Ladies, attach yourself to a successful man to get a payrise!

[Jaecp]

Uh, no. Men, as a group, have higher salaries than women, as a group. Not every man is paid better than every woman, which is what your usage of 'across the board' implies.

I don't know where you work, but my salary does not go into a pool with all the other men in the workplace and then redistributed on an equal basis. The men that were aggressive in negotiating do not compensate the men who are less aggressive.

We've been talking about group averages this whole time...

There is no redistribution happening here man. A man is not paid less at this company because a woman makes more. Both are going up.

No, there are company funds that go to 'pay rises', not 'men's pay rises'. No chunk of money is solely singled out for the use of men in the same way it is for women.

Yes, and that pool of money is open to the men. How about instead of trying to be combative you argue your core point?

No, the men aren't being 'singled out' ie treated on an individual basis -- that's the fucking problem -- they're being discriminated against as a group. Please keep up.

Men are being denied automatic salary reviews. All women will have a salary review when a man around them is promoted and no men will. This can only result in women either staying on the same salary or getting more.

Is this the argument now? Men are being denied automatic salary reviews? Time to march on Washington!

The policy treats every man as being an aggressive negotiator who does not need 'help', and it treats every woman as a weak negotiator who requires 'help'. That is the implication of their policy.

Imagine a grocery store who needed shelf stackers to be 175cm or taller so that they did not need to use equipment to reach and stack the top shelf. The grocery store could advertise for people 175cm or taller, which makes perfect sense. Or, it could say 'men only', reasoning that most men are over 175cm and most women are under it, ignoring and not caring about the fact that some women are over 175cm and could also shelf stack.

You might not mind being discriminated against as an indistinguishable unit of whatever group someone's assigned you to, but I do.

No, it treats them as groups. Policy, unfortunately, is written about groups and not individuals. No policy is going to be perfect, even the successful ones. And you still aren't being discriminated against. You aren't losing out because another group succeeds.

Yeah, I kinda fucking know that's not how doctors work. That's the fucking point. It would be terrible if doctors did work that way.

In my analogy it worked liked doctors actually do and in yours they didn't. So my example worked and yours was a fantasy designed to reinforce your biases.

You utter 'us boys' as if anything you said applies to all boys. Looking at your own situation and thinking that everyone who shares the same gender has it the same is an idiotic and condescending attitude. I don't belong to your 'us boys club' but I'm treated as if all the benefits of it have flowed to me anyway.

What part of tend to be is any way me talking about you as an individual? Calm the hell down.

I've already done so comprehensively. Their stated goal is to reduce the gender gap. The policies were introduced to reduce the gender gap. The policies discriminate against men in order to reduce the gender gap.

Any complaints are not an argument.

I did not suggest women get an 'automatic pay rise'. They don't. They get an automatic review which is denied to men. This review could either leave their salaries unchanged or it could increase them.

You did, actually, try and keep up with your own side of this, at least

It makes me a 'loser' to be singled out by gender and denied a pay rise because I'm not a woman.

Right here you suggested it. You not getting a pay raise because of your gender and the entire thrust of the OP is woman getting something without having to work at it.

I have not uttered a single contradictory position. You'll point one out if you think I have one.

Believe what you want. I've been pointing most of them out.

It beggars belief that you need to find what you consider proof that there is a single man in the universe whose salary might be higher if he had more aggressive negotiation skills.

That wasn't the goal

Statistics on the wage gap consider full time work categorically without any reference to the number of hours worked, and there is a known difference in the number of hours worked between genders for men and women. Can you guess which gender, as a group, logs more average hours?

I don't need to guess.

Yes, both in the composition of part time vs full time work, and in the number of hours worked when classified at full time.

Awesome, maybe you can do something with that?

Oy vey. It was never my proposed solution to make men work less. I proposed that 'solution' as an absurd but logical outcome of being so pearl-clutchingly bothered that women choose to work part time more often than men.

