Empowerment leads to wage gap discrimination
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
That's just it. Bee's point (and I agree with her in at least some degree) is that the wage gap isn't technically illegal. It is immoral. Where there is hard evidence of unfair labor practices, an action brought before the NLRB will usually clear up matters pretty quickly. The catch has always been that there is a fringe, a frontier, a fuzzy border where the legality and morality of wage discrimination collide.
I don't think that anything can be done to things "beyond the fringe" because the law contains exemptions for the smallest of small businesses. I won't speak for the UK government, but the US government isn't well known for making efficient and effective agencies for low-level administration.
I don't think that anything can be done to things "beyond the fringe" because the law contains exemptions for the smallest of small businesses. I won't speak for the UK government, but the US government isn't well known for making efficient and effective agencies for low-level administration.
Just to throw some perspective into the mix, my position is not that empowerment is a bad thing. You have to read what I say very carefully! Let me quote:
Notice I have said two individuals with EQUAL levels of power. So my argument is NOT empowering woman = disemplowerment of men. Rather, it is if you empower the wrong people, you end up disempowering the other party.
Also, in the example I spoke about workers earning an average wage for hairdressing. For the boss, it is his own business, so he can set his own salary. So if you look at the wage gap between his salary and his workers, it appears there is a gender pay gap. But, the jobs are not equal. Sadly, the aggregation of all the salaries by gender does not take account of personal choice, number of hours worked, holidays taken etc. Yet the headlines say, "Promote women! Wage gap is unfair!"
So, in my example, if there was pressure to up the wages of the (female) hairdressers because of the (gender) wage gap, this is disempowering the man in his own business. They already get the market rate. That is fair. In fact, women are already empowered in his workplace, because he has only employed women!!
In the UK, The Guardian I seem to believe (dodgy paper) had an article stating that women between the ages of 22 and 28 (something like that), earn more than men. So, if you empower women in these circumstances, you end up disempowering men unfairly. Pressure to give the job to a woman to meet diversity targets and so on, may end up meaning a less qualified person gets the raise. This empowerment disempowers the one who did not get the promotion they deserved, based on their work record and qualifications.
Notice I have said two individuals with EQUAL levels of power. So my argument is NOT empowering woman = disemplowerment of men. Rather, it is if you empower the wrong people, you end up disempowering the other party.
Also, in the example I spoke about workers earning an average wage for hairdressing. For the boss, it is his own business, so he can set his own salary. So if you look at the wage gap between his salary and his workers, it appears there is a gender pay gap. But, the jobs are not equal. Sadly, the aggregation of all the salaries by gender does not take account of personal choice, number of hours worked, holidays taken etc. Yet the headlines say, "Promote women! Wage gap is unfair!"
So, in my example, if there was pressure to up the wages of the (female) hairdressers because of the (gender) wage gap, this is disempowering the man in his own business. They already get the market rate. That is fair. In fact, women are already empowered in his workplace, because he has only employed women!!
In the UK, The Guardian I seem to believe (dodgy paper) had an article stating that women between the ages of 22 and 28 (something like that), earn more than men. So, if you empower women in these circumstances, you end up disempowering men unfairly. Pressure to give the job to a woman to meet diversity targets and so on, may end up meaning a less qualified person gets the raise. This empowerment disempowers the one who did not get the promotion they deserved, based on their work record and qualifications.
I am truly sorry, Bee, but you just triggered a knee-jerk reaction in me.
You may find my argument unconscionable but the truth is that what you seek (at that level) may also be unavoidable unless you want to have government in your pants pocket 24 hours a day. To which my answer is not only No but HELL No. Using a word like "unconscionable" is a variation on political correctness, which is usually an attempt by one side of an argument to not face the actual issue raised by the arguer, but instead is an attempt at an end-around play to bypass the real argument.
You may find my argument unconscionable but the truth is that what you seek (at that level) may also be unavoidable unless you want to have government in your pants pocket 24 hours a day. To which my answer is not only No but HELL No. Using a word like "unconscionable" is a variation on political correctness, which is usually an attempt by one side of an argument to not face the actual issue raised by the arguer, but instead is an attempt at an end-around play to bypass the real argument.
