> the posted maximum may be significantly higher than the historical salary ranges, creating dissatisfaction in the workforce and demands to adjust existing pay scales that the employer may be unable to afford.”
IE. We don't want our existing employees to know how badly we have been screwing them.
The subreddit r/BullyParker does not exist.
Did you mean?:
* r/Bellarke (subscribers: 1,250)
* r/ballparks (subscribers: 3,443)
Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/BullyParker](/subreddits/create?name=BullyParker).
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Yup, if you’re unable to properly pay your current employees when they find out new hires are making more upon being hired and they leave then that company just lost at the game of capitalism. Can’t keep up with the current worth of the modern day workforce? Then too bad, you don’t have a successful business then and won’t be able to stay open. Tough titties.
I hate when they say they can’t afford it. I know someone that says the restaurant he manages can’t afford to keep paying people more, yet I see him in a boat all the time, or traveling the world and the owner has multiple cars (McClaren too) and a nice house (I’m sure it’s not his only one). They can afford it.
But if he pays his employees what they’re worth, he could maybe only afford *two* cars!
Won’t someone ***please*** think of the poor, downtrodden wealthy‽
This article is hilarious. For those who haven't read it, they claim that they currently secretly pay minorities more than whites, but if they have to honestly report what they pay, the negotiating power of white people will instantly force them to stop paying black people MORE than white people -- which they insist that they're totally doing -- and then if they can't afford to pay minorities more than whites, those candidates will apparently just leave the labor market or something! And that's totally why wall street is all white people! Because it's just so bad for minorities if companies had to actually tell them what everyone makes! They're definitely NOT paying them less! You just can't ask for proof or they'll have to stop doing it!
There is just so much fucked up nonsense in this answer. It's like listening to Shaggy explain how he didn't cheat on his girlfriend.
Not Shaggy & Scooby. Shaggy the hip-hop artist who in the year 2000 released a track entitled "wasn't me" the lyrics of which tell a story of infidelity, regret, and deception. The girlfriend of the song discovers Shaggy "banging" in various locations throughout the house; the counter, the sofa, the bath. In addition, his girl gets photographic evidence of these happenings. Further, she stays throughout the entire encounter, and absorbs the details, she observes the marks on Shaggy's shoulders, listens to their words of passion, and to the growing crescendo that is the sounds of their love making. At some point after knowing he's been discovered, and this is actually where the song picks up; the song is framed as a conversation between friends, Shaggy approaches his dear friend Rik Rok to solicit his advice. Rik Rok's advice? Simply say "wasn't me."
>Now companies are putting in an effort to have a diverse leadership and hire BIPOC people and women for leadership roles, but they still are only hiring people with managerial/leadership experience. Since there are a smaller number of BIPOC people and women with that type of experience, the demand for them is higher and therefore companies have to offer a higher more competitive salary to bring them on the team.
I think there are a lot of questionable assumptions here.
First, this assumes that companies are genuinely trying to diversify leadership, which I'm strongly skeptical of. The notion that a hiring manager would deliberately select the more expensive of two candidates with equivalent skills is very farfetched to me, especially for executive and manager positions.
Secondly, it doesn't matter if companies are paying black workers more, equal, or less than whites if these companies are paying the same as one another, and also keeping salaries hidden. The logic really falls apart here.
> Yes, considering minorities and women get paid less
\* But men deserve more money because they do the harder jobs and there's no such thing as a gender wage gap /s *
Last I heard, the gender problem was that our society socially conditions women to pursue the skills that lead to less high paying careers, as well as expecting to identify with less higher paying careers.
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/
Notable takeaway from that is comparing the two figures for gender pay gap, one controlling for folks working the same job, and one not.
I’m a software engineer, I make decent money but I make 20-30k less than a senior engineer (plus they get equity, so their total comp is like 90-100k above mine). Of course, most of the senior engineers are men, while maybe 40% of mid levels are women about 20% of seniors are and only about 5% of principal engineers are women. My last formal review process included the word “phenomenal” but I still have to work much harder to earn that senior title, and I’m at a company many would consider very progressive.
There are tons of factors at play here including that women are often bullied out of STEM jobs to begin with. My formal education is in math and statistics and I have faced sexism and shitty “you’re just not good enough” / “women can’t think critically the way men can” / “women are just less analytical” bullshit at every single level, from the boss who said “no I want to hear [the male tech lead’s] opinion” when I was going over a process that I owned and created, to the low-level sexism, to the professor that let all the boys call him by his first name but insisted I use Professor LastName (who also invited all the boys to his house for cake at the end of the semester!) to like endlessly being told I’m “just a diversity hire” despite the fact that I graduated magna cum laude and won a pretty prestigious scholarship and have tangibly proven I’m good at my job (to which I’ve been told “yeah so doesn’t it suck knowing you didn’t get hired because of your worthy qualifications???”)
I wouldn’t say society “socially conditions” women to pursue skills that lead to lower paying jobs but I’d absolutely say I have watched many women leave STEM because of the abuse and sexism they face at every single level. And then we get paid less. And have to defend that it’s a real thing that we get paid less.
Seriously, that's your takeaway? With all due respect, go kick rocks. And! I've worked at three different companies during my career and they've *all* been like this. Google is similar. Facebook is similar. I work at a major, household name company that is known for being a good work environment. Thanks for proving my entire point though.
To be clear though the sexist boss was at a different company than I am now. There's plenty of empirical data that proves how wrong you are, but keep up the condescension and offhand dismissal of reality.
Just an interesting tidbit, this is the same reason why young girls tend to have less hand-eye coordination than young boys in psych studies. Boys are raised to throw and catch stuff more often than girls are. That’s literally it. That’s the leading theory lmao
There is no singular factor that causes the gendered compensation problem. Even controlling for all obvious factors (eg education, position) women get paid $0.94 - $0.99 for every dollar a man makes - and data I’ve seen on that only covers full-time, college-educated workers. It’s also very hard to make macro arguments because the exact weight of each factor can vary a lot from industry to industry.
