Claim: The reason women are paid less is because they choose to go into low-paying occupations that provide greater flexibility.

Response: Research shows that female-dominated occupations do not offer more flexibility than other jobs. The reason some women are paid less is because the jobs filled by women in a company are not always valued in the same way that men's jobs are. Studies have shown that the more women and people of color fill an occupation, the less it pays. Using a point factor job evaluation system, the state of Minnesota found that the "women's jobs" paid 20 percent less on average than male-dominated jobs, even when their jobs scored equally on the job evaluation system. (Pay equity adjustments were phased in over four years at a cost of 3.7 percent of overall payroll.)

Claim: Many women, planning to interrupt their careers at some point in the future to have children, choose occupations where job flexibility is high, salaries are low, and job skills deteriorate at a slower rate than others.

Response: We believe the idea that women choose jobs in which skills deteriorate at a slower rate (and thus means they can leave the workforce and come back without significant retraining) is an esoteric argument that has little to do with the every day decisions of average workers. According to the Department of Labor, the ten leading occupations for Black and Hispanic women include the jobs of cashiers, janitors, nursing aides, and maids. There is no data to support the argument that women are choosing these low-paying jobs based on the fact that they have a slower rate of skill deterioration.

[Yupster]

35. Oh poppycock pfftle

"Research shows that female-dominated occupations do not offer more flexibility than other jobs."

The most female-dominated occupation is school teacher. These guys are going to tell me that mothers don't take teachers jobs to get home early when the kids do and so they can have their summers off when the kids are off. I know too many schoolteachers to know that many teachers choose to stay in that profession for exactly those reasons.

[pmbryant]

37. Teacing most female-dominated?

Is that true? I don't think of school teaching as a particularly female-dominated job these days; certainly not compared to many other fields. But I don't know the details.

(My knowledge could be biased since it was my father who was the teacher in my family.)

--Peter

[Yupster]

48. Yes - very true - 14 % men nationally

from a quick search

"And each of those districts is near or above the national average for male elementary classroom teachers in public schools, estimated at about 14 percent by the National Education Association.

Many educators say more male elementary teachers are needed to give kids a wider range of role models and perspectives in their formative years."

on edit - that 14 % number is just elementary. Secondary would find ,more male teachers, but still less than half.

[pmbryant]

51. Interesting. Brings up another question

Elementary school teachers are apparenlty 86% female. High-school teachers are, say, 50-60% female, based on your information.

Do high school teachers make more money than elementary school teachers? I would suspect so based on my family's experience, but I don't really know the answer.

If so, this could be another example of "job segregation" that leads to women earning less than men for comparable work. I'm not sure why elementary school teachers would deserve less money than secondary school teachers, but I have a strong feeling that they do get paid less.

Or am I mistaken?

:shrug:

--Peter

[Yupster]

52. You're mistaken - kind of

School districts have a printed salary schedule, so a first grade teacher with a masters and 10 years will make the same as a ninth grade teacher with a masters and 10 years.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if secondary teachers do on the average make a little more due to things like...

* getting a little extra for coaching or other such duties which are seen more in secondary schools.

* teaching more summer school.

* having a slightly higher percentage with advanced degrees. For instance, I only know a handful of public school teachers with doctorates, but they're all secondary.

* some teachers tend to gravitate to higher grades over time. Therefore you might see a little experience difference.

But overall, comparing apples to apples, a second grade teacher is on the exact same salary schedule as a tenth grade teacher.

Also -- I haven't searched, but I'd guess secondary teaching positions would be more like 65W-35M rather than 50-50, but definatly closer than elementary anyway.

[pmbryant]

53. Ok, thanks for the information

I'm also kind of surprised secondary is split 2-1 female/male.

--Peter

[cally]

33. Some of the difference in pay can be attributed to these type of jobs

but these jobs are also the most discriminatory. Ask a female construction worker of crab fisherman (do they really make much money) what their lives are like. I've heard how sexually harrassed they are and how unwelcome they are made on the crews.

