Non-IT News Thread
-
The girl said she 'didn't know' if she would push legal action or not, but I think it'd be a smart idea on her part. There's absolutely no reason for A) her to be making less than the guy who was hired, and ~B) for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The girl said she 'didn't know' if she would push legal action or not, but I think it'd be a smart idea on her part. There's absolutely no reason for A) her to be making less than the guy who was hired, and ~B) for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
Paying new hires more than previous ones is standard practice in the food service industry. This was institutionalized in the big fast food chains. There are two simple factors here:
-
It's simply standard to pay new people more, why I don't know, but it encourages turnover and stops people from becoming entrenched employees. You'd think that you'd want that, but often places do not.
-
People negotiate different rates. Even if the value and skill of the employee is the same, it's up to each employee to negotiate the rate that makes sense for them. Taking legal action because someone else is a better negotiator isn't legal. Saying that there was no reason for the pay to be different means she doesn't understand how pay works and indicates why she might make less - because she doesn't understand the process.
-
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
Why? You feel that all new hires should always make the same no matter what? You don't believe that people should be able to negotiate or differentiate and that all people be treated like cogs in a wheel with a union overseer that determines their wages? I understand that we assume that these two are equal here and it is likely true, but we don't know it. While I agree that there is little to no chance that there wasn't sexual discrimination here, that comes solely from the fact that they were fired, not that they were paid differently.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
This is one of those situations where the person needs to advocate for themselves honestly.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
Also, when does a change in pay policy take effect? What if new hires used to make $8 but now make $8.25. There has to be some moment in time, even with uniform pay, that this changes. Even if people are hired minutes apart, that "line" between pay rates has to happen sometime. So even in a perfectly unionized world with all people treated as just interchangeable and having no individual value, the problem still exists, just not as often.
-
If you sell yourself for $8/hour, you are worth $8 an hour. Your Ego vs. Their perceived gains from hiring you vs someone else.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
This is one of those situations where the person needs to advocate for themselves honestly.
They do, absolutely, and she needs to call the state attorney general's office. If she does not, we have to assume that it is made up or she knows why he likely makes more money. It's not at all uncommon for jobs like this to pay differently because they also make people do different jobs, even with the same title. Having worked in pizza service, I know that just being male meant that I had to work in the freezer, take out garbage, stay to guard the store and other things that girls were never required to do. There were no equal jobs. Did I get paid more? No, I was discriminated against (also, there was a glass ceiling and only women could be managers) yes. But these things are common.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
This is one of those situations where the person needs to advocate for themselves honestly.
They do, absolutely, and she needs to call the state attorney general's office. If she does not, we have to assume that it is made up or she knows why he likely makes more money. It's not at all uncommon for jobs like this to pay differently because they also make people do different jobs, even with the same title. Having worked in pizza service, I know that just being male meant that I had to work in the freezer, take out garbage, stay to guard the store and other things that girls were never required to do. There were no equal jobs. Did I get paid more? No, I was discriminated against (also, there was a glass ceiling and only women could be managers) yes. But these things are common.
Political correctness gone mad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
Also, when does a change in pay policy take effect? What if new hires used to make $8 but now make $8.25. There has to be some moment in time, even with uniform pay, that this changes. Even if people are hired minutes apart, that "line" between pay rates has to happen sometime. So even in a perfectly unionized world with all people treated as just interchangeable and having no individual value, the problem still exists, just not as often.
Thinking about he situation at hand... They both had the same amount of experience in this type of job. They were both the same age, they were both hired on the same day (this is really where my problem is). They should be paid the same way... Otherwise it looks like the guy is being paid more simply because he's a guy.
I'm not saying new hires should always be paid the same, not at all. But all things being equal (like in this case), they should be paid whatever the company set starting pay is. It's not likely that the company is going to send out a memo: "Everybody hired before noon today is paid $8.25 an hour. Everybody hired after noon today and in the future will be paid $8 an hour".