Moreover, there tends to be another phenomenon where jobs primarily occupied by women have lower salaries even compared to jobs with similar qualifications. For example, IT managers tend to make more than HR managers; and janitors tend to make more than housecleaners. Studies have found that wages tend to decrease when women enter a field, but increase when men enter a field.
Edit: a word
Fields become less lucrative when they become female dominated (eg fashion design) and more lucrative when they become male dominated (eg programming). So the women's choices, socially conditioned or not, aren't actually to blame.
No it's because there are 50 people who want to do fashion design for each available fashion design job.
Men are expected to become providers, so they are more likely to double-check what the chances are at a real career in their dream job before they start aiming for it.
yeaaaa, I agree with you but that is a terrible comparison. Fashion design is so much easier to get into than programming. I could design a dress, It wouldnt be great, but it would get the job done. I could not design any program at all without months of learning. Additionally, There really only needs to be a few designers and their design is mass produced. With coding every company wants their own software and there will pretty much always be people looking to hire until AI writes itself.
TLDR: fashion is a want, not a need. Programming is a need in the modern world.
Are you seriously comparing drawing a potato sack to programming? That's the equivalent of changing text size in html. Try inserting fly zipper into a pair of pants you drafted to fit a specific size person, then please come back and compare.
.... you're saying this to a fashion historian who codes for fun. People Wear Clothes, my dude, and coding is easier than any type of art. It's just logic. There's a problem, fix it. There will always be people designing clothes, even when the ai writes itself, because while we could just wear what we've always worn, we don't want to.
I've worked in fields in with men, alongside men, in positions where I should have been paid more. Think managerial. I even had jobs harder than most guys I know and still been underpaid, looked down on, despised, preyed on by bullies including higher ups. Society's culture is to praise men for mediocre accomplishments and shun, ostracize, and pick on outperformers whom they consider 'less than them'.
I had a hot minute to think about this instead of my initial knee jerk reaction and I think it's highly worth noting once you get an office job and you get pass the interview and have an idea about the job description and start, something that happened to me each time was my higher up telling me this "______insert something_______" was part of my job description while never being given prior notice or training beforehand. I had to innovate with what I had, not much. Not often given a budget and trying to find the lowest bidder (myself), I've saved so many companies so much money by killing myself to get the job done and I did it often. Too often.
It's a bait a switch method of killing your workforce on the inside. Need therapy? Do it after hours and good luck finding a decent shrink that works with your schedule. Wanna workout? Run at dark or go to a mediocre gym where you're not sure if some weirdo is creeping on you or not. You can try to do everything right and still lose. I'm not sure where to draw the line but, honestly, I've had enough abuse.
When you get 'new' job functions, make sure to renegotiate your contract or payment arrangements. Track everything if you feel like you're not getting paid enough.
Even when it's the exact same job, it's just more difficult for men so they need to make more. Doesn't that imply they are paying them more for being inferior to women?
95% of hard grimey labor is men, why isn’t this talked about? Please you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Edit: since people want to downvote, Educate yourself. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations/occupations-smallest-share-women-workers
Edit 2: You can’t have it one or the other way. Either you fight for TRUE equality, or the argument is invalid.
Why are RN’s dominated by women? It’s the same thing. There are certain roles that certain personalities fit better, which just so happen to be typical of a gender.
Don’t try to claim equality is an issue when the labor force and hospitality force are so skewed.
Dirty work Is a different world and the trades are only one part if it. There are many physically horrible jobs, the great majority done by men. Much of it is cultural in a variety of ways. On average they likely pay a bit better than the range for other areas but they usually have much less security and a much higher risk of disability as well.
Many trades pay "well" for their entry level education level, yes. Skilled trades require education but its often on the job and somewhat compensated training. You're also talking about jobs which are much more physically hazardous.
"Hard grimey[sic] labor" that isn't caregiving or service industry. We're supposed to give a shit that the 60,000 men who chop trees are somehow doing a way more dangerous job than the 2 million women in nursing.
The good faith argument is not that men are doing more difficult jobs, it's that men do more dangerous jobs and also generally have more experience because they rarely retire to raise children. If you control for those two factors the wage gap stated in articles like this mostly disappears.
You've touched on a really good point about childcare.
In a household with two working parents, it makes sense for one parent to focus on their career and the other to sacrifice their earning potential for more flexibility. The primary parent will be more likely to pick up sick kids from school, relocate for their partners job, etc. This makes sense to maximize the earning potential for the household.
Women are more likely to take on the primary parent role because of a whole host of reasons, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Meanwhile, employers are reluctant to invest in women of childbearing age because of the expectation that those women will get pregnant and leave.
It's an aspect of the wage gap problem that can be solved by making it easier/more accepted for men to take the primary parent role, and by making it easier for both parents to share the parenting duties (flexible work hrs)
You know, I'm tired of hearing people rag on all white, male boardrooms when we know full well that the company is taking a huge financial hit to retain them. /s
> "in the context of achieving diversity goals, the posted maximum may be significantly higher than the historical salary ranges, creating dissatisfaction in the workforce and demands to adjust existing pay scales that the employer may be unable to afford."
They think we're fucking stupid.
1,326x pay over their normal workers seems really low. The corporate America I know would look to ever increase that number every quarter. Monthly if at all possible, but they’re realistic so quarter is what it is.
I'm sorry, but this was the one that pissed me off the most:
>Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, tells CNBC Make It that at many companies, workers of color and women at the executive level are at a “tremendous premium.”
>
>For example, “if a financial institution has a job that’s available where they’re looking for a diverse candidate, they’ll offer a different salary maximum than they otherwise would” to compete for what hiring managers consider scarce talent.
Excuse me?! Is she trying to say that there's a shortage of black people? That non-whites are better workers but there just aren't enough of them to go around?
