See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
A major problem with this kind of survey is that it tends to emphasize the extremes - you get a lot of disgruntled responses, fewer from happy people. You need to survey everybody to get an accurate view.
But then there won’t be any gap, if only unhappy people participated hahaha
He didn’t say that only unhappy people would participate! He said most people that would participate would be unhappy. That is enough to skew data since it would have the wrong proportion of individuals in each category. If you want good data you need a good survey that can represent the all population, not just people that feel the need to participate for whatever reason. Better still would be a regular independent audit.
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
Human Resources is a fairly creepy term. You are just used to it.
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
Yeah, “People” is the new “HR”. It isn’t only Apple, I’ve heard of a handful of other companies that changed the name from “Human Resources” to “People” or “People Team” or something similar. I don’t know how true this is but someone said the reasoning behind it was that calling people “resources” makes them sound like a commodity.
This is the kind of thing that well-worn old-school corporations, who have something to hide, do.
Pretty sad.
Not really, if I worked at Apple and they allowed anyone to know what I was being paid I would sue. It's no one's business to know what you negotiated as your salary or the raises you got for doing a better job than someone else.
Knowing what someone else gets paid is hourly pay mentality. People who get paid by the hour always want to know no one else is getting paid more for doing the same hourly work.
Your paid of yours and only your business and no one should ever share it. Next they will want to know other things about your which is none of their business.
On what grounds would you sue? From this thread’s replies already, it seems the laws here can vary by state. Does California have law that guarantees you privacy on your salary?
What do you mean by “hourly pay mentality”? Your usage sort of sounds like a pejorative. What’s the difference between hourly and salaried that would support a difference in privacy around pay?
Exactly. All government agencies and corporations report every individual's pay (at the managerial level and above). Top management and director pay is required to be reported for every publicly traded company, so it's not all that alien the private sector either. Non-profits similarly have to report pay for their senior team and ten highest paid employees.
AFAIK, there is no basis in the law to sue for such disclosure, unlike with, say, health data.
No, if you adhere to the policy of "equal pay for equal work", men should be paid MORE than women (in general) because:
IN GENERAL: women are forced to remove themselves from the workforce to bear and raise children -- and even if they return to the workforce after bearing the kid, she is typically the one who has to take off work in order care for the kid when he gets sick (which is often). It causes two things that impact pay:
1) The child carer is a less reliable employee. How do you trust somebody with critical responsibilities if they are not reliable -- if their priorities are elsewhere?
2) The child rearer sacrifices decades of work and career growth that (typically) men don't have to deal with. While the woman is stuck home raising kids the male is out growing and furthering his career and moving up the corporate ladder.
While those things don't apply to low paid clerical and blue collar work (where a low skilled employee is not much more than a replaceable machine), they very much do apply in a professional environment -- which covers much of Apple's workforce.
Is it right for those issues to be ignored and for a company to pay the same wages regardless?
Or, perhaps society should stop ignoring the issues -- and blaming employers -- and deal with the problem of using women as unpaid slaves (essentially receiving room, board and subsistance wages) to bear, care for and raise kids.
This is the kind of thing that well-worn old-school corporations, who have something to hide, do.
Pretty sad.
Not really, if I worked at Apple and they allowed anyone to know what I was being paid I would sue. It's no one's business to know what you negotiated as your salary or the raises you got for doing a better job than someone else.
Knowing what someone else gets paid is hourly pay mentality. People who get paid by the hour always want to know no one else is getting paid more for doing the same hourly work.
Your paid of yours and only your business and no one should ever share it. Next they will want to know other things about your which is none of their business.
On what grounds would you sue? From this thread’s replies already, it seems the laws here can vary by state. Does California have law that guarantees you privacy on your salary?
What do you mean by “hourly pay mentality”? Your usage sort of sounds like a pejorative. What’s the difference between hourly and salaried that would support a difference in privacy around pay?
