I suppose those who have been better negotiators have all been men, thus accounting for the salary disparity between men and women doing the same job...
So your argument is that unless an employer can afford to pay all workers in the same position the same, he should let his superstar go to another company instead of paying him more? This sounds like a great strategy to kill small business.
Is there a study that actually shows that this is the case? The oft cited one by the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't actually say that. It simply measures all employees that are considered full time and breaks them down by male/female. Nothing is done to account for job similarities, companies they work for, etc. I'm not saying women do get equal pay for equal work because I don't personally know, but I'd like to see a study that actually proves it.
First of all a small business isn't going to have that many employees doing the same job. Secondly if two employees are doing the same work, they should get the same pay. That's equity. So it isn't a small business killer. If a small business is in favor of paying one employee less for doing the same job as another employee then I'm all in favor of killing that small business.
Define small business in your mind. My company is small and there is another person here who has the same job as me. We do not get equal pay. So you believe in equity in pay regardless of performance. I'm just baffled. I'm not sure I've ever heard someone outside of union members and advocates take this position. Being better at your job than your peers means you either need to find another company to work for or you should just jake it since you can't get rewarded for excellence.
Our pay isn't the same where I work. What if some employees are better than others? No 2 people are likely to be exact equals.
If one person is better at their job they should get a promotion, or other pay incentives for something like sales. If one person who is better is doing more work, then they aren't doing the same work and the pay shouldn't be the same. If two people do the same work, they should get the same pay.
Doesn't matter. If one employee is better than the other he needs to go to a new company that pays it's employees in that position a little better. He needs to keep doing this until he finds a company where he is equally proficient (or less) than his peers. All pay should be equal to all people in all positions. Companies that have deeper pockets should be the ones allowed to get a leg up by paying employees more. Companies that can't afford to pay all employees the same should not be allowed to have better than average employees!
Please show me a study that proves that employees (forget male/female for a second, let's just see male vs male) who do the exact same quality of work for the exact same number of hours at the exact same companies with the exact same tenure are getting different pay schedules. This isn't even close to being the issue in play.
Anyway, we are destroying this thread. It's meant to be a lighthearted thread, not one where we attack the idea that people should get paid for good job performance.
The issue was initially about women and men. This shows the gap for people with the same jobs and skills. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-21/equal-pay-plaintiffs-burden-of-proof This is another one. http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/05/do-men-really-earn-more-than-women.html
I didn't say that at all. I was saying that a potential drawback (at least IMO, FB would like to see it happen) to enforcing "equal pay for equal work" would be that everyone would make the same amount for the same job regardless or ability to negotiate, differing backgrounds, or the employee's worth in the open market.
From your article: This is citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while not flawed, does not say what is being claimed. The article points it out: The article then mentions another study done on a smaller scale that claims to support a 91% ratio of pay for women to men. But qualifies further with: So at worst there is a chance that women are getting paid 10% less than men in general in same industries with other variables controlled at first, but even that is not hard proof. This article is great. These don't say what you thought they said. Edit: Like the articles you cited, I don't deny that there are individual cases of pay discrimination. But there is not evidence to support the idea that it is a national, widescale problem.
It is fair to me. I'm happy with my compensation. I haven't heard one person in my office complain about being unhappy with their compensation. What is unfair, is everyone being paid equal, when not everyone is equal.
They do say what I think they do. They say that there is a 5% to 10% pay ratio difference when they have the same skills, experience etc. I'm not saying that any percentage is completely accurate. In cases where there is no difference then there is no problem. I would be happy if there wasn't a problem anywhere. I'm not someone who needs to hope there's a higher rate of pay inequality in order to make an argument.