Under the company's proposed 'solution', the following occurs:

i) Women get their salaries reviewed periodically, resulting in underpaid women getting paid fairly. Men never get their salaries automatically reviewed, meaning underpaid men receive no redress for the unfair situation.*

ii) If someone gets a payrise and they are a man, this will trigger automatic reviews (with only positive or neutral outcomes possible) of his female teammates. Any woman who gets a payrise does not trigger the automatic review of her female teammates.

This is so perverse that it means women should be encouraging the men in their team to seek a payrise because it will trigger a benefit for them, but they've got no incentive to encourage a woman to go for a payrise.

Also, resources are finite. Any resources earmarked solely for one gender are literally taking away resources from another gender. If you don't understand arithmetic perhaps you need to get out some primary school textbooks.

Maybe you don't care that you're discriminated against because of your gender. I do care. I am not my gender.

Cool, you've made your argument now make me care.

Also, it's an even better outcome for that woman if she negotiates that salary herself as she'll get paid more, faster instead of having to wait for this policy to kick in. It's a stopgap, not a permanently solution and, like any policy, not going to entirely solve all problems related to it. It does address the issue and help the targeted problem.

And the targeted problem is that, across the board and with statistics factoring everything they can, woman get paid less than their male equivalents.

I'm sorry that the policy doesn't address cowardly men who don't know how to negotiate a salary for themselves. Perhaps instead of complaining that some woman gets paid more at some company than she would at a clueless company you could go read a book on negotiating a better salary?

 

[Toni]

I don't understand the OP at all. Is the complaint that this firm will only review the salaries of women if a man receives a pay raise?

Well, yes. Is that not a problem? If the company is willing to review the salaries of the women it employs, why doesn't it review the salary of the men it employs?

Why are these reviews gendered? Does AECOM think that all men have the same personalities, self-confidence, and drive (very high, apparently) and that all women have no self-confidence, no drive and are timid meek mice?

If a company thinks that an employee who has only asked for $90,000 actually deserves $100,000, shouldn't the company pay the undervalued employee the amount the employee deserves, regardless of the employee's gender?

Why should women who undervalue their services be paid more than men who undervalue their services? Isn't 'equal pay for work of equal value' supposed to be an ideal? Why would you actively promote the opposite ideal?

Why is it now morally upright to be blatantly sexist?

That's not what the article says.

The article itself is a pretty blatant media piece aimed to demonstrate that the company is doing 'the right thing' by women. Even a semi careful reading of the article does not give the impression that the only way women are able to get raises is if some man successfully negotiates a raise. Unless that's what you want to think. And further does not imply that men are left out of this increase in pay--except for the one who negotiated his own raise.

It could well be that the company was motivated to review salaries after someone successfully negotiated a raise. It is quite possible that person was male. It is quite possible that upon a review of salaries, it was found that women were paid less than their male counterparts.

It's not credible that giving women an extra $500 would close the gap or narrow the gap or address any issues that resulted in a difference in pay according to gender if indeed there was one.

I don't even believe that you believe this. I think you were simply bored and decided to see what interest you could stir by posting a badly written article.

From Wiki:

Since the 1970s, the Financial Review has been associated with economic liberalism in Australia, driving a consistent editorial line favouring small government, deregulation, privatisation, lower taxes and trade liberalisation.

Is that what passes for liberalism in Australia? Because for the most part, it sounds like it is right in line (pun is coincidental but right on--jeez, I can't seem to help myself) with the American Republican Party. You guys really are upside down, eh?

 

[bigfield]

Is that what passes for liberalism in Australia? Because for the most part, it sounds like it is right in line (pun is coincidental but right on--jeez, I can't seem to help myself) with the American Republican Party. You guys really are upside down, eh?

In Australia, liberalism typically refers to neoliberalism, not social liberalism.

The Financial Review is a News Corp paper, and like all Murdoch media it leans right.

 

[Metaphor]

Even a semi careful reading of the article does not give the impression that the only way women are able to get raises is if some man successfully negotiates a raise.

Whoever imagined that the article said that?

Unless that's what you want to think. And further does not imply that men are left out of this increase in pay--except for the one who negotiated his own raise.