I am sorry if I've triggered a knee-jerk reaction - that was clearly not the intention.
For unconscionable, substitute unfathomable. Or any similar word. At the end of the day, it's just semantics - but please don't think I am seeking to bypass the real argument.
But I do find it distasteful (better word?) that up to 50% of the population don't have the equality they deserve. And arguing about enforcement of rules and regulations to the nth degree isn't moving the conversation forward. As I've said before - transparency is key.
You mentioned that salary is private information. What if it wasn't? In the UK, salary information is private also - unless you work for local government and earn over a certain amount. At that point, the authority you work for is obliged by law to publish details of your salary on their website. At first, I was outraged, but now I barely even think of it. No-one has commented on my salary (to me at least), so I can only assume it's not that interesting.
If salary information wasn't clandestine, the perceived problem would simply go away given enough time.
For unconscionable, substitute unfathomable. Or any similar word. At the end of the day, it's just semantics - but please don't think I am seeking to bypass the real argument.
But I do find it distasteful (better word?) that up to 50% of the population don't have the equality they deserve. And arguing about enforcement of rules and regulations to the nth degree isn't moving the conversation forward. As I've said before - transparency is key.
You mentioned that salary is private information. What if it wasn't? In the UK, salary information is private also - unless you work for local government and earn over a certain amount. At that point, the authority you work for is obliged by law to publish details of your salary on their website. At first, I was outraged, but now I barely even think of it. No-one has commented on my salary (to me at least), so I can only assume it's not that interesting.
If salary information wasn't clandestine, the perceived problem would simply go away given enough time.
In the USA, the broad range for federal public service is defined for GS-1 through GS-12 or -13 (I forget how high they go) and GM-9 through 16. But the bands within range are less public, and even the bands have a non-zero range to them.
However, NO. The problem would not go away with time as long as the issue includes performance or productivity and the perception thereof. (The writer in me just clicked on the alliteration of public perception of performance and productivity pursuant to pushing promotions.) It DOESN'T MATTER what the ranges and bands are. What matters is how fast you advance through them. And as long as a person's ranking within a department is part of their PRIVATE personnel file, the reason that person isn't at the top band of GS-12 is not visible, nor should it be. It is always a matter of motivating the person without exposing their shortcomings to the rest of the world.
I could imagine a review board looking at promotion history for a department head to determine if any obvious bias exists. But as long as there is a cause for a person to not be promoted, and as long as that cause is documented in the personnel file, there still could be inequities in salary. And the question then becomes whether the stated cause is correct or not. But as long as there IS a recorded cause, to override the manager at that point completely undercuts that manager, who was hired to MAKE that kind of decision. So now you second-guess and eviscerate the boss, who (for this exercise) wrote down reasons for any given decision?
I have been a department manager with hiring and firing authority. I was one step away from a corporate vice-presidency, though I had to turn it down for personal reasons. I understand the decisions inherent in assigning relative value to employees for the purpose of determining raises, bonuses, promotions, recognition, and the other sides of those managerial coins. Although I was a big rugged at times, I learned how to be equitable and to take personalities out of the equation. If I had any weakness as a manager, it was that I was too kindhearted. With a limited amount of money in the pot for the next year's salary adjustments, it was always a painful balancing act.
Just like USA multi-millionaires find ways to evade taxes, managers will find ways to choose salaries and rewards via personal considerations. They will find the way to evade the glaring light of scrutiny. I've seen it before and there is no getting around it. When a manager is out to get you, unless you have a strong union contract, you can consider yourself GOT.
However, NO. The problem would not go away with time as long as the issue includes performance or productivity and the perception thereof. (The writer in me just clicked on the alliteration of public perception of performance and productivity pursuant to pushing promotions.) It DOESN'T MATTER what the ranges and bands are. What matters is how fast you advance through them. And as long as a person's ranking within a department is part of their PRIVATE personnel file, the reason that person isn't at the top band of GS-12 is not visible, nor should it be. It is always a matter of motivating the person without exposing their shortcomings to the rest of the world.
