Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Am I suggesting that women are "lower quality employees?" (as you phrase it)
I have worked with many very capable women who could and did hold their own against all comers.
But, very often they are "lower quality employees" not for lack of ability or desire -- BECAUSE, most often they are the ones sacrificing both jobs and careers taking care of kids. They are the ones who have to call off when the kid gets sick or aren't available when the kid needs to get to hockey practice. While -- generally -- the guy is able to be much more consistent in his commitment to doing whatever is necessary for his job and his career. So he is more valuable to the organization
In a low level clerical position -- like a retail clerk -- with lots of bodies to take their place when they're absent that's not a big deal (which is one reason why those positions are often dominated by women). But in higher level professional positions it very much is a problem: you can't have a critical employee who is not reliable. It's one thing to have a sales clerk call off. But if the manager calls off it can be a whole different story.
And, yes, there are exceptions -- but most often that is what the situation is.
After the kids are raised, the woman can devote much more time and energy to her career -- but by then she's lost 20 years or so to the male -- 20 years that she'll never be able to make up.
It's not right. It's not fair. But it's reality and it's necessary. And, until society figure out a solution, it will continue to hold women back from their full potential.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Am I suggesting that women are "lower quality employees?" (as you phrase it)
I have worked with many very capable women who could and did hold their own against all comers.
But, very often they are "lower quality employees" not for lack of ability or desire -- BECAUSE, most often they are the ones sacrificing both jobs and careers taking care of kids. They are the ones who have to call off when the kid gets sick or aren't available when the kid needs to get to hockey practice. While -- generally -- the guy is able to be much more consistent in his commitment to doing whatever is necessary for his job and his career. So he is more valuable to the organization
In a low level clerical position -- like a retail clerk -- with lots of bodies to take their place when they're absent that's not a big deal (which is one reason why those positions are often dominated by women). But in higher level professional positions it very much is a problem: you can't have a critical employee who is not reliable. It's one thing to have a sales clerk call off. But if the manager calls off it can be a whole different story.
And, yes, there are exceptions -- but most often that is what the situation is.
After the kids are raised, the woman can devote much more time and energy to her career -- but by then she's lost 20 years or so to the male -- 20 years that she'll never be able to make up.
It's not right. It's not fair. But it's reality and it's necessary. And, until society figure out a solution, it will continue to hold women back from their full potential.
Society *has* figured out a solution.
Let us assume, for the moment, that you're correct that "it's reality". Statistically, it is right now, but there's no real reason that that has to be the case in the future. But for now...
The solution is to spread the burden around. To take steps that, while they may not be fair in each and every case, increase the total amount of fairness in our society - and not by a small amount.
That solution consists of various laws and regulations that try to make it easier to be a woman trying to work a demanding job. For example, by making it illegal to ask a female employee (or prospective one) what family plans they have, if any. Or by requiring paid leave for women with new babies. (Or paid leave for men, for that matter, as that's another way to make it easier to spread the burden around.)
This places burdens on other people or entities - for example, it can make things more difficult for the employer. But it is more fair overall. And as economic incentives to continue our current unfair social scheme are reduced, you'll see more loosening of the norms, and the burden on women will be reduced until it's shared by everyone. And at that point, it won't be a burden any more, it'll just be one of the many tradeoffs we decide to make as a society.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Am I suggesting that women are "lower quality employees?" (as you phrase it)
I have worked with many very capable women who could and did hold their own against all comers.
But, very often they are "lower quality employees" not for lack of ability or desire -- BECAUSE, most often they are the ones sacrificing both jobs and careers taking care of kids. They are the ones who have to call off when the kid gets sick or aren't available when the kid needs to get to hockey practice. While -- generally -- the guy is able to be much more consistent in his commitment to doing whatever is necessary for his job and his career. So he is more valuable to the organization
In a low level clerical position -- like a retail clerk -- with lots of bodies to take their place when they're absent that's not a big deal (which is one reason why those positions are often dominated by women). But in higher level professional positions it very much is a problem: you can't have a critical employee who is not reliable. It's one thing to have a sales clerk call off. But if the manager calls off it can be a whole different story.
And, yes, there are exceptions -- but most often that is what the situation is.
After the kids are raised, the woman can devote much more time and energy to her career -- but by then she's lost 20 years or so to the male -- 20 years that she'll never be able to make up.