Men are left out of the automatic pay review and they are left out of the 'we think you're worth more' hiring offer top-up.

It could well be that the company was motivated to review salaries after someone successfully negotiated a raise. It is quite possible that person was male. It is quite possible that upon a review of salaries, it was found that women were paid less than their male counterparts.

It's not credible that giving women an extra $500 would close the gap or narrow the gap or address any issues that resulted in a difference in pay according to gender if indeed there was one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Their pay review policy is blatantly discriminatory and their hiring wage consideration is blatantly discriminatory. They don't deny this: they think it's a feature, not a bug.

I don't even believe that you believe this. I think you were simply bored and decided to see what interest you could stir by posting a badly written article.

What's badly written about it? It isn't the article that's bad, it's the policy.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no redistribution happening here man. A man is not paid less at this company because a woman makes more. Both are going up.

No: the company has some underpaid employees and some fairly-paid employees. Underpaid employees who are female have a good chance of getting their salaries up to scratch due to this policy. Underpaid employees who are male can rot in hell.

Yes, and that pool of money is open to the men. How about instead of trying to be combative you argue your core point?

I've already done it extensively. If you can't follow the conversation, I suggest you leave it.

Is this the argument now?

It was the 'argument' the whole time, since this is what's happening.

Men are being denied automatic salary reviews? Time to march on Washington!

Perhaps you don't care if you're discriminated against because of your gender. I care, though. (Not about you, obviously, but about myself and other men who are being fucked over by this policy and the gender equality zeitgeist in general).

No, it treats them as groups.

Yeah, I kind of fucking know that. That's kind of the fucking problem.

Policy, unfortunately, is written about groups and not individuals. No policy is going to be perfect, even the successful ones. And you still aren't being discriminated against. You aren't losing out because another group succeeds.

Of course I'm being discriminated against. Women in the company are entitled to resources that men are not entitled to, solely because of their gender. You don't understand what the word 'discrimination' means, do you?

In my analogy it worked liked doctors actually do and in yours they didn't.

I'm not going to explain why my analogy was better. Add 'analogies' to the list of things you don't understand, along with arithmetic and discrimination.

Awesome, maybe you can do something with that?

What? I don't care what choices individuals make about their commitment to the labour force. That's none of my business.

Cool, you've made your argument now make me care.

You've mistaken yourself for someone whose feelings matter.

Also, it's an even better outcome for that woman if she negotiates that salary herself as she'll get paid more, faster instead of having to wait for this policy to kick in. It's a stopgap, not a permanently solution and, like any policy, not going to entirely solve all problems related to it. It does address the issue and help the targeted problem.

It's a discriminatory policy.

It's certainly a permanent policy if it's only going to go away when men and women have arithmetically equal pay, which isn't going to happen in anybody's lifetime.

I'm sorry that the policy doesn't address cowardly men who don't know how to negotiate a salary for themselves.

You are correct. It addresses only cowardly women who don't know how to negotiate for themselves. The policy could easily address everyone who don't know how to negotiate a salary for themselves, but that would mean the policy was fair and nondiscriminatory, and we can't have that, can we?

Your true colours really shine through now, don't they? The males who are not as confident in negotiating their salaries really do deserve their lot, don't they?

You are despicable.

Perhaps instead of complaining that some woman gets paid more at some company than she would at a clueless company you could go read a book on negotiating a better salary?

Why isn't that your policy for women? I forgot: you don't care if you discriminate. You think it's fucking virtuous.

 

[ronburgundy]

??? This policy is the direct opposite of a gender-neutral goal. The raise reviews triggered by someone getting a counter-offer exclude male employees and only apply to females. A gender-neutral policy would say that every employee, regardless of gender gets reviewed for a raise.

The post explicitly acknowledges it is not a gender-neutral policy (i.e. "a step towards").

It is the direct antithesis of a gender neutral policy (i.e., a step away from). It is trying to manufacture equality in net raises at the aggregate group level by deliberately leaving male employees out of consideration for raises unless they directly request one via a counter-offer. It would be so easy to make it an gender-neutral policy (and not a discriminatory attack on gender neutrality) by simply reviewing all employees whenever a raise review is triggered by counter-offers for particular more assertive and demanding employees.