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
If you sell yourself for $8/hour, you are worth $8 an hour. Your Ego vs. Their perceived gains from hiring you vs someone else.
Exactly. We don't know enough about the situation to know what happened. But she might have said "I'll take $8" and he might have asked for $8.25. There might have been a place on the application to state what you expect to make. Almost all jobs like that have done that to me, and even at entry level work negotiations happen. Maybe the company simply "gives them a salary" but I've never seen any company give flat pay to all people like that, ever. They might have a stated starting rate, or they might let each person negotiate individually, but those are the only two non-union scenarios I have ever seen.
-
This reminds me of Jennifer Lawrence talking about getting paid grossly less than her peers. What did she say? "I don't blame them it's my fault for not negotiating more."
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
Thinking about he situation at hand... They both had the same amount of experience in this type of job. They were both the same age, they were both hired on the same day (this is really where my problem is). They should be paid the same way... Otherwise it looks like the guy is being paid more simply because he's a guy.
Looks like, but no one has yet asked why the difference in pay. If he negotiated better, then they don't look the same at all. We know in IT that job experience, age and hire date have effectively zero to do with value. Imagine that those were the only factors that determined your value. Rather than your skills, personality, willingness to work, ability to negotiate, etc.
That we even bring up their age, I think, shows that we are talking about red herrings and are distracted. If they are being paid based on their age, we already have a problem.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
This reminds me of Jennifer Lawrence talking about getting paid grossly less than her peers. What did she say? I don't blame them it's my fault for not negotiating more.
Exactly. A big part of the problem is that girls are often taught to give in and boys are taught to negotiate from day one. But that's not a problem with jobs, it's a problem with education, society and individuals allowing it to happen. Girls are aware that this problem exists and know that they have to challenge themselves to negotiate the same way that boys do. We don't *know" that this is what happened here and given the firing we can assume that it is not, but had they not been fired, there would be no grounds for the conversation.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm not saying new hires should always be paid the same, not at all. But all things being equal (like in this case),
But what things are equal? Only pointless factors. What if we said that they both wore red shirts and jeans... therefore they should be paid the same because "all things being equal." But being 17, starting on a certain day and even having the "same job experience" are little different than the colour of shirts or whatever. It's all deflecting from the fact that none of the things that would determine if they were fit to hire, let alone better or worse candidates, has been discussed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
This reminds me of Jennifer Lawrence talking about getting paid grossly less than her peers. What did she say? I don't blame them it's my fault for not negotiating more.
Exactly. A big part of the problem is that girls are often taught to give in and boys are taught to negotiate from day one. But that's not a problem with jobs, it's a problem with education, society and individuals allowing it to happen. Girls are aware that this problem exists and know that they have to challenge themselves to negotiate the same way that boys do. We don't *know" that this is what happened here and given the firing we can assume that it is not, but had they not been fired, there would be no grounds for the conversation.
A lot of people run into that (myself included). I realized after I was hired I could have asked for 10k more than I did. You live and you learn. I have trouble realizing my value. Apparently it was very obvious to them. Learning experience.
-
For example, we don't know...
- Which one of them had better grades.
- Which one had more extra curricular activities.
- Which one is "about to turn 18" and which one "just turned 17."
- Which one has a car and a driver's license.
- Which one expressed a desire for a long term pizza shop career.
- Which one had limited hours of availability and which one did not have those limitations.
- Which one offered to do extra work or disgusting jobs or menial ones while the other refursed.
- Which one barely passed the interview and which one shone.
- Which one has applied before or which one applied earlier, maybe even a month or two earlier.
- Which one has pizza making experience or other customer service.
- Which one follows instructions well?
- Which one answered interview questions well?
- Which one arrived on time or how they were dressed?
And I could go on all day. Think about all of the things that we say about interviewing. Get your resume in order, arrive early, how to answer questions, how to present yourself, what things to know, etc. Unless you are saying that all interview and background information is totally pointless and that all hiring should be distilled down to age, experience (probably zero in this case) and hire date, then we have no bases for feeling that they should have been paid the same.