There is no difference around privacy in pay if you are salaried or hourly. My point which you missed, if you every got paid for hours worked those groups of people make pay a huge deal they always want to know everyone is being paid the same if not the same it has to be explained beyond the person has more experience since mopping a floor does not require anymore experience than holding the mop. Hourly Pay Mentality does not understand you are being paid for what you know and your skill level they see everyone the same.
What I find interesting is the current professional work forces has this mentality of needing to know what everyone else is being paid. I first saw this back in the late 90's and specifically with software programmers. People coming right out of school through they should be paid as much as someone who had 10+ years of experience they even said we are all writing code so we all should get paid the same, they saw no skill or knowledge difference. We actually had a group of people who got in a conference room and shared their salaries and were pissed when they saw the range of pays. They went to their management and demanded they all get paid the same. I was in the meeting when this came out. My answer then was tell the highest paid person with all the experience theirs and everyone else's pay will be cut to the lowest person's pay since they only write code or we should fire them all for sharing company confidential information. This create a whole mess since these individuals did not understand Salaries are negotiated and some times companies pay lots more for someone's skills and knowledge.
Yes each state has their own set of laws around pay and privacy, I was just making a point this information should not be shared. However, if you look at CO they now required any new job posting in the state to list the salary/wage for the job and the company is not allow to ask you your pay history. Because of the current work from home situation some companies who are posting jobs they are specifically stating no one from CO is eligible to apply for the job since the company would have to comply with CO new law on wage disclosure even if the company does not have location in CO. Do you think CO residents will benefit or see their salaries fatten out.
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
Yeah, “People” is the new “HR”. It isn’t only Apple, I’ve heard of a handful of other companies that changed the name from “Human Resources” to “People” or “People Team” or something similar. I don’t know how true this is but someone said the reasoning behind it was that calling people “resources” makes them sound like a commodity.
The other new term is Human Capital. Lots of companies are now using this term to describe the organization, who's job is to protect the company from those who work for it from legal problems. Over the years HR got a bad name for various reasons so the new people coming in had to change the name to make everyone think they are doing something different. In reality it is still the same thing just with a different name. We live in a society who like to change names when they no longer like something and if they really hate it them will change the definition to mean something completely different
No, if you adhere to the policy of "equal pay for equal work", men should be paid MORE than women (in general) because:
IN GENERAL: women are forced to remove themselves from the workforce to bear and raise children -- and even if they return to the workforce after bearing the kid, she is typically the one who has to take off work in order care for the kid when he gets sick (which is often). It causes two things that impact pay:
1) The child carer is a less reliable employee. How do you trust somebody with critical responsibilities if they are not reliable -- if their priorities are elsewhere?
2) The child rearer sacrifices decades of work and career growth that (typically) men don't have to deal with. While the woman is stuck home raising kids the male is out growing and furthering his career and moving up the corporate ladder.
While those things don't apply to low paid clerical and blue collar work (where a low skilled employee is not much more than a replaceable machine), they very much do apply in a professional environment -- which covers much of Apple's workforce.
Is it right for those issues to be ignored and for a company to pay the same wages regardless?
Or, perhaps society should stop ignoring the issues -- and blaming employers -- and deal with the problem of using women as unpaid slaves (essentially receiving room, board and subsistance wages) to bear, care for and raise kids.
First, you need to define what equal work means.
As person who's wife made those trade off decision about having a family and whether to put them in daycare or stay home. She never claimed she was not paid what she is worth or what she wanted. She made the decision to take less pay so she got flexability she wanted. BTW we both bared the responsibility of raising our kids and my Wife traveled for work so when she was not home full responsibilities fell to me and only me. I have seen more and more of this it not just the mom taking on the full burdan any more. Most of these decision are personal and not forced upon anyone. Let stay out of the argument of the low income groups of people since as you pointed out this is far more complex issue than just equal pay.