I could imagine a review board looking at promotion history for a department head to determine if any obvious bias exists. But as long as there is a cause for a person to not be promoted, and as long as that cause is documented in the personnel file, there still could be inequities in salary. And the question then becomes whether the stated cause is correct or not. But as long as there IS a recorded cause, to override the manager at that point completely undercuts that manager, who was hired to MAKE that kind of decision. So now you second-guess and eviscerate the boss, who (for this exercise) wrote down reasons for any given decision?
I have been a department manager with hiring and firing authority. I was one step away from a corporate vice-presidency, though I had to turn it down for personal reasons. I understand the decisions inherent in assigning relative value to employees for the purpose of determining raises, bonuses, promotions, recognition, and the other sides of those managerial coins. Although I was a big rugged at times, I learned how to be equitable and to take personalities out of the equation. If I had any weakness as a manager, it was that I was too kindhearted. With a limited amount of money in the pot for the next year's salary adjustments, it was always a painful balancing act.
Just like USA multi-millionaires find ways to evade taxes, managers will find ways to choose salaries and rewards via personal considerations. They will find the way to evade the glaring light of scrutiny. I've seen it before and there is no getting around it. When a manager is out to get you, unless you have a strong union contract, you can consider yourself GOT.
To be clear, I am advocating:
1. A transparent pay and reward policy that clearly demonstrates how a person's salary may increase over time if certain conditions are met, that is role specific.
2. A shift so that people are more comfortable in discussing salaries, so that if there is an obvious discrepancy, it stands out.
I'm not advocating tying small businesses up in beaurocratic knots. I wouldn't expect a small business to have several paybands - there should be a rate per hour per role, and a clear understanding of how, over time, salary increases are awarded.
For larger companies, there is more chance of disparity and obfuscation in relation to reward. Transparent pay and reward policies both help the company to play fair, the workers to feel like they've been treated fairly, and also to improve recruitment and retention. I am not advocating that the reasons a person doesn't progress through the ranks is public information. That's very different.
I also think we are talking about 2 different things. I am merely looking at salary. You are talking about promotion.
1. A transparent pay and reward policy that clearly demonstrates how a person's salary may increase over time if certain conditions are met, that is role specific.
2. A shift so that people are more comfortable in discussing salaries, so that if there is an obvious discrepancy, it stands out.
I'm not advocating tying small businesses up in beaurocratic knots. I wouldn't expect a small business to have several paybands - there should be a rate per hour per role, and a clear understanding of how, over time, salary increases are awarded.
For larger companies, there is more chance of disparity and obfuscation in relation to reward. Transparent pay and reward policies both help the company to play fair, the workers to feel like they've been treated fairly, and also to improve recruitment and retention. I am not advocating that the reasons a person doesn't progress through the ranks is public information. That's very different.
I also think we are talking about 2 different things. I am merely looking at salary. You are talking about promotion.
In a sense, Bee, promotion IS about salary. You don't see it the way I do. Perhaps think about being a Network Engineer 3 and getting the base rate for that position. But after a year of good, hard work with excellent productivity, you get promoted to N.E. 3.1 (the next pay band). That's not a spot bonus or a one-time charge. That's a permanent change in your cost to the company to keep you around. It is like a mini-promotion.
I see them as opposite sides of the same coin, inextricably bound together. Transparency of salary ranges and policies is half the battle, but the other side of that coin is the specific reasons a specific person would or would not be moved into a particular range. You yourself see the privacy issue but what you don't see is how tightly the two are bound together. There is where we seem to have the impasse.
I see them as opposite sides of the same coin, inextricably bound together. Transparency of salary ranges and policies is half the battle, but the other side of that coin is the specific reasons a specific person would or would not be moved into a particular range. You yourself see the privacy issue but what you don't see is how tightly the two are bound together. There is where we seem to have the impasse.
I came across this rather interesting video today. During a hearing about a wage gap of 15%, the guy running the meeting said that men work longer hours than women. He asked the representatives - who believed the wage gap was unfair - do they factor that in when trying to determine if the wage gap is unfair? i.e. What about the gender workplace hours gap?
The answers are rather revealing.
