Women earn less, it sickens me

[SerCay]

Where I live, women earn up to 15% less than a man would do in the same job.

 

This counts for high paid office jobs mostly.

 

I HATE THIS.

 

I recently found an amazing job which I'm very grateful for, BUT I fin it so so unfair... my brother started up in the same job years ago and he was making much more.

 

I did some research and there's some true discrimination going on.

 

So here's my question:

 

 

As a woman, with academic skills same as a men's, a woman who works fulltime, doesn't have any hold-backs and no responsibilities other than her job, WHY would I earn less?

 

My second q: is it the same where you live too?

[jen1447]

I'm pretty sure I actually make more than the men who do the same job I do. That's not to say there isn't progress to be made yet in equality.

 

I'm in the US. Where are you?

[Arabella]

Where I live, women earn up to 15% less than a man would do in the same job.

 

This counts for high paid office jobs mostly.

 

I HATE THIS.

 

I recently found an amazing job which I'm very grateful for, BUT I fin it so so unfair... my brother started up in the same job years ago and he was making much more.

 

I did some research and there's some true discrimination going on.

 

So here's my question:

 

 

As a woman, with academic skills same as a men's, a woman who works fulltime, doesn't have any hold-backs and no responsibilities other than her job, WHY would I earn less?

 

My second q: is it the same where you live too?

 

Well, the reason why many women make less than men in the same job is because:

 

a) They don't negotiate their salaries.

b) They might have taken time off to raise their kids, thus might be less experienced at the same age.

c) They are not as aggressive in their career progression and do not pursue growth opportunities.

 

I recently got a new job, and when they made the offer, I asked for more money because I knew I'm worth it. They agreed without question. I'm pretty sure I'm making more than my predecessor (who moved to another position within the company)

 

That's just my experience. I think women can and should make the same, but it won't happen until we learn to stop making apologies and start demanding what we deserve as professionals.

[Tayla]

our business has an awesome way to keep justifying the males making more then females. answer: job title. Seen them do it time an again. two ppl performing the exact same task. yet one is called :director of fabricating and the other is called. phone operator.

Business's will often find a way to lower the labor cost. Our one owner deliberately hires females cuz she knows that single moms are desperate to find any kind of job and can be easily manipulated to produce extra work.

My daughter in law has a degree and luckily she is union so they cannot base pay on gender. Say what ya may about unions but it has balanced out the proper pay for skills to pay the bills.

[Phoe]

Back when I worked elsewhere, a male coworker of mine who started on the exact same day as me, for the exact same position, who got the exact same performance score as me, somehow made 60 cents more per hour than I did.

 

Even HE said that was crap.

[anika99]

our business has an awesome way to keep justifying the males making more then females. answer: job title. Seen them do it time an again. two ppl performing the exact same task. yet one is called :director of fabricating and the other is called. phone operator.

Business's will often find a way to lower the labor cost. Our one owner deliberately hires females cuz she knows that single moms are desperate to find any kind of job and can be easily manipulated to produce extra work.

My daughter in law has a degree and luckily she is union so they cannot base pay on gender. Say what ya may about unions but it has balanced out the proper pay for skills to pay the bills.

 

 

Yep. At my company there is no gender discrimination when it comes to pay or advancement and yes we have a union.

[Arabella]

Back when I worked elsewhere, a male coworker of mine who started on the exact same day as me, for the exact same position, who got the exact same performance score as me, somehow made 60 cents more per hour than I did.

 

Even HE said that was crap.

 

Was it crap though?

 

This may not have had anything to do with gender, but rather prior salary and experience.

 

I have a team of technical folks and there are about 8 that perform the same job duties. NONE get paid the same and several were hired at the same time, but I don't know why the prior manager made these calls, since I just took over the team.

 

Conversely, I just hired someone and offered him more than 80% of my team, most of whom have been there for 10+ years. It happens to be a guy, but I would've offered the same if it was a woman with the same qualifications. The reason why I did it was because he was overqualified and I have plans for him later down the road, but I don't want him to get antsy and leave in a year because the pay wasn't good enough.

 

You never know why the manager who hired them made these decisions.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Arabella
spelling

[d0nnivain]

On an individual basis I'm sure it's true but not as a whole. Two people doing the same job get paid equally or on merit. Every time I worked in a larger organization even though I am a woman I always made as much or more than my male counterparts.

 

 

My 1st job I was the most junior but my #s were the best so I made more money then men who had up to 5 years seniority on me. I was also a better negotiator.