When you look at the generic employment data and the pay data which comes from the US tax returns, this is what everyone is siting. The people who claim equal pay does not exist they take the average across all men and all women and say men get paid more. However, when you start cutting the data to what people do for a living, education and other factors which go into pay the pay gaps start disappears. One major factor why mens average pay is higher is due to the fact more men get what is know as hazard pay they are doing very dangerous jobs which they could die, women are generally not ask to do those roles or they do not apply for those jobs. If women were truely getting paid less for same work, companies would higher them over men in a second why would they pay men higher wages when they could easily get women to work for less, becuase it does not exist.
I will tell you what exists and still does today, I use to hire people all the time, mostly perfessionalls, however, some techincal skill individuals as well. I will tell you the reason I see why most women tend to start out at lower wage. They do no negotiate the wage, you tell them what the offer is and most accept it and do not ask for more. This is still true today and I can not remember the TED talk, but a research said the same things. No women I hired negotiated the anything. I talk to younger adutls today and the same is true I tell young working profession woman to negiotate the pay any anything else they think is import for taking the job. No job I have accepted did I accept the inital offer I always got more pay, a signing bonus, better relocation package, stock, more vacation. I finally got my daugher who is still in college to negotiate the pay for a part time job, she even did it at Target and they agree to pay her more than their normal starting wages.
This is the kind of thing that well-worn old-school corporations, who have something to hide, do.
Pretty sad.
You are wrong, nothing good comes of speaking of salary at work, full stop. Only the glib and entitled think their personal salary information is an open discussion at work.
You want to get together with other coworkers outside work to do it? That's your business. Still not a good idea but at least you'd not be infecting the workplace directly, That is something that is bound to be divisive information. From your posting it sounds like that probably would be a goal.
The inmates THINK they run the asylum. That’s the Millennial mindset. They are about to find out who really runs Apple.
Why do you assume all of the relevant employees are millennials? Did you do a survey?
Why do you assume keeping personal salary information personal means a company has something to hide? Did you survey Apple? See how that turn around works?
I can't speak for Ikrupp but myself I can tell you that we did not at Apple (and other places I worked) ever speak of salary openly. We didn't because we didn't feel entitled (wink wink). If you are working with 10 people every day/week/month, then finding out each has differing salaries (for various reasons), that would be toxic for those people and that work place. But again the entitled wouldn't care about the toxicity, they are worried about themselves (instead of negotiating for more pay or finding somewhere else). I'll leave you to infer that any way you want...
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
Yeah, “People” is the new “HR”. It isn’t only Apple, I’ve heard of a handful of other companies that changed the name from “Human Resources” to “People” or “People Team” or something similar. I don’t know how true this is but someone said the reasoning behind it was that calling people “resources” makes them sound like a commodity.
The other new term is Human Capital. Lots of companies are now using this term to describe the organization, who's job is to protect the company from those who work for it from legal problems. Over the years HR got a bad name for various reasons so the new people coming in had to change the name to make everyone think they are doing something different. In reality it is still the same thing just with a different name. We live in a society who like to change names when they no longer like something and if they really hate it them will change the definition to mean something completely different
Years ago I went to work for a tech start-up. The company leased everything: building, computers, even the office furniture. They told us: "YOU are our only asset" -- and they treated us as valued (and respected) assets. And, we did some amazing things (like Apple in its early days, we took on IBM - and we held our own against them). I've found that that attitude toward employees to be a hallmark of great companies.
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
Yeah, “People” is the new “HR”. It isn’t only Apple, I’ve heard of a handful of other companies that changed the name from “Human Resources” to “People” or “People Team” or something similar. I don’t know how true this is but someone said the reasoning behind it was that calling people “resources” makes them sound like a commodity.
The other new term is Human Capital. Lots of companies are now using this term to describe the organization, who's job is to protect the company from those who work for it from legal problems. Over the years HR got a bad name for various reasons so the new people coming in had to change the name to make everyone think they are doing something different. In reality it is still the same thing just with a different name. We live in a society who like to change names when they no longer like something and if they really hate it them will change the definition to mean something completely different
Years ago I went to work for a tech start-up. The company leased everything: building, computers, even the office furniture. They told us: "YOU are our only asset" -- and they treated us as valued (and respected) assets. And, we did some amazing things (like Apple in its early days, we took on IBM - and we held our own against them). I've found that that attitude toward employees to be a hallmark of great companies.
