
Eliminate the Gender Pay Gap by Banning Salary Negotiations - JrobertsHstaff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/21/the-best-way-to-way-to-eliminate-the-gender-pay-gap-ban-salary-negotiations/
======
Rainymood
When I read stuff like this

>EU pushes 40% quota for women on boards [1]

My jaw just like ... drops. Just image the OUTRAGE that would be caused if the
headline was this

>EU pushes 50% quota for women in coal mines

I am all for equality, but just handing everything to women on a silver
platter, and making rash decisions because they are a different gender is just
stupid policy making imo.

>"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
(Goodhart's Law) [2]

[1]
[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65f494e6-f5e7-11e1-a6c2-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65f494e6-f5e7-11e1-a6c2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ay6fJsEv)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)

~~~
mattmanser
We're way, way, way past that. I used to think like you, until I started
realizing just how institutionally misogynistic corporations and business is.
At how low the numbers are. Corporations have had decades to reform and yet
the number of women on boards or CEOs or leadership positions is still
ridiculously low. The glass ceilings still exists. Generations have passed and
the problem hasn't corrected itself.

There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as
men. It's nowhere near 50%.

So, the only solution is positive discrimination.

Your jaw may drop, but the companies of the world had their chance and all
they've demonstrated is that the present system is quite obviously, without
argument and without anything at all you can say to counter it, complete and
utter misogynistic. What other conclusion can you draw? Occam's razor suggests
the system is to blame. It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the
male/female employment percentages, but they don't, they're still heavily
skewed towards men.

So either you choose the "qualified" candidates, who are "qualified" by an
obviously misogynistic system. Or you positively discriminate.

Does your jaw still drop? Or do you understand why it is necessary now?

~~~
chlodwig
_There is no reason the number shouldn 't be near 50%...What other conclusion
can you draw?_

No reason? No other possible conclusion? You should argue the opposite
position and try to pass an ideological turing test
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test)

Here are some sources to get you started on your research:
[http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-
gend...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-
in-the-workplace) [http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-
ebo...](http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-
ebook/dp/B00NDDDI4G/)

~~~
mattmanser
Nope, no other reason.

As I said, there's been decades, the process and culture so is obviously
skewed in favour of men.

Pretend otherwise all you like. One day you'll realise that deep down you
honestly thought men were better than women at business. Which is utter
bollocks, it's simply corporate culture is heavily biased and needs a good
kick up the ass.

That Scott Adams post is stupid by the way, he even starts talking about the
gender bias at the end but frames it as 'societal'. If a woman takes a break
from her career to have a kid and then cccomes back 2 years later, why has her
career stalled? Societal norms, says Scott Adams, not gender bias at all!

Do you get it yet? The whole of business is set up to favour men. Until the
'societal norms' _change_ to be fairer to women so they can actually have a
chance to become leaders and senior management while still being allowed to
have a family, it won't be a fair society.

We're seeing it happen in the UK parliament now women only short lists have
vastly I creased the women MPs, the working life of an MP is changing to
become women friendly because it's been forced on them.

The same thing _has_ to happen in business.

------
striking
But doesn't the gender pay gap come from choosing lower-paying jobs rather
than explicit discrimination? The first one makes more sense to me, not just
because there's a US government case study on it, but because if it were an
act of discrimination, every boss would have to be in on it a la Nash
Equilibrium. Otherwise women would be the only hires, economically, because
they'd be the cheapest source of labor.

~~~
lkbm
> But doesn't the gender pay gap come from choosing lower-paying jobs

Not entirely:
[http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm)

> rather than explicit discrimination?

Why does it need to be explicit? Most discrimination is due to unconscious
biases, both in our responsive to negotiation tactics from men v. women, and
in our initial "gut feeling" about how valuable an employee someone will be.
Humans aren't rational logic machines, as much as we like to pretend we are.

> if it were an act of discrimination, every boss would have to be in on it a
> la Nash Equilibrium.