The larger question is why a predominatly male occupation makes more money than a female one. When you look at education levels of years to train for the job, the male jobs always make more money. I agree that some of the wage differential is because of the jobs the genders hold, but that does not tell the whole story.

[Cleita]

40. My problem always was that I had to

have office skills, a top level of English literacy and couple of years of college to make half the money that a guy in the same company who dropped out of junior high got for loading boxes. Back then the excuse was that he had to support a family. Well, duh, what did they think a lot of women were doing, specially, the ones who had been divorced and awarded the children?

[Hammie]

63. Hey, I used to load boxes

I can tell you that it may not be very cerebral, but it is nasty what it does to your body. I still have nagging injuries from those jobs 20 years later.

Loading boxes did pay amazingly well because they were mostly union jobs. I could make enough over the summer to see me through the school year. Most office jobs are not unionized and so are subject to the law of supply and demand. Actually union jobs are subject to the same law but the union has a monopoly on the supply so the price lies on a higher curve.

BTW why didn't you choose to be a box loader once you became aware of the higher pay? Didn't you have a family to support?

[wickerwoman]

76. To answer your question,

women are locked out of jobs that require physical labor because the boss just assumes they can't do it. I guess this is what men just don't get- it's not as easy for women to just decide to be a box loader because the pay is higher. They have to prove they can do the work and then some and then many times they still won't be hired unless the company is seriously short-handed.

[Cleita]

82. Yes, that was the reason.

I would have gladly loaded boxes, for more pay, if they had allowed me to. Back in those days, the newspapers carried two "Help Wanted" sections, one for women and one for men. There were many jobs in the men's sections I could have done, however, when I phoned for an interview I invariably got the, "if we wanted a woman for the job we would have advertised in the women's help wanted section."

[wickerwoman]

73. You're half right.

The wage gap exists because men are given almost exclusive access to an entire category of high paying and demanding physical labor. But it isn't because women don't want these jobs- it's because the moment they apply they are assumed to be too weak and are rejected out of hand. I applied to be a welder and was told at every stage of the process not to bother- the union throw a fit and I would be despised by every one of my co-workers even if I was physically able to do the job. It wasn't that I couldn't do or didn't want to do the work, it was that "family men need those jobs" (never mind that half of them were barely in their twenties.)

Yes, men work some of the hardest and most dangerous jobs but it isn't because women aren't willing to work them. It's because patronizing shitheads protecting their own argue that they're keeping women out of those jobs "for their own good."

I've also seen men waxing self-righteous about the fact that one of the wage-gap studies compared male liquor store employees with day care workers arguing that that doesn't take into account the dangers involved in working in a liquor store that may potentially be robbed. All I can say is given a choice between sitting on my ass in a store handing out bottles and a few times of month handing over a few bags of insured cash beats the hell out of following around 18 preschoolers, wiping shitty asses and listening to screaming all day. Most women I know would take the liquor store in a second _if the option was available to them_. Unfortunately, it isn't because employers take one look at you and assume you'll wet yourself the first time you see a gun. Or they're "protecting" you from possibly being raped on the job. Or some other BS to avoid having to deal with women.

It is still discrimination when women are passed over for difficult and demanding jobs they are perfectly capable of doing "for their own good" so yes, this is still a major factor in the wage gap.

[LeftHander]

26. Pay women more

<eom>

[pmbryant]

28. Simple, straightforward.... I like it!

:-)

[Yupster]

29. That would work

Pay women teachers $ 3,000 per year more than men teachers to compensate for the fact that the women on average are a couple years behind the men on the salary schedule.

[prolesunited]

30. Where did the poster say that

was the solution? Why do you believe we can't reach a solution that doesn't come at the expense of men or create a situation that does not result in unfairness toward men?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we create pay equity by turning around and discriminating men. Perhaps that is your perception, but could you be open to the possibility that it is possibility to create a system that is equal and fair to all.