It's not right. It's not fair. But it's reality and it's necessary. And, until society figure out a solution, it will continue to hold women back from their full potential.
Society *has* figured out a solution.
Let us assume, for the moment, that you're correct that "it's reality". Statistically, it is right now, but there's no real reason that that has to be the case in the future. But for now...
The solution is to spread the burden around. To take steps that, while they may not be fair in each and every case, increase the total amount of fairness in our society - and not by a small amount.
That solution consists of various laws and regulations that try to make it easier to be a woman trying to work a demanding job. For example, by making it illegal to ask a female employee (or prospective one) what family plans they have, if any. Or by requiring paid leave for women with new babies. (Or paid leave for men, for that matter, as that's another way to make it easier to spread the burden around.)
This places burdens on other people or entities - for example, it can make things more difficult for the employer. But it is more fair overall. And as economic incentives to continue our current unfair social scheme are reduced, you'll see more loosening of the norms, and the burden on women will be reduced until it's shared by everyone. And at that point, it won't be a burden any more, it'll just be one of the many tradeoffs we decide to make as a society.
That doesn't fix the problem -- it just shifts the burden around. While you are right that it makes it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem: She isn't there doing the job, benefiting the company, advancing in her job and career. Her husband is though! So he advances while she does not. (And, asking the company to advance an unreliable employee into a position of responsibility puts the company in a less competitive position -- and in today's global economy there is no leveling where "everybody does it")
Further, stopping the company from asking about their family or family plans: there's a simple answer to that for the company -- one that's been used for eons: Assume the women will be having children and will make them her first priority and then find a reason to hire her husband into the upper level, responsible position and offer her a job as a low level sales clerk where she has more flexibility to split her responsibilities between work, children and aging parents.
So, while your solution does make it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem that somebody has to care for kids and aging parents (and even sick husbands on occasion!), it just moves it around onto others. And ultimately, whether the competition is between countries, companies or employees, the "best man" will win.
My "Solution" is not a great one or a perfect one but it is, I think, a better one:
The basic problem is: the woman is asked to work multiple jobs: work, kids, aging parents, homemaker, etc while only being paid for one -- the rest are all unpaid volunteer positions which means they are not highly valued by society (we equate wealth with prestige). I wonder if there would be a way to pay her (or the person doing them if it's the husband) for those other, currently unpaid jobs? Further, we could expand things like home care for the elderly and pre-school and full day Kindergartens for kids (one's that don't send them home at the first sniffle).
That is, if the person caring for the kids and aging parents were paid what they were worth (a LOT!), then much (but not all) of the issue would be resolved. But, right now, all that time, expertise and energy is simply donated for the good of others in the family and society as a whole -- because raising kids to be responsible and productive along with caring for the disabled and frail is one of societies most important tasks.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Am I suggesting that women are "lower quality employees?" (as you phrase it)
I have worked with many very capable women who could and did hold their own against all comers.
But, very often they are "lower quality employees" not for lack of ability or desire -- BECAUSE, most often they are the ones sacrificing both jobs and careers taking care of kids. They are the ones who have to call off when the kid gets sick or aren't available when the kid needs to get to hockey practice. While -- generally -- the guy is able to be much more consistent in his commitment to doing whatever is necessary for his job and his career. So he is more valuable to the organization
In a low level clerical position -- like a retail clerk -- with lots of bodies to take their place when they're absent that's not a big deal (which is one reason why those positions are often dominated by women). But in higher level professional positions it very much is a problem: you can't have a critical employee who is not reliable. It's one thing to have a sales clerk call off. But if the manager calls off it can be a whole different story.
And, yes, there are exceptions -- but most often that is what the situation is.
After the kids are raised, the woman can devote much more time and energy to her career -- but by then she's lost 20 years or so to the male -- 20 years that she'll never be able to make up.
It's not right. It's not fair. But it's reality and it's necessary. And, until society figure out a solution, it will continue to hold women back from their full potential.
Society *has* figured out a solution.
Let us assume, for the moment, that you're correct that "it's reality". Statistically, it is right now, but there's no real reason that that has to be the case in the future. But for now...
The solution is to spread the burden around. To take steps that, while they may not be fair in each and every case, increase the total amount of fairness in our society - and not by a small amount.