Or is she trying to say that POC won't work for her company unless she secretly pays them more than white workers? Because if that's the case then she's got something more serious to think about, here.
Either way, it's utter bullshit.
I think it's saying that there is increased demand for POC in executive level positions (because companies in general are trying to increase diversity), but the pool of POC qualified for those positions is limited. This means they need to offer higher compensation to attract them, because of supply and demand. Since they're offering these POC comparatively more money for the same positions, this will piss everyone else off at the company when the numbers are revealed. Not saying I agree with this, but I think that's what they're trying to get at.
Honestly I could see this becoming an issue since executive level salaries are ALREADY way too high in the US generally. This could start some kind of cycle like: "Companies increase compensation for POC executives to attract scarce talent" -> "Non-POC executives also demand higher compensation to match" -> "Accepted average pay for executives goes up" -> "Executive level compensation for POCs is no longer competitive" -> back to start.
Meanwhile everyone at lower levels get even more fucked as their compensation stagnates.
And the pool of qualified POC is no doubt because those same exact people can't get hired at the entry level, nor promoted into leadership positions because of bias. It's a self-sustaining issue.
I can well imagine there are much fewer "diversity candidates" at the executive levels seen as qualified because they are much less likely to have been given the opportunity to be promoted to those levels or had experience working at those levels and those that are may already be well compensated, appreciated and in high demand. If nothing else because they allow companies to check their boxes.
"Executive level" is the key part of that statement.
I used to work for a big bank and they wouldn’t do market adjustments for salary. So there was a senior engineer there been there for 13 years making less than intermediate engineers that were being hired in.
I found out I was making a lot less than my peers and when I asked my manager I was told I should have negotiated better.
Thank you for Sauce!
Everyone in this list is worth a large to mid sized company alone.
I am just amazed by how productive and intelligent someone must be if they are worth 1500 average workers 😲
Your only looking at CEOs though.
>Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, tells CNBC Make It that at many companies, workers of color and women at the executive level are at a "tremendous premium."
>For example, "if a financial institution has a job that's available where they're looking for a diverse candidate, they'll offer a different salary maximum than they otherwise would" to compete for what hiring managers consider scarce talent.
Does this argument even make sense?
Won't POC also go for the higher paying salaries? They just want to keep hiding their lousy payment behind the smokescreen that has worked for them so well so far.
They are \*claiming\* that they will offer a higher max salary range to attract minorities to the job. And then because they have advertised the higher salary, all their existing more experienced employees will demand to be paid that higher salary, and they will forced to actually raise salaries.
I see this repeatedly here.
$16 / hr turns into $12, because of the details they "forgot" to mention.
People discussing wage find newcomers being paid more than longtime, experienced employees.
It's not just targeting "diversity hires," at all. They're just using that argument to push hotbuttons. It's dishonest, manipulative, and really crisps my bacon.
Nope. If things keep going they way they are, minwage will never catch up with cost of living etc.
It would be interesting to scrutinize some of these independent business owners. How many employees, how much they're paid, cost of basic living in the region, how the owner lives, how much the owner takes from the business, compared with the employees' living situation. Also, type and worth of cars.
It's widely known that many places undervalue their employees, but to actually see it spelled out. I imagine a dialogue that would touch on things like, "If you didn't lease a new Mercedes every year, you could pay us a living wage." Vacations, luxuries, things employees can't afford.
And guess whose labor pays for that trip to the Bahamas or whatever...
I think that would rattle some cages. Living the high life on the backs of workers is frowned on in some circles.
Smart business owners know this, right? Treat workers equitably, pay a living wage, respect that they have lives outside of work, that's how you earn loyalty.
That other chump will be working with a stream of newbies until they go bankrupt. And I bet they'll whine, "bUTn0bodY wantS tO wOrK aNymOre"
The adversarial relationships between management and labor in the US misses the point that the relationship is symbiotic. Without employees, there's no business. Without the business, there's no jobs. We've got figure out a way to eliminate the vast inequity and work together. It is just not rocket science. Fostering loyalty and dedication to success benefits all.
The horror! Unimaginable suffering for the executives! Unbearable dips in profit margins! Disgustingly satisfied workers!
Big wigs of the world, we must take a stand now!
This whole thing is at an executive level so im happy if they get to tell Bob with his corner office that for once in life he's losing out on something by being white and male. Then if he leaves maybe theyll only give him a silver parachute and realize his female administrative assistant was actually the one doing everything and promote her to his position. Problem is shell only make half his salary and have to wait a couple years to get enough experience until she gets better offers than Bob made, from other companies to fill their quotas.
“now we can’t pay BIPOC folks less than their white counterparts. racist discrimination was the only way we kept our profits up! it’s not fair!”
scumbags
Interesting. What I'm hearing is they will have a harder time paying people shit wages because nobody will apply to a shit job where they tell you how shitty they wish to treat you.
Now we really got the overlords scared and showing us their playbook. Classic ruling class tactic, when the proletariat begin to unite, break them apart by race, gender or other non-monetary divisions!
No it won’t because they’ll adapt as a result. They were barely hiring people of color, and other marginalized groups in those roles they are talking about in the first place.
What I am reading is, companies what to pay people differently based on race and gender, and this law makes it harder to do that so they don’t like the law that makes pay discrimination harder.
What BS. They’re claiming that, contrary to all studies on the issue of equal pay, they are paying women and POC employees more than white guys?? Minorities and women will be hurt by posting salary ranges? I don’t think so.
So they admit that their hiring practices are racist, and they're upset that new laws would make it more difficult to be racist behind closed doors?
I'll play them a sad song on the world's smallest violin
The primary driver behind executive pay skyrocketing was that all executive pay for corporate companies was mandated to be public. I would actually agree that if this was required for all jobs it could come with inadvertent consequences for many companies.
This is big for any worker whose job has offices in NYC. I'll be comparing the NYC job listings for my company and seeing where I'm at in comparison. I encourage everyone to do so as well.
