lets talk equal pay

[franky1]

i have seen how some of the debates has been sparked before.
how 2 employees doing the same role. but one is paid more and the only difference noted is their gender.
this has sparked of conversations about the 'salary negociations at interviews get better results with male due to their better skill at negociating"

other debates are about how women dont push their managers for promotions/payrises as much as males.

other debates are about how some males are default put into higher level roles leaving woman at the bottom of the ladder. EG women are hired as secretaries where as men are recruited as administrators. thus default putting men ahead of the promotion game right from the start.

and other debates are about how woman in lower level roles demand high level pay even though they dont even have the skills to even attempted to do the higher level roles, yet they still want the equal pay as if they do the job.

i believe businesses should adopt a 20level scheme. gender neutral
which is based on 5 groups of 4 levels each
worker grader 1,2,3,4
superviser grade 1,2,3,4
manager grade 1,2,3,4
regional manager grade 1,2,3,4
corporate grade 1,2,3,4

where it then defines clear structure, clear promotion ladder grading

and the separetly where any 'benefits' are put into a 'pension pot' where after say 1 year of employment they can if they choose withdraw 6month per 2 year for any paternal/maternal break.

that way woman dont gain anything men cant have access too. where its not extra benefit. but instead same benefit but by taking it your just deducting away what you can get at pension age.

as for the grading
base it on skill/experience.
someone with no qualifications/experience. level one
if a job requires some experience,knowledge/qualification. then the pay should reflect the need. meaning no one doing a role that requires college grade/experience should be level one and instead graded on the level of experience qualification or job requirement of 234

this way it stops any debate about a fresh faced young inexperienced employee thinking they are entitled to the same pay as a a career worker that has already had the skills/experience for atleast a year

..
what do you people think are other best practices to ensure equal pay based on skill/level. where both men and women get equal benefits

[1714659139]

1714659139

[1714659139]

1714659139

[ammodotcom]

>the only difference noted is their gender
Who is noting these differences, do they have any incentive to omit some differences, and are all differences accounted for?

>women are hired as secretaries where as men are recruited as administrators
Are women applying for secretary postions in greater numbers than men?

>what do you people think are other best practices to ensure equal pay based on skill/level
Let the free market decide people's wages and only then can you expect the fairest outcome. Not a perfect outcome – the fairest outcome. Force companies to pay their employees according to a schematic designed by bureaucrats who have no idea what they're doing nor an incentive to do it well and you'll get what you deserve.

[Gyfts]

What your describing seems overly complicated, if I even understand it. Companies as a general rule will pay you for your performance so there's no need for a formal grading system. That sounds like another HR headache that doesn't need to be had.

Pay any new employee a starting wage, as companies already do, and negotiate salary by citing your own work within the company. This works whether you're a woman or not. Don't expect companies to pay you what you're worth, they will pay you the least you're willing to accept.

[suchmoon]

i believe businesses should adopt a 20level scheme

Sounds horrible. Many moons ago I had a job where I couldn't get a pay raise because due to some idiotic internal rules they would need to promote me to a "manager" position in order to pay more and there were no open "manager" positions.

Fuck that shit. Pay people for the job they do, not the position they're in.

[franky1]

Sounds horrible. Many moons ago I had a job where I couldn't get a pay raise because due to some idiotic internal rules they would need to promote me to a "manager" position in order to pay more and there were no open "manager" positions.

i know that feeling. hense i didnt mention a 4 point promotion but a 20 point promotion
so that it adds the wiggle room where normal 4 level promotion involves title upgrade which can only happen if position/title is open
..
as for the 'just pay for performance' this is hard in of itself to measure
someone on a salary that works efficiently but gets the job done in 40 hours. vs a inefficient worker that takes more time to finish the work. working longer hours to get the job done.

in many cases even if the same job tasks are complete.. the inefficient worker will complain that they put more effort in by working more hours and demand more pay for their time,, quoting the other worker leaves early and clocks off at 5pm while others are still working till 6pm

other examples are the efficient person gets mondays workload done by 4pm. and starts on tuesdays workload and leaves at 6pm along with the rest. then tuesday morning continues. and gets tuesdays workload done by 2pm. and then just sits bad and takes a nap. obviously hours ahead, but seen as lazy, bad time management. even when reality is they are ahead of the inefficient workers

thus when it comes to pay review.. the inefficient staff snitches on their co worker and so the efficient worker is seen as the bad employee that spends afternoons taking naps

..
solution to this is a basic pay (20 level structure) and ontop a performance pay where  workload is monitised
as a bonus

[franky1]

Don't expect companies to pay you what you're worth, they will pay you the least you're willing to accept.

some employees have actually used this as there premiss for getting less than others. as noted in my first post about 'men are better negotiators' excuse