Sorry for being off-topic. George - Do you have a sleeping disorder problem? Or are you living outside US? The reason I ask this question is - you should be sleeping now IF you are in US, not posting comments in AI. If you are in another country, my question about "sleeping disorder" is moot.
No, if you adhere to the policy of "equal pay for equal work", men should be paid MORE than women (in general) because:
IN GENERAL: women are forced to remove themselves from the workforce to bear and raise children -- and even if they return to the workforce after bearing the kid, she is typically the one who has to take off work in order care for the kid when he gets sick (which is often). It causes two things that impact pay:
1) The child carer is a less reliable employee. How do you trust somebody with critical responsibilities if they are not reliable -- if their priorities are elsewhere?
2) The child rearer sacrifices decades of work and career growth that (typically) men don't have to deal with. While the woman is stuck home raising kids the male is out growing and furthering his career and moving up the corporate ladder.
While those things don't apply to low paid clerical and blue collar work (where a low skilled employee is not much more than a replaceable machine), they very much do apply in a professional environment -- which covers much of Apple's workforce.
Is it right for those issues to be ignored and for a company to pay the same wages regardless?
Or, perhaps society should stop ignoring the issues -- and blaming employers -- and deal with the problem of using women as unpaid slaves (essentially receiving room, board and subsistance wages) to bear, care for and raise kids.
First, you need to define what equal work means.
As person who's wife made those trade off decision about having a family and whether to put them in daycare or stay home. She never claimed she was not paid what she is worth or what she wanted. She made the decision to take less pay so she got flexability she wanted. BTW we both bared the responsibility of raising our kids and my Wife traveled for work so when she was not home full responsibilities fell to me and only me. I have seen more and more of this it not just the mom taking on the full burdan any more. Most of these decision are personal and not forced upon anyone. Let stay out of the argument of the low income groups of people since as you pointed out this is far more complex issue than just equal pay.
When you look at the generic employment data and the pay data which comes from the US tax returns, this is what everyone is siting. The people who claim equal pay does not exist they take the average across all men and all women and say men get paid more. However, when you start cutting the data to what people do for a living, education and other factors which go into pay the pay gaps start disappears. One major factor why mens average pay is higher is due to the fact more men get what is know as hazard pay they are doing very dangerous jobs which they could die, women are generally not ask to do those roles or they do not apply for those jobs. If women were truely getting paid less for same work, companies would higher them over men in a second why would they pay men higher wages when they could easily get women to work for less, becuase it does not exist.
I will tell you what exists and still does today, I use to hire people all the time, mostly perfessionalls, however, some techincal skill individuals as well. I will tell you the reason I see why most women tend to start out at lower wage. They do no negotiate the wage, you tell them what the offer is and most accept it and do not ask for more. This is still true today and I can not remember the TED talk, but a research said the same things. No women I hired negotiated the anything. I talk to younger adutls today and the same is true I tell young working profession woman to negiotate the pay any anything else they think is import for taking the job. No job I have accepted did I accept the inital offer I always got more pay, a signing bonus, better relocation package, stock, more vacation. I finally got my daugher who is still in college to negotiate the pay for a part time job, she even did it at Target and they agree to pay her more than their normal starting wages.
What is equal work? It is getting the work done at the same rate and same quality regardless of what it is and when it needs done. The latter suggests an employee willing and able to take on tasks and responsibility above and beyond is more valuable than one who won't or can't. It is an employee who is willing and able to do whatever it takes to fulfill an organization's mission (rather than simply doing "a job").
The difference can be qualitative and subjective. It occurs when management feels confident they can always depend on that employee.
