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.
Studies undertaken by groups with a vested interest. There isn't a National Organization for Men dedicated to the advancement of men in society who might commission a study to show there is no gender gap.
How is it, with millions of business competing for market share and revenue, that none of them are exploiting this gender gap for advantage, hiring only or mostly women so that they can put out an equal product or service with a 20% lower labor cost and blow away the competition?
I don't think Stanford University, Pew Research, the US Dept of Labor, et al are affiliated with any women's groups, yet all have done studies that reflect a gender pay gap (and pay gap between races as well).
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,069,650 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
And I worked in HR for many, many years for small companies (12 employees) to large, international companies with thousands of employees. And I can assure you that the wage gap for genders absolutely still exists. Heck, when I did recruiting, I had people actually tell me that they didn't want a woman. I wish I could say that was infrequent, but it wasn't. Same with people telling me they didn't want a minority. Just because you - one person - doesn't observe such practices doesn't mean they don't exist. The studies just offer empirical evidence to support it.
I never said it didn't exist. What I'm saying is there are plenty of companies run by people just like myself who put the life and health of their company before anything else, which means there are plenty of people just like myself who wouldn't dare leave 22% cost savings on the table.
I'm also telling you that if one of my managers decided to pay more for an employee JUST because he was a man, he/she wouldn't work for me anymore.
I never said it didn't exist. What I'm saying is there are plenty of companies run by people just like myself who put the life and health of their company before anything else, which means there are plenty of people just like myself who wouldn't dare leave 22% cost savings on the table.
I'm also telling you that if one of my managers decided to pay more for an employee JUST because he was a man, he/she wouldn't work for me anymore.
Nobody is going to tell you that they are paying someone more JUST because he is a man.
Another thing to consider is that just because your company doesn't participate in this practice, doesn't mean that many, many (I dare say most) other companies don't. So the salary history of a woman applying for work at your company is going to be disproportionately low compared to a man applying for the same position because she was paid less preciously based on her gender.
(g) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing salary history information to a prospective employer. (h) If an applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses salary history information to a prospective employer, nothing in this section shall prohibit that employer from considering or relying on that voluntarily disclosed salary history information in determining the salary for that applicant.
We can not ask the applicant to voluntarily disclose past salary information but we most certainly can inform them that the new law prohibits us from asking and if the applicant decided to disclose, they must acknowledge that it is being done voluntarily and without being prompted. Despite what all these macho 'me Tarzan, you Jane' applicants have claimed they wont do or have not done, in reality, applicants will blab their entire life history if they think it gives them an advantage over someone else.
You know that its as easy as asking their salary expectations and advise them that is way too far above prevailing industry wages for the position. The next thing out of the applicant's mouth will be how much they were making in their last job. You want a job from me, you play by my rules. Sure you can make it a bit difficult, but in the end, it's my way or you stray on unemployment.
I didn't forget that at all. If you do what you propose you are asking for the information and you are still violating the law.
Of course, I've already seen enough to know that I don't want a job from you.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,069,650 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
Nobody is going to tell you that they are paying someone more JUST because he is a man.
Another thing to consider is that just because your company doesn't participate in this practice, doesn't mean that many, many (I dare say most) other companies don't. So the salary history of a woman applying for work at your company is going to be disproportionately low compared to a man applying for the same position because she was paid less preciously based on her gender.
Is it possible that the reason why someone's salary is lower compared to his/her counterparts isn't because of sexism, racism, or whatever other structural disadvantage you can come up with, but rather poor negotiating skills and/or skill set not being nearly valuable to the buyer as it is to the seller?
I really have no idea how people who see slight everywhere they turn get through the day. It must be a miserable experience.
I didn't forget that at all. If you do what you propose you are asking for the information and you are still violating the law.
Nope, the attorney's already reviewed it and notifying a candidate of the law and restricts is not "prompting". This is not a new thing to employer's as we knew about it when introduced., We had time to properly and legally prepare. My position isn't based on some random post from a day or two ago by a random person who is hearing about his for the first time. We were already receiving advice from our attorney and our outside HR company on this and many other labor laws as they are introduced and will impact us. If loopholes exist in the law to be exploited, that's the problem of the legislatures, not the employer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
Of course, I've already seen enough to know that I don't want a job from you.
And isn't that what makes the USA great? I don't have to hire you if I don't like you and you are free not to apply or work for me if you don't like me. In the end, I'll hire someone for the position on my terms. I guess you'll also have no problem being hired on your terms. So, I see no problems.