 

[laughing dog]

The post explicitly acknowledges it is not a gender-neutral policy (i.e. "a step towards").

It is the direct antithesis of a gender neutral policy (i.e., a step away from). It is trying to manufacture equality in net raises at the aggregate group level by deliberately leaving male employees out of consideration for raises unless they directly request one via a counter-offer. It would be so easy to make it an gender-neutral policy (and not a discriminatory attack on gender neutrality) by simply reviewing all employees whenever a raise review is triggered by counter-offers for particular more assertive and demanding employees.

1st, this is a step towards pay equality for all. It is not a perfect step. Not all change is perfectly accomplished in one fell swoop. 2nd, there is nothing in the policy that precludes male employees from getting raising without asking for them.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is the direct antithesis of a gender neutral policy (i.e., a step away from). It is trying to manufacture equality in net raises at the aggregate group level by deliberately leaving male employees out of consideration for raises unless they directly request one via a counter-offer. It would be so easy to make it an gender-neutral policy (and not a discriminatory attack on gender neutrality) by simply reviewing all employees whenever a raise review is triggered by counter-offers for particular more assertive and demanding employees.

1st, this is a step towards pay equality for all. It is not a perfect step. Not all change is perfectly accomplished in one fell swoop. 2nd, there is nothing in the policy that precludes male employees from getting raising without asking for them.

1st this is objectively a step away from gender equality. IT is objectively a sexist discriminatory policy that directly undermines the core principles of fairness and pay that is tied to merit rather than gender. It is not merely an imperfect step, it is destructive and ethically indefensible. 2nd, the policy directly excludes males from getting a review triggered even though they didn't ask for a raise. The whole point in creating such reviews triggered by other people getting raises is that they know that raises do no occur unless they are requested. If they did, there would be no need for any policy. Thus, the new policy means females will get reviewed whether they request a raise or not, while males will not get reviewed unless they request a raise.

 

[laughing dog]

1st, this is a step towards pay equality for all. It is not a perfect step. Not all change is perfectly accomplished in one fell swoop. 2nd, there is nothing in the policy that precludes male employees from getting raising without asking for them.

1st this is objectively a step away from gender equality. IT is objectively a sexist discriminatory policy that directly undermines the core principles of fairness and pay that is tied to merit rather than gender.

1st, the claim that is a step away from gender equality is Orwellian since it is an objective attempt to attain gender pay equality.

It is not merely an imperfect step, it is destructive and ethically indefensible.

Handwaved assertion.

2nd, the policy directly excludes males from getting a review triggered even though they didn't ask for a raise.

No, it remains silent about pay raises for males in that situation.

The whole point in creating such reviews triggered by other people getting raises is that they know that raises do no occur unless they are requested. If they did, there would be no need for any policy. Thus, the new policy means females will get reviewed whether they request a raise or not, while males will not get reviewed unless they request a raise.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

1st, the claim that is a step away from gender equality is Orwellian since it is an objective attempt to attain gender pay equality.

It is absolutely a step away from gender equality if the kind of gender equality you want is equal treatment of genders without discrimination.

No, it remains silent about pay raises for males in that situation.

No, it does not remain silent about them. Identifying the employees that benefit from the policy (female) means that it also identifies the employees excluded from the policy (not female). No male employee will get an automatic pay review trigger when one of his male peers gets a pay rise.

Of course, if you actually think the policy is different to how it's been written up, if the actual policy means everyone regardless of gender gets a pay review trigger when any direct colleague of any gender gets a pay rise, then I'd have no problem with the policy at all and in fact would think it's a good one.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

It doesn't. There may be other 'triggers' for a pay review (e.g. the anniversary of your starting date at the company or an annual performance review), but no man gets the automatic pay review trigger relating to colleague pay rises.

No successful male applicant to a new position will get a sweetened pay offer if the company thinks he is underselling himself, whereas any successful female applicant who the company thinks is underselling herself will.