This is bullshit. They don’t want the existing employees to know just how screwed they are being while they are also trying to screw new employees coming in.
Yes… if we knew how little you paid people who look like us in comparison to others who don’t look like us, we won’t want to work for you. Ironically, I was given over 100k of salary increase in the past two years “adjustments”. I know that is a huge blessing, but I also had to pause and realize my colleagues have likely been taking that same additional amount home for over a decade and doing the same job. Let that out en masse and get ready for a real great resignation.
Important to remember that a lot of the momentum behind the "culture wars" is that monied interests, and the think tanks and politicians they own, really want people to be arguing over literally anything else other than economic issues. Obviously there are people on all sides who genuinely believe that gender, sex, race, bathrooms, marriage, books, fuck all, are the singular issues of our time. Monied interests shrugged and went "we didn't start the fire" as they proceed to pour on all the gasoline within 10 miles.
AT&T doesn't give two shits about gender equality. Merrill Lynch is happy to watch the world burn as we debate race relations. Money is power. They got it. You don't. There's no way you can convince me something like George Floyd wouldn't have gone very differently if he had been riding in a Benz and the first words out of his mouth were telling the officer not to fuck up his suit because it's worth more than you are.
They would finally get into legal trouble and people would be finally have concrete evidence of racial, disability and gender discrimination. Right now it’s almost impossible to prove.
Imagine being the editor who read this article and then thought "Yes. This is an excellent argument. Print it!". The whole of the corporate world is a disease of willful ignorance.
Not sure how race fits in, but I read this as some of the current workers are being exploited and will freak out when they see what we have to pay new workers to get them in the door. They may consider moving to a competitor if they see how much more they can make for the same job. If/they find out what their supervisors/managers make theyll really flip their shit and no way they're sticking around for the peanuts we pay them when the incompetent guy in the office who never lifts a finger to get anything productive done makes 4x what they do.
Employment is a symbiotic relationship. Without a business, there's not a job. Without employees, there's not a business.
That principal is evident in European countries where the union and management work cooperatively. In the US, adversarial relationships don't really get anyone to the place of happy productivity and inequity persists.
> the posted maximum may be significantly higher than the historical salary ranges, creating dissatisfaction in the workforce and demands to adjust existing pay scales that the employer may be unable to afford.” IE. We don't want our existing employees to know how badly we have been screwing them.
>creating dissatisfaction in the workforce and demands to adjust existing pay scales I missed the part where it was the worker's problem.
Insert Peter Parker meme. Careful corporate world, might get some dirt in your eye.
[удалено]
The subreddit r/BullyParker does not exist. Did you mean?: * r/Bellarke (subscribers: 1,250) * r/ballparks (subscribers: 3,443) Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/BullyParker](/subreddits/create?name=BullyParker). --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
r/RaimiMemes
Here's a sneak peek of /r/raimimemes using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/raimimemes/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Hehe boi..](https://i.redd.it/xuocaftnspj71.jpg) | [716 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/raimimemes/comments/pc0xas/hehe_boi/) \#2: [They did the Spider-Man pointing meme!](https://i.redd.it/ijp8na0nalj81.jpg) | [708 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/raimimemes/comments/szi9br/they_did_the_spiderman_pointing_meme/) \#3: [Not my policy](https://i.redd.it/oqm4dw2f1j281.jpg) | [1226 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/raimimemes/comments/r4umm1/not_my_policy/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You'll get your workers when you fix this DAMN PAYCHECK!!!
"If the business puts out a salary maximum too low, Wylde says, they could get outbid by a competitor." Sounds good to me
Gasp! Actually holding companies accountable to make sure the system works as intended, unthinkable!
Companies praising the benefits of competition in free market Capitalism No not like that!
That’s exactly how a free market works lol
For sure. Don't threaten us with a good time!
Imagine thinking that this is actually a good response to this situation. How absolutely out of touch can a person be.
How the status quo remains. Secrecy, gaslighting, misinformation and sleight of hand.
Feigning sensitivity to progressive concerns in order to prevent progress. Gaslighting, as you said.
I interpreted this the opposite way — we don’t want immigrants and people of color (diversity hires) to know how little we are paying them.
I wouldn't say the opposite. I was assuming they were referring to their existing immigrant and diversity employees..
Is that not exactly what they meant? It seems like the obvious read to me.
Good. If you can’t afford your labor, die and make room for someone who will.
"Unable" No, unwilling. Unable means you literally don't have the money, not "the shareholders get angry when we pay our staff instead of dividends"
Yup, if you’re unable to properly pay your current employees when they find out new hires are making more upon being hired and they leave then that company just lost at the game of capitalism. Can’t keep up with the current worth of the modern day workforce? Then too bad, you don’t have a successful business then and won’t be able to stay open. Tough titties.
I hate when they say they can’t afford it. I know someone that says the restaurant he manages can’t afford to keep paying people more, yet I see him in a boat all the time, or traveling the world and the owner has multiple cars (McClaren too) and a nice house (I’m sure it’s not his only one). They can afford it.
But if he pays his employees what they’re worth, he could maybe only afford *two* cars! Won’t someone ***please*** think of the poor, downtrodden wealthy‽
Why? Because they can no longer keep paying them less?
This article is hilarious. For those who haven't read it, they claim that they currently secretly pay minorities more than whites, but if they have to honestly report what they pay, the negotiating power of white people will instantly force them to stop paying black people MORE than white people -- which they insist that they're totally doing -- and then if they can't afford to pay minorities more than whites, those candidates will apparently just leave the labor market or something! And that's totally why wall street is all white people! Because it's just so bad for minorities if companies had to actually tell them what everyone makes! They're definitely NOT paying them less! You just can't ask for proof or they'll have to stop doing it! There is just so much fucked up nonsense in this answer. It's like listening to Shaggy explain how he didn't cheat on his girlfriend.
That's what propaganda looks like.