Is it possible that the reason why someone's salary is lower compared to his/her counterparts isn't because of sexism, racism, or whatever other structural disadvantage you can come up with, but rather poor negotiating skills and/or skill set not being nearly valuable to the buyer as it is to the seller?
I really have no idea how people who see slight everywhere they turn get through the day. It must be a miserable experience.
Again, I'm sure this may be true in some instances. But as I mentioned before, studies that have factored in these variables still reflect a pay gap based on both gender and ethnic background.
Again, I'm sure this may be true in some instances. But as I mentioned before, studies that have factored in these variables still reflect a pay gap based on both gender and ethnic background.
I never said it didn't exist. What I'm saying is there are plenty of companies run by people just like myself who put the life and health of their company before anything else, which means there are plenty of people just like myself who wouldn't dare leave 22% cost savings on the table.
I'm also telling you that if one of my managers decided to pay more for an employee JUST because he was a man, he/she wouldn't work for me anymore.
That's good that you run your company fairly. There are plenty who do not run their companies with integrity. I work in a VERY male-dominated industry. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard both peers and superiors comment that they don't like working with women for various reasons. I'm sure my industry isn't the only one where that's the case, I'm sure this type of thinking filters down when hiring decisions are made, and I'm also sure that there are people in positions of power that think that way and don't value women as they should. Given there's not a lot of women in the industry in general, there's not a lot of pushback against that type of thinking.
There are plenty of others who do not. This law protects them by not putting companies in a position where they can force an applicant to give salary history, when they themselves do not have to post salary requirements.
With this new legislation, it is far fairer - if the company doesn't post its salary requirements, then neither knows anything about the other in terms of compensation prior to a potential offer being made. If a company decides to lowball they have to do a little more work to determine if that's a good idea or not. That's a good thing - it will get people higher offers from companies, which they should be getting anyway in this new lower-tax environment. There's no reason to penalize people for their negotiation skills or lack thereof, unless said negotiation skills are a core part of the position they are applying for. That's just basically saying "Well since you don't have this one, non-essential skill, we're going to penalize you for that via lower pay." Let's take a step back and realize not everyone is good at everything and (particularly for the unemployed) job hunting can be a very stressful time. The applicant shouldn't be unfairly punished for being a poor negotiator or for having a low salary history. If an employer feels they are a good fit for the job, this law will have the effect of encouraging them to make a fair offer and will eliminate the crutch of knowing salary history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita
Nope, the attorney's already reviewed it and notifying a candidate of the law and restricts is not "prompting". This is not a new thing to employer's as we knew about it when introduced., We had time to properly and legally prepare. My position isn't based on some random post from a day or two ago by a random person who is hearing about his for the first time. We were already receiving advice from our attorney and our outside HR company on this and many other labor laws as they are introduced and will impact us. If loopholes exist in the law to be exploited, that's the problem of the legislatures, not the employer.
And isn't that what makes the USA great? I don't have to hire you if I don't like you and you are free not to apply or work for me if you don't like me. In the end, I'll hire someone for the position on my terms. I guess you'll also have no problem being hired on your terms. So, I see no problems.
Obviously, you're a pretty bad employer, but with unemployment as low as it is, those who don't want to work for you likely won't have an issue going elsewhere. Based on the law, it does seem that you are planning to violate it from where I sit, but if you're willing to play lawsuit roulette in California, that's your prerogative - I'm not a lawyer. I have a feeling it will all work out as it should in the end.
People can still refuse to offer that history regardless of whether you inform them or not and hopefully most will understand that and try to avoid putting themselves in a position to be lowballed, but if it is found that employers are skirting the law, then I would agree that the law should be strengthened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolovefromANFIELD
Is it possible that the reason why someone's salary is lower compared to his/her counterparts isn't because of sexism, racism, or whatever other structural disadvantage you can come up with, but rather poor negotiating skills and/or skill set not being nearly valuable to the buyer as it is to the seller?
I really have no idea how people who see slight everywhere they turn get through the day. It must be a miserable experience.
Greedy (yes, greedy) employers should stop justifying poor negotiation tactics, and bad self-esteem, and every other excuse for the fact that all this pushback is simply because they don't want to pay more. Let's not mince words here. And I'm sure there are plenty of good employers who don't care a lick about this. I've never once been asked my salary history to my recollection. I really don't think most employers do that, but hopefully something similar to this will one day be law nationwide to ensure that this practice ends. There is literally no reason an employer needs to know this info, outside of "I want to pay less to prospective employers."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