That solution consists of various laws and regulations that try to make it easier to be a woman trying to work a demanding job. For example, by making it illegal to ask a female employee (or prospective one) what family plans they have, if any. Or by requiring paid leave for women with new babies. (Or paid leave for men, for that matter, as that's another way to make it easier to spread the burden around.)
This places burdens on other people or entities - for example, it can make things more difficult for the employer. But it is more fair overall. And as economic incentives to continue our current unfair social scheme are reduced, you'll see more loosening of the norms, and the burden on women will be reduced until it's shared by everyone. And at that point, it won't be a burden any more, it'll just be one of the many tradeoffs we decide to make as a society.
That doesn't fix the problem -- it just shifts the burden around. While you are right that it makes it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem: She isn't there doing the job, benefiting the company, advancing in her job and career. Her husband is though! So he advances while she does not. (And, asking the company to advance an unreliable employee into a position of responsibility puts the company in a less competitive position -- and in today's global economy there is no leveling where "everybody does it")
Further, stopping the company from asking about their family or family plans: there's a simple answer to that for the company -- one that's been used for eons: Assume the women will be having children and will make them her first priority and then find a reason to hire her husband into the upper level, responsible position and offer her a job as a low level sales clerk where she has more flexibility to split her responsibilities between work, children and aging parents.
So, while your solution does make it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem that somebody has to care for kids and aging parents (and even sick husbands on occasion!), it just moves it around onto others. And ultimately, whether the competition is between countries, companies or employees, the "best man" will win.
My "Solution" is not a great one or a perfect one but it is, I think, a better one:
The basic problem is: the woman is asked to work multiple jobs: work, kids, aging parents, homemaker, etc while only being paid for one -- the rest are all unpaid volunteer positions which means they are not highly valued by society (we equate wealth with prestige). I wonder if there would be a way to pay her (or the person doing them if it's the husband) for those other, currently unpaid jobs? Further, we could expand things like home care for the elderly and pre-school and full day Kindergartens for kids (one's that don't send them home at the first sniffle).
That is, if the person caring for the kids and aging parents were paid what they were worth (a LOT!), then much (but not all) of the issue would be resolved. But, right now, all that time, expertise and energy is simply donated for the good of others in the family and society as a whole -- because raising kids to be responsible and productive along with caring for the disabled and frail is one of societies most important tasks.
Your solution has some significant advantages, and some governments have made some small efforts in that direction. It also has some significant drawbacks, and in another time and place I might be interested in discussing it. For now, I'll stick with the obvious: it's not happening any time soon. It also doesn't solve the problem you pointed out, of companies favoring men over women for their perceived greater reliability.
Meanwhile, you spent a bunch of words loudly agreeing with me: the partial solutions we have shift the burden around. Yes, they do, as I said. You can't magically make that burden go away, but you can make distribution of that burden fairer. And if only developed countries can afford to do that (arguable, but let's say) then that's better than nothing. If companies in those countries have a tiny extra burden when competing with foreign companies... too bad, everyone in developed nations has higher burdens (taxes, etc.) than those in less-developed countries. It's a good trade-off, as demonstrated by the fact that approximately zero US billionaires leave the country to live in (say) Somalia.
Perhaps, you might argue, corporate offshoring is more representative than billionaires moving? Undoubtedly, and that's a real problem. But how much offshoring happens because of regulations to limit discrimination? Some, I'm sure. Not that much, I suspect. In the end you have to decide whether you're going to be a coward, or stand by your principles. You look at the damage done by discrimination, versus (for example) the damage done by offshoring. You also look at how concentrated that damage is - whether everyone carries the load, or only some people. And you maybe consider how much other damage the affected people also have to face due to inequities in our social fabric that aren't being addressed, or even how much of a burden they're carrying due to history. And then you make your best call.
BTW, up through now the "best man" doesn't win. They typically win a little more than others, but winnings are distributed across a very large number of players, as no single company could address every market. That fundamental truth is critically important, as winner-take-all would be disastrous for capitalism and the world at large. Unfortunately, in the new world the internet is creating, that may no longer be true. And nobody seems to really know what to do about that threat so far. Amazon may be a much much bigger threat than Facebook, and it's only the most obvious example.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Am I suggesting that women are "lower quality employees?" (as you phrase it)
I have worked with many very capable women who could and did hold their own against all comers.
