Originally Posted by rezburna (Post 812499)

If she took two years off for each wouldn't that mean she only has 16 years in the company? Because if the company miraculously kept her own and let her have two years of maternity leave for each child instead of her leaving the company all together and then coming back she still would have gotten the raises just like everybody else right? I know maternity leave doesn't stop anybody from getting raises here in the hospital.

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 812504)

Yes sir... I’m on my phone so that “too Two” should have said lost two for each putting her total time with the company 4 years behind Bob.

Females do a lot of amazing things that we don’t. They focus on the family in most cases better than we ever will, they also tend to take a career break to tend to sick and or dying family members before we do. My wife has done both..

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 812504)

Yes sir... I’m on my phone so that “too Two” should have said lost two for each putting her total time with the company 4 years behind Bob.

Females do a lot of amazing things that we don’t. They focus on the family in most cases better than we ever will, they also tend to take a career break to tend to sick and or dying family members before we do. My wife has done both..

Originally Posted by rezburna (Post 812508)

I got you, but that's not the similar circumstances Guido is talking about. He's saying when both people really have 20 years in the company, same start date, didn't take extended time for maternity leave, and etc., there's still a gap. From what I've read, the gap shrinks when accounting for all these factors, but there's still a gap nonetheless. I feel like men should be given paid-maternity leave as well, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

Originally Posted by frydaddy (Post 812415)

I am not particularly well versed in this subject and even I know this to be false.

Originally Posted by WHODATINCA (Post 812525)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I cannot stop laughing at this post.

There's a Darwin award winner there.

Originally Posted by rezburna (Post 812508)

I got you, but that's not the similar circumstances Guido is talking about. He's saying when both people really have 20 years in the company, same start date, didn't take extended time for maternity leave, and etc., there's still a gap. From what I've read, the gap shrinks when accounting for all these factors, but there's still a gap nonetheless. I feel like men should be given paid-maternity leave as well, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 812535)

I’m not in either camp I think the truth always rests between right and wrong, left and right. I see people argue left and right all day with neither being100% correct. I also know that there is no such thing as a statement that covers all situations but rather a potentially unique situation for every unique person on the planet. Yes women have been intentionally underpaid or not paid at all for centuries and yes there are still things that need to be done.

My point being that there is a lot of nuance that statistics don’t cover. I’ve been a hiring and talent manager.. This statement covers over 70% of the situations. When it comes to hiring compensation and performance based pay raises males are more aggressive generally than females.

For what it’s worth I agent worked at a company where pay raises were blanket except for the US ARMY, every where else I have been it’s been performance based.

For the record, any jackazz bigot Manager that will compensate more purely on gender need never manage people.

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 812503)

That is understood and a factor, of course. Yet, it is not enough to account for the 30% discrepancy in Louisiana (unsurprisingly the greatest of all fifty states) and the 20% nationally.

John and Susan, both unmarried and freshly out of college holding degrees in accounting, apply for employment at the same corporation. With all qualifications being equal Susan is offered a position starting at $35K per year. John is offered an equal position starting at $40K per year. The employer, from past experience, was correct in assuming that this would be acceptable salaries to the new applicants.

Tim and June, both with two school age children and a working spouse apply for jobs with the same corporation. Same qualifications. June has two less years of total work experience, but still has ample experience and is otherwise completely qualified for the required position. John is given a level three position while June is offered a position classified at level two. The difference between the two pay levels is $12K per year. Tim and Jane do the exact same work on a day to day basis.