I think this is a case of "Lodged Beliefs" and "Motivated Reasoning." This is where you essentially stick to your original beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. You can see them stumbling for answers, knowing full well that they have been caught red handed. Yet I double they will edit their beliefs on this issue to match reality.
The answers are rather revealing.
I think this is a case of "Lodged Beliefs" and "Motivated Reasoning." This is where you essentially stick to your original beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. You can see them stumbling for answers, knowing full well that they have been caught red handed. Yet I double they will edit their beliefs on this issue to match reality.
Last edited:
Re working longer hours:
First, in the clip it is clear that they are dancing around the mulberry bush based on inadequate data and faulty sampling practices. If they fail to make their point, the accusation of inadequacy falls on their shoulders.
Second, I would believe in a heartbeat that unmarried persons will work longer hours if they have no kids at home OR if they have a stay-at-home partner who can take over kid-wrangling duties. But longer hours don't work for a single parent and you can't expect a person to work those extra hours (with or without compensation) when they have other duties that can be time-sensitive.
Note carefully that my statement above does not include any kind of explicit reference to gender. Having said that, this problem becomes a gender issue when we consider that "traditional" roles would lead the man to work and allow the woman to be the stay-at-home person. But that isn't the manager's fault, is it? That blame lies at the feet of the issues of "toxic masculinity" that makes the man work as the breadwinner and leaves the woman to be the nest builder.
I remember when I was working for private industry and my mother fell victim to Alzheimer's Disease. Salary gaps become relevant to this discussion when you consider that I had to turn down a promotion because I was my mother's sole caregiver and couldn't work the extra hours needed to become an executive-level corporate officer. To paraphrase another USA saying, I couldn't do the time so I couldn't do the crime. I had to walk away from a corporate vice-presidency (of a medium-sized company) because my family needed me more. And yes, I was bitter about it - but I didn't blame anyone. Mom didn't ask to become sick and Dad didn't ask to die so that he wouldn't have to take care of her. Chalk it up to "Stuff Happens" (though I had some serious therapy to keep ME from going off the deep end). In the process, I learned about responsibility in the fullest sense of the word. I was literally responsible for my mother's life. Oh, one more point: When this promotion was offered and I had to decline it, I was asked to name the best person for the job from the rest of the department. I named a woman.
I think this event in my life colors my viewpoint. I see it as more an issue of roles that a person can or cannot play. And now, 20+ years after that promotion incident, I see it from another viewpoint as well, because my wife and I take care of our 12-year-old grandson after school. He's in a split-custody arrangement so we keep him until the custodial parent-of-the-week comes home to pick up the rotten kid. He is not quite old enough to be a true latch-key kid because he still needs some discipline in his afternoon habits. Otherwise his grades would suffer. NEITHER my step-son nor my ex-daughter-in-law would be able to keep the job they have and still maintain custody without us, so an extended family is incredibly important to them at this time in their lives. In essence, family availability is what allows people to work any kind of hours at all.
First, in the clip it is clear that they are dancing around the mulberry bush based on inadequate data and faulty sampling practices. If they fail to make their point, the accusation of inadequacy falls on their shoulders.
Second, I would believe in a heartbeat that unmarried persons will work longer hours if they have no kids at home OR if they have a stay-at-home partner who can take over kid-wrangling duties. But longer hours don't work for a single parent and you can't expect a person to work those extra hours (with or without compensation) when they have other duties that can be time-sensitive.
Note carefully that my statement above does not include any kind of explicit reference to gender. Having said that, this problem becomes a gender issue when we consider that "traditional" roles would lead the man to work and allow the woman to be the stay-at-home person. But that isn't the manager's fault, is it? That blame lies at the feet of the issues of "toxic masculinity" that makes the man work as the breadwinner and leaves the woman to be the nest builder.
I remember when I was working for private industry and my mother fell victim to Alzheimer's Disease. Salary gaps become relevant to this discussion when you consider that I had to turn down a promotion because I was my mother's sole caregiver and couldn't work the extra hours needed to become an executive-level corporate officer. To paraphrase another USA saying, I couldn't do the time so I couldn't do the crime. I had to walk away from a corporate vice-presidency (of a medium-sized company) because my family needed me more. And yes, I was bitter about it - but I didn't blame anyone. Mom didn't ask to become sick and Dad didn't ask to die so that he wouldn't have to take care of her. Chalk it up to "Stuff Happens" (though I had some serious therapy to keep ME from going off the deep end). In the process, I learned about responsibility in the fullest sense of the word. I was literally responsible for my mother's life. Oh, one more point: When this promotion was offered and I had to decline it, I was asked to name the best person for the job from the rest of the department. I named a woman.