 

[laughing dog]

It is absolutely a step away from gender equality if the kind of gender equality you want is equal treatment of genders without discrimination.

From the status quo, it is step forward. It simply is not enough steps forward to get all the way.

No, it does not remain silent about them. Identifying the employees that benefit from the policy (female) means that it also identifies the employees excluded from the policy (not female). No male employee will get an automatic pay review trigger when one of his male peers gets a pay rise.

"Remains silent" means it does not mention them. There is no dispute there. But not getting an automatic pay review does not preclude someone from getting a pay review if he makes a complaint.

 

[Metaphor]

From the status quo, it is step forward. It simply is not enough steps forward to get all the way.

But it's not, unless 'forward' means 'toward equality of outcome no matter how much discrimination you have to engage in to get there'.

Presumably, the company cannot identify anything it is doing 'wrong' with regards to equal treatment of their employees. If it could, it would have implemented that policy first. So, they've decided that women are the problem (not being assertive enough) and discriminating against men is, apparently, a 'step towards' the solution.

Of course, although all men are discriminated against by the policy, it's not the assertive men who are going to be left behind. Presumably it's the assertive men who are causing male pay to be higher overall in the first place. So it's going to be unassertive men who are going to be left behind.

"Remains silent" means it does not mention them. There is no dispute there. But not getting an automatic pay review does not preclude someone from getting a pay review if he makes a complaint.

Nobody has argued men can't ask for a payrise or at least ask for a pay review 'manually'. That isn't the point.

 

[laughing dog]

But it's not, unless 'forward' means 'toward equality of outcome no matter how much discrimination you have to engage in to get there'.

Trying to get equal pay for equal work for women is a step forward.

Presumably, the company cannot identify anything it is doing 'wrong' with regards to equal treatment of their employees. If it could, it would have implemented that policy first. So, they've decided that women are the problem (not being assertive enough) and discriminating against men is, apparently, a 'step towards' the solution.

Of course, although all men are discriminated against by the policy, it's not the assertive men who are going to be left behind. Presumably it's the assertive men who are causing male pay to be higher overall in the first place. So it's going to be unassertive men who are going to be left behind.

No one disagrees. But that means fewer people are left behind - which is a step forward.

Nobody has argued men can't ask for a payrise or at least ask for a pay review 'manually'. That isn't the point.

It is when you claim they are not going to get a pay raise. I think it would be difficult for any company to be able to defend an unequal pay structure for equal work that disadvantages some men (or women).

 

[Toni]

Whoever imagined that the article said that?

Your post gave me that impression.

Unless that's what you want to think. And further does not imply that men are left out of this increase in pay--except for the one who negotiated his own raise.

Men are left out of the automatic pay review and they are left out of the 'we think you're worth more' hiring offer top-up.

Really? Where does the article say that, exactly? Because I can't find anything remotely like that in the article you linked.

The head of human resources at AECOM, Helen Fraser, said the company would be seeking out high-performing female employees who were not as proactive in demanding a pay rise or applying for senior roles as their male colleagues.

"Rather than wait for her to come forward, we will be proactive in considering the high-performing women around him," Ms Fraser said.

But she added it would be only a small number of high-performing women who would benefit from their male colleagues getting a salary bump.

In fact, it implies that men--multiple men--are getting raises but only a small number of high performing women will also be getting bumps, prompted by a review of salaries when someone (a male person in this article) negotiates a larger salary for himself. There is nothing to suggest that unqualified women are being given a salary boost, riding on the coat tails of men. In fact, the article states it will pay women more to keep the women.
(your link again)

"It would be no good to have a cheaper salary for men and women, because they leave," Ms Fraser said.

It is pretty widely recognized that losing experienced employees is expensive. They take away the skills, experience and expertise they gain on the job with you and then you have to pay to recruit, hire and train a new employee. At my particular (non-engineering) job, it is routinely considered that it requires a minimum of 6 months training to be considered minimally competent, if you are newly hired from another similar area within the company; a year, minimum, if you are new to the field. In addition, they generally require a minimum two year commitment to the work unit as a condition of hiring.