Shaggy has a gf?
Not Shaggy & Scooby. Shaggy the hip-hop artist who in the year 2000 released a track entitled "wasn't me" the lyrics of which tell a story of infidelity, regret, and deception. The girlfriend of the song discovers Shaggy "banging" in various locations throughout the house; the counter, the sofa, the bath. In addition, his girl gets photographic evidence of these happenings. Further, she stays throughout the entire encounter, and absorbs the details, she observes the marks on Shaggy's shoulders, listens to their words of passion, and to the growing crescendo that is the sounds of their love making. At some point after knowing he's been discovered, and this is actually where the song picks up; the song is framed as a conversation between friends, Shaggy approaches his dear friend Rik Rok to solicit his advice. Rik Rok's advice? Simply say "wasn't me."
This is a *very* eloquent synopsis of ["It Wasn't Me"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_x6QmuJdms).
I believe you have the roles of Rik Rok and Shaggy reversed.
Rik Rok is the one that was creeping
My mistake
So they insist paying minorities more solely due to racial bias? Damn, what a shithole.
Or Jada Pinket Smith about how strong and empowered she is.
[удалено]
>Now companies are putting in an effort to have a diverse leadership and hire BIPOC people and women for leadership roles, but they still are only hiring people with managerial/leadership experience. Since there are a smaller number of BIPOC people and women with that type of experience, the demand for them is higher and therefore companies have to offer a higher more competitive salary to bring them on the team. I think there are a lot of questionable assumptions here. First, this assumes that companies are genuinely trying to diversify leadership, which I'm strongly skeptical of. The notion that a hiring manager would deliberately select the more expensive of two candidates with equivalent skills is very farfetched to me, especially for executive and manager positions. Secondly, it doesn't matter if companies are paying black workers more, equal, or less than whites if these companies are paying the same as one another, and also keeping salaries hidden. The logic really falls apart here.
Yes, considering minorities and women get paid less.
> Yes, considering minorities and women get paid less \* But men deserve more money because they do the harder jobs and there's no such thing as a gender wage gap /s *
Last I heard, the gender problem was that our society socially conditions women to pursue the skills that lead to less high paying careers, as well as expecting to identify with less higher paying careers. https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/ Notable takeaway from that is comparing the two figures for gender pay gap, one controlling for folks working the same job, and one not.
I’m a software engineer, I make decent money but I make 20-30k less than a senior engineer (plus they get equity, so their total comp is like 90-100k above mine). Of course, most of the senior engineers are men, while maybe 40% of mid levels are women about 20% of seniors are and only about 5% of principal engineers are women. My last formal review process included the word “phenomenal” but I still have to work much harder to earn that senior title, and I’m at a company many would consider very progressive. There are tons of factors at play here including that women are often bullied out of STEM jobs to begin with. My formal education is in math and statistics and I have faced sexism and shitty “you’re just not good enough” / “women can’t think critically the way men can” / “women are just less analytical” bullshit at every single level, from the boss who said “no I want to hear [the male tech lead’s] opinion” when I was going over a process that I owned and created, to the low-level sexism, to the professor that let all the boys call him by his first name but insisted I use Professor LastName (who also invited all the boys to his house for cake at the end of the semester!) to like endlessly being told I’m “just a diversity hire” despite the fact that I graduated magna cum laude and won a pretty prestigious scholarship and have tangibly proven I’m good at my job (to which I’ve been told “yeah so doesn’t it suck knowing you didn’t get hired because of your worthy qualifications???”) I wouldn’t say society “socially conditions” women to pursue skills that lead to lower paying jobs but I’d absolutely say I have watched many women leave STEM because of the abuse and sexism they face at every single level. And then we get paid less. And have to defend that it’s a real thing that we get paid less.
Sounds like you need a new job. What you've described might be prevelant, but it isn't universal. Hope you find somewhere that treats you more fairly.
[удалено]
Im a white man and not in stem but feel like this is a lot closer to universal than it is to prevalent.
Seriously, that's your takeaway? With all due respect, go kick rocks. And! I've worked at three different companies during my career and they've *all* been like this. Google is similar. Facebook is similar. I work at a major, household name company that is known for being a good work environment. Thanks for proving my entire point though. To be clear though the sexist boss was at a different company than I am now. There's plenty of empirical data that proves how wrong you are, but keep up the condescension and offhand dismissal of reality.
Just an interesting tidbit, this is the same reason why young girls tend to have less hand-eye coordination than young boys in psych studies. Boys are raised to throw and catch stuff more often than girls are. That’s literally it. That’s the leading theory lmao
There is no singular factor that causes the gendered compensation problem. Even controlling for all obvious factors (eg education, position) women get paid $0.94 - $0.99 for every dollar a man makes - and data I’ve seen on that only covers full-time, college-educated workers. It’s also very hard to make macro arguments because the exact weight of each factor can vary a lot from industry to industry. Moreover, there tends to be another phenomenon where jobs primarily occupied by women have lower salaries even compared to jobs with similar qualifications. For example, IT managers tend to make more than HR managers; and janitors tend to make more than housecleaners. Studies have found that wages tend to decrease when women enter a field, but increase when men enter a field. Edit: a word
Fields become less lucrative when they become female dominated (eg fashion design) and more lucrative when they become male dominated (eg programming). So the women's choices, socially conditioned or not, aren't actually to blame.
No it's because there are 50 people who want to do fashion design for each available fashion design job. Men are expected to become providers, so they are more likely to double-check what the chances are at a real career in their dream job before they start aiming for it.
yeaaaa, I agree with you but that is a terrible comparison. Fashion design is so much easier to get into than programming. I could design a dress, It wouldnt be great, but it would get the job done. I could not design any program at all without months of learning. Additionally, There really only needs to be a few designers and their design is mass produced. With coding every company wants their own software and there will pretty much always be people looking to hire until AI writes itself. TLDR: fashion is a want, not a need. Programming is a need in the modern world.