[cally]

34. The other question is why so many

males get administrative jobs. Way out of proportion to how many male teachers. Males get promoted over females often in the education field.

[Yupster]

44. My guesses - it's a mixed bag

As a note - I am a stockbroker who does retirement accounts for hundreds of teachers. I was also a teacher myself for nine years. So, I'm no expert, but I do talk to hundreds of teachers and their families about their money every year.

I think there may be bias in the hiring of school administrators, especially when it comes to secondary assistant principal which is often primarily a disciplinary position.

However, there are other reasons which may be much greater and does not involve discrimination.

Male teachers are more likely to get their administrative certificate to even make them eligible for the promotion. This is something I see over and over. All teachers get their master's degrees. They are overwhelmingy the largest group of graduate degrees granted. However, where males are likely to get their master's in administration, females are more likely to get their master's in reading, or curriculum and instruction.

When I discuss administrative positions with families, I hear over and over that many women are not interested in them. The main reasons are that the administrators have to work during the summers and who will watch the kids if I had to work the summer? Also while teachers can often get out at 3:30, administrators often work till 5:30. Again, the concern of the mother is who will be with the kid until I get home?

As a note, almost every district is currentlt trying to hire more women administrators, and the numbers are rapidly getting more even.

I have no doubt that there is bias in the equation, but some who say the numbers are all or even most the result of bias are as wrong as those who say there is no bias at all. The answer is in between somewhere.

[theboss]

66. You can't insitutionalize disrimination.

Can you imagine that unpleasant working environment that would create?

[GinaMaria]

32. eliminate penalty for

taking time off to raise a baby. I've read that this contributes to women's pay being lower. They lose years in the work force by being at home. Maybe move to count those years as work experience and compensate accordingly? This might encourage fathers to stay home with kids too, if they won't be punished monitarily when they return to work. Just a thought.

More flexibility for working parents. I have a feeling a co-worker of mine who is sharp and a quick worker will not recieve as big a pay raise because she sometimes has to leave suddenly, come in late or stay home with a sick child. Her attendance is more erratic. Work at home options (I believe HP is a good example of this)may help this too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. You can't, there IS a penalty

If you take time off, your job skills fall into disrepair and you are no longer current in your field of endeavor. Meanwhile, other people are getting more current job skills and they are staying working, are up with current trend and technology.

Having children is a life choice and it DOES impact career.

Speaking as someone who has been a boss a lot, I would not want a worker who, "sometimes has to leave suddenly, come in late or stay home with a sick child," as muchn as someone who does none of those things. We all make accommodations, but work is just that, work. And the work needs to get done.

[GinaMaria]

50. flexibility

has allowed us to retain someone with vast knowledge and experience. She often works from home. She's someone who can get done in 4 hours what another coworker gets done in 12. to penalize her and not work around some of her needs would cost us.

I appreciate that my department is flexible with her. She's a valuable resource. The work gets done. It's just done a little different than it was a few years ago.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Special people

Will always get special treatment. A top salesperson for instance. If you have someone who can make a big impact even in limited time, you will make accommodations. The problem is that most employees aren't essential enough to put up with the problems that causes.

[bigrootcanal]

42. I can't relate

Every single woman I know personally either makes more than me or so close to the same that I can't see the difference. I just have not seen it in real life.

[prolesunited]

46. So does your personal experience

invalidate study after study where this has been shown to be the case? What do you think accounts for the difference? Why do you think the women you know make more?

BTW, welcome to DU. :hi:

[bigrootcanal]

49. Nope

All I know is that not one woman in my life (mother, three sisters, seven cousins and two aunts) make less than me. I'm sure it's my fault but I just don't know why. I don't doubt others have different stories.

[Heddi]

56. One point to make re: women taking more time off for kids

Throughout this thread, it has been brought up again and again how much time women take off of work to raise children, give birth to children, stay home with sick children, etc etc.

