|
Jarmak posted:The poo poo economy and youth unemployment are definitely issues that need attention, trying to make networking into some sort of weapon the upper-class are oppressing you with is silly. But it's 100% true? Networking is inherently about gaining access to people in your field, and for many people that is a huge barrier for a variety of reasons including race and gender. Like, the requirement of 'networking' is literally one of the most important reasons to have affirmative action. The more white, male, and straight you are the better access you have to management. Slobjob Zizek posted:Most state governments and state universities already make salaries public. As far as I know, this really hasn't helped anyone's bargaining power. If you're in the US military, you can know all of your coworkers pay down to the Penny (unless you're a moron), and somehow there aren't massive riots over it. Same thing for the vast majority of public workers. I don't even know how it would be possible to strive for equal pay without knowledge of how much others get paid, unless there was a countrywide mandate to just pay all female employees more. Also, the arguments people are afraid of ALREADY exist, except now it happens with imperfect information. You see a coworker who is worse than you drive up in a Benz one day, you might assume they got a raise and then bitch anyways, despite the fact you're not certain that's where the money came from. On another note, I was going to make this thread and I'm glad someone beat me to the punch.
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You should make better friends? Go meet different people? You're literally advocating to just be fine with racism in the employment force and advocating against mechanisms that could easily move to establish more equality. Jesus, why is pay transparency so threatening to people?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Why would pay transparency affect nepotism and racism? I don't think that's been proven in this thread. In hiring it's a bit hairier, but promotions and pay are two huge forms of discrimination among race, gender, and sexual orientation for people who already have a foot in the door. Then companies face law suits for continuing those practices, and minorities/women begin making more. Minorities and women start making more, and they're use as a hiring tool for other minorities and women increases as well as their direct social networks including their family and businesses they attend. mugrim fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Isn't military pay strictly tied to a highly-defined payscale where two people in the same service and division with the same rank, job, and responsibilities are always paid the same? The reason the military doesn't have a pay discrimination problem isn't because of pay transparency, it's because there's a solidly defined pay structure and commanders don't get to deviate from it and pay people different amounts based on how much they like them. Military, Federal LEO's, parole officers, cops, some utilities workers, TSA, pretty much anyone in a really large public sector job has a similar structure where there is a COLA bump yearly. My point with the example is that somehow, no one flips their poo poo because they're doing XX% more work than someone else despite getting the same pay. The idea that people can not handle knowing how much their coworkers get paid is clearly false as there are millions of jobs that are open about it. Main Paineframe posted:The problem with eliminating pay discrimination in the private job market is the same as the problem with eliminating discrimination from hiring and firing - employers can pay anyone more or less for any reason (up to and including "because I felt like it") except discrimination, so just showing that female workers are paid less than male workers isn't incontrovertible proof of pay discrimination - if the company isn't stupid, they'll come up with an excuse and present (or fake) the evidence to back it up. Right, but the first step of a lawsuit is being able to demonstrate what your coworkers make. As of right now, Jenny could be getting paid 40% less than all her male coworkers and she would have zero clue. Main Paineframe posted:While this doesn't always work, it works often enough outside of the most blatant cases, as long as no one was dumb enough to openly admit the discrimination (many people do, which suggests that existing discrimination law isn't much deterrent). The easiest way to demonstrate discrimination is to have access to your coworkers pay so that you can demonstrate that despite the same performance, you are getting paid significantly less. Main Paineframe posted:Relying on the victims to individually sue isn't going to eliminate the wage gap, just as individual lawsuits for abuses aren't going to be enough to eliminate racism from the criminal justice system. Companies get scared shitless by labor lawsuits that have standing, especially once quantifiable amounts get involved. This is why they try to fire you when they hear you're talking about wages instead of waiting until you begin organizing a union. Most labor lawyers will take your case for a cut of future earnings from the case if you have proof. Nothing would cause a larger spike in labor law suits than access to pay. Honestly, getting employers to look at people's performance so they can justify a bump/promotion instead of who is 'a team player' and 'feels right for your gut' would be a HUGE step forward. Jarmak posted:Except networking isn't really "getting a job because who your daddy is" that's more like straight nepotism. Networking is more along the lines or getting a new job after you get laid off because joe smith who you used to work with knows one of his clients has an opening for the same position so he offers to introduce you. That's circular reasoning, at some point you need to break through. Also if you limit your definition of networking to people you actually worked with side by side, you're probably doing it wrong in real life. Most people network with friends, people they know from tertiary experiences that they met in work situations, etc. By definition, if you worked with them, they're already in your network. Networking is about meeting new people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, this is dangerous and you can replace "culture" with "is he white/male/etc and it can get very ugly very quickly. You've never going to divorce "do I like this person" from being a major part of a hiring decision though, which is why affirmative action programs which ideally had diversity to the pool of people making hiring decisions and blunt the institutional momentum of favoring white males simply by nature of the upper echelons are dominated by white males. Explain what culture is in this sense, other than 'shared experiences' which would largely be predicated on being white, male, and straight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Goons. Man. This is a serious question and be honest. Do you ask specifically why the person is being recommended? Like beyond the exact same bullshit you'd hear in an interview of "working hard" or "team player" or whatever? Have you ever had specifics from a recommendation?