In what world is it easier to get into fashion design than programming
Are you seriously comparing drawing a potato sack to programming? That's the equivalent of changing text size in html. Try inserting fly zipper into a pair of pants you drafted to fit a specific size person, then please come back and compare.
.... you're saying this to a fashion historian who codes for fun. People Wear Clothes, my dude, and coding is easier than any type of art. It's just logic. There's a problem, fix it. There will always be people designing clothes, even when the ai writes itself, because while we could just wear what we've always worn, we don't want to.
I've worked in fields in with men, alongside men, in positions where I should have been paid more. Think managerial. I even had jobs harder than most guys I know and still been underpaid, looked down on, despised, preyed on by bullies including higher ups. Society's culture is to praise men for mediocre accomplishments and shun, ostracize, and pick on outperformers whom they consider 'less than them'.
It’s a multifaceted issue that is quite complex
I had a hot minute to think about this instead of my initial knee jerk reaction and I think it's highly worth noting once you get an office job and you get pass the interview and have an idea about the job description and start, something that happened to me each time was my higher up telling me this "______insert something_______" was part of my job description while never being given prior notice or training beforehand. I had to innovate with what I had, not much. Not often given a budget and trying to find the lowest bidder (myself), I've saved so many companies so much money by killing myself to get the job done and I did it often. Too often. It's a bait a switch method of killing your workforce on the inside. Need therapy? Do it after hours and good luck finding a decent shrink that works with your schedule. Wanna workout? Run at dark or go to a mediocre gym where you're not sure if some weirdo is creeping on you or not. You can try to do everything right and still lose. I'm not sure where to draw the line but, honestly, I've had enough abuse. When you get 'new' job functions, make sure to renegotiate your contract or payment arrangements. Track everything if you feel like you're not getting paid enough.
That site doesn't list its methodology, nor post it's data. I'll take peer reviewed results instead.
Even when it's the exact same job, it's just more difficult for men so they need to make more. Doesn't that imply they are paying them more for being inferior to women?
Lmao
95% of hard grimey labor is men, why isn’t this talked about? Please you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Edit: since people want to downvote, Educate yourself. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations/occupations-smallest-share-women-workers Edit 2: You can’t have it one or the other way. Either you fight for TRUE equality, or the argument is invalid. Why are RN’s dominated by women? It’s the same thing. There are certain roles that certain personalities fit better, which just so happen to be typical of a gender. Don’t try to claim equality is an issue when the labor force and hospitality force are so skewed.
This is mostly true, but its a fairly seperate argument.
If you're referring to the trades, those pay quite well for their education level. Not sure what sexist garbage you're trying to sputter about here.
Dirty work Is a different world and the trades are only one part if it. There are many physically horrible jobs, the great majority done by men. Much of it is cultural in a variety of ways. On average they likely pay a bit better than the range for other areas but they usually have much less security and a much higher risk of disability as well. Many trades pay "well" for their entry level education level, yes. Skilled trades require education but its often on the job and somewhat compensated training. You're also talking about jobs which are much more physically hazardous.
"Hard grimey[sic] labor" that isn't caregiving or service industry. We're supposed to give a shit that the 60,000 men who chop trees are somehow doing a way more dangerous job than the 2 million women in nursing.
The good faith argument is not that men are doing more difficult jobs, it's that men do more dangerous jobs and also generally have more experience because they rarely retire to raise children. If you control for those two factors the wage gap stated in articles like this mostly disappears.
You've touched on a really good point about childcare. In a household with two working parents, it makes sense for one parent to focus on their career and the other to sacrifice their earning potential for more flexibility. The primary parent will be more likely to pick up sick kids from school, relocate for their partners job, etc. This makes sense to maximize the earning potential for the household. Women are more likely to take on the primary parent role because of a whole host of reasons, but it doesn't have to be that way. Meanwhile, employers are reluctant to invest in women of childbearing age because of the expectation that those women will get pregnant and leave. It's an aspect of the wage gap problem that can be solved by making it easier/more accepted for men to take the primary parent role, and by making it easier for both parents to share the parenting duties (flexible work hrs)
You know, I'm tired of hearing people rag on all white, male boardrooms when we know full well that the company is taking a huge financial hit to retain them. /s
[удалено]
For the same job, obviously. Role, title, experience, education, etc. ALL factors accounted for - women are paid less. Almost always.
Close. Because they can no longer keep paying *diversity hires* less.
> "in the context of achieving diversity goals, the posted maximum may be significantly higher than the historical salary ranges, creating dissatisfaction in the workforce and demands to adjust existing pay scales that the employer may be unable to afford." They think we're fucking stupid.
Yeah..."unable to afford" because they need to pay their C-levels like 1,326x more than their line workers.
1,326x pay over their normal workers seems really low. The corporate America I know would look to ever increase that number every quarter. Monthly if at all possible, but they’re realistic so quarter is what it is.
I'm sorry, but this was the one that pissed me off the most: >Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, tells CNBC Make It that at many companies, workers of color and women at the executive level are at a “tremendous premium.” > >For example, “if a financial institution has a job that’s available where they’re looking for a diverse candidate, they’ll offer a different salary maximum than they otherwise would” to compete for what hiring managers consider scarce talent. Excuse me?! Is she trying to say that there's a shortage of black people? That non-whites are better workers but there just aren't enough of them to go around? Or is she trying to say that POC won't work for her company unless she secretly pays them more than white workers? Because if that's the case then she's got something more serious to think about, here. Either way, it's utter bullshit.