Why do more mothers than fathers take more time off to tend to a newborn, or a sick child, or to raise a child?

Could it be, just possibly, that REGARDLESS of whether a family has children, the woman will GENERALLY ALWAYS MAKE LESS MONEY THAN THE MAN, therefore making HER salary more 'expendable'?

Could it be that because a wife makes less than her husband, that the family reasons that she is the one who should quit work, because her salary isn't as 'essential' as the husband's salary is, since his is generally higher paying than the wife's?

I've known many men who have taken years off to raise children, who have been the ones to pick up Jr. when he's sick at school---but THEY (the men) are in jobs that pay less than their WIVES' jobs do.

So it's not a matter of women taking more time off because they're women, and we just need that extra time mopping up vomit and changing diapers. We're taking the time off to care for our kids because OUR SALARIES are lower--we're not the ones bringing home the bacon, so to speak.

I notice that no one has brought up the fact that while yes, women can and do get pregnant and can and do stay out of the workforce to be mother, men are more likely to sustain injuries and sicknes that keeps THEM out of work for longer periods of time---albeit later in life (heart attacks, double bypass, stroke, etc).

So it's acceptable for a man to be out of work for extended periods of time due to injury, but not for a woman to be out of the workforce for 5 years or so for a child.

ALso, men are more likely to call in sick from work than women are. (I don't have the stats in front of me, but I will have them by tonight---on my way to school in a bit).

So men, on average, take more days off from work (paid and non-paid) than women do EXCEPTING THE CASE OF PREGNANCY.

Not every woman gets pregnant, but we're all punished for those who do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Kids

Or it could be that more women wish to stay home and take care of children.

Chicken meet egg. Honestly, I think it is hard to prove either way. I do know that only one man I know desires to do this and, honestly, he wasn't very career driven anyhow.

You and other posters keep bringing up the male sickness deal. The problem with comparing sickness to pregnancy is that it doesn't wash. Pregnancy is a perfectly avoidable medical condition, the sicknesses you mention are not necessarily so.

That means women get pregnant and leave work by choice. It is only natural that employers take a dim view of that attitude.

[Heddi]

59. There are many illnesses

that are preventable.

High blood pressure, unless idiopathic and genetic, is avoidable by eating a diet low in saturated fats and salts, by exercising regularly, and such.

Smoking-related diseases are preventable by simply not smoking.

Liver diseases are generally preventable by limiting intake of alcohol.

Limiting cholesterol intake can reduce causes of artheriosclerosis and heart disease.

Diabetes risk can be lowered by keeping proportional body weight and excersing moderately throughout life.

I see far, far more women who ONLY Take 3 weeks off after giving birth to a child (and work up to the day before giving birth) than women who take their legally-granted 12 weeks unpaid leave---why? Because even though the LAW states that they can have 12 wks of unpaid leave, their bosses STILL frown on it.

Yet I've worked with many men who have had triple bypass surgery TOTALLY due to their poor health habits, who have taken their 12 weeks leave, in addition to vacation, sick time, and then non-pay extra time off.



And again, not EVERY woman gets pregnant, or has a child. I don't have any children, have had no major health setbacks, yet I'm still "punished" because of women who choose to have children.

But men aren't punished because they have higher rates of diseases and illnesses that keep them ou of the workplace LONGER than women who have children.

But men aren't punished because they call out sick more often than women.

But ALL women are punished in our wages because a select number of our population have children. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Predictable

At least your line of attack was predictable.

Let's just cut to the chase on the illness/pregnancy point. Pregnancy is the only one people CHOOSE. That means women are choosing to leave work, often permanently.

The problem is not women who take three weeks or 12. The problem is that many women leave their jobs after pregnancy, in my experience after a second or third child.

That is a huge problem. Every time a woman gets pregnant, a boss is left wondering whether she will be back or not -- ever.