Prima facie, this seems like it should be true, but there's also a positive
correlation between height and income. The Nash Equilibrium hasn't solved
this. Why? Even if you have no answer, denying the fact because you can't
explain it isn't a great option.

The usual explanation, which seems bared out by the data, is that subtle,
unconscious bias (not explicit, conscious bias) is pervasive enough that in an
imperfect market with transaction costs. If someone could choose to be immune
to this bias, and thus be 100% non-discriminatory, that would be an advantage,
but it's not as simple as just choosing not to be biased, nor is it simple to
then demonstrate that fact to the entire labor market.

~~~
Tycho
Does the height bias extend to entry level jobs and not just managerial
positions?

------
Hermel
Maddox on how every company can instantly save 23% on wages:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM)

~~~
forthefuture
I would have gone with "Real Wage Gap = 5-7%", but it's a good video
nonetheless.

------
Almaviva
"The traits that both men and women associate with good negotiators are tied
up with ideas of masculinity — such as rationality, assertiveness and self-
assurance"

Maybe those qualities are also helpful in a job itself, if not in general?
Particularly in a senior position of leadership?

I don't think you can have both a standard that's different for what skills a
woman should need learn to succeed, and at the same time have equality. This
seems self-evident.

~~~
beberlei
The gender pay gap exists between males and females performing exactly the
same job.

That senior positions earn more than junior ones, management more than others
is obvious.

~~~
Almaviva
How are they performing exactly the same job if males are systematically more
assertive, self-assured, and rational?

------
return0
I don't understand why the media focuses on her as a promoter of equality. She
has proven herself biased and overly militant which gives credence to those
who say the loudest feminists don't really care about women.

------
_random_
Appointing her as a CEO was such a great idea. Reddit thrives on censorship
and social justice.

------
steven2012
This is a terrible idea and only persists the "lowest common denominator"
policies of people who want to hold back better people through laws.

Instead why not have "job agents" that negotiate on your behalf?

------
nateabele
Because plans like this have worked out so well in the past. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-
sponsored_coverage)

------
hackerboos
There are things you can do to help harmonise pay between men and women.
Giving men equal paternity leave to women for example.

I'm not a big believer in quotas as I think it can cause companies to choose
people of a lesser skill set just because of their sex. That's not to say
there aren't competent female engineers, managers etc. there are, it's just
that, there's not enough of them and we need to be taking steps to encourage
women into these industries.

~~~
kuschku
In Germany, men can take equal paternity leave as women. And it is used
sometimes, actually.

And these quotas just say that "30% of each gender should be in corporate
boards" or that "negotiating a custom pay should be illegal" – the negotiation
part also discriminates against people who aren’t good at negotiations,
therefore provides a different pay for people based on a totally unimportant
metric.

~~~
mafribe

         men can take equal paternity leave as women. And it is used sometimes, actually.
    

But that is missing the point. Paternity leave should be split in half, so
commercial risk of pregnacy falls on both sexes in the same way.

------
learnstats2
This is the right goal but the wrong way of doing it.

Key section of this article:

"A ban on negotiations leaves a lot of power in the hands of employers, who
may not be making equal salary offers to men and women in the first place. The
solution is transparency."

~~~
geebee
I hope transparency gains traction. Salaries for University of California
workers are all public and searchable in a database, and the sky hasn't
fallen. Same for many state workers.

In general, I'd say before anything else, try transparency. Make sure that
nobody has an informational advantage over anyone else.

One problem with this is that it can put a company at a disadvantage to
competitors if they're the only ones making salaries public. For instance, a
private university can figure out exactly what Berkeley is paying a promising
researcher, but Berkeley can't get equivalent info from a private university
(in spite of massive federal subsidies and tax break for private
universities).

I liked the bit about the startup posting salaries, but if you're the _only_
one doing this, it might put you at a disadvantage. Some kind of legislation
might be good here.