 

 

Did the men in the offices make more overall then the woman, yes but that was because all of the men held management jobs that required degrees & licenses while less than 10% of the women in the office rose above clerical so their pay reflected the functions they were providing

[Fugu]

Yeah, I consider myself open-minded and a supporter of women's rights, but I have personally never in my life observed overt gender-based wage discrimination. People talk about it, but I've been working for 20+ years and I've never seen it - certainly not as a general practice.

 

Do women earn less than men? That may be, but you can't just compare two salaries - even in the same position - and make a judgment based solely on salary differential. I've been paid less for doing the same job and even a greater amount of work than my predecessor who was a man, for the simple fact that I was coming out of college and it was my first management job. It seems now, as it did then, fairly reasonable, if for no other reason than the fact that I hadn't proven myself on the job. I figured the raises would come in time, which they did.

 

Another poster raised another point, which I think is also valid. At the risk of stereotyping, I think that women are less aggressive and assertive in negotiating salaries and tend to take what's offered. Granted, I can understand why women feel this way, as we still live in a society that views assertive women in a somewhat negative light, though I think that stereotype is fast fading as millennials take over. But that one step in the hiring process can literally mean getting or not getting an extra $10-20K a year - maybe more depending on the job and field. My wife, who has always earned more than me, is an assertive person and actually got an extra $5k that she asked for before taking her current job.

 

Of course, this is the American context. It's different in other parts of the world. If you're in Europe, I've heard Scandinavian countries like Norway are more progressive in this respect.

[runredlights]

It's not so much that they are paid significantly less for the same job, it's that they aren't as often in the same highly competitive and higher paying careers that men are.

 

Women usually major in the humanities and education which pays less for the most part. The lack of women in STEM careers is a reason why there is a discrepancy in pay. A mechanical engineer is gonna make way more than an early childhood education teacher. They also don't negotiate salary as much, as others have said.

[Phoe]

Was it crap though?

 

This may not have had anything to do with gender, but rather prior salary and experience.

 

I have a team of technical folks and there are about 8 that perform the same job duties. NONE get paid the same and several were hired at the same time, but I don't know why the prior manager made these calls, since I just took over the team.

 

Conversely, I just hired someone and offered him more than 80% of my team, most of whom have been there for 10+ years. It happens to be a guy, but I would've offered the same if it was a woman with the same qualifications. The reason why I did it was because he was overqualified and I have plans for him later down the road, but I don't want him to get antsy and leave in a year because the pay wasn't good enough.

 

You never know why the manager who hired them made these decisions.

 

Lol it was a minimum wage retail position folding shirts at a sporting goods store. There's literally no prior salaries or experience to be relevant to that for him to just randomly get 60 cents more.

[SerCay]

I think it's the negotiating part that I lack...

 

Hmmmm, definitely will keep this in mind with my next job.

Kinda feel stupid now though

 

Truth be told, I was so desperate for a job that I settled for the initial amount that I said myself I wanted to earn.

 

I live in Europe btw. I'm going to do some more research into this topic...

[preraph]

I've made half as much as men doing the same thing or less before. Over my lifetime, across all jobs, my pay has stayed the same. And I am not a mother who left work to have kids or any of that either. Compared with men I've known for decades, they are all making at least twice what I'm making and some much more than that over their lifetime. It's like I have a ceiling because I'm a woman. And I don't mean to scare you, but the older you get, the less anyone wants to pay you or hire you, as a woman.

[Got it]

Where I live, women earn up to 15% less than a man would do in the same job.

 

This counts for high paid office jobs mostly.

 

I HATE THIS.

 

I recently found an amazing job which I'm very grateful for, BUT I fin it so so unfair... my brother started up in the same job years ago and he was making much more.

 

I did some research and there's some true discrimination going on.

 

So here's my question:

 

 

As a woman, with academic skills same as a men's, a woman who works fulltime, doesn't have any hold-backs and no responsibilities other than her job, WHY would I earn less?

 

My second q: is it the same where you live too?

 

You shouldn't, ask for more. A lot of it comes down to negotiation and studies have shown women tend to negotiate less than men at new positions/companies. So one has to be their own best advocate and know they have to fight for what they want. And plan to leave where they are currently at go find it.

 

In the US, yes women statistically earn less than men. For my job title, no, my compensation for others at this level is on the higher end. In my company, for my position and responsibilities, I am paid a bit less. So it isn't just a comparison across industries but within the hierarchy of the company and wages within.