Yes, not every woman gets pregnant, you are very right. And though I've seen little research on the subject, I bet older women get more similar treatment to older men because pregnancy has been removed as an issue.

[pmbryant]

68. These are part of the reasons why...

a good deal of the supposedly 'explainable' part of the wage gap may also be due, ultimately, to discrimination.

Women are paid less in general (in large part, due to discriminatory practices) and so their income is the more expendable one. So when personal conditions require the sacrifice of one income in a family, in the majority of cases it will be the female's income that will be sacrificed. Thus she is sacrificing future earnings by a choice that was necessitated by the discriminatory practices that lead to women being paid less. The endless cycle continues....

:-(

--Peter

[Heddi]

71. yes, of course peter,

but as you can see, according to some people, ALL women should be paid less because SOME women chose to have children--MULTIPLE children, year after year just popping out babies like they're rabbits, and choose not to come back to work.

So we all should be punished by being paid less (that'll teach US!) :eyes:

I'm sure some people in this thread also believe that to end the pay-gap problem, women should just GET OUT Of the workforce all together and go back to being at home all day, popping vallium to deal with the monotony, and making sure that dinner's piping hot on the table by 5:35, lest we get a good beatin' like we have coming to us :)

Thanks for being an ally. We need all we can get.

[Nlighten1]

60. Pay women more?

It might start there.

[Nikia]

64. Discrimination where I work

"Light labor" is paid $2.00/hour less than "heavy labor". Female temps are always assigned to "light labor" with one exception, a very large woman. when we were very busy and she was the first to be let go. Women are discouraged from signing for "heavy labor" positions. The lifting requirements on the sheets are overstated. Some of these "heavy labor" positions require more lifting than others. One woman that did sign for "heavy labor" was assigned the heaviest lifting job during her trial period even though this was not the position vacated (They switched people around). Sexual harassment is also rather normal and one of the women doing "light labor" who would be capable of the lifting avoids signing for these positions because of this fear. I would sign for heavy labor if it were to my wage benefit, but it is not and I don't know if I am really allowed to sign for these positions since I am quasi management.

[prolesunited]

65. This has been an excellent discussion, Peter

Thank you for starting this thread. It is obvious that you have done your homework and studied the topic. It is refreshing to see a male concerned about this vital issue. I don't understand why more aren't. After all, don't they want to see their mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, etc. treated fairly in the workplace?

It is clear from this thread that it is quite a complex issue with many variables and no easy answers. I think the first step is convincing people that a problem exists. What amazes me is that despite the evidence, and even discounting variables such as pregnancy, that some refuse to believe that persistent and pervasive disparities in pay between men and women continue to discuss.

I do want to reiterate that resolving the issue does NOT have to come at the expense of men. I don't believe it is a zero-sum game. Establishing pay equity does not mean taking money away from men; it means paying women more.

I did appreciate the tenor of this discussion and hope we all can continue talking about issues such as these — even if we don't agree — in such a rationale and productive manner as this.

[pmbryant]

69. Thanks, proles

No easy answers indeed. :-(

I heard an NPR report this morning about a new GAO report on the wage gap that confirmed a roughly 20% 'unexplainable' difference in the pay of men and women. I'm looking for an online story about this now and will add it to this thread.

--Peter

[pmbryant]

72. Here's the new GAO report

I couldn't find a news story about it (at least on the NY Times or Washington Post websites), so I had to go to the GAO itself to get it.

:crazy:

Here's the link to today's reports from the GAO: http://www.gao.gov/daybook/031120.htm

And here's the link to a PDF file of the particular study I'm referring to: WOMEN’S EARNINGS: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings

Based on the summary I heard on NPR, the title here is focusing on the wrong part.

Here is the summary of the findings from the text:

In summary, we found:

• Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men
and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically,
women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year,
are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for
longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings
differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job
tenure. When we account for differences between male and female work
patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average,
80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in
each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline
in the earnings difference over the time period. (See table 2 in app. II.)

• Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could
not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women. Due
to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis, we
cannot determine whether this remaining difference is due to
discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings. For example,
some experts said that some women trade off career advancement or
higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family
responsibilities.

So they don't make the assumption that the 'unexplainable' 20% part of the gap is due to discrimination, but I see little evidence to suggest that is is anything else.

--Peter

[adriennel]

67. ERA!

an Equal Rights Amendment might be a good start.

[luckyluke]

70. Pay men less (nt)

[prolesunited]

74. No one here is suggesting that

Your comment was a little cryptic. Do you believe that is what the result would be or do you think this is the solution? I would like to hear more of an explanation of your point.

[luckyluke]

75. It's a solution...

...not a very good one maybe :-)

Actually, I was just being facetious.

-ll

[skippysmom]

77. a few thoughts...

...from a woman who's been on the front lines.

I think there are a lot of factors behind the wage gap between men and women, including:

1. Value of the "women's" jobs versus "men's" jobs. As a society, we base pay on how valuable that job is and the skills needed to obtain it. Female-dominated fields like teaching are paid less than male dominated fields like, say, plumbing. Both are valuable -- we need to educate our kids, and we need to keep our toilets from overflowing -- but in most cases we pay our plumbers more. Is this because our pipes are more important than our kids, or is this because we assign an intrinsically higher value to "men's work"? I don't know.

2. Negotiation. I read an interesting article in the NYT within the last few months about women and negotiation (sorry, can't find a link), that basically said that women are less likely to negotiate in business transactions, whether it's buying a car or taking a job. So take a man and woman who are offered the same position. The offer is for, say, $30,000. He is more likely to negotiate for a higher wage, say $35,000, while she may settle for the $30,000 they offer. And all of their raises will build off that number, so she will continue to lag behind him in salary.

3. Motherhood. Sadly, motherhood still manages to create a gap between men's and women's earnings. I wish it weren't so. Yes, having children will affect your career. Yet why are men able to have children and it doesn't affect their careers? Why does the brunt of childrearing still fall to women? At the risk of sounding like a petulant child, it simply isn't fair.

Solutions?
1. Paid leaves for both parents and subsidized quality child care, which would allow women to pursue their careers.
2. Measures to give people back a 40 hour week -- enforcing overtime provisions, etc.
3. More openness about wages -- many people don't know what others makes and may not even know they are discriminated against. (I was working a professional level, masters' degree required job for a year and a half before I found out that the secretary who was hired after I was made more than I did. Made me wish I'd negotiated for a better salary.)
4. Broaden cultural perceptions about the value of women's work (not sure how)
5. A drive to unionize women and female dominated professions. I'd be curious to see how many women are in unions compared to men.

[pmbryant]

78. Thanks for your thoughts, skippysmom

I particularly am intrigued by the idea of 'more openness about wages'. This was mentioned earlier in the thread as well by some others.

Would there need to be some kind of legislation to promote this? I suspect the business community would be vociferously opposed, of course.

And I, too, would be curious to see how many women are in unionized positions (or fields) compared to men.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Of course they'd be opposed

I've been a boss, the worst thing in the world for morale is everyone knowing what everyone else makes. The private sector is not government and wages get negotiated between boss and employee. The best people get the best money. Knowing that in theory is OK. Knowing it in fact is hard on people.

Most companies have a policy that if you distribute such information, you will be fired. Sorry, what I earn or pay other workers is not your business.

[pmbryant]

80. Unfortunately...

this practice also makes it far easier for discrimination to occur, since it becomes very hard to even discover there is any sort of problem. (Of course, once a problem is discovered, there are then numerous other obstacles in the way of remedies, as have been discussed earlier in this thread.)

Legislation doesn't have to be the anser. Moving towards wider unionization could definitely help this, I think, since then wages are no longer just a one-sided negotiation between the employer and solitary employees.