It could well be that the company was motivated to review salaries after someone successfully negotiated a raise. It is quite possible that person was male. It is quite possible that upon a review of salaries, it was found that women were paid less than their male counterparts.

It's not credible that giving women an extra $500 would close the gap or narrow the gap or address any issues that resulted in a difference in pay according to gender if indeed there was one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Their pay review policy is blatantly discriminatory and their hiring wage consideration is blatantly discriminatory. They don't deny this: they think it's a feature, not a bug.

Well, this is what I'm talking about (once again: your link):

Most of the benefit for women came from 5 per cent of AECOM's annual salary review budget allocated purely to address the gender pay gap for its 3500 employees.

The bucket of money has been used to correct the gender pay gap of more than 5 per cent between women and men doing the same job. Most of the money has been spent on giving more than 100 women salary bumps in the last financial year, Ms Fraser said.

In addition, when hiring women, the company plans to compare their salary expectations to what their male peers at the company are receiving to make sure they are not selling themselves short.

and this:

The finance and insurance sector remains the worst offender, with women earning 65¢ to every dollar earned by men. In July, ANZ announced it would give female employees an additional $500 super top-up a year to address this industry-wide issue.

I don't even believe that you believe this. I think you were simply bored and decided to see what interest you could stir by posting a badly written article.

What's badly written about it? It isn't the article that's bad, it's the policy.

What's bad is your belief or 'belief' that the article is well written, informative and unbiased.

I am actually giving you credit for having the intelligence, math skills and reasoning ability to see what is blatantly obvious to anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind. But if you insist, I can revise my opinion.

The article is only focussing on what it is doing for female employees. It does not say that it is not adjusting the salaries of men who are under-compensated, if indeed there are men who are being under-compensated. It is, in fact, quite clear that they KNOW they have been under-compensating women for some time. They are simply addressing this apparently well established policy of paying men more than women in the most minimal way possible, with maximum public relations impact.

Really, you need to find a better news source than Murdoch's rags.

 

[Metaphor]

Really? Where does the article say that, exactly? Because I can't find anything remotely like that in the article you linked.

You cannot be serious. Your reading comprehension cannot be that impaired.

Are you trolling me? Are you trolling me when you say you cannot see how

Men are left out of the automatic pay review and they are left out of the 'we think you're worth more' hiring offer top-up.

Men are left out of it because the article says only women get it. This cannot be that difficult to understand.

In fact, it implies that men--multiple men--are getting raises

No. If you negotiate for a raise you might get one. This applies to both genders. If you do not negotiate for a raise but a male colleague does, you will get an automatic pay review, but only if you are a woman.

but only a small number of high performing women will also be getting bumps, prompted by a review of salaries when someone (a male person in this article) negotiates a larger salary for himself.

Please learn to read. Anyone of either gender can negotiate for a payrise on their own behalf. Only women, however, will get the benefit of an automatically triggered pay review when a male colleague is given a payrise.

Please read the article. Please. Please.

There is nothing to suggest that unqualified women are being given a salary boost,

I did not say it and don't believe it.

Toni, does creating straw men come naturally to you, or did you take lessons?

riding on the coat tails of men. In fact, the article states it will pay women more to keep the women.

I'm saying the policy itself is literally responsible for the farcical situation where, in order to boost the role of women, they tie automatic pay reviews to the success of their male colleagues.

Maybe the policy is so breathtakingly stupid you haven't actually grasped it. I get it. It is breathtakingly stupid.

It is pretty widely recognized that losing experienced employees is expensive. They take away the skills, experience and expertise they gain on the job with you and then you have to pay to recruit, hire and train a new employee. At my particular (non-engineering) job, it is routinely considered that it requires a minimum of 6 months training to be considered minimally competent, if you are newly hired from another similar area within the company; a year, minimum, if you are new to the field. In addition, they generally require a minimum two year commitment to the work unit as a condition of hiring.

Completely irrelevant to anything I've criticised. I never said the company should pay people less than they're worth. I didn't say it and I don't believe it.

