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

[Metaphor]

Link to this tragicomedy here

At engineering firm AECOM, a man can get his female colleagues a pay rise by negotiating higher pay for himself.

This is because when an employee successfully negotiates a pay rise by demanding a salary increase or by receiving a counter offer from another firm, the company will review the salary of the women around him to make sure they are not left out.

This is one of the ways the engineering and design firm is trying to combat the Australia-wide gender pay gap.

Is the company interested in rewarding people based on merit, or is it interested in having equal pay for everyone? If it's the latter, why not simply pay everyone the same amount no matter what they do or how many hours they work?

Does the company believe its own practises are discriminatory? If so, why do they not review those practises and stamp them out?

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.

Why shouldn't the company seek out high-performing employees of any gender who are not proactive in demanding a pay rise or applying for senior roles?

These are not the actions of a company interested in encouraging talent and rewarding merit. They are the actions of a company who is openly discriminating against male employees.

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

You heard it hear first, ladies. Don't bother to apply for promotions or ask for a payrise; attach yourself to a man to improve your financial situation!

Seriously. Words fail. How gobsmackingly deranged and wrong-headed is this policy?

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.

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.

Shouldn't the company examine what it is in its hiring and promotion practises that leads to people doing the same job having different salaries? Or is that all too hard?

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.

For example, if the company believed a senior engineer was worth $100,000 but a female applicant demanded a $90,000 salary because she had been underpaid in her past role, it would offer her $100,000.

So if a male engineer asks for $90,000, they won't offer him $100,000, because any male with fucking balls would have asked for $100,000 like a real man. All women have imposter syndrome and no men do. All women have no self esteem and all men are hyperegoists.

And yes: the company is implicitly endorsing the characterisation above, because it is endorsing policies based solely on gender, instead of policies based on assessing how individual factors (such as self-confidence) affect pay expectations and demands.

 

[Jaecp]

There is a well known gap between how aggressive the genders are at demanding higher salaries.

This company policy looks like its an aware response to that known fact.

Whats the problem? Like, dude, you literally laid out, via the quotes, some of the systemic issues woman face in the workplace and, more importantly, this company policy doesn't lower the pay rate of men, but raises the pay rate of woman. Nobody is losing here, we just have more winners

 

[Metaphor]

There is a well known gap between how aggressive the genders are at demanding higher salaries.

There's also a well-known 'height gap' between men and women. Are all men taller than all women?

This company policy looks like its an aware response to that known fact.

Whats the problem? Like, dude, you literally laid out, via the quotes, some of the systemic issues woman face in the workplace and, more importantly, this company policy doesn't lower the pay rate of men, but raises the pay rate of woman. Nobody is losing here, we just have more winners

Of course people are losing. Discrimination by sex creates losers. The company is using resources to discriminate against men to benefit women.

The company is making prejudiced judgments about the personalities of men and women, and blindly applying a one-size-fits-all rule that discriminates against men.

If two kids, fresh out of school, applied to this company's graduate programme and they both put in a salary expectation of $40k (when the company expects graduates to demand 50k), the company will counteroffer any female applicant $50k, and they'll leave any male graduates who had the humility or lack of esteem or who lacks negotiating power with $40k.

Some women are more aggressive and confident in asking for payrises than some men. Should these women also be offered automatic payrises when a man around them is promoted?

Some men are less aggressive and confident in asking for payrises than some women. Should these men be left out when someone around them negotiates a payrise?

Why do people think the best way to stop discrimination by gender is to ramp up discrimination by gender and make prejudiced judgments about entire genders because of a group average in the gender? I'm an effeminate gay man who has had a history of self-doubt and imposter syndrome, and my pay is probably lower than it could be because of it, but because I am part of a group that has less self-doubt and less imposter syndrome than some other group, that's just too fucking bad. Your individual circumstances don't matter, only what your fucking genitals look like.For fuck's sake. For fuck's sake. For fuck's sake.

 

[credoconsolans]

You heard it hear first, ladies. Don't bother to apply for promotions or ask for a payrise; attach yourself to a man to improve your financial situation!

Isn't that called "patronage"?

Someone in a higher position than you gets a raise/promotion, s/he is in a better position to ask for salary increases for his/her staff? Especially if that person believes you are a great worker and are underpaid to begin with?

 

[Metaphor]

You heard it hear first, ladies. Don't bother to apply for promotions or ask for a payrise; attach yourself to a man to improve your financial situation!

