1607 réponses à ce sujet

[mybudgee]

Feminists are pretty much fighting a war of futility. Things are about as good as they're ever going to get... without a economic & social revolution

 

[AutumnWitch]

Feminists are pretty much fighting a war of futility. Things are about as good as they're ever going to get... without a economic & social revolution

 

 

[mybudgee]

I respectfully accept your retort

 

[AutumnWitch]

I respectfully accept your retort

 

 

Spoiler

    

[Dermain]

Can I hide at your place?!

 

*moves bodies out of the way.*

 

Yes!

 

And then he adds you to the pile of  half-eaten bodies...

[Fast Jimmy]

Not to be contrarian, but I agree with budgee - there are a few big milestones left for the female gender to achieve, such as holding the highest office and closing the pay gap... but where's the finish line? When do we stop being our demographics and just start being people, good and bad?

Nebulous goals like "better representation in X" just leave the battlefield always open, where anyone can quibble about something being offensive, non-inclusive or lacking sensitivity. What's the end game there? At what point can we look at a number or a task and say "yep, it's done" and hang up our hats?

If someone is saying that someone else is doing something terribly wrong, then at the very least they need to be clear about at what point the wrongness goes away.

[Naughty Bear]

I don't what gender you are, you do the job correct, you will get the correct pay! You're **** at the job, you're gone!

[Dermain]

Not to be contrarian, but I agree with budgee - there are a few big milestones left for the female gender to achieve, such as holding the highest office and closing the pay gap... but where's the finish line? When do we stop being our demographics and just start being people, good and bad?

Nebulous goals like "better representation in X" just leave the battlefield always open, where anyone can quibble about something being offensive, non-inclusive or lacking sensitivity. What's the end game there? At what point can we look at a number or a task and say "yep, it's done" and hang up our hats?

If someone is saying that someone else is doing something terribly wrong, then at the very least they need to be clear about at what point the wrongness goes away.

 

Until Skynet starts wiping out humanity.

 

I don't what gender you are, you do the job correct, you will get the correct pay! You're **** at the job, you're gone!

 

Ah, an idealist...

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't what gender you are, you do the job correct, you will get the correct pay! You're **** at the job, you're gone!

See, the pay thing gets me, because it's not gender discrimination. It's HR policies.

People who stay at the same job for more than five years fall behind the wage gap. This is undeniably, factually true. People who are new hires almost without fail have higher starting salaries than the starting salaries of employees hired years before, often with higher salaries than the curent employees have now. This is to keep up with the market and to keep the talent search competitive to lure away the best performers or the highest achievers from existing jobs.

Couple this with HR standard policies of only doing salary increases between 2 and 4% annually and you can easily see how five years of raises that don't even keep with inflation could result in falling behind on the pay grade.


So what does this have to do with women? Simple - women are statistically much less likely to job hop and are therefore more likely to fall behind in pay. This compounds, as even when women do move on to other companies, their starting salaries are lower than their male counterparts because far too many people make the tragic mistake of answering the question of "how much do you make currently" during the interview process. If a woman stays at a job longer, resulting in lower pay, she is more likely to fall into the trap of giving her next employer the ammunition to pay her less based on that previous salary.

Now... why do women typically stay at jobs longer? Benefits play a big role - women are more likely to keep a job to keep medical or other coverages for their family. Also, women are also more likely to stay at a job for such perks as flexible work schedules and the ability to work at home. But in European countries, we see health benefits offered as a standard entitlement, as well as things like mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, this gal still exists. So why do we still see less job movement there? That's a million dollar question; I honestly don't know.

But it boils down to the same thing - men are more likely to job hop, more likely to negotiate salary, more likely to conceal or even lie about their existing salary and have consistently higher salaries because of it. It is not a matter of gender discrimination in the workplace but of changing the mindsets of women as workers to simply ASK for a higher salary. A business, ANY business, will work at paying its employees as little as they can while still attracting the level of talent they desire. That would be the case if you were male, female or an asexual starfish.

[Dermain]

See, the pay thing gets me, because it's not gender discrimination. It's HR policies.

People who stay at the same job for more than five years fall behind the wage gap. This is undeniably, factually true. People who are new hires almost without fail have higher starting salaries than the starting salaries of employees hired years before, often with higher salaries than the curent employees have now. This is to keep up with the market and to keep the talent search competitive to lure away the best performers or the highest achievers from existing jobs.

Couple this with HR standard policies of only doing salary increases between 2 and 4% annually and you can easily see how five years of raises that don't even keep with inflation could result in falling behind on the pay grade.


So what does this have to do with women? Simple - women are statistically much less likely to job hop and are therefore more likely to fall behind in pay. This compounds, as even when women do move on to other companies, their starting salaries are lower than their male counterparts because far too many people make the tragic mistake of answering the question of "how much do you make currently" during the interview process. If a woman stays at a job longer, resulting in lower pay, she is more likely to fall into the trap of giving her next employer the ammunition to pay her less based on that previous salary.

