Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Men tend to get paid more, even if they have LESS experience than a woman doing the same job in the next cubicle, because it's still considered that men are the primary breadwinners (overlooking all the struggling single moms), so they "deserve" or "need" higher pay.
|
Every one of the Fortune 500 corporations, the Wilshire 3000 corporations and essentially all of the Russell 2000 has an HR department that
relentlessly combs through the data to identify any conscious or unconscious bias of the form you just described, and if found, immediately rectifies the situation.
To prevent it from happening in the first place, during the performance review process and prior to any determinations being made final, HR data analysts evaluate
every action at the individual, department, division and corporate level. They
scour the data to determine the impact on every protected class to ensure there is no disparate impact. Consultants are brought in to perform sophisticated statistical analysis to ensure there are no pockets of illegal outcomes. When it is time to lay off people, the same process and statistical analysis is performed. Ditto for promotions.
Only once the above review has been completed and each and every action is reviewed at the micro and macro level is it allowed to go forward.
No where -- not once -- has an employee's "need" in the context you cite played any role whatsoever. It just doesn't happen. "He's a breadwinner so we'll give him a bigger raise" is the type of urban myth that circulates among those who do not understand the process or the mathematics that go into it. I had to terminate a 60 year old employee (note that anyone over the age of 40 is part of a protected class); HR legal ultimately signed off on the termination because I had hired this employee into the company at age 56 in the first place. The employee in question expected the action, understood why, and agreed to it -- all based on individual merit. The employee's age, gender, skin color, veteran status, sexual preference, sexual identity, religion, creed, country of origin had no bearing. The only thing that mattered -- the ONLY thing that mattered -- was that employee's personal job performance (or lack thereof).
This is not to say that all decisions are gender blind (or race blind or blind to the other protected classes.) Let me give you a first hand example.
One major corporation I worked for had a hiring freeze as a result of deteriorating business conditions. At the General Counsel's staff meeting, several senior HR directors & VPs presented the just-implemented hiring freeze.
HR explained why exceptions to the freeze
only would be made to hire women and African Americans into specific job functions, as the company was underrepresented and actively wished to improve its percentages, and did not want to do anything to foment a lawsuit. No lawsuits were pending, but HR was eager to remain on the right side of any potential litigation. The company is a tech company where most everyone is a solid state physicist, electrical engineer, chemical engineer, chemist, mechanical engineer, materials scientist, photolithography process engineer, ceramics engineer, software engineer, AI engineer, industrial engineer, mathematician, network engineer or data scientist. And far too few women and African Americans choose to pursue degrees in these areas, so among hiring employers it is hand-to-hand combat to attract, hire & retain them.
Bottom line: Hiring freeze. No exceptions except for women and African Americans.
"I've been given a directive to hire a replacement an SEC attorney who left the company," said one VP of Legal who is also the Corporate Secretary.
"We have a hiring freeze and you may not extend an offer to any candidate. The only exception is if the candidate is Female or African American or both," replied the VP of HR.
VP of Legal & Corporate Secretary: "The Board of Directors of the Corporation has directed me to hire an outstanding SEC attorney to replace XXX who left."
VP of HR: "We have a hiring freeze and you may not extend an offer to any candidate. The only exception is if the candidate is Female or African American or both."
VP of Legal & Corporate Secretary: "What am I supposed to do? Do you want me to run an advertisement saying, 'no white men need apply?'"
VP of HR: "Don't be silly. That's illegal and you know it. We have a hiring freeze and you may not extend an offer to any candidate. The only exception is if the candidate is Female or African American or both."
VP of Legal & Corporate Secretary: "Should I only interview Female or African American candidates?"
VP of HR: "That's also illegal and could get us sued. But, you may not extend an offer to any candidate because of the hiring freeze, where the only exception -- the ONLY exception -- is if the candidate is Female or African American or both."
The VP of Legal & Corporate Secretary was getting quite testy and irritated -- after all, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the CEO (a different person), and the General Counsel all had directed him to hire the best person he could find, and HR was telling him "no." The presentation degraded and ultimately called to a halt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Or their career trajectories are more important, somehow.
|
One of the sad truths is that women self-select out of rigorous, objective technical disciplines at a much higher rate than do men. Ditto for Blacks compared to non-Blacks.
According to extensive primary research, high school girls are much less interested in pursuing engineering and technology than their male peers. In 2014,
only 3 percent of high school females reported an interest in engineering, compared to 31 percent of males. In the same year, just 2 percent of girls reported an interest in technology, while 15 percent of boys expressed an interest in the field.
On Advanced Placement (AP) tests, male students scored higher than females in EVERY STEM subject; on the SATs, males of all demographics scored
at least 30 points higher on the math section than females.
Only 6 percent of AA degrees and 13 percent of BS/BA degrees granted to women were in a STEM field. For men, the numbers were 20 and 28 percent, respectively, in STEM. At the graduate level, in 2014 only 10 percent of graduate degrees earned by women were in STEM fields while 24 percent of graduate degrees granted to men were STEM degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
And studies have shown that even when women negotiated for their raises, they still get less than men's raises. They're taken less seriously.
|
The performance review process in every major corporation is exceptionally rigorous and more importantly DATA DRIVEN. Before implemented, every action is scrutinized at the individual, department, division and corporate level. Any
hint of women receiving lower raises is put under a microscope to understand why, and even if demonstrably justified based on actual accomplishment of specific individuals, is fixed to ensure there is no statistical difference between men and women of the form you suggest.
Moreover, salary adjustments do occur on top of individual merit based on gender and race - but in the opposite direction from the way you suggest. "Linda is a female photolithography process engineer, and we're adding an extra XX% raise to every female process engineer regardless of merit as a tool to encourage retention of women."
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