Toni, I'ma have to add some kind of keyboard shortcut to reply to all your straw men, or maybe just type IDSIAIDBI.

Well, this is what I'm talking about (once again: your link):

I am 100% lost. Are you claiming that they don't have a discriminatory policy, that I've just misinterpreted the article? Is that what you're claiming?

The article is only focussing on what it is doing for female employees. It does not say that it is not adjusting the salaries of men who are under-compensated, if indeed there are men who are being under-compensated.

It is patently ludicrous to believe that the policy is actually gender neutral and the article just somehow made it sound completely and totally gendered.

But, if in fact the policy is gender neutral (which you have no reason to believe and the plain reading of the article says it isn't), then I have no problem with it.

It is, in fact, quite clear that they KNOW they have been under-compensating women for some time.

They do not know it. They've simply assumed it's the case. But whether or not they're undercompensating some women, if their goal is fairness, they should review everybody's salary irrespective of gender to see if they're being undercompensated.

Or do you believe that no man has ever been undercompensated?

 

[Jaecp]

Yo dawg, you'll do better if you stop acting like a condescending dick

 

[Metaphor]

Yo dawg, you'll do better if you stop acting like a condescending dick

There's a predictable pattern to these threads, and it goes something like this

i) I find an article describing some gender equality policy that is clearly discriminatory in nature. Not merely de facto discriminatory, not merely likely to benefit one gender more than another, but where gender discrimination is written into the policy.

ii) I get a lot of handwaving and denial. People respond as if the initiative isn't actually discriminatory, and anyway men aren't being frogmarched into concentration camps so what's the problem?

iii) I get enough straw men to start a scarecrow leasing service

So if my fuse is short on this subject, there's a reason.

 

[Jaecp]

Your fuse started getting raw after my first post to you. Buck up, dude

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Your fuse started getting raw after my first post to you. Buck up, dude

Who cares? If he has valid points, the points can be discussed without referencing the parts of the post which are emotional rants. If he doesn't have valid points, those points can be rebutted without referencing the parts of the post which are emotional rants. If you feel the thread is getting off topic due to his tone, you can work to get it back on track by ignoring the tone rather than contributing to it by discussing the tone.

 

[bigfield]

Trying to get equal pay for equal work for women is a step forward.

Presumably, the company cannot identify anything it is doing 'wrong' with regards to equal treatment of their employees. If it could, it would have implemented that policy first. So, they've decided that women are the problem (not being assertive enough) and discriminating against men is, apparently, a 'step towards' the solution.

Of course, although all men are discriminated against by the policy, it's not the assertive men who are going to be left behind. Presumably it's the assertive men who are causing male pay to be higher overall in the first place. So it's going to be unassertive men who are going to be left behind.

No one disagrees. But that means fewer people are left behind - which is a step forward.

It is a step forwards and a step backwards at the same time.

It's a step forwards because it will likely bring the aggregate women's wages and the aggregate men's wages closer together.

It's a step backwards in that it introduces another form of institutional sexism. Female employees are protected from being underpaid but male employees are not, which says that men are capable of negotiating their own pay but women are not. It is an ecological fallacy.

Under such a system, women have little incentive to negotiate higher pay as long as they have male colleagues around who, in effect, will negiotiate on their behalf. Why should a woman take the risk when a man can do it for her? This policy cultivates women's aversion to negotiating higher pay.

So while there are short term gains with respect to the aggregate pay gap, this approach also entrenches the institutional sexism. Society has a long history of protecting women while simultaneously expecting men to take risks, and women cannot be men's social equals while that practice persists.

There is also another practical element: The company has identified that some employees are unwilling to negotiate for a raise but are willing to move to higher-paying work elsewhere. If they do not review the market value of these employees then they may lose them. This view was stated in the article:

"It would be no good to have a cheaper salary for men and women, because they leave," Ms Fraser said.

Yet, despite recognising this flaw in their policy, they have decided to review only female employees' wages and are willing to continue lowballing their male employees. If their claim is accurate, this means they will lose some of those male employees to competitors willing to pay them their market value.