 

Since I know I make a very good salary I am content to finish what I want to do here but it does not garner the loyalty I would have otherwise. If one financial deal comes to fruition that I am pushing for then, yes, I will be one of the top compensated people at this company and would be a game changer.

 

My best advice, take charge and you dictate if the rules apply to you or not. But you can't allow fear or waiting for others to reward you to stand in your way. Go out after it and demand it.

[Got it]

Yeah, I consider myself open-minded and a supporter of women's rights, but I have personally never in my life observed overt gender-based wage discrimination. People talk about it, but I've been working for 20+ years and I've never seen it - certainly not as a general practice.

 

Do women earn less than men? That may be, but you can't just compare two salaries - even in the same position - and make a judgment based solely on salary differential. I've been paid less for doing the same job and even a greater amount of work than my predecessor who was a man, for the simple fact that I was coming out of college and it was my first management job. It seems now, as it did then, fairly reasonable, if for no other reason than the fact that I hadn't proven myself on the job. I figured the raises would come in time, which they did.

 

Another poster raised another point, which I think is also valid. At the risk of stereotyping, I think that women are less aggressive and assertive in negotiating salaries and tend to take what's offered. Granted, I can understand why women feel this way, as we still live in a society that views assertive women in a somewhat negative light, though I think that stereotype is fast fading as millennials take over. But that one step in the hiring process can literally mean getting or not getting an extra $10-20K a year - maybe more depending on the job and field. My wife, who has always earned more than me, is an assertive person and actually got an extra $5k that she asked for before taking her current job.

 

Of course, this is the American context. It's different in other parts of the world. If you're in Europe, I've heard Scandinavian countries like Norway are more progressive in this respect.

 

As someone that is heavily involved in compensation, etc. I will tell you yes this happens. As does the question, will she get pregnant soon? Can she work/travel as much because she has kids?, etc. that do not get asked of men.

 

You may not have been exposed to it but you may have more with you never have been in a senior enough position.

 

Gender discrimination, as well as race, weight, etc. are still very much alive and well.

[Els]

I currently live in a country that has one of the highest scores in the world for gender equality. But a pay gap has still been documented, it's just smaller than in many other countries.

 

I think in general it's a combination of genuine discrimination and the negotiation/assertiveness issue that Arabella and Fugu mentioned. In some countries (e.g. most of Asia) women really are discriminated against career-wise, and doubly so if they attempt to be assertive. This is partly due to the societal expectation of men to be the breadwinner, which is a bit of a double-edged sword.

 

In other, more progressive countries, IMO the actual discrimination is less and the negotiation component plays a bigger part.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Elswyth

[Fugu]

As someone that is heavily involved in compensation, etc. I will tell you yes this happens. As does the question, will she get pregnant soon? Can she work/travel as much because she has kids?, etc. that do not get asked of men.

 

You may not have been exposed to it but you may have more with you never have been in a senior enough position.

 

Gender discrimination, as well as race, weight, etc. are still very much alive and well.

 

I don't discount that gender discrimination exists in other ways, such as the examples you've alluded to. I think the pregnancy and motherhood issue is probably the most common and likely source of gender-based discrimination. To be completely candid, though, I think these are reasonable questions to consider. The law may look at it differently, but the time off from work, the possibility of complications and extended medical stays, the travel...these are reasonable concerns.

 

I know I'm going to p*ss some people off here, but sorry, pregnancy *is* a big deal, and it affects business. I know that well-meaning federal lawmakers have had different opinions on this matter, but I've got enough life experience to know how the ideal sometimes plays out in actuality. I've known at least two women in management positions who intended to come back from pregnancy - and decided after staying at home for 12 or so weeks that motherhood was more important. And that's fine, but let's not dance around the issue for the sake of political correctness and pretend that biology's not going to have any impact whatsoever on business.

 

None of that means that businesses should rule out newlywed late 20-something or early 30-something females on the basis that they might get pregnant. For one thing, I believe that people should be given the benefit of the doubt and, unless there's evidence to the contrary, there should be the assumption of good faith. And regardless of what I think, the law is the law. But it's okay to probe a little bit and ask a female candidate to try to open up about her future plans. And in private, over a few phone calls and maybe a 5 p.m. mug or two of draft beer, people who hire are naturally going to speculate, and they're naturally going to have concerns about the impact on their business.

