Intel applies hobnailed boot to countries where its men and women workers aren't paid the same Intel took time out from its hardware woes to buff its inclusivity halo and announce it had reached gender "pay equity" globally. While the company has failed to deliver much in the way of 10nm chippery and has had problems stamping out the stuff it actually knows how to make, it said it has been able to achieve what few in …
for Intel to focus on hiring women, does this mean they will DISCRIMINATE *AGAINST* MEN???
This whole 'quota-based' hiring standard needs to GO AWAY anyway. If real injustices are happening, let them be settled in the courts, without ANY discrimination in hiring (either FOR or AGAINST a particular 'class' or 'identity').
If the pay scale is the same for men and women for equal job title etc. then where's the beef?
I think more women should APPLY for work from Intel. That'd actually fix things. Perhaps Intel can make something that women like happen at their company to encourage this? Otherwise, the only thing that will happen is just MORE DISCRIMINATION to "fix" alleged discrimination. To that, I say *STOP".
They identified a problem and took steps to fix it, what wrong with that? Oh I know you don't see how you benefit so your getting your knickers in a twist. People like you give the industry a bad name.
Oh and yes I'm a white man who thinks the industry should do more to attract more women and other minorities, not because it will benefit me but because it's the right thing to do. Like I said I'm a MAN not a whiney little boy crying "what about me WAAAAAAAAA!"
This whole 'quota-based' hiring standard needs to GO AWAY anyway.
If it were only hiring it might not be the problem that it is. It's promotions too. For the last 10 years or so pretty much every male working in IT for any bank has had their career sidelined to "make room" for women to be promoted. That includes where they have less experience or ability.
The whole thing is toxic and were it aimed at anyone other than predominantly straight white males, would have the left in fits of apoplexy. Apparently you can be sexits, racist and heterophobic, because its not discrimination if it adversely affects straight white men.
I've been told twice not to send any more male candidates for promotion from my teams until my ratio is "in balance", by which HR mean 50:50 across grade and gender. The only problem with that, of course, is the applicants for the job, and therefore the team members, aren't split 50:50 across gender, and they never will be (unless we force women to do a job they don't want as a way to even the numbers). The result, while I have many talented and brilliant female employees, equally talented and brilliant male employees are languishing a grade or two below them.
The article states: 'The affected employees then enjoyed an "adjustment".' Which 'affected employees' and the nature of the 'adjustment' are not specified. So maybe they did cut back on men's pay...
But I reckon that in Intel's case, increasing pay for women workers to achieve parity with men workers is such a tiny outlay compared to its other operating costs that they might as well up the rates: think how it'd look if they did it the other way and then got caught out. The main reason leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing is mind-bogglingly expensive is the equipment, the materials, the energy to run the fabs, all that sort of stuff. It's highly automated these days, too: more machines, fewer people.
The cynical side of me suspects that this is just window-dressing by clever beancounters. Still, it's a step in the right direction, even if it's not a very big one.
[quote]By this it means, "on average", equal pay for equal work in the same or similar roles after accounting for things like "tenure, performance, time at grade level" et cetera.[/quote]
Sure they are "not", things like tenure and time at grade level should not be a factor in pay. If your doing the same job and your performance is the same you should get the same pay it should not matter how long you have been there, or how long you have been doing that job. The only thing that should matter is how well you do it.
Including things like "tenure and time at grade level" is going to tend to hit women (yes some men do instead) due to them mostly being the ones you may take a break from work to raise children.
So you don't think there should be increments within a given salary band? The longer you have been on that level, the more likely it is you will have been given an increment, whether or not they are automatic. If I perform the same as a woman, and we both get the same raise, but I've been in the job longer than she, I will have obtained more raises, so will be paid more at that time.
Surely if you had the same job description, then when she started, she would have been earning the same amount you were already earning by then, aot the amount on which you started years ago when it was worth more?
I used to earn six figures after tax. If you included the pence, anyway .....
Why? Methinks maybe a point was missed. She hasn't been there as long as he, since she only just started and presumably starting at the lowest rank in the salary band (let's assume he also start at the lowest rank in that same salary band), while he's been there years.
In a truly fair system, loyalty/tenure/inflationary/whater pay rises will apply the same to both over time, so once she's been there 5/10/whatever years she should be at the same salary he reached after his 5/10/whatever years.
Or are you suggesting she should start with no time served at the same salary band he is on after time served, just because... eqaulity...?
If "she" or even a "he" as only just started and is performing the same as someone who as been in the jobs years then I see no reason why they should get paid less.
If appraisal / performance grades reflected reality rather than make believe, then pretty well anyone under 30 would get sacked every year for poor performance. Sorry, but there's no dev with 6 years experience is keeping up with on with 26 years experience.
Learning something new works much faster and better when it can be related to something you already know. They typical mid-career dev will know an awful lot more than someone with up to 6 years experience and they'll be able to see a better solution a hell of a lot faster.
"The only thing that should matter is how well you do it."
Agreed, mostly. The thing is, some other wage-related factors (like tenure) encourages people to 'not quit' and their experience sometimes has additional value to the company that's not apparent on the surface.
But ultimately, a job is something that must (in some way) make money for the company [or alternately, save money]. The total cost of the employee needs to be LESS than the amount gained, in bean-counter measurements. [this fact can also work in your favor at raise time, if you can monetize what you do]
/me points out that 'compliance' jobs save the company on the cost of fines for non-compliance, and other 'service' type jobs (which might even include I.T.) save time/money indirectly.
If your doing the same job and your performance is the same you should get the same pay it should not matter how long you have been there, or how long you have been doing that job.
Sorry, but that's rubbish.
We have 5 appraisal grades at my bank, same as every bank I've ever worked at. And we have about 4 grades of developer role. There is no way, on any day, best or worst, that a senior developer with 7 years experience is going to do the same work as a senior developer with 25 years experience.
All the youngsters are not going to be happy with low grade appraisal scores because they can't work at the same pace as the older workers because they lack the experience to do so: that difference IS going to show up in salaries. It always has done and it always will do.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