Isn't that called "patronage"?

Someone in a higher position than you gets a raise/promotion, s/he is in a better position to ask for salary increases for his/her staff? Especially if that person believes you are a great worker and are underpaid to begin with?

Did you read the article?

 

[Derec]

Nobody is losing here, we just have more winners

Men who are not as aggressive in demanding pay raises lose out because they are not considered for these sexist gender-specific pay adjustments.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

 

[Metaphor]

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?

 

[bigfield]

Gender pay equality advocates generally don't care how that equality is achieved. If a company can demonstrate that they've narrowed the gap then writers and advocates will heap praise upon them, regardless of whether the means are consistent with the concept of equal pay for equal work.

Companies have figured that out and are demonstrating it by implementing discriminatory policies that they spin as a battle against equality. ANZ did this with their super bonus for all female employees, and AECOM are doing it with pay rises for female employees.

It comes down to a problem of cultural values. Many of those advocating for pay equality do not consider sexual discrimination to be morally wrong in and of itself; they only see sexual discrimination as bad when it widens or sustains gender inequality. This gives organisations a licence to engage in sexual discrimination that benefits women because public opinion will exonerate them and EEO law cannot touch them.

AECOM knows that their policy of individually-negotiated salaries leads to unequal pay for equally meritorious employees. It follows that they know that the solution is to abolish individually-negotiated salaries, stop lowballing new hires, and set wages based on performance and market value. They'd like to keep low-balling all of their employees, but it is attracting the ire of women's advocates.

 

[Jaecp]

There's also a well-known 'height gap' between men and women. Are all men taller than all women?

Make a point, or don't, but don't insult both of our intelligence by saying stupid shit like this.

This company policy looks like its an aware response to that known fact.

Whats the problem? Like, dude, you literally laid out, via the quotes, some of the systemic issues woman face in the workplace and, more importantly, this company policy doesn't lower the pay rate of men, but raises the pay rate of woman. Nobody is losing here, we just have more winners

Of course people are losing. Discrimination by sex creates losers. The company is using resources to discriminate against men to benefit women.

This is not true. Someone else getting a benefit does not make you a loser. In the example you gave both people are getting paid more.

The company is making prejudiced judgments about the personalities of men and women, and blindly applying a one-size-fits-all rule that discriminates against men.

It's not prejudice when it's a well known problem. Prejudice = Pre Judge, thats the whole point of the word. Is it prejudice for a doctor to check for heart disease earlier than they would otherwise if that persons ethnic background makes it more likely? Of course not. In both situations well known statistical trends were used to create a better system.

If two kids, fresh out of school, applied to this company's graduate programme and they both put in a salary expectation of $40k (when the company expects graduates to demand 50k), the company will counteroffer any female applicant $50k, and they'll leave any male graduates who had the humility or lack of esteem or who lacks negotiating power with $40k.

Some men are less aggressive and confident in asking for payrises than some women. Should these men be left out when someone around them negotiates a payrise?

Luckily for us boys, we tend to be a lot more aggressive with the whole money thing in the first place. If your situation was at all reflective of what actually happens in the hiring process the company wouldn't be putting policies in place to address the pay gap.

Some women are more aggressive and confident in asking for payrises than some men. Should these women also be offered automatic payrises when a man around them is promoted?

These aggressive salary negotiating women would already have comparable salaries to their peers and, by company policy, already be fairly compensated. Did you forgot the very first thing you bolded in the OP? It uses the word review

Why do people think the best way to stop discrimination by gender is to ramp up discrimination by gender and make prejudiced judgments about entire genders because of a group average in the gender? I'm an effeminate gay man who has had a history of self-doubt and imposter syndrome, and my pay is probably lower than it could be because of it, but because I am part of a group that has less self-doubt and less imposter syndrome than some other group, that's just too fucking bad. Your individual circumstances don't matter, only what your fucking genitals look like.For fuck's sake. For fuck's sake. For fuck's sake.

For an effeminate gay man you're certainly angry and assertive right now. What's your salary and whats the industry average for your position?

Oh, and, lets paraphrase a key statement of yours "Why do people think the best way to stop discrimination by race is to ramp up discrimination by race and make prejudiced judgments about entire races because of a group average in the race?"

Answer, because systemic issues are more complicated than personal issues and the way to address systemic issues is with changes to the system, ie. Policy. Woman not being as aggressive with salary negotiations is a systemic issue and, therefore, the answer is in changes to the system. You, as an individual, not being as aggressive with your salary negotiation is not a systemic issue, but a personal one, and the solution to that problem is obviously different.