Unfortunately, most businesses don't exactly appear too co-operative about this last option these days either.

:-(

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. Again, can't blame them

Wow, either reveal all private company documents or accept unionization.

Not exactly a fun option for businesses. What do THEY gain?

Nothing.

[pmbryant]

83. 'Fun options'

Well, I don't think those who suffer from pay discrimination are having much fun under the status quo.

I disagree that making salary/wage info more public would automatically lower morale.

And I suspect this may well be the least invasive way to end most discriminatory pay practices. If pay information is public, inequities would be easy to discover, and then public pressure could be brought to bear more effectively.

At least in principle, I think this could work. If it's not "fun" for business, that's a shame, but not really important. They control the entire government these days, so I think they can afford to give up a little bit of their power over workers.

--Peter

ON EDIT: There may even be something in this for business, in that the threat of equal pay lawsuits would probably be greatly reduced under such a system. True, not very many such lawsuits ever see the light of day, but no doubt just the threat of them is bad for many business, given their well-known antipathy towards "uncertainty".

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Making pay public

It is never good to create a whole new problem trying to solve another. That's what revealing salary information would do.

No two employees are ever alike in most businesses, especially as they rise above entry level. You take into account all sorts of factors to make up an assessment -- work habits, work performance, potential, education, initiative, reliability, ability to work with others, etc. It is good that employees look toward the good employees for examples, but it can be crushing for employees to find out what others make.

And no, the threat of lawsuit would not be reduced, it would be enhanced by such information. Many more employees -- some rightly, some not -- would feel mistreated.

[pmbryant]

85. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this

And no, the threat of lawsuit would not be reduced, it would be enhanced by such information. Many more employees -- some rightly, some not -- would feel mistreated.

But one can't sue over simple 'mistreatment' in pay. There has to be evidence of discrimination on basis of gender or race (and possibly some other categories).

Making the info public would put immediate pressure on large organizations to make sure gross inequities between genders and races don't exist. For small organizations, the info is less useful, and potentially misleading. So perhaps they can be exempted from such a hypothetical requirement.

:shrug:

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. One can sue over anything

The question is never suing, the question is winning. Meanwhile, employers will have an ever-more-unhappy workforce.

[Yupster]

89. Whast ever happened to the right to privacy?

I don't think I'd want other workers to know how much I make.

Is my right to privacy so easily catapulted away?

[pmbryant]

90. Privacy?

I'm not sure we have much privacy left, at least concerning financial info.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Doesn't mean we just give it up

It doesn't work that way. Privacy, like other freedoms, should be hard fought.

[pmbryant]

87. Here's another's thoughts on this issue (Calpundit blog)

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002689.html

In this post (inspired by the new GAO report out today), Calpundit has an interesting anecdote:

(snip)

And it's hard to overcome even when it hits you in the face. I hired a guy many years ago, and based on his seniority and competence I offered him a pretty good salary. About a year later, as we expanded, I hired a woman to do the same job, but since she was less senior I offered her a salary about 20% less. After only a few months, however, I realized that her previous employer had obviously not recognized how good she was. If anything, she was actually better than the guy I had hired earlier.

But it was too late. Conventional thinking about compensation is too ingrained, and my boss was simply unwilling to give her a one-time pay increase to make things equal. It just wasn't done. We gave reviews once a year, and increases had to be between 0-8%. That was important and it just wasn't going to change.

So every year I would give her the maximum raise, and bit by bit she caught up. However, it took about seven or eight years. Today she's manager of her department.

(snip)

But even after relating this anecdote, this generally progressive fellow is somewhat dismissive of the problem, as later he suggests that a large part of the problem is due to women being less willing to shop around.

:eyes:

--Peter

[Fescue4u]

92. Women don't want Mens opinion on Abortion

Why should I give it on how to catch up with me?

Sorry, you are on your own.