I can almost guarantee that the next law these California yahoos pass is for all employees to disclose what they earn (salary, bonus, commissions, benefits, and all) in a public forum to make litigation against equal pay that much easier.
There are so many factors that go into compensation, and to somehow adopt a metric based solely on gender is absolutely insane.
My fear, as a Californian, is that this will drive away a significant amount of business from the state because it will be expensive to defend why a certain job titles get paid less.
This is stupid. You have to pay the same with an exception for Seniority, Merit and Productivity. Smart employers will make every difference based on the exceptions.
Most companies will probably have to eliminate merit pay differentials and establish civil service type systems based on seniority alone. Small companies which need to compensate based on merit and productivity could see the biggest impact.
This is interesting considering studies show that when women and men with the same degree work for the same company at the same job, the women usually earn 10% more then the men.
The gender pay gap is because women choose lower paying careers. The top ten highest paying degrees in the US have 90% male enrollment, while the bottom paying 10 degrees have an 87% female enrollment. This bill will not help the gender gap, it will only make it worse. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-yearly-reminder-that-the-gender-wage-gap-is-due-to-choice-not-discrimination/article/2563010
Women choose lower paying careers? All women? No. Many women want the opportunity. Actually getting it is another matter altogether. But you probably wouldn’t understand the nuances of that.
I wonder if some of the differences are attributable to tenure with a company. Often times someone working their way “up the ranks” would be paid less than someone coming in off the street.
I worked for a company years ago that did occasional (triennial) “market adjustments” and made that a 3rd level for increase. (i.e., COLA, Merit, Market). Never seen or heard of that anywhere else.
This sentence from the article, “…the measure requiring employers to pay men and women the same for “substantially similar” work, with exceptions for seniority, merit and productivity.”, pretty much invalidates all of the objections in the comments.
This is a prime example of what happens when people/businesses fail to do the right thing or when there are no unions to represent the workers.
I can almost guarantee that the next law these California yahoos pass is for all employees to disclose what they earn (salary, bonus, commissions, benefits, and all) in a public forum to make litigation against equal pay that much easier.
There are so many factors that go into compensation, and to somehow adopt a metric based solely on gender is absolutely insane.
This bill is a trial attorney’s dream.
My fear, as a Californian, is that this will drive away a significant amount of business from the state because it will be expensive to defend why a certain job titles get paid less.
This is stupid. You have to pay the same with an exception for Seniority, Merit and Productivity. Smart employers will make every difference based on the exceptions.
Most companies will probably have to eliminate merit pay differentials and establish civil service type systems based on seniority alone. Small companies which need to compensate based on merit and productivity could see the biggest impact.
This is interesting considering studies show that when women and men with the same degree work for the same company at the same job, the women usually earn 10% more then the men.
The gender pay gap is because women choose lower paying careers. The top ten highest paying degrees in the US have 90% male enrollment, while the bottom paying 10 degrees have an 87% female enrollment. This bill will not help the gender gap, it will only make it worse.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-yearly-reminder-that-the-gender-wage-gap-is-due-to-choice-not-discrimination/article/2563010
Women choose lower paying careers? All women? No. Many women want the opportunity. Actually getting it is another matter altogether. But you probably wouldn’t understand the nuances of that.
I wonder if some of the differences are attributable to tenure with a company. Often times someone working their way “up the ranks” would be paid less than someone coming in off the street.
I worked for a company years ago that did occasional (triennial) “market adjustments” and made that a 3rd level for increase. (i.e., COLA, Merit, Market). Never seen or heard of that anywhere else.
This sentence from the article, “…the measure requiring employers to pay men and women the same for “substantially similar” work, with exceptions for seniority, merit and productivity.”, pretty much invalidates all of the objections in the comments.
This is a prime example of what happens when people/businesses fail to do the right thing or when there are no unions to represent the workers.