Equal pay

[maquiscat]

If there is a better section to put this in then by all means, mods, please move it there.

Something occurred to me the other day and I want to see where it leads.

In all these studies about the pay differential between men and women, do any of them account for the simple fact that women tend to be less assertive than men when it comes to bargaining? I know there have been several studies that show that when it comes to bargaining, women will haggle less and mostly go with the first offer. Now any good HR rep will be trying to get the most talent for the least money. They have an upper limit that they will not pass, and maybe a more targeted point that they figure they'll bargain to. But if the person actually takes them up on a lower offer, of course the HR will pounce on that. So would that not be a legitimate reason for women to have lower pay for an equal job.

Of course this would only apply to jobs where the pay is negotiated over, and naturally not all women would take an early offer, nor is this the only factor in the pay difference between men and women. I'm just wondering how much this factor is weighted, if at all, and how it affects the pay differential.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If there is a better section to put this in then by all means, mods, please move it there.

Something occurred to me the other day and I want to see where it leads.

In all these studies about the pay differential between men and women, do any of them account for the simple fact that women tend to be less assertive than men when it comes to bargaining? I know there have been several studies that show that when it comes to bargaining, women will haggle less and mostly go with the first offer. Now any good HR rep will be trying to get the most talent for the least money. They have an upper limit that they will not pass, and maybe a more targeted point that they figure they'll bargain to. But if the person actually takes them up on a lower offer, of course the HR will pounce on that. So would that not be a legitimate reason for women to have lower pay for an equal job.

Of course this would only apply to jobs where the pay is negotiated over, and naturally not all women would take an early offer, nor is this the only factor in the pay difference between men and women. I'm just wondering how much this factor is weighted, if at all, and how it affects the pay differential.

Potentially good points, at least something to ponder.

I would say most of the difference in pay is based on careers, not just pay for job done. Women tend, far more than men, to jump out of the system in what would be their most productive, career accleerating years as those are also their most reproductive years. Men stay, often rise up the ladder to higher and higher pay and so, over a lifetime, will, just by dint of having more years of pay plus the added benefit of being around to get promoted, earn on average more than do women.

It is also my understanding that men are more willing to work overtime as women are willing to do the job during working hours, but find their time away from the job just as, if not more, valuable.

That's my two cents worth.

 

[sangha]

If there is a better section to put this in then by all means, mods, please move it there.

Something occurred to me the other day and I want to see where it leads.

In all these studies about the pay differential between men and women, do any of them account for the simple fact that women tend to be less assertive than men when it comes to bargaining? I know there have been several studies that show that when it comes to bargaining, women will haggle less and mostly go with the first offer. Now any good HR rep will be trying to get the most talent for the least money. They have an upper limit that they will not pass, and maybe a more targeted point that they figure they'll bargain to. But if the person actually takes them up on a lower offer, of course the HR will pounce on that. So would that not be a legitimate reason for women to have lower pay for an equal job.

Of course this would only apply to jobs where the pay is negotiated over, and naturally not all women would take an early offer, nor is this the only factor in the pay difference between men and women. I'm just wondering how much this factor is weighted, if at all, and how it affects the pay differential.

I don't know about studies, but there is a female CEO who recently started an org for woman in business who has written a book where she explains what she believes are some of the reasons for gender discrepancies in the workplace and one of the things she writes about is how women are less likely to put themselves forward for promotions when higher level jobs open up.

 

[Psychoclown]

If there is a better section to put this in then by all means, mods, please move it there.

Something occurred to me the other day and I want to see where it leads.

In all these studies about the pay differential between men and women, do any of them account for the simple fact that women tend to be less assertive than men when it comes to bargaining? I know there have been several studies that show that when it comes to bargaining, women will haggle less and mostly go with the first offer. Now any good HR rep will be trying to get the most talent for the least money. They have an upper limit that they will not pass, and maybe a more targeted point that they figure they'll bargain to. But if the person actually takes them up on a lower offer, of course the HR will pounce on that. So would that not be a legitimate reason for women to have lower pay for an equal job.

Of course this would only apply to jobs where the pay is negotiated over, and naturally not all women would take an early offer, nor is this the only factor in the pay difference between men and women. I'm just wondering how much this factor is weighted, if at all, and how it affects the pay differential.

Good point that I had not considered, but makes sense to me. I know we are speaking in generalities here and there are certainly plenty of exceptions, but I would say that in general women are less likely to be hard nosed negotiators or to aggressively seek out promotions, pay raises, ect.

I know that holds true for my wife. She's well paid, but considering the work load she bears for her department (often doing over 50% of the work on her own in a six person department) she is deserving of a raise. About six months ago her department went through some turn over where she was the only top tier employee left in her department. She was dreading the increased work load that she was going to experience, but I told her it was the perfect time to negotiate a raise because now more than ever, her department needed her - as there were several tasks where she was the ONLY person in the department who knew how to do them. Without her, they simply would not get done. She hemmed and hawed for a few weeks and finally approached her boss and of course was shot down with the typical "our hands are tied" BS you get from a boss and then never mentioned it again. Someone more aggressive and/or persistent would almost certainly have been able to leverage that situation into a decent raise (she knows people who used to be in the department who managed to do it with less leverage than she had), but that just simply isn't my wife.

 

[maquiscat]

I would say most of the difference in pay is based on careers, not just pay for job done. Women tend, far more than men, to jump out of the system in what would be their most productive, career accleerating years as those are also their most reproductive years. Men stay, often rise up the ladder to higher and higher pay and so, over a lifetime, will, just by dint of having more years of pay plus the added benefit of being around to get promoted, earn on average more than do women.