 

For some people, these kinds of discussions are about the politics of gender equity. For entrepreneurs, it's a matter of recalling all of the countless hours in hard work (much of it unpaid) they've invested in their business, the missed time away from their own families, the fortunes they've gambled on their own future success, and a lot more than that.

[thefooloftheyear]

The simple answer is if you don't like the "rules" or feel you aren't being compensated for what you feel you bring to the table, then just go out on your own..That's what I did, and never once looked back...

 

And I agree with the previous poster...Until there is some biological shift, there are going to be things like motherhood(or the potential of motherhood) that will bring the stock of a typical employee down..

 

As an employer for more than a quarter of a century, if there is anything I can tell you is that employees regularly lie to employers...They promise them all sorts of things, then proceed to do whatever is in their best interests, often a totally different story from when they were hired or looking for a raise..

 

Trust me folks....If a box turtle could do a job successfully and competent here, I'd hire him/her tomorrow and give em what they want...Its as simple as that...It's rarely a personal thing..

 

Not saying this is true of the original poster, but another thing I can tell you about most employees is that they have a false sense of real world value they bring to a company...I had a guy working for me that was truly a wizard....the guy could do literally anything...But he was about as unreliable as the weather...While he was quick to mention how good he was, he failed to recognize how often he let us down..

 

.02

 

TFY

[Arabella]

I don't discount that gender discrimination exists in other ways, such as the examples you've alluded to. I think the pregnancy and motherhood issue is probably the most common and likely source of gender-based discrimination. To be completely candid, though, I think these are reasonable questions to consider. The law may look at it differently, but the time off from work, the possibility of complications and extended medical stays, the travel...these are reasonable concerns.

 

I know I'm going to p*ss some people off here, but sorry, pregnancy *is* a big deal, and it affects business. I know that well-meaning federal lawmakers have had different opinions on this matter, but I've got enough life experience to know how the ideal sometimes plays out in actuality. I've known at least two women in management positions who intended to come back from pregnancy - and decided after staying at home for 12 or so weeks that motherhood was more important. And that's fine, but let's not dance around the issue for the sake of political correctness and pretend that biology's not going to have any impact whatsoever on business.

 

None of that means that businesses should rule out newlywed late 20-something or early 30-something females on the basis that they might get pregnant. For one thing, I believe that people should be given the benefit of the doubt and, unless there's evidence to the contrary, there should be the assumption of good faith. And regardless of what I think, the law is the law. But it's okay to probe a little bit and ask a female candidate to try to open up about her future plans. And in private, over a few phone calls and maybe a 5 p.m. mug or two of draft beer, people who hire are naturally going to speculate, and they're naturally going to have concerns about the impact on their business.

 

For some people, these kinds of discussions are about the politics of gender equity. For entrepreneurs, it's a matter of recalling all of the countless hours in hard work (much of it unpaid) they've invested in their business, the missed time away from their own families, the fortunes they've gambled on their own future success, and a lot more than that.

 

And this mindset is exactly the reason why the glass ceiling exists for women. Making assumptions and asking questions without really knowing what a woman's specific situation is, just because she is a woman.

 

You knew two women in management who decided to stay home after their maternity leave ended. So what? How many women DO return to work after their maternity leave without issues? You're using anecdotal evidence as a weapon against professional women everywhere.

 

There are tons of issues that could make someone less than available. Motherhood is only one of them.

 

Do you probe middle-aged employees for health issues that might become a problem down the road? No? Okay then... Why do you feel the need to do so with women and their reproductive intent? How is it any different?

[Got it]

I don't discount that gender discrimination exists in other ways, such as the examples you've alluded to. I think the pregnancy and motherhood issue is probably the most common and likely source of gender-based discrimination. To be completely candid, though, I think these are reasonable questions to consider. The law may look at it differently, but the time off from work, the possibility of complications and extended medical stays, the travel...these are reasonable concerns.

 

I know I'm going to p*ss some people off here, but sorry, pregnancy *is* a big deal, and it affects business. I know that well-meaning federal lawmakers have had different opinions on this matter, but I've got enough life experience to know how the ideal sometimes plays out in actuality. I've known at least two women in management positions who intended to come back from pregnancy - and decided after staying at home for 12 or so weeks that motherhood was more important. And that's fine, but let's not dance around the issue for the sake of political correctness and pretend that biology's not going to have any impact whatsoever on business.