~~~
learnstats2
Transparency has disadvantages, but it creates company loyalty because
employees know that the company is treating them fairly (and the poaching
company implicitly isn't).

Early results (see article) suggest that transparency is better, even with the
disadvantages you describe.

------
breischl
This seems almost comically narrow minded. Like it or not, negotiation is
unavoidable. It's how two actors come to an agreement.

Even if negotiation is banned for determining salaries, there are other
negotiations to be done: how much vacation you get and when you can take, when
you can work remotely (if at all), who gets which projects and which roles in
them, who gets the better desk, who gets to go to the conference. Plus you
have to negotiate with other companies about contracts, joint ventures,
prices, schedules, and so forth. And the rest of life is a negotiation too,
for the price of a car, rent, the price for the house, the cost of house
repairs, where to go on vacation, and on and on right down to where are we
going to lunch and who's picking up the tab.

This is well-intentioned but the solution is not in the realm of possibility,
like trying to solve broken bones by banning gravity. Everyone _will_ have to
negotiate about many things, no matter what the law says. You can either learn
to do it to the best of your ability, or pretend it doesn't exist and thus
just suck as it.

------
nemik
I find this policy incredibly sexist and am very surprised it came from a
woman. If the cause of this was women's supposed inferiority at negotiating,
does Reddit prevent women from having sales roles where good negotiation on
behalf of the company is important? How about as attorneys expected to
negotiate for the company, are women excluded from those jobs?

~~~
dragonwriter
I don't think negotiating ability is the issue, I think that the idea is that
women are empirically less inclined to salary negotiation, for whatever
reason. Since salary negotiation inclination (or ability, though I don't think
that's the underlying reason here) isn't the job, isolating it from pay is a
way to pay fairly (not just pay women fairly either, while on average there
may be a gender difference here, there are also individual difference within
the same gender on this axis).

------
Coding_Cat
Yeah, it's a great plan.. If you're a CEO. This would not lead to women being
paid more, but everyone being paid less and having less negotiation-power when
looking for another job or promotion.

~~~
mrdrozdov
It depends on the company. Many have a budget that says to pay their employees
X dollars in aggregate. Assuming that everyone has the same position, then
with negotiations certain people would get a little more and others a little
less, but the company still spends about X dollars. With no negotiating,
everyone gets the same piece of the pie, but the company is still dishing what
they were before. The company might actually be able to spend more (I'm being
crazy optimistic here) because it's much more predictable what any individual
would cost.

------
golemotron
Maybe if you are Google you have enough inertia that you can afford to bypass
talent than wants more than you are willing to offer. Others will just lose in
competition for skilled workers.

People will go where they can negotiate a better deal. The market will make
this strategy self-limiting.

------
Friedduck
The idea that you can institute a policy that will account for all of the
variables that underly someone's performance is absurd. I recently left a
company that started monkeying with policies like this (they they would make
exceptions for, for favored employees.)

Develop an environment where your team can thrive. Provide opportunities for
growth. Train those that show an aptitude. Listen to people. Pay attention to
the values that you espouse and the resulting culture, and make adjustments
where they're at odds with your goals.

Putting a policy in place where everyone is at a lowest common denominator is
one of the quickest ways I can think of to destroy initiative in a company.

~~~
snvzz
No Child Left Behind: The after-"education" edition.

------
golemotron
Am I reading this correctly? It says that we need to ban salary bargaining
because women are unalterably worse at negotiation.

This means that companies are justified in not hiring women to do negotiation
- sales, purchasing and acquisitions.

Social justice is eating itself.

------
tetrep
This seems like it would leave a company with two options:

1\. Losing employees who are better than others (i.e. deserve and want a
larger salary) at the same job

2\. Create a new role for every minute difference in skill level to allow
better employees to earn more than their peers.

Neither of those seems to be too terribly good. I think making all salaries
public-by-default and using that as a basis for negotiation would be far
better for equal pay as everyone would know what they were capable of earning
by looking at what their peers are payed.

IMO banning salary negotiations is just a move to save money; we can't pay you
more because we don't discriminate against women.