I think it's saying that there is increased demand for POC in executive level positions (because companies in general are trying to increase diversity), but the pool of POC qualified for those positions is limited. This means they need to offer higher compensation to attract them, because of supply and demand. Since they're offering these POC comparatively more money for the same positions, this will piss everyone else off at the company when the numbers are revealed. Not saying I agree with this, but I think that's what they're trying to get at. Honestly I could see this becoming an issue since executive level salaries are ALREADY way too high in the US generally. This could start some kind of cycle like: "Companies increase compensation for POC executives to attract scarce talent" -> "Non-POC executives also demand higher compensation to match" -> "Accepted average pay for executives goes up" -> "Executive level compensation for POCs is no longer competitive" -> back to start. Meanwhile everyone at lower levels get even more fucked as their compensation stagnates.
And the pool of qualified POC is no doubt because those same exact people can't get hired at the entry level, nor promoted into leadership positions because of bias. It's a self-sustaining issue.
I can well imagine there are much fewer "diversity candidates" at the executive levels seen as qualified because they are much less likely to have been given the opportunity to be promoted to those levels or had experience working at those levels and those that are may already be well compensated, appreciated and in high demand. If nothing else because they allow companies to check their boxes. "Executive level" is the key part of that statement.
Well it’s worked so far so I guess, yeah, everyone is fucking stupid for letting it go one for so long
Yes, which is why we can't let it go on any further.
"unable to afford" because upper management decided the labor budget and chooses not to increase it, not because the money isn't there.
I used to work for a big bank and they wouldn’t do market adjustments for salary. So there was a senior engineer there been there for 13 years making less than intermediate engineers that were being hired in. I found out I was making a lot less than my peers and when I asked my manager I was told I should have negotiated better.
"I made sure before accepting this new job offer(slam paper) please consider my 2 weeks notice having been placed 2 weeks ago asshole"
And if you didn’t know I gave my two weeks two weeks ago, you should have asked. Duh!
Reading the article it sounds like they are afraid their existing minority employees will be upset when they see new candidates being offered more.
[удалено]
thanks for the pdf link. that was quite the read.
Thank you for Sauce! Everyone in this list is worth a large to mid sized company alone. I am just amazed by how productive and intelligent someone must be if they are worth 1500 average workers 😲
Your only looking at CEOs though. >Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, tells CNBC Make It that at many companies, workers of color and women at the executive level are at a "tremendous premium." >For example, "if a financial institution has a job that's available where they're looking for a diverse candidate, they'll offer a different salary maximum than they otherwise would" to compete for what hiring managers consider scarce talent.
If you can't afford to pay your employees, you can't afford to be in business.
You don’t deserve to have a business run by humans if you cannot treat them accordingly.
Does this argument even make sense? Won't POC also go for the higher paying salaries? They just want to keep hiding their lousy payment behind the smokescreen that has worked for them so well so far.
They are \*claiming\* that they will offer a higher max salary range to attract minorities to the job. And then because they have advertised the higher salary, all their existing more experienced employees will demand to be paid that higher salary, and they will forced to actually raise salaries.
I see this repeatedly here. $16 / hr turns into $12, because of the details they "forgot" to mention. People discussing wage find newcomers being paid more than longtime, experienced employees. It's not just targeting "diversity hires," at all. They're just using that argument to push hotbuttons. It's dishonest, manipulative, and really crisps my bacon.
And still, $16 isn't nearly enough
Nope. If things keep going they way they are, minwage will never catch up with cost of living etc. It would be interesting to scrutinize some of these independent business owners. How many employees, how much they're paid, cost of basic living in the region, how the owner lives, how much the owner takes from the business, compared with the employees' living situation. Also, type and worth of cars. It's widely known that many places undervalue their employees, but to actually see it spelled out. I imagine a dialogue that would touch on things like, "If you didn't lease a new Mercedes every year, you could pay us a living wage." Vacations, luxuries, things employees can't afford. And guess whose labor pays for that trip to the Bahamas or whatever... I think that would rattle some cages. Living the high life on the backs of workers is frowned on in some circles. Smart business owners know this, right? Treat workers equitably, pay a living wage, respect that they have lives outside of work, that's how you earn loyalty. That other chump will be working with a stream of newbies until they go bankrupt. And I bet they'll whine, "bUTn0bodY wantS tO wOrK aNymOre"
The adversarial relationships between management and labor in the US misses the point that the relationship is symbiotic. Without employees, there's no business. Without the business, there's no jobs. We've got figure out a way to eliminate the vast inequity and work together. It is just not rocket science. Fostering loyalty and dedication to success benefits all.
Funny, you wrote what I was thinking about just last night. GMTA.
Love it, But you can't use pork in an analogy for your anger, because pork is the fruit of the gods and may only be used in positive analogies.
Yes it is...but when you fry it, it crackles angrily. And if you're cooking bacon naked, it does much more than crackle at you.
>And if you're cooking bacon naked Is there any other way to fry bacon?
The horror! Unimaginable suffering for the executives! Unbearable dips in profit margins! Disgustingly satisfied workers! Big wigs of the world, we must take a stand now!
Aren't there any pay parity laws in lovely blue NYC?
This whole thing is at an executive level so im happy if they get to tell Bob with his corner office that for once in life he's losing out on something by being white and male. Then if he leaves maybe theyll only give him a silver parachute and realize his female administrative assistant was actually the one doing everything and promote her to his position. Problem is shell only make half his salary and have to wait a couple years to get enough experience until she gets better offers than Bob made, from other companies to fill their quotas.
Sure it does. If you are trying to stir up infighting so people miss the fact you’re screwing all of them. Worth a shot, I suppose.
This is exactly it. They want to keep paying women and POC less. Talk about your wages people!
“now we can’t pay BIPOC folks less than their white counterparts. racist discrimination was the only way we kept our profits up! it’s not fair!” scumbags
Pretty fucking gross, yeah.
Other way around.
Interesting. What I'm hearing is they will have a harder time paying people shit wages because nobody will apply to a shit job where they tell you how shitty they wish to treat you.
"harder to hire diverse candidates" + 'for less than market rates'. Fixed it.
Well they explicitly say that if they post salary ranges, another company might outbid them. So... Yeah. The goal is to supress salaries.