 

None of that means that businesses should rule out newlywed late 20-something or early 30-something females on the basis that they might get pregnant. For one thing, I believe that people should be given the benefit of the doubt and, unless there's evidence to the contrary, there should be the assumption of good faith. And regardless of what I think, the law is the law. But it's okay to probe a little bit and ask a female candidate to try to open up about her future plans. And in private, over a few phone calls and maybe a 5 p.m. mug or two of draft beer, people who hire are naturally going to speculate, and they're naturally going to have concerns about the impact on their business.

 

For some people, these kinds of discussions are about the politics of gender equity. For entrepreneurs, it's a matter of recalling all of the countless hours in hard work (much of it unpaid) they've invested in their business, the missed time away from their own families, the fortunes they've gambled on their own future success, and a lot more than that.

 

What is amazing is that all other industrialized countries have parental leave and do not see the doom and gloom on their numbers that US companies have espoused. US companies that have gone to a more robust parental leave, Tom Tom most recently, is saying they are seeing POSITIVE benefits both on morale and financially. When you stretch maternity/paternity leave out far longer than the piddly 12 weeks that the US gives - unpaid, you see a higher return to work, engagement, advancement, etc. than otherwise.

 

But you can't just look at the US model and assume that women just aren't returning to work. It isn't that simple.

 

In "Lean In" she discusses that "She cites more than a dozen studies that underline the obstacles women face. One of the most compelling, though 10 years old, still rings true. She calls it the Howard/Heidi study. Two professors wrote up a case study about a real-life entrepreneur named Heidi Roizen, describing how she became a successful venture capitalist by relying on her outgoing personality and huge personal and professional network. The professors had a group of students read Roizen’s story with her real name attached and another group read the story with the name changed to “Howard.” Then the students rated Howard and Heidi on their accomplishments and on how appealing they seemed as colleagues. While the students rated them equally in terms of success, they thought Howard was likeable while Heidi seemed selfish and not “the type of person you would want to hire or work for.” Sandberg’s conclusion: when a man is successful, he is well liked. When a woman does well, people like her less."

 

"One study found that women who took just one year out of the workforce sacrificed 20% of their lifetime earnings. Women who took two or three years earned 30% less. Another study found that leaving the workforce has a significant negative effect on women’s wages even twenty years after a career interruption. These statistics dramatise the grim fact that women who take a career break are penalised out of proportion to any objective deterioration of their skills."

 

So what does this say? It is determental to take any time off for child rearing. You are putting yourself at a major disadvantage just taking that year out to raise your kids, more than a year? You are permanently capping yourself. But this is what couples choose to do every year without looking at the impact on each person and the woman. And then men gripe about alimony later on.

 

Some other stats to consider when weighing on "pregnancy being expensive for business":

 

Of all the pregnancy discrimination complaints received by the EEOC, about 1 in 4 are settled in the worker's favor. The other 75% of cases are dismissed for a variety of reasons, including lack of evidence, improper jurisdiction or employers settling privately with the worker.

A 25% success rate may not sound like much, but it's high for discrimination cases. Pregnancy discrimination charges are more likely to end in the worker's favor than other discrimination charges filed with the EEOC, including complaints about race, religion, disability or age-related discrimination in the workplace

 

Changing Attitudes: Why Employers Need to End Pregnancy Discrimination | TLNT

[Got it]

So this idea that entrepreneur only see the bottom line is bunk. That is what may be stated by a few on here but I will tell you a number of the most successful ones, the ones with Fortune 500 companies have covered far more costs. How do you become an employer of choice? Understanding the big picture and knowing that your employees are balancing life and work and helping to make that easier for them. So some add in flex hours, day care, remote working, covered benefits, etc. Because they know that their ROI is there when they invest in their people.

 

So, yes, does a little mom and pop have restrictions? Sure. Does that stop them from looking out for their people? Nope.

[Fugu]

And this mindset is exactly the reason why the glass ceiling exists for women. Making assumptions and asking questions without really knowing what a woman's specific situation is, just because she is a woman.

 

I figured that's how my post would be interpreted, lol.

 

If you read it again, though, I said and fully mean that it's wrong to make those kinds of assumptions. I think a person ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think what I said was really all that controversial or unfair.

 

Those kinds of questions are going to float around in the head of someone who is faced with the choice of hiring certain types of women. It's not like I'm talking about all women - a 45-year-old woman who's already done bearing children and got a handle on family life may not be dealing with that problem. They might be dealing with age discrimination, but so too would a 22-year-old male hired straight out of a college and a 58-year-old man who's getting long in the tooth. I'm just pointing out that people have biases and questions that are rooted in rational concerns. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

You knew two women in management who decided to stay home after their maternity leave ended. So what? How many women DO return to work after their maternity leave without issues? You're using anecdotal evidence as a weapon against professional women everywhere.