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Except per Griggs (though obviously in light of Ricci, who the gently caress even knows where the law is on this issue now, thanks Roberts Court), you can still implement a test if the test actually pertains to the ability to do the job in question. You just can't implement a test with disparate results for the fun of it. Was about to post that. Also, this still does not affect the need for transparent pay.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To demonstrate this, you don't just need pay data, you also need performance data, and it needs to be accurate, nonbiased performance data - which often doesn't exist. An unspoken policy to make sure the tone of performance reviews lines up with how much more/less someone is getting paid than the baseline would basically be a license of immunity from discrimination lawsuits, pay data or no pay data, though most companies aren't quite that savvy yet. Yes, but pay is step one because you probably already have a decent idea of other employees competence if you work with them. Sure your perception could be off and probably is, but you would still need to convince a lawyer to take the case which would require an ounce of credibility or something to make them believe that you have standing (and since they typically get a cut of the rewards, they're not interested in lovely cases). I've personally seen boys club cases. For example, I remember one where a man lost an entire persons yearly salary of company money in a non profit yet magically got the largest bonus in the department (as people found out later), without bringing in anywhere near enough money to justify both not firing him immediately for losing 30+k for writing a check without a contract as well as bringing in enough money to justify a 35ish% raise. People found out this huge increase well after it happened. There were a lot of people who wanted to sue as female staffers in general never got the raises men did and men were being comped for tuxedo rentals for events while women did not get a dime, but they lacked the information on pay to do as well. They had tons of evidence about all the other poo poo going on, they just needed numbers on pay. Most of the employees just left, unable to sue. That's just one organization, but I've seen it all over, including two social justice programs I worked who should have known better. One of those programs I started off making roughly 20% more than my girlfriend who had been working it for three years already during summers and had graduated at a much better school than I. This was brought to their attention immediately and luckily they bumped her pay, which is exactly what you would want to accomplish.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:A guaranteed minimum income would help with this as well. You actually don't need to publish how much everyone makes if you just have a regulatory body making sure things are handled well. "Discrimination does not matter as long as no one starves in a ditch". Explain the reason to not have that information available to other employees. shrike82 posted:I'd like to hear more about what exactly it'll solve and how. I've posted multiple examples, including one that was personal, where learning about coworkers wages empowered a female minority employee instantly. It's not a panacea that will end all discrimination forever, but it's a huge first step. There are tons of jobs that have VERY definable metrics where huge discrepancies in pay are unwarranted. It's not like these kinds of lawsuits don't exist now. They do. I know labor lawyers, but most of the time the difficult part is having enough confidence in the case that when you do discovery you feel strong that there will be a significant pay difference if you don't have that information readily available. Even if managers begin making changes in order to try and compensate for this information that's the entire point. CYA to make the pay gaps smaller would be a huge boon, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety might result in less drastic forms of nepotism and boys clubs and similar issues. Making people have to think about how they display favoritism at the edge of a subpoena is not a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
I know you are joking, but arguably it is in their best interest ultimately. Outside of the demand side of the pay equation that would potentially expand purchasing power, employees knowing how much their coworkers make could actually be more stable than they currently are. As it is now, I know many people who leave work because they don't get paid enough, only to find out later that it's because they kept low balling themselves repeatedly and had no clue what their peers made at the time. Knowing how much your peers and management make could have the added effects of 1) creating more stability in employees who are valuable but suck at negotiating raises or simply don't because they trust their employers and 2) allowing employees to realize how much their management makes so they can understand the dynamics going on purposefully and so they can better break into management themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't believe it's a bad thing...but I don't believe it's a solution either. The thing about appealing to market efficiency is that the free market is well-known to be absolute garbage at dealing with discrimination, and I'm not really sure I even necessarily agree that labor should strive to be an efficient free market in the first place (ideological reasons, mostly). Frankly, I'm more than a little bit stunned that the prevailing opinion seems to be "if we just make the markets free and efficient and unregulated enough, the invisible hand will solve discrimination for us" or "if it were just a little easier to sue, the threat of legal action would cause the invisible hand to end discrimination". I believe that far more drastic action is needed to genuinely combat pay discrimination. Public pay data would help some people, but at best it'd just narrow the pay gap, not erase it. I'm not against public pay data itself, I'm against treating it like a comprehensive solution when it's really just a weak half-measure. I don't believe anyone said it was a comprehensive solution. It's information gathering that can then allow civil suits to be presented in far greater numbers. It's impossible to fix a problem if you don't know about it, and it's pretty hard to fix being undercut if you don't even know it's happening. This would be a dream for labor lawyers, especially considering how drastically different pay for the same job can be in a workplace that enforces those policies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Every place I've ever worked the employees openly talk about wages (some don't but many do) and the only thing that's stopping them is the fear of being fired or replaced. Consider yourself lucky, many people can and do get fired on the spot for discussing their wages. Or raises. Or performance evaluations.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 05:43
|
|