Court Rules Employers Cannot Use Salary History to Justify Gender Wage Gap

By | April 11, 2018

  • April 11, 2018 at 2:29 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 4

    At least we can still use salary history to determine pay when there is no gender to compare too within the company.

  • April 11, 2018 at 3:15 pm
    brian says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    real touchy subject – pay scale should be gender neutral as long as either gender can do all the same tasks equally. and prior salary shouldn’t matter.

  • April 11, 2018 at 3:23 pm
    Counterpoint says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Prior salary is a great tool in figuring out at what price you can snag top talent but it’s not a great way to value their actual contribution to the company. As long as everyone is held to the same standard that you can’t use prior salary information this seems like a great way to narrow that gap.

    Maybe one day when the gap is greatly reduced or gone altogether this tool can be brought back.

    • April 12, 2018 at 7:14 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 5

      Prior salary isn’t a predictor of future contributions?! So, by your presumption/ assertion, experience rating isn’t an appropriate way to help determine prices of insurance products? Henry Ford might agree with you because, prior to his novel auto assembly method, virtually no worker ever built an entire car, or assembled one or two parts of a car on an assembly line. Ray Kroc might also agree with you in regard to entry level positions in his company.

      Hint: salary of an experienced worker is a measure of current & near-term future contributions to the company. Hourly wages for inexperienced workers are set low until the worker develops experience to gauge his/ her potential future contributions. In either case, equal contribution expectations require equal pay.

      • April 12, 2018 at 12:40 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 2

        No, it’s not., there are too many other variables that come into play, eg, the size of previous company, their level of technology, their efficiency, where it was located, how efficient they were, etc.

        You show once again you don’t know the basics about insurance. You are an incompetent agent, or your aren’t in the industry. Rating can include the rates, exposures, loss history, mods, etc. Giving you the undeserved benefit of the doubt you may have meant experience rating but that does not hold up either. Experience rating takes into account recent history of only that insured, it isn’t comparing a company with all of these factors suddenly changed, and if it did experience rating wouldn’t be great.

        Your salary/hourly statement misses the point entirely. A new company cannot gauge the value of an individual employee to them, and their past salary is almost 100% irrelevant to this. If they were actually operating like your claim every new employee would have to start hourly and then move to salaried when the company had measured their value. That does not happen. A person’s talents may have been less valuable at one company because the company was bad but they don’t get a 2x salary bump moving into a position at a new company. Of course none of this has ever been on Fox, so it’s fiction to you.

        • April 17, 2018 at 11:59 am
          DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Your opinion is a source of mirth for those who know me and read it.

  • April 11, 2018 at 7:32 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 5

    Can you hire a less talented woman over a more talented man for the same money? Why golly, yes you can! And you should! Especially if you have “too many” men in the position right now. Diversity Uber Alles! (You should never make gender distinctions unless they are the correctly approved PC kind.)

    Women who played high school basketball should demand Kobe Bryant rookie money from the Lakers and sue when they don’t get it. After all, they had exactly the same experience at the time.

    The logical insanity of having politicians and judges run businesses . . .

  • April 12, 2018 at 12:44 pm
    UW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 4

    “Women who played high school basketball should demand Kobe Bryant rookie money from the Lakers and sue when they don’t get it. After all, they had exactly the same experience at the time.

    The logical insanity of having politicians and judges run businesses ”

    Moronic analysis. The gender pay gap is not people in different industries with different skills and experience demanding the same pay.

    The logical insanity of taking every opinion, no matter how stupid the history of time claimant seriously.

    The insurance industry is ao backwards and filled with so many uninformed, unintelligent people it is embarrassing. People look down on the industry because they know everybody they deal with tends to be a joke.

    • April 16, 2018 at 9:02 am
      ??? says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 2

      I’m sure it was Craig and Polar down voting you. It’s outrageous to think that these people could be your peers. Hopefully, they’re always your competition.

      It’s mind-boggling how outrageous and close minded people can be.

      • April 17, 2018 at 12:01 pm
        DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Three down votes must mean someone else voted down. Perhaps it was Sean Hanity or Rush Limbough?

        • April 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm
          confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          agent or bob makes 3

    • April 16, 2018 at 5:09 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      A woman playing high school basketball is the same as a man playing high school basketball, except for the gender.

      Kobe was signed out of high school. And so, women with the same experience as Kobe should demand the same compensation. Same Industry. Same experience.

      Get it yet? Now explain why the judge in this case would tell the women they are wrong.

      Oh wait. Are you actually admitting 2 people with the same experience might have different skill sets? You are? Well golly, Gomer, that’s what rational people have always believed. Until now, I mean.

  • April 16, 2018 at 9:44 am
    mr opinion says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Forget the politics of the gender wage gap for one second. They were sued for discrimination: “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” Their stated policy was to offer a fixed % above past salary to everyone regardless of gender. That’s not discrimination by any stretch of the definition. If her past salary that the increase was based on was too low, isn’t it the past employer who discriminated? What the court is saying is that if you can prove the result is true, the cause is assumed. If she’s making less money, you are discriminating even if gender had nothing to do with the salary offered. That’s post hoc ergo propter hoc (“Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”), which is a logical fallacy that has no business being in intelligent discussion, let alone the basis of a court ruling. I’m all for rooting out discrimination and punishing those responsible but for god’s sake will someone do it with some common sense.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*