The lack of aggressiveness you allude to in your last paragraph may be related to that confidence management has in certain employees (and is willing to pay them more because of it). That is: a person serving two masters splits their time and energy between them and simply cannot be as aggressive in meeting the goals as another who only has one master.
As for your first paragraph: It sounds like you and your wife equally share child raising responsibilities -- which means that BOTH of you are serving two masters. While that is admirable from a family and equality aspect, it means both of you sacrifice and limit commitment to the work place. So, wouldn't a person of equal abilities but who does not share your limitations, one who can give it his or her all, be more valuable to the company?
The inmates THINK they run the asylum. That’s the Millennial mindset. They are about to find out who really runs Apple.
Why do you assume all of the relevant employees are millennials? Did you do a survey?
Why do you assume keeping personal salary information personal means a company has something to hide? Did you survey Apple? See how that turn around works?
I can't speak for Ikrupp but myself I can tell you that we did not at Apple (and other places I worked) ever speak of salary openly. We didn't because we didn't feel entitled (wink wink). If you are working with 10 people every day/week/month, then finding out each has differing salaries (for various reasons), that would be toxic for those people and that work place. But again the entitled wouldn't care about the toxicity, they are worried about themselves (instead of negotiating for more pay or finding somewhere else). I'll leave you to infer that any way you want...
I agree with you that knowing other's salaries can be toxic. It was for me.
At one point I gained authorized access to the company's salaries and immediately started comparing others to my own. It didn't go well. When I saw that I was making more I started to feel superior to that person. When i found that I was making less I began to feel angry, frustrated and envious. Neither was a good place to be.
I never compared other's salaries to my own again. It was, as you say, toxic.
The inmates THINK they run the asylum. That’s the Millennial mindset. They are about to find out who really runs Apple.
Why do you assume all of the relevant employees are millennials? Did you do a survey?
Why do you assume keeping personal salary information personal means a company has something to hide? Did you survey Apple? See how that turn around works?
I can't speak for Ikrupp but myself I can tell you that we did not at Apple (and other places I worked) ever speak of salary openly. We didn't because we didn't feel entitled (wink wink). If you are working with 10 people every day/week/month, then finding out each has differing salaries (for various reasons), that would be toxic for those people and that work place. But again the entitled wouldn't care about the toxicity, they are worried about themselves (instead of negotiating for more pay or finding somewhere else). I'll leave you to infer that any way you want...
I agree with you that knowing other's salaries can be toxic. It was for me.
At one point I gained authorized access to the company's salaries and immediately started comparing others to my own. It didn't go well. When I saw that I was making more I started to feel superior to that person. When i found that I was making less I began to feel angry, frustrated and envious. Neither was a good place to be.
I never compared other's salaries to my own again. It was, as you say, toxic.
“Can be toxic” does not equal “is always toxic”.
At one job I had, my counterpart revealed her annual salary to me. She had been there a little longer than me, less than 18 months, but made significantly more than I did. At first I was frustrated, but that didn’t last.
For one thing, I had no idea what the salary range of my position was, that information wasn’t available. After she told me her salary I had a better idea.
After that I was able to have meaningful conversations with my direct manager and the manager of the whole place about what I could do to earn more.
I was already getting better results than my counterpart but started performing better, getting much better increases and in relatively short time surpassed her. It helped that she was constantly taking long breaks, would push work she didn’t want to do off to me or others and in general was a poor performer. She ended up being terminated. My position was definitely helped by knowing what her compensation was.
I like her as a person but as a coworker she was not great. We are still in touch today, years after we worked together.
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
Yeah, “People” is the new “HR”. It isn’t only Apple, I’ve heard of a handful of other companies that changed the name from “Human Resources” to “People” or “People Team” or something similar. I don’t know how true this is but someone said the reasoning behind it was that calling people “resources” makes them sound like a commodity.