But, very often they are "lower quality employees" not for lack of ability or desire -- BECAUSE, most often they are the ones sacrificing both jobs and careers taking care of kids. They are the ones who have to call off when the kid gets sick or aren't available when the kid needs to get to hockey practice. While -- generally -- the guy is able to be much more consistent in his commitment to doing whatever is necessary for his job and his career. So he is more valuable to the organization
In a low level clerical position -- like a retail clerk -- with lots of bodies to take their place when they're absent that's not a big deal (which is one reason why those positions are often dominated by women). But in higher level professional positions it very much is a problem: you can't have a critical employee who is not reliable. It's one thing to have a sales clerk call off. But if the manager calls off it can be a whole different story.
And, yes, there are exceptions -- but most often that is what the situation is.
After the kids are raised, the woman can devote much more time and energy to her career -- but by then she's lost 20 years or so to the male -- 20 years that she'll never be able to make up.
It's not right. It's not fair. But it's reality and it's necessary. And, until society figure out a solution, it will continue to hold women back from their full potential.
Society *has* figured out a solution.
Let us assume, for the moment, that you're correct that "it's reality". Statistically, it is right now, but there's no real reason that that has to be the case in the future. But for now...
The solution is to spread the burden around. To take steps that, while they may not be fair in each and every case, increase the total amount of fairness in our society - and not by a small amount.
That solution consists of various laws and regulations that try to make it easier to be a woman trying to work a demanding job. For example, by making it illegal to ask a female employee (or prospective one) what family plans they have, if any. Or by requiring paid leave for women with new babies. (Or paid leave for men, for that matter, as that's another way to make it easier to spread the burden around.)
This places burdens on other people or entities - for example, it can make things more difficult for the employer. But it is more fair overall. And as economic incentives to continue our current unfair social scheme are reduced, you'll see more loosening of the norms, and the burden on women will be reduced until it's shared by everyone. And at that point, it won't be a burden any more, it'll just be one of the many tradeoffs we decide to make as a society.
That doesn't fix the problem -- it just shifts the burden around. While you are right that it makes it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem: She isn't there doing the job, benefiting the company, advancing in her job and career. Her husband is though! So he advances while she does not. (And, asking the company to advance an unreliable employee into a position of responsibility puts the company in a less competitive position -- and in today's global economy there is no leveling where "everybody does it")
Further, stopping the company from asking about their family or family plans: there's a simple answer to that for the company -- one that's been used for eons: Assume the women will be having children and will make them her first priority and then find a reason to hire her husband into the upper level, responsible position and offer her a job as a low level sales clerk where she has more flexibility to split her responsibilities between work, children and aging parents.
So, while your solution does make it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem that somebody has to care for kids and aging parents (and even sick husbands on occasion!), it just moves it around onto others. And ultimately, whether the competition is between countries, companies or employees, the "best man" will win.
My "Solution" is not a great one or a perfect one but it is, I think, a better one:
The basic problem is: the woman is asked to work multiple jobs: work, kids, aging parents, homemaker, etc while only being paid for one -- the rest are all unpaid volunteer positions which means they are not highly valued by society (we equate wealth with prestige). I wonder if there would be a way to pay her (or the person doing them if it's the husband) for those other, currently unpaid jobs? Further, we could expand things like home care for the elderly and pre-school and full day Kindergartens for kids (one's that don't send them home at the first sniffle).
That is, if the person caring for the kids and aging parents were paid what they were worth (a LOT!), then much (but not all) of the issue would be resolved. But, right now, all that time, expertise and energy is simply donated for the good of others in the family and society as a whole -- because raising kids to be responsible and productive along with caring for the disabled and frail is one of societies most important tasks.
Your solution has some significant advantages, and some governments have made some small efforts in that direction. It also has some significant drawbacks, and in another time and place I might be interested in discussing it. For now, I'll stick with the obvious: it's not happening any time soon. It also doesn't solve the problem you pointed out, of companies favoring men over women for their perceived greater reliability.