I think this event in my life colors my viewpoint. I see it as more an issue of roles that a person can or cannot play. And now, 20+ years after that promotion incident, I see it from another viewpoint as well, because my wife and I take care of our 12-year-old grandson after school. He's in a split-custody arrangement so we keep him until the custodial parent-of-the-week comes home to pick up the rotten kid. He is not quite old enough to be a true latch-key kid because he still needs some discipline in his afternoon habits. Otherwise his grades would suffer. NEITHER my step-son nor my ex-daughter-in-law would be able to keep the job they have and still maintain custody without us, so an extended family is incredibly important to them at this time in their lives. In essence, family availability is what allows people to work any kind of hours at all.
I don't think I disagree with anything you have said there Doc, except perhaps the term "toxic masculinity", which I believe is a fabricated political ideology that does not hold up to serious scrutiny.
A few of aspects to consider:
1. If a woman typically works fewer hours due to looking after children, what is the employer to do? Give the woman a higher hourly rate? You then disadvantage the employer, where they are forced to pay more for a less experienced candidate.
2. If there is a stay at home mum, is not the income jointly owned, from a legal perspective? I know upon separation that you get half of what was generated during the marriage itself, rather than what you brought to the table before marriage.
3. Nature has the female of the species looking after the children, mostly. Suggesting men should do what is in women's nature to do (rear children) is rather akin to the Gillette advert, where they want to re-engineer the evolved characteristics embedded in our DNA. Men and women have differences in what they like and what they don't like, on average. Men are more interested in "things" while women are more interested in people. Just look at the number of men in engineering verses women in nursing, for example. You can try to force women to go into engineering, but if they prefer nursing due to evolved preferences, you are going to make them less happy and unfulfilled. I am a firm believer that imposing an ideological framework that conflicts with biological predisposition will lead to many unforeseen consequences, one of which is a potential impact on the happiness of its participants.
As always, take what I have said above as an average, with standard deviations of preferences around each gender.
A few of aspects to consider:
1. If a woman typically works fewer hours due to looking after children, what is the employer to do? Give the woman a higher hourly rate? You then disadvantage the employer, where they are forced to pay more for a less experienced candidate.
2. If there is a stay at home mum, is not the income jointly owned, from a legal perspective? I know upon separation that you get half of what was generated during the marriage itself, rather than what you brought to the table before marriage.
3. Nature has the female of the species looking after the children, mostly. Suggesting men should do what is in women's nature to do (rear children) is rather akin to the Gillette advert, where they want to re-engineer the evolved characteristics embedded in our DNA. Men and women have differences in what they like and what they don't like, on average. Men are more interested in "things" while women are more interested in people. Just look at the number of men in engineering verses women in nursing, for example. You can try to force women to go into engineering, but if they prefer nursing due to evolved preferences, you are going to make them less happy and unfulfilled. I am a firm believer that imposing an ideological framework that conflicts with biological predisposition will lead to many unforeseen consequences, one of which is a potential impact on the happiness of its participants.
As always, take what I have said above as an average, with standard deviations of preferences around each gender.
I used "toxic masculinity" because everyone participating in this discussion would know it as a reference to culturally imposed roles that men don't always want to assume - but culture and society demand it.
As to male & female roles, I cannot improve on anthropology studies but I can and will report that it is WELL KNOWN that the human brain comes in male and female configurations. Whether this culture's male & female roles are purely nature or purely nurture (or as I suspect, somewhere in between) is open for discussion.
As to male & female roles, I cannot improve on anthropology studies but I can and will report that it is WELL KNOWN that the human brain comes in male and female configurations. Whether this culture's male & female roles are purely nature or purely nurture (or as I suspect, somewhere in between) is open for discussion.