The other new term is Human Capital. Lots of companies are now using this term to describe the organization, who's job is to protect the company from those who work for it from legal problems. Over the years HR got a bad name for various reasons so the new people coming in had to change the name to make everyone think they are doing something different. In reality it is still the same thing just with a different name. We live in a society who like to change names when they no longer like something and if they really hate it them will change the definition to mean something completely different
Years ago I went to work for a tech start-up. The company leased everything: building, computers, even the office furniture. They told us: "YOU are our only asset" -- and they treated us as valued (and respected) assets. And, we did some amazing things (like Apple in its early days, we took on IBM - and we held our own against them). I've found that that attitude toward employees to be a hallmark of great companies.
Sorry for being off-topic. George - Do you have a sleeping disorder problem? Or are you living outside US? The reason I ask this question is - you should be sleeping now IF you are in US, not posting comments in AI. If you are in another country, my question about "sleeping disorder" is moot.
I'm sure you're genuinely curious, but there are many reasons why someone doesn't have a typical sleeping schedule without is being a disorder. This can range from schedules, to the inclusion of a daytime nap, all the way to what your body needs. Those that are older typically sleep less than the young. I recall reading that Tim Cook wakes up in the 3 o'clock hour every day. Not sure when he goes to bed but it's very possible he doesn't need a full 8 hours to achieve optimal productivity, which could be one reason why he is the CEO of Apple.
Additionally, and certainly on a more pedantic level, being in "another county" doesn't negate the potential for anyone to have a sleep disorder. If he said Canada or Bolivia the potential for s sleeping disorder could still exist under your assumption which makes this more about the timezone he's in and the expectation that one must be asleep at certain times of the night.
When one desires sleep can be different and change, too. Unless we're taking about a medically documented "illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions" I would not be quick to label George—whom I know is a retired grandfather—of having a disorder
The inmates THINK they run the asylum. That’s the Millennial mindset. They are about to find out who really runs Apple.
Why do you assume all of the relevant employees are millennials? Did you do a survey?
Why do you assume keeping personal salary information personal means a company has something to hide? Did you survey Apple? See how that turn around works?
I can't speak for Ikrupp but myself I can tell you that we did not at Apple (and other places I worked) ever speak of salary openly. We didn't because we didn't feel entitled (wink wink). If you are working with 10 people every day/week/month, then finding out each has differing salaries (for various reasons), that would be toxic for those people and that work place. But again the entitled wouldn't care about the toxicity, they are worried about themselves (instead of negotiating for more pay or finding somewhere else). I'll leave you to infer that any way you want...
I agree with you that knowing other's salaries can be toxic. It was for me.
At one point I gained authorized access to the company's salaries and immediately started comparing others to my own. It didn't go well. When I saw that I was making more I started to feel superior to that person. When i found that I was making less I began to feel angry, frustrated and envious. Neither was a good place to be.
I never compared other's salaries to my own again. It was, as you say, toxic.
“Can be toxic” does not equal “is always toxic”.
At one job I had, my counterpart revealed her annual salary to me. She had been there a little longer than me, less than 18 months, but made significantly more than I did. At first I was frustrated, but that didn’t last.
For one thing, I had no idea what the salary range of my position was, that information wasn’t available. After she told me her salary I had a better idea.
After that I was able to have meaningful conversations with my direct manager and the manager of the whole place about what I could do to earn more.
I was already getting better results than my counterpart but started performing better, getting much better increases and in relatively short time surpassed her. It helped that she was constantly taking long breaks, would push work she didn’t want to do off to me or others and in general was a poor performer. She ended up being terminated. My position was definitely helped by knowing what her compensation was.
I like her as a person but as a coworker she was not great. We are still in touch today, years after we worked together.
Comments
See, this is what I mean by creepy corporate culture. It’s called “Human Resources” anywhere else. Or is this NOT their HR department? If it is, is there something fundamentally different about “Apple's people team” when compared to another company’s “Human Resources”?
