Archive link Um, too bad so sad? Don't get me wrong, I don't want workers being paid less, but this absolutely does not seem like a good argument against pay transparency. "We have to keep paying...
The problem is that the squashed gap came not by raising women’s pay, but by curbing that of men. Transparency seems to have a “back stiffening” effect, handing employers power to push back in negotiations. (“I’d love to give you a raise bro, but I can’t because there isn’t the budget to give one to the ladies too.”)
Um, too bad so sad? Don't get me wrong, I don't want workers being paid less, but this absolutely does not seem like a good argument against pay transparency. "We have to keep paying women less so we can keep paying men more" is not convincing me at all. When pay is stagnating, men and women feeling it equally seems to me like it would engender more class solidarity and be more likely to lead to unionization, which is pretty ideal.
Other risks include that the men experiencing soggier pay growth reduce their effort. (“Sure bro, I’ll just take a little longer to respond to all those emails I’m being sent.”)
Good. That's a good response to not receiving reasonable pay growth. Once we all know what we're worth we can put forward commensurate effort, and if the employers want more, they can pay more - regardless of gender. That doesn't actually sound like a problem to me.
So, reading the "bro" parts was somewhat revealing of the author's biases in my mind. There's a few layers of pay transparency that are in question in the article - one being in job postings and...
So, reading the "bro" parts was somewhat revealing of the author's biases in my mind. There's a few layers of pay transparency that are in question in the article - one being in job postings and another being performance raises.
The type of manager calling his subordinate 'bro' isn't going to tell his buddy he can't have a raise because of the ladies bitching, he isn't going to care if the 'females' raise a stink because he'll just say "Chet's been having a great year, bro, and his raise reflects that!"
Then, on the other hand, the more insidious manager who thinks that saving the CEO an extra .000001% of his bonus is going to make the CEO like him absolutely will. He'll tell all the men and women "We can't give you a raise because we'd have to give everyone a raise. That damn pay transparency law."
Then, to your point about the employees slacking, well the quality of the employee saying "bro" is called into question. If the hypothetical Chet was an unqualified worker, only getting his raises due to sexism bro then why would it matter if he starts slacking?
For the record, I'm all for pay transparency and agree with your point about hopefully more people would unionize... But does the author not think that men in power abusing the system for men won't just think of another way to lie about it? The people abusing the system for the rich, however, have a new scapegoat about fairness and equality to use as a bludgeon because you're not one of those problematic Bros are you?
It seemed to me that the implication was that everyone deserved a raise, but since the company "can't" give everyone raises, they're going to at least give them to the "bros". So the accusation...
Then, to your point about the employees slacking, well the quality of the employee saying "bro" is called into question. If the hypothetical Chet was an unqualified worker, only getting his raises due to sexism bro then why would it matter if he starts slacking?
It seemed to me that the implication was that everyone deserved a raise, but since the company doesn't want to "can't" give everyone raises, they're going to at least give them to the "bros". So the accusation isn't that Chet is unqualified, it's that Chet and Filippa are both qualified workers but Filippa is not a bro. Which means the company doesn't deserve the quality of work it's getting and Chet and Filippa should both act their wage, or better yet, unionize.
You accurately identified the real problem with transparancy though: Yea, thats like, the exact opposite of what they want to happen. I work for an employer that must disclose like the top 10% of...
You accurately identified the real problem with transparancy though:
When pay is stagnating, men and women feeling it equally seems to me like it would engender more class solidarity and be more likely to lead to unionization, which is pretty ideal.
Yea, thats like, the exact opposite of what they want to happen.
I work for an employer that must disclose like the top 10% of paid employees or something in that vein. Turns out that policy really puts a damper on outrageous salaries at the top that you would see on similiar job titles elsewhere.
I'd like to see tax returns just becoming straight-up public information. After a few (major) problems, mostly stemming from idiots using the SSN as a password and not a username, it would lead to a much fairer economy.
They already say this anyway. Assuming no other handcuffs*, adequate annual pay rises are necessary for retention. Hiring replacements almost always costs more to a business, both in salary of the...
there isn’t the budget to give one
They already say this anyway.
Assuming no other handcuffs*, adequate annual pay rises are necessary for retention. Hiring replacements almost always costs more to a business, both in salary of the new hire, and loss of tacit knowledge and short term productivity.
*eg, waiting for RSUs to vest, insurance, other benefits, fear/effort of job hunting, etc.
Archive link
Um, too bad so sad? Don't get me wrong, I don't want workers being paid less, but this absolutely does not seem like a good argument against pay transparency. "We have to keep paying women less so we can keep paying men more" is not convincing me at all. When pay is stagnating, men and women feeling it equally seems to me like it would engender more class solidarity and be more likely to lead to unionization, which is pretty ideal.
Good. That's a good response to not receiving reasonable pay growth. Once we all know what we're worth we can put forward commensurate effort, and if the employers want more, they can pay more - regardless of gender. That doesn't actually sound like a problem to me.
These propaganda pieces that come out of these places is wild.
So, reading the "bro" parts was somewhat revealing of the author's biases in my mind. There's a few layers of pay transparency that are in question in the article - one being in job postings and another being performance raises.
The type of manager calling his subordinate 'bro' isn't going to tell his buddy he can't have a raise because of the ladies bitching, he isn't going to care if the 'females' raise a stink because he'll just say "Chet's been having a great year, bro, and his raise reflects that!"
Then, on the other hand, the more insidious manager who thinks that saving the CEO an extra .000001% of his bonus is going to make the CEO like him absolutely will. He'll tell all the men and women "We can't give you a raise because we'd have to give everyone a raise. That damn pay transparency law."
Then, to your point about the employees slacking, well the quality of the employee saying "bro" is called into question. If the hypothetical Chet was an unqualified worker, only getting his raises due to sexism bro then why would it matter if he starts slacking?
For the record, I'm all for pay transparency and agree with your point about hopefully more people would unionize... But does the author not think that men in power abusing the system for men won't just think of another way to lie about it? The people abusing the system for the rich, however, have a new scapegoat about fairness and equality to use as a bludgeon because you're not one of those problematic Bros are you?
It seemed to me that the implication was that everyone deserved a raise, but since the company
doesn't want to"can't" give everyone raises, they're going to at least give them to the "bros". So the accusation isn't that Chet is unqualified, it's that Chet and Filippa are both qualified workers but Filippa is not a bro. Which means the company doesn't deserve the quality of work it's getting and Chet and Filippa should both act their wage, or better yet, unionize.You accurately identified the real problem with transparancy though:
Yea, thats like, the exact opposite of what they want to happen.
I work for an employer that must disclose like the top 10% of paid employees or something in that vein. Turns out that policy really puts a damper on outrageous salaries at the top that you would see on similiar job titles elsewhere.
I'd like to see tax returns just becoming straight-up public information. After a few (major) problems, mostly stemming from idiots using the SSN as a password and not a username, it would lead to a much fairer economy.
They already say this anyway.
Assuming no other handcuffs*, adequate annual pay rises are necessary for retention. Hiring replacements almost always costs more to a business, both in salary of the new hire, and loss of tacit knowledge and short term productivity.
*eg, waiting for RSUs to vest, insurance, other benefits, fear/effort of job hunting, etc.