Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

How much do you want to bet that "For gender equality" is just an excuse to cut salaries?

Yes, sometimes that means some men will lose access to benefits they would have gotten based on their gender.

Or you know... basic benefits available to any employee...

But then again if you are a talented hardworking ambitious charming woman with actual job experience you are also disadvantaged greatly by this policy...

they could be offering a fair one from the start instead of lowballing you and expecting you to argue your way up to a fair place.

That tends not to happen to my knowledge. They list the pay from the start when you get the job. Only executive jobs might have wage negotiation from default.

---

Well as long as it is "Before" being hired. Which honestly I've rarely heard of. Shouldn't they see you in action first?

[BFEL]

BFEL has never been worried about GLOBAL WARMING because we have enough crap in place that even if we turned the Earth into a fucking popsicle we would be able to survive it. Yeah, if might be a problem and its probably gonna make us uncomfortable down the line, but its not gonna make us go extinct. That's just fantasy bullshit.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[scrdest]

Reddit's CEO is cutting salaries for gender equality.

Because that makes sense or something.

How did you get that out of the content of that article? No existing salaries are getting lowered, new hires are losing the ability to negotiate for a better salary/benefits before being hired. This is because this practice is shown to either cause or enable a significant amount of gender discrimination. And the lack of negotiation does not mean the salaries will necessarily be lower - they could be offering a fair one from the start instead of lowballing you and expecting you to argue your way up to a fair place.

Preventing discrimination from happening in the future makes sense to me. Yes, sometimes that means some men will lose access to benefits they would have gotten based on their gender.

Could be offering means they most likely won't. They'll give you the minimum they think you'll accept - if they care about the employee being you, specifically - and tell you to take it or leave it. All it's gonna accomplish is select for people of either gender who take what they're given and sit quietly instead of people of either gender who are looking to strike a mutually satisfactory deal.

This is not a progressive policy, that's a Gilded Era policy in futuristic clothing.

E: pretty much ninja'd, it seems.

[Bohandas]

How much do you want to bet that "For gender equality" is just an excuse to cut salaries?

How else are they going to achieve gender equality? Is there really anyone out there who believes that any corporation would in a million years ever raise salaries to achieve gender equality?

EDIT:
As for banning salary negotiations, I'm all for it. People should be rewarded for being good at their jobs, not for being the most effective sycophant.

EDIT:
Regarding Global Warming, where would the new coastline be if the ice-caps melted. It seems to me that there's potentially a lot of money to be made by buying up property (ie. real estate) in that region now (and then waitingnfor it to become oceanfront property)

[scrdest]

As for banning salary negotiations, I'm all for it. People should be rewarded for being good at their jobs, not for being the most effective sycophant.

It's not sycophantism. As the name indicates, salary negotiations are negotiations. Both sides figure out what they want, how much they can concede to still get what they want then try to find a point where both sides' goals are satisfactorily met or one of the parties decides it's not gonna happen and walks away.

Besides, for a not-insignificant portion of jobs, negotiation *is* being good at the job.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Neonivek]

How else are they going to achieve gender equality? Is there really anyone out there who believes that any corporation would in a million years ever raise salaries to achieve gender equality?

You know... I'd think that the goal of gender equality is to let everyone flourish together. Not keep anyone from shining.

I mean sure, having static wages with raises existing purely for years you are on board would cut out gender inequality on the lowest levels. (actually it wouldn't, but that is another MUCH more complicated story)

negotiation *is* being good at the job.

That is true, and it is one of the major difference between being a worker and being a wage slave.

[Orange Wizard]

f they weren't willing to give people more then they wouldn't have had negotiations in the first place. If the base is $50,000 and half of people negotiated up to $54,000 a year, offering everyone $52,000 does not cost them anything and gives them this free publicity.

You know that's not going to happen. They'll just offer the flat 50k because it costs them less.

Also, how in the sod is salary negotiation, of all the things, discriminatory?

[Neonivek]

Salary Negotiation becomes discriminatory because the person hiring you will tend to be male (as in this assumes you are male)

If you are males you tend to be schmoozed by males... and you find women negotiating for higher wages to be icky.

You also tend to favor very attractive women and ill favor average to unattractive women.

---

HERE IS AN IDEA!!! why not have blind wage negotiations?

[Bohandas]

How else are they going to achieve gender equality? Is there really anyone out there who believes that any corporation would in a million years ever raise salaries to achieve gender equality?

You know... I'd think that the goal of gender equality is to let everyone flourish together. Not keep anyone from shining.

I mean sure, having static wages with raises existing purely for years you are on board would cut out gender inequality on the lowest levels. (actually it wouldn't, but that is another MUCH more complicated story)

It wouldn't have to be static, it could be based on quantifiable/objectively measurable performance objectives

f they weren't willing to give people more then they wouldn't have had negotiations in the first place. If the base is $50,000 and half of people negotiated up to $54,000 a year, offering everyone $52,000 does not cost them anything and gives them this free publicity.

You know that's not going to happen. They'll just offer the flat 50k because it costs them less.

Also, how in the sod is salary negotiation, of all the things, discriminatory?

It discriminates against people who are bad at negotiating. Which is fine for car salesmen, lawyers, and diplomats; but unacceptable for any job that does not intrinsically involve negotiation.

[Neonivek]

Second reason why Wage negotiation is "discriminatory" except it isn't

Women don't like to negotiate wages as much as men do... and unless their wages are explicitly stated to be negotiable (as in if it is left ambitious) they will avoid it like the plague.

While men will negotiate their wages either way.

Note: I say "except it isn't" mostly because. I can't see why your unwillingness to be your own advocate, means your being discriminated against... even in environments that don't punish you for it.

[TheDarkStar]

Also, how in the sod is salary negotiation, of all the things, discriminatory?

Males tend to negotiate for higher wages iirc.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Neonivek]

That is an additional problem to deal with, not a reason to keep discrimination happening.

Well then lets just flip the perspective

"Reddit prevents women from negotiating wages in order to ensure gender equality"