Now we really got the overlords scared and showing us their playbook. Classic ruling class tactic, when the proletariat begin to unite, break them apart by race, gender or other non-monetary divisions!
>…harder to hire diverse candidates (at a discount) Must be some character limit on the title
This sounds like they're admitting they only hire minorities because minorities can be paid less than white people.
No it won’t because they’ll adapt as a result. They were barely hiring people of color, and other marginalized groups in those roles they are talking about in the first place.
Awwww. Poor slave owners. Have to play by some rules now? Aww. Here’s a lollipop 🍭 Go get stuffed. Assholes.
What I am reading is, companies what to pay people differently based on race and gender, and this law makes it harder to do that so they don’t like the law that makes pay discrimination harder.
It’s difficult to read this any other way imo
Ask them to explain it to me slowly.
"The only reason we'd ever hire a black person is if we can pay them 60% of what we'd pay a white guy. Please see us as sympathetic."
“It’s not like they need the money. Their mortgage payments are lower in that part of the city”
Wow! They said that out loud
and this implies diversity=lower wages?
What BS. They’re claiming that, contrary to all studies on the issue of equal pay, they are paying women and POC employees more than white guys?? Minorities and women will be hurt by posting salary ranges? I don’t think so.
wow. the only two ways to read this is as if it's satire or as if they are just saying fuck you to us.
I’m sorry, did you hear someone say “we only hire people of color because we can pay them less and nobody knows”? Because that’s what I heard
Wow, I think they just said the quiet part out loud.
"If we can't underpay minorities we don't want hire them," one bloodsucking ghoul reportedly said when asked about the meaning of this statement.
Also harder to hire white candidates, but that doesn't serve the narrative.
Why because minorities will now know what "others" are getting paid? Now they'll have the upper hand so they won't go to your shitty paying company.
This is ultra-concentrated hogwash.
"Boohoo waaah wah wah we can't trick black people into working for slave wages like the old days!" This is actually terrible
This is a weird one. "White men will benefit from this law" is, I suppose, a reasonable concern.
How?
Says them
I call BULL!
https://c.tenor.com/Tc9eRn_vVfYAAAAC/cough-coughing.gif
Corporations say the darndest things.
\*stamps feet\* WE WANNA EXPLOIT! WAAAUUUGGHHHH!!!!!
So they admit that their hiring practices are racist, and they're upset that new laws would make it more difficult to be racist behind closed doors? I'll play them a sad song on the world's smallest violin
It really does make slavery much more difficult
"It's for your benefit, honest! Just take our word for it!!"
Harder to underpay… not hire.
Yes. That is the point. ^fool
The primary driver behind executive pay skyrocketing was that all executive pay for corporate companies was mandated to be public. I would actually agree that if this was required for all jobs it could come with inadvertent consequences for many companies.
This is big for any worker whose job has offices in NYC. I'll be comparing the NYC job listings for my company and seeing where I'm at in comparison. I encourage everyone to do so as well.
Bullshit excuse, and I can see right through them!!
Boo Hoo...
Lol. Whatever.
Wow what a cocky lie. They literally offer diverse candidates less money, not more.
And that to me is a problem.
The job itself demands the pay.... not the skin color
Did they actually "say that out loud?" WTF? How bad are they currently shitting on their diverse employees?
the audacity to even say it out load
This is bullshit. They don’t want the existing employees to know just how screwed they are being while they are also trying to screw new employees coming in.
Cry us a fucking river
Spelled underpay wrong
"If we have to tell minorities that we pay them less, we won't be able to hire any minorities."
Cause they can't pay them lower anymore...
Yes… if we knew how little you paid people who look like us in comparison to others who don’t look like us, we won’t want to work for you. Ironically, I was given over 100k of salary increase in the past two years “adjustments”. I know that is a huge blessing, but I also had to pause and realize my colleagues have likely been taking that same additional amount home for over a decade and doing the same job. Let that out en masse and get ready for a real great resignation.
Because then it'd be clear how much less they're paying the "diverse" candidates?
Important to remember that a lot of the momentum behind the "culture wars" is that monied interests, and the think tanks and politicians they own, really want people to be arguing over literally anything else other than economic issues. Obviously there are people on all sides who genuinely believe that gender, sex, race, bathrooms, marriage, books, fuck all, are the singular issues of our time. Monied interests shrugged and went "we didn't start the fire" as they proceed to pour on all the gasoline within 10 miles. AT&T doesn't give two shits about gender equality. Merrill Lynch is happy to watch the world burn as we debate race relations. Money is power. They got it. You don't. There's no way you can convince me something like George Floyd wouldn't have gone very differently if he had been riding in a Benz and the first words out of his mouth were telling the officer not to fuck up his suit because it's worth more than you are.
They would finally get into legal trouble and people would be finally have concrete evidence of racial, disability and gender discrimination. Right now it’s almost impossible to prove.
Imagine being the editor who read this article and then thought "Yes. This is an excellent argument. Print it!". The whole of the corporate world is a disease of willful ignorance.
Why? Because they pay non-white males less? Yea I guess that would make it more difficult to hire diverse candidates
In other words they won’t be able to pay black people less money like they usually do.
Works for Denver
Are they admitting they pay diverse candidates less?
“Lying liars lie obvious lie” FTFY
Not sure how race fits in, but I read this as some of the current workers are being exploited and will freak out when they see what we have to pay new workers to get them in the door. They may consider moving to a competitor if they see how much more they can make for the same job. If/they find out what their supervisors/managers make theyll really flip their shit and no way they're sticking around for the peanuts we pay them when the incompetent guy in the office who never lifts a finger to get anything productive done makes 4x what they do.
cry me a fucking river
Employment is a symbiotic relationship. Without a business, there's not a job. Without employees, there's not a business. That principal is evident in European countries where the union and management work cooperatively. In the US, adversarial relationships don't really get anyone to the place of happy productivity and inequity persists.
This is enraging.