This is also something I've wondered about in the comparison of the pays; are they comparing for same time in a position? Also are they accounting for (in a similar but different vein than my OP) the tendency of men over women to ask for pay raises?

I don't know about studies, but there is a female CEO who recently started an org for woman in business who has written a book where she explains what she believes are some of the reasons for gender discrepancies in the workplace and one of the things she writes about is how women are less likely to put themselves forward for promotions when higher level jobs open up.

I wonder if that is the same woman who has also noted that even women will discriminate against other women when it comes to pay?

 

[Respecthelect]

When one factors in the number of women who drop out of the workforce to raise children and other gender-specific choices, women are clearly overpaid. Man or woman, take three months off (disability or childbirth) and see outcomes. The person the boss can rely on gets promoted. That's the way it is and the way it should be. Why liberals think they can dictate pay from thirty-thousand feet is mystifying. Go to work every day and be the person the boss can rely on and you will get the pay. Man or woman. Bosses only care that they can get the job done and they can't get the job done if the employee is taking time off. Take time off and watch the other guy (or gal) get the promotion. So, stop whining about pay differentials and get to work.

 

[Neomalthusian]

When one factors in the number of women who drop out of the workforce to raise children and other gender-specific choices, women are clearly overpaid. Man or woman, take three months off (disability or childbirth) and see outcomes.

The FMLA was meant to try to equalize that, but in my opinion it just doesn't really work. Employers will abide by the law but they sometimes get the ****-end of the stick. Women will take their 12 weeks of leave and then decide they're not coming back. Thanks for the health coverage and other benefits in the meantime though! There are provisions that allow the employer to recoup some of the benefit costs if women wait until the 12th week and then say peace out, but what does that require? A month back on the job, at most?

Women spend 12 weeks bonding with their child and then think about whether they want that separation from their child(ren) plus job stress in exchange for pay that, adjusted for the extra cost of child care, is significantly less than what they were making pre-pregnancy, and it becomes a lot easier to just say to hell with it, I'll return to the workforce when our children are all in school, years down the road.

I'm convinced the profound importance of maternity has inevitable impacts on career trajectory. It's not fair that women don't measure up to men in career trajectory and pay like it's not fair that women have to give birth and breast feed and what not. The unfairness claim may be valid, but there's no changing it.

 

[sangha]

This is also something I've wondered about in the comparison of the pays; are they comparing for same time in a position? Also are they accounting for (in a similar but different vein than my OP) the tendency of men over women to ask for pay raises?



I wonder if that is the same woman who has also noted that even women will discriminate against other women when it comes to pay?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

 

[maquiscat]

When one factors in the number of women who drop out of the workforce to raise children and other gender-specific choices, women are clearly overpaid. Man or woman, take three months off (disability or childbirth) and see outcomes. The person the boss can rely on gets promoted. That's the way it is and the way it should be. Why liberals think they can dictate pay from thirty-thousand feet is mystifying. Go to work every day and be the person the boss can rely on and you will get the pay. Man or woman. Bosses only care that they can get the job done and they can't get the job done if the employee is taking time off. Take time off and watch the other guy (or gal) get the promotion. So, stop whining about pay differentials and get to work.

A promotion indicates that the person promoted is in a different job now, which is not the premise of what most of the studies claim; equal pay for equal work. What you are talking about is not part of that claim because the promoted person would now be doing more work (in theory) this earning the higher pay. However, the principle you put forth might also apply to pay raises. For equal time in the job, doing the same job, and equal enough quality work, the amount of time out of work could indeed become a factor.

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Which question were you answering?

 

[sangha]

Which question were you answering?

The last one

Here we go

Sheryl Sandberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieD]

If there is a better section to put this in then by all means, mods, please move it there.

Something occurred to me the other day and I want to see where it leads.

In all these studies about the pay differential between men and women, do any of them account for the simple fact that women tend to be less assertive than men when it comes to bargaining? I know there have been several studies that show that when it comes to bargaining, women will haggle less and mostly go with the first offer. Now any good HR rep will be trying to get the most talent for the least money. They have an upper limit that they will not pass, and maybe a more targeted point that they figure they'll bargain to. But if the person actually takes them up on a lower offer, of course the HR will pounce on that. So would that not be a legitimate reason for women to have lower pay for an equal job.

Of course this would only apply to jobs where the pay is negotiated over, and naturally not all women would take an early offer, nor is this the only factor in the pay difference between men and women. I'm just wondering how much this factor is weighted, if at all, and how it affects the pay differential.

A married woman of child-bearing age is not as valuable as a married man married to someone of child-bearing age. It takes time to learn corporate culture, particular jobs and responsibilities. Hire a 24-year-old newly married gal into a career-type position, and one risks that, in two years, that employee will avail herself of maternity leave . . . work it 'til the end . . . and then quit her job. That's reality. And HR knows it.

 

[maquiscat]

A married woman of child-bearing age is not as valuable as a married man married to someone of child-bearing age. It takes time to learn corporate culture, particular jobs and responsibilities. Hire a 24-year-old newly married gal into a career-type position, and one risks that, in two years, that employee will avail herself of maternity leave . . . work it 'til the end . . . and then quit her job. That's reality. And HR knows it.

That is certainly another factor involved. I was looking more at a specific factor, but we can look at more I guess.