Now... why do women typically stay at jobs longer? Benefits play a big role - women are more likely to keep a job to keep medical or other coverages for their family. Also, women are also more likely to stay at a job for such perks as flexible work schedules and the ability to work at home. But in European countries, we see health benefits offered as a standard entitlement, as well as things like mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, this gal still exists. So why do we still see less job movement there? That's a million dollar question; I honestly don't know.

But it boils down to the same thing - men are more likely to job hop, more likely to negotiate salary, more likely to conceal or even lie about their existing salary and have consistently higher salaries because of it. It is not a matter of gender discrimination in the workplace but of changing the mindsets of women as workers to simply ASK for a higher salary. A business, ANY business, will work at paying its employees as little as they can while still attracting the level of talent they desire. That would be the case if you were male, female or an asexual starfish.

 

I have two points in regard to the highlighted section.

 

The first being that the pay gap may be a problem caused by society. I'm not entirely solid on the whole psychology behind it, but if I recall correctly it has something to do with how we raise boys and girls. Boys are generally taught to be competitive, and as such they are going to job hop and fight for higher wages. Girls on the other hand are generally taught to be compliant, and as such end up staying in the same job and not fighting for higher wages. When women do job hop/fight for higher wages they are generally seen as a "******" as well as someone to avoid, which is an odd double standard but that's how society works I suppose.

 

Of course, I'm not sure about the validity of any of it, but I suspect there's some truth to it regardless.

 

As for companies paying as little as possible to their employees I find it highly unethical. Especially for jobs that are beneficial to others. Janitorial work comes to mind as the worst offender here. Janitors usually get paid very little money, and they're usually mocked for their jobs. Which is baffling to me since they attempt to make sure that we're not constantly walking in waste. I say attempt because in most cases it appears like they did very little, but that may be because their pay doesn't warrant the work that they have to put in. Of course, the best janitorial worker would be someone with extreme OCD centered around cleaning, but I have a feeling those people aren't sought out.

[Fast Jimmy]

I have two points in regard to the highlighted section.

The first being that the pay gap may be a problem caused by society. I'm not entirely solid on the whole psychology behind it, but if I recall correctly it has something to do with how we raise boys and girls. Boys are generally taught to be competitive, and as such they are going to job hop and fight for higher wages. Girls on the other hand are generally taught to be compliant, and as such end up staying in the same job and not fighting for higher wages. When women do job hop/fight for higher wages they are generally seen as a "******" as well as someone to avoid, which is an odd double standard but that's how society works I suppose.

Of course, I'm not sure about the validity of any of it, but I suspect there's some truth to it regardless.

That may be true, but that's not businesses being discriminatory. Thats businesses treating everyone the exact same way. Women are, as a group, just aren't fighting for wages in the same way men are.

I'm not sure how any type of government regulation could close this gap, either, mind you. Most HR groups have pay bands for each position and for all but the largest pay discrepancies, the differences fall within these bands. Making the bands more stringent could hurt being able to reward higher performing employees or allow raises for tasks completed. Personally, I'd like to see more of a move to task-based pay instead of direct salaries, but that's a different story.

As for companies paying as little as possible to their employees I find it highly unethical. Especially for jobs that are beneficial to others. Janitorial work comes to mind as the worst offender here. Janitors usually get paid very little money, and they're usually mocked for their jobs. Which is baffling to me since they attempt to make sure that we're not constantly walking in waste. I say attempt because in most cases it appears like they did very little, but that may be because their pay doesn't warrant the work that they have to put in. Of course, the best janitorial worker would be someone with extreme OCD centered around cleaning, but I have a feeling those people aren't sought out.

I'm not sure "unethical" is the word I would choose, but yes - it does suck.

That being said... how much do we complain about prices? Or getting nickeled and dimes for paying for refills or charged with DLC for video games? Prices go up because costs go up. It's hard for us to often separate the two, but if every company paid their janitors $50K a year plus benefits, they'd quickly start spending more on wages than ever before, resulting in price increases. And it's easy to also say "executives get paid millions and the companies have huge profits - it's criminal to only give a 3% raise." Yet one person getting paid $1M is much less money than increasing wages across the board for all employees by even 0.5%, let alone 2 or 3%. And if you won't lose employees or talent in large droves by only giving low raises, then why increase your costs more, which you have to pass on to your customers?

That being said - in line with your janitor comment, I'm all for increasing the minimum wage substantially. Having a wage that de facto requires you to have two jobs just to stay above the poverty line is no way for people in some of the richest countries in the world to live. If you work a hourly pay job for 40 hours a week, you should be above the poverty line - full stop. That's just not fair.

[GMagnumm]

aye i jus be lyke baby i kno wat wrong u gt hella gas frum dat burrito rite lemme go gt u sum medicine 4 dat tbh

 

u c homie women dat do dat gt a problem dey hella embares 2 say but u jus gotta be lyke aye yeh i smelled ur fart all last nite n dey smell horribl i almos threw up on da cat but we cn get thru dis 2gether cuz i luv u tbh

[GMagnumm]

onewomanarmy wen we goin on a date tbh