Comment Systematically underpaid? (Score 1) 394
If a woman is asking for a raise, or is negotiating salary in an interview, if she is shown the company pay categories in a chart that is different from men, that's systematic. If say a man in a similar title and region is shown the salary chart that shows his pay can be in the $45k-$55k range, but the woman is shown a different chart showing $40k-$50k, that would be totally systematic, illegal, and morally wrong.
However if each employee is pushed back with "this is as far as we're willing to go", and the company waits and sees who will bluff leaving, that's not systematic.
Instead of forcing companies to override normal business behavior for women even when they're businesses and general capitalism dictates that they only maximize their profits, the root cause of this issue must be tackled. You can't seriously force businesses to tell women (or visible minorities, or the disabled) "oh you just want $45k, I think we'll just give you $55k because one man with the same title has $55k". In reality the business would rather split the title (Jr, Sr) or make it look like the woman has a slightly different job responsibility.
The real underlying issue is the confidence that the woman can find another job should this one go away. And that she will survive easily if she loses this job. This further depends on if she has a large mortgage or is a single mother of kids or has other dependancies. Perhaps her social circle is important too. Just as women are encouraged by peers to "leave him" when she's having relationship issues, men are encouraged to leave the job when they're unhappy. This really isn't businesses' fault and cannot be fixed by patching the symptoms by forcing more money through businesses which are designed to only maximize profit.
In fact, it should be offensive to suggest that a particular disenfranchised group needs government mandated policies to be equal to the modal group, in productivity OR benefit. This would technically imply that group is inferior.
However if each employee is pushed back with "this is as far as we're willing to go", and the company waits and sees who will bluff leaving, that's not systematic.
Instead of forcing companies to override normal business behavior for women even when they're businesses and general capitalism dictates that they only maximize their profits, the root cause of this issue must be tackled. You can't seriously force businesses to tell women (or visible minorities, or the disabled) "oh you just want $45k, I think we'll just give you $55k because one man with the same title has $55k". In reality the business would rather split the title (Jr, Sr) or make it look like the woman has a slightly different job responsibility.
The real underlying issue is the confidence that the woman can find another job should this one go away. And that she will survive easily if she loses this job. This further depends on if she has a large mortgage or is a single mother of kids or has other dependancies. Perhaps her social circle is important too. Just as women are encouraged by peers to "leave him" when she's having relationship issues, men are encouraged to leave the job when they're unhappy. This really isn't businesses' fault and cannot be fixed by patching the symptoms by forcing more money through businesses which are designed to only maximize profit.
In fact, it should be offensive to suggest that a particular disenfranchised group needs government mandated policies to be equal to the modal group, in productivity OR benefit. This would technically imply that group is inferior.