Meanwhile, you spent a bunch of words loudly agreeing with me: the partial solutions we have shift the burden around. Yes, they do, as I said. You can't magically make that burden go away, but you can make distribution of that burden fairer. And if only developed countries can afford to do that (arguable, but let's say) then that's better than nothing. If companies in those countries have a tiny extra burden when competing with foreign companies... too bad, everyone in developed nations has higher burdens (taxes, etc.) than those in less-developed countries. It's a good trade-off, as demonstrated by the fact that approximately zero US billionaires leave the country to live in (say) Somalia.
Perhaps, you might argue, corporate offshoring is more representative than billionaires moving? Undoubtedly, and that's a real problem. But how much offshoring happens because of regulations to limit discrimination? Some, I'm sure. Not that much, I suspect. In the end you have to decide whether you're going to be a coward, or stand by your principles. You look at the damage done by discrimination, versus (for example) the damage done by offshoring. You also look at how concentrated that damage is - whether everyone carries the load, or only some people. And you maybe consider how much other damage the affected people also have to face due to inequities in our social fabric that aren't being addressed, or even how much of a burden they're carrying due to history. And then you make your best call.
BTW, up through now the "best man" doesn't win. They typically win a little more than others, but winnings are distributed across a very large number of players, as no single company could address every market. That fundamental truth is critically important, as winner-take-all would be disastrous for capitalism and the world at large. Unfortunately, in the new world the internet is creating, that may no longer be true. And nobody seems to really know what to do about that threat so far. Amazon may be a much much bigger threat than Facebook, and it's only the most obvious example.
Yes, I agree that my suggestion has limitations -- it's not a miracle cure. And I said that.
But it has the advantage of equalizing the very necessary tasks of working in business vs working at home (homemaking, raising kids, caring for frail parents, etc.) to the point where each person could do what they do best. The trouble is: as spelled out in our language -- we no longer consider homemaking, raising kids and caring for the elderly "work". But I put it on par with working in business. As a home health nurse I got to see many caregivers caring for family members both young & old and it is extremely hard, demanding work that largely goes unrewarded and unappreciated. Frankly, there is NOBODY that I admire more. No "captain of industry", no national leader, no soldier, NOBODY.
So, it would help eliminate the bias and prejudice against those performing those very valuable and necessary functions and reward them for doing so. It would level the playing field by showing that such work is valued and respected.
But, I fully agree that we won't see that leveling and equality anytime soon: the prejudice towards rewarding those limited functions we call "work" is strong. The industrial age embedded that prejudice into our culture.
As for getting developed nations to agree:
The line between developed and developing countries is blurry at best. So, to get them all to agree to limit their competitiveness for someone's goal of fairness is not likely to happen. And, I think you underestimate the power of the global marketplace: in a free market industry gravitates to those places where it is most competitive. The U.S. has never accepted the reasons why it lost its industry to other nations and largely remains in denial. But, on the global scale it's ALL about competition not fairness.
As for your fear that "best man win" may become "The only man to win": The fastest horse tends to win the race. But there are many races and many winners -- and that is likely to continue.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
You didn't trash anything, you gave an easily disregarded opinion, and I don't have an agenda. Quit with the toxic one-upmanship George.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
The reason Apple does it is for profit. That's the reason they do everything. They are the biggest company in the world.
It doesn't really matter why they do it. It's illegal.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
You didn't trash anything, you gave an easily disregarded opinion, and I don't have an agenda. Quit with the toxic one-upmanship George.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
LOL... if it was so "easily disregarded", why didn't you just "disregard" it instead of getting your panties all in a bunch?
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
You didn't trash anything, you gave an easily disregarded opinion, and I don't have an agenda. Quit with the toxic one-upmanship George.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
LOL... if it was so "easily disregarded", why didn't you just "disregard" it instead of getting your panties all in a bunch?
You know, I was going to offer a serious answer to your other post, but that sort of disparaging comment, devoid of any serious rational response, shows that it would be wasted on you.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
You didn't trash anything, you gave an easily disregarded opinion, and I don't have an agenda. Quit with the toxic one-upmanship George.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
LOL... if it was so "easily disregarded", why didn't you just "disregard" it instead of getting your panties all in a bunch?
Ok, I'll just disregard you completely from now on. That's good advice.
Comments
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
It doesn't really matter why they do it. It's illegal.
LOL... if it was so "easily disregarded", why didn't you just "disregard" it instead of getting your panties all in a bunch?