 

[Metaphor]

Make a point, or don't, but don't insult both of our intelligence by saying stupid shit like this.

Evidently you missed the point.

This is not true. Someone else getting a benefit does not make you a loser. In the example you gave both people are getting paid more.

Ludicrous. The company has a pool of funds that goes specifically to 'gender gap' pay rises for women. These funds will not go to men.

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

It's not prejudice when it's a well known problem. Prejudice = Pre Judge, thats the whole point of the word.

Are you serious? It's not prejudice to say 'every woman has a self-esteem problem, and no man does'? Because that is exactly the implication of their programme.

Is it prejudice for a doctor to check for heart disease earlier than they would otherwise if that persons ethnic background makes it more likely? Of course not. In both situations well known statistical trends were used to create a better system.

I'll give you an actually apt analogy. It's like a doctor seeing a black patient and, without examining his personal circumstances, saying 'you have type II diabetes and here's some medication for it. No, I don't need to actually test your blood sugar, I'm sure you have it.'

And the same doctor looks at a white patient and says 'we don't need to test for type II diabetes, that's a black problem'.

Luckily for us boys,

Fuck your heteronormative cluelessness. You have no fucking clue.

we tend to be a lot more aggressive with the whole money thing in the first place.

Fuck your prejudiced judgment on me as a person. You have no fucking clue as to my life circumstances.

If your situation was at all reflective of what actually happens in the hiring process

What's my situation? That I'm a man, and all men are equally and indistinguishably confident and aggressive in their salary negotiations?

the company wouldn't be putting policies in place to address the pay gap.

If the company thinks lack of self-confidence could lead some people to ask for less than they could have gotten, they should address that.

But the company isn't interested in fairness. The company is interested in narrowing the gender pay gap, no matter how unfairly it does this.

These aggressive salary negotiating women would already have comparable salaries to their peers and, by company policy, already be fairly compensated. Did you forgot the very first thing you bolded in the OP? It uses the word review

I've forgotten nothing.

What about the men who are not aggressive salary negotiators and are receiving an unfairly low salary. Do you give a shit? Obviously not.

For an effeminate gay man you're certainly angry and assertive right now. What's your salary and whats the industry average for your position?

That's none of your business; how on earth do you think you could judge whether I was an aggressive negotiator or not based on that, without reference to my work history or grades or references?

Answer, because systemic issues are more complicated than personal issues and the way to address systemic issues is with changes to the system, ie. Policy. Woman not being as aggressive with salary negotiations is a systemic issue and, therefore, the answer is in changes to the system. You, as an individual, not being as aggressive with your salary negotiation is not a systemic issue, but a personal one, and the solution to that problem is obviously different.

What other 'systemic' issues ought the company try to 'correct'? Perhaps it should force more male employees to go part time, to even out the gender gap in part time versus full time employment?

 

[Will Wiley]

Nobody is losing here, we just have more winners

Men who are not as aggressive in demanding pay raises lose out because they are not considered for these sexist gender-specific pay adjustments.

lol

 

[Metaphor]

Men who are not as aggressive in demanding pay raises lose out because they are not considered for these sexist gender-specific pay adjustments.

lol

What's funny?

 

[Will Wiley]

lol

What's funny?

Because there is no solution. Lol. If you try to positively discriminate in favour of women you also seem to have to do the same for any men who aren't being paid as much in case they just weren't being aggressive enough. lol

 

[Jaecp]

Evidently you missed the point.

Not at all.

Ludicrous. The company has a pool of funds that goes specifically to 'gender gap' pay rises for women. These funds will not go to men.

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

Why would they? The men already have higher salaries across the board and, furthermore, there are other company funds that do go to men for pay raises.

And, again, you are neither being singled out (systemic issues, dude) nor denied a pay raise because of your gender. What your claiming is simply not reflective of the policies being put in place.

Are you serious? It's not prejudice to say 'every woman has a self-esteem problem, and no man does'? Because that is exactly the implication of their programme.

No one's saying that and, furthermore, your point about height directly contradicts this claim that it's “every” woman or “no” man.

I'll give you an actually apt analogy. It's like a doctor seeing a black patient and, without examining his personal circumstances, saying 'you have type II diabetes and here's some medication for it. No, I don't need to actually test your blood sugar, I'm sure you have it.'