What I find interesting is the current professional work forces has this mentality of needing to know what everyone else is being paid. I first saw this back in the late 90's and specifically with software programmers. People coming right out of school through they should be paid as much as someone who had 10+ years of experience they even said we are all writing code so we all should get paid the same, they saw no skill or knowledge difference. We actually had a group of people who got in a conference room and shared their salaries and were pissed when they saw the range of pays. They went to their management and demanded they all get paid the same. I was in the meeting when this came out. My answer then was tell the highest paid person with all the experience theirs and everyone else's pay will be cut to the lowest person's pay since they only write code or we should fire them all for sharing company confidential information. This create a whole mess since these individuals did not understand Salaries are negotiated and some times companies pay lots more for someone's skills and knowledge.
Yes each state has their own set of laws around pay and privacy, I was just making a point this information should not be shared. However, if you look at CO they now required any new job posting in the state to list the salary/wage for the job and the company is not allow to ask you your pay history. Because of the current work from home situation some companies who are posting jobs they are specifically stating no one from CO is eligible to apply for the job since the company would have to comply with CO new law on wage disclosure even if the company does not have location in CO. Do you think CO residents will benefit or see their salaries fatten out.
First, you need to define what equal work means.
As person who's wife made those trade off decision about having a family and whether to put them in daycare or stay home. She never claimed she was not paid what she is worth or what she wanted. She made the decision to take less pay so she got flexability she wanted. BTW we both bared the responsibility of raising our kids and my Wife traveled for work so when she was not home full responsibilities fell to me and only me. I have seen more and more of this it not just the mom taking on the full burdan any more. Most of these decision are personal and not forced upon anyone. Let stay out of the argument of the low income groups of people since as you pointed out this is far more complex issue than just equal pay.
When you look at the generic employment data and the pay data which comes from the US tax returns, this is what everyone is siting. The people who claim equal pay does not exist they take the average across all men and all women and say men get paid more. However, when you start cutting the data to what people do for a living, education and other factors which go into pay the pay gaps start disappears. One major factor why mens average pay is higher is due to the fact more men get what is know as hazard pay they are doing very dangerous jobs which they could die, women are generally not ask to do those roles or they do not apply for those jobs. If women were truely getting paid less for same work, companies would higher them over men in a second why would they pay men higher wages when they could easily get women to work for less, becuase it does not exist.
I will tell you what exists and still does today, I use to hire people all the time, mostly perfessionalls, however, some techincal skill individuals as well. I will tell you the reason I see why most women tend to start out at lower wage. They do no negotiate the wage, you tell them what the offer is and most accept it and do not ask for more. This is still true today and I can not remember the TED talk, but a research said the same things. No women I hired negotiated the anything. I talk to younger adutls today and the same is true I tell young working profession woman to negiotate the pay any anything else they think is import for taking the job. No job I have accepted did I accept the inital offer I always got more pay, a signing bonus, better relocation package, stock, more vacation. I finally got my daugher who is still in college to negotiate the pay for a part time job, she even did it at Target and they agree to pay her more than their normal starting wages.
You want to get together with other coworkers outside work to do it? That's your business. Still not a good idea but at least you'd not be infecting the workplace directly, That is something that is bound to be divisive information. From your posting it sounds like that probably would be a goal.
See how that turn around works?
I can't speak for Ikrupp but myself I can tell you that we did not at Apple (and other places I worked) ever speak of salary openly. We didn't because we didn't feel entitled (wink wink). If you are working with 10 people every day/week/month, then finding out each has differing salaries (for various reasons), that would be toxic for those people and that work place. But again the entitled wouldn't care about the toxicity, they are worried about themselves (instead of negotiating for more pay or finding somewhere else). I'll leave you to infer that any way you want...
Additionally, and certainly on a more pedantic level, being in "another county" doesn't negate the potential for anyone to have a sleep disorder. If he said Canada or Bolivia the potential for s sleeping disorder could still exist under your assumption which makes this more about the timezone he's in and the expectation that one must be asleep at certain times of the night.
When one desires sleep can be different and change, too. Unless we're taking about a medically documented "illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions" I would not be quick to label George—whom I know is a retired grandfather—of having a disorder