~~~
mrdrozdov
I'm not too sure. In my experience, salary negotiations will earn you a few
percentage points at most. It does make it easier for a potential employee to
decide between two companies (this is what the other company offered, can you
match it?), but it's a relatively small number compared to difference in
promotion level and team. If we're talking about software engineering, these
positions tend to have 5 or so levels plus different teams. Salary is tied to
team and level. I don't think what Ellen is doing will directly make a huge
impact on the gender gap because the problem in software engineering is more
about underrepresentation of women. Perhaps what it will do is prevent a
problem where all or most of the men in the same position were being just a
wee bit more than the women at Reddit, which seems like a believable
situation.

------
golemotron
I think we should all be alarmed that people are developing policies that
purposely handicap one class of people in order to create better outcomes for
others.

------
dpweb
"Many people in the equal-pay debate argue that inferior negotiating skills
are at the root of the gender pay gap."

Has not been my experience in pay matters and how is this different than the
idea that women are not well suited to programming or math? Women are poor
negotiators?

~~~
forgottenpass
_how is this different than the idea that women are not well suited to
programming or math?_

In this case, the sexism is benevolent. (On the surface at least. Do you think
such a salary policy will serve to increase or decrease their overall labor
costs?)

~~~
jasonlotito
Increase in the long run, of course.

------
mrdrozdov
Why is this topic being surfaced now by the Washington Post? Ellen made this
decision over a month ago.

~~~
return0
Gender equality is classic good clickbait.

------
benihana
"At the bargaining table, women are in a no-win situation."

Word. Instead of teaching them techniques to help them win, let's just do the
easiest thing possible and make blanket rules so that _everybody_ is in a no-
win situation.

Equality.

~~~
jayvanguard
Re-read your sentence. If everyone has the same rules it _is_ equal. There is
no "no-win" if it is a level playing field. The company still must compete
based on salary in the broader marketplace.

~~~
mattmcknight
The lack of the ability to negotiate is a lose-lose situation for everyone,
where an initial salary bid can cause an employee who would join your company
for the right price to join another company because you initially underbid
another company.

I offer someone $125k. She gets an offer for $135k from another place. She
comes back and tells me that she likes our company better, but she likes that
salary more and will be joining them unless we match the offer.

If negotiation is forbidden, the company loses out on the person they want and
the person loses out on the company they want, just because the initial bid
was off. That's a lose-lose-win (so technically not a no-win), since the
company that made an initial higher offer gets the candidate, but the
candidate is less happy than she could have been.

The company may not have been aware of the momentary price of that skill set
in the market, or the particular demand that individual has created for her
unique set of talents. You have to realize that just saying "no" to an offer
is a form of negotiation when considered as part of the larger game.

~~~
tzs
I suspect this would lead to people finding work arounds. "I'm sorry. We
really want to hire you, but we pay $125K for application programmers, and
cannot negotiate that. We cannot match your $135k offer. I do see, though,
from your resume that you also have git experience. I think you meet our
requirements for application engineer, which has a non-negotiable salary of
$140k. Would you like to apply for that?"

~~~
siegecraft
Well then you'd have to mandate equality of who gets offered application
engineer vs application programmer, or you'd be back in the same position as
you started from..

------
Dewie3
> Such policies do come with some risk. A ban on negotiations leaves a lot of
> power in the hands of employers, who may not be making equal salary offers
> to men and women in the first place.

But the article doesn't mention how Reddit is planning to tackle that problem.
So I remain vary about whether this is just a way to empower the employers,
while getting some nice PR to boot.

> In an effort to encourage equity and trust, a growing number of companies
> reveal the salaries of all their employees, sometimes even posting them
> online.

Somehow, it seems like this way to "empower the employees" also makes them
more exposed, which is not a form of empowerment. Sure it makes them more
informed, but not being able to choose to disclose their salaries or not is
not a form of empowerment.