And the same doctor looks at a white patient and says 'we don't need to test for type II diabetes, that's a black problem'.

That's not how doctors work, man. Try to make your analogies be realistic before you start critiquing mine.

Fuck your heteronormative cluelessness. You have no fucking clue.

That was uncalled for.

we tend to be a lot more aggressive with the whole money thing in the first place.

Fuck your prejudiced judgment on me as a person. You have no fucking clue as to my life circumstances.

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

What's my situation? That I'm a man, and all men are equally and indistinguishably confident and aggressive in their salary negotiations?

Your situation as described in the OP and the claims of unfairness.

If the company thinks lack of self-confidence could lead some people to ask for less than they could have gotten, they should address that.

But the company isn't interested in fairness. The company is interested in narrowing the gender pay gap, no matter how unfairly it does this.

That's an interesting position. Now try arguing for it

I've forgotten nothing.

What about the men who are not aggressive salary negotiators and are receiving an unfairly low salary. Do you give a shit? Obviously not.

Obviously you did or your post wouldn't have claimed, incorrectly, that “Some women are more aggressive and confident in asking for payrises than some men. Should these women also be offered automatic payrises when a man around them is promoted?“

when your opening post said

“when an employee successfully negotiates a pay rise by demanding a salary increase or by receiving a counter offer from another firm, the company will review the salary of the women around himto make sure they are not left out”

An automatic pay raise is very different from a review and a salary increase is very different from a promotion.

Your posts are increasingly erratic and clearly contradictory. If you want me, or anyone else, to take you seriously you need to calm down, re-read the thread, and come back at this with some rigor because currently you're doing your position more harm than good.

That's none of your business; how on earth do you think you could judge whether I was an aggressive negotiator or not based on that, without reference to my work history or grades or references?

So I shouldn't ask any questions because I didn't ask every question right off the bat?

What other 'systemic' issues ought the company try to 'correct'? Perhaps it should force more male employees to go part time, to even out the gender gap in part time versus full time employment?

Statistics on the wage gap already factor in part time v full time work.

Even taken at face value, your claim here fails on two counts

First, of people who want to work, is there evidence of a strong difference between hours worked between genders?

Second, your proposed solution is to make men work less, taking money out of their pockets as a result. Your example in the OP is about paying woman more. Your describing a punitive action instead of something positive.

 

[credoconsolans]

Isn't that called "patronage"?

Someone in a higher position than you gets a raise/promotion, s/he is in a better position to ask for salary increases for his/her staff? Especially if that person believes you are a great worker and are underpaid to begin with?

Did you read the article?

Yes, and it amounts to the same thing.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

This response is much more coherent and rational than the OP. I agree that any triggered review should be gender neutral. But at least this policy moves towards that goal.

 

[ronburgundy]

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?

This response is much more coherent and rational than the OP. I agree that any triggered review should be gender neutral. But at least this policy moves towards that goal.

??? 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.

 

[laughing dog]

This response is much more coherent and rational than the OP. I agree that any triggered review should be gender neutral. But at least this policy moves towards that goal.

??? 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").

 

[Metaphor]

Why would they? The men already have higher salaries across the board

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.

and, furthermore, there are other company funds that do go to men for pay raises.

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.

And, again, you are neither being singled out (systemic issues, dude) nor denied a pay raise because of your gender. What your claiming is simply not reflective of the policies being put in place.

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.

No one's saying that and, furthermore, your point about height directly contradicts this claim that it's “every” woman or “no” man.

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.

That's not how doctors work, man. Try to make your analogies be realistic before you start critiquing mine.

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.

That was uncalled for.

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.

And that's the exact fucking problem. You aren't talking about people as individuals, but people are individuals.

That's an interesting position. Now try arguing for it

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.

An automatic pay raise is very different from a review and a salary increase is very different from a promotion.

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.

Your posts are increasingly erratic and clearly contradictory. If you want me, or anyone else, to take you seriously you need to calm down, re-read the thread, and come back at this with some rigor because currently you're doing your position more harm than good.

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

So I shouldn't ask any questions because I didn't ask every question right off the bat?

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.

Statistics on the wage gap already factor in part time v full time work.

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?

Even taken at face value, your claim here fails on two counts

First, of people who want to work, is there evidence of a strong difference between hours worked between genders?

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

Second, your proposed solution is to make men work less, taking money out of their pockets as a result. Your example in the OP is about paying woman more. Your describing a punitive action instead of something positive.

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.