 

Well it creates turnover in a management role, which is no small thing - that's what.

 

And if I've invested in hours of my precious time and money mentoring, training, and developing someone who competes for a management opportunity and then stays in that role less than a year, after I've turned down others who most certainly would have been in that role longer and provided more stability, I think that's worth remembering for future reference. I'm sorry it doesn't jibe with your feelings on the matter, but that's how I see it.

 

I actually don't really enjoy using these two women as examples in this discussion, because they're both fine people and they were good at what they did. I only brought the examples up just to point out why hiring managers think about these things. As it turned out, they worked in larger companies that were better equipped to absorb the turnover. Not all companies are in that position, though.

 

There are tons of issues that could make someone less than available. Motherhood is only one of them.

 

I agree and never meant to say otherwise. Employers also take those other issues into consideration, too.

 

You got a preexisting health condition? Employers are going to wonder about your absenteeism.

 

You're overweight? They might think you're lazy.

 

You're 23? They'll wonder if you know what the f*ck you're doing.

 

You're 63? They'll wonder when you're going to retire.

 

I'm not saying it's right, and you're right, smart companies don't just react in knee-jerk fashion and dismiss people out of hand. But those questions *are* going to come up, and they're rooted in reasonable concerns. You don't have to have a psychology degree to understand why, either.

 

Do you probe middle-aged employees for health issues that might become a problem down the road? No? Okay then... Why do you feel the need to do so with women and their reproductive intent? How is it any different?

 

I don't discriminate, but it's not discrimination to wonder what someone's future plans are. When I interviewed for a management role years ago, I was in a room full of people on a hiring committee. I was 24 and people wanted to know what my future plans were and I knew exactly where they were going with it. "Yeah, I bet this kid stays here for 6 months, polishes his resume, and goes somewhere where he can double his salary." I don't see how it's different from thinking, "Yeah, this girl just got married to a Silicon Valley employee. I bet she stays a year and then becomes a stay-at-home mom." In both cases, I would think that someone's foolish for just jumping the gun and making a judgment. As I said in the first post, people should accept that people apply to jobs in good faith unless there's evidence to the contrary. But normal people are going to have those thoughts, and I don't think they ought to be branded as Millennialphobes or paternalists for doing so.

[Fugu]

US companies that have gone to a more robust parental leave, Tom Tom most recently, is saying they are seeing POSITIVE benefits both on morale and financially. When you stretch maternity/paternity leave out far longer than the piddly 12 weeks that the US gives - unpaid, you see a higher return to work, engagement, advancement, etc. than otherwise.

 

I support maternity leave and wish it would be even longer than what it is now. I was just pointing out the fact that losing a manager, female or male, can be potentially disruptive, which is why those kinds of thoughts cross a person's mind when making hiring and promotional decisions.

 

I think anyone who just denies employment or promotions solely on the basis of what someone might do is an idiot and not worth working for. The issue of pregnancy and motherhood shouldn't even be brought up during an interview, for both professional and not to mention legal reasons. Still, people are going to think about it, and perhaps a few of those might factor that in with a host of other variables.

[SerCay]

The issue of pregnancy and motherhood shouldn't even be brought up during an interview, for both professional and not to mention legal reasons.

 

It shouldn't.... but it does.

 

Together with the job I took last week, I got another offer. From a large bank here in my country, to work with international clients. High end job.

 

I was the only woman that was hired, the other 6 were men. Of all 14 applicants, only 7 were hired, and 1 woman....can you imagine? Ok so that might be a coincedence, but the fact that during my job interviews,(I had three, with different persons, for this job), the interviewer asked me about my marital status, and whether I had kids or not.......

 

Discrimination on this matter exists and is very much alive.

 

Maybe difference in pay has to do with other circumstances, but discrimination between sexes definitely exists.

[Shining One]

The HR department at our company works very hard to ensure appropriate diversity. We had an opening for a data center engineer. HR asked us to fill the role with a woman if possible since IT is mostly men. We had an approved salary range for this position, so we started looking. While there were quite a few qualified women, none wanted the role. HR received approval to increase the pay range in an attempt to get a woman into the role. Even with the 10% increase, none of the women they reached out to were interested. In the end, we ended up hiring a man at just below the middle of the approved salary range. If we had managed to hire a woman, she would have been making quite a bit more than him.