back to article Intel applies hobnailed boot to countries where its men and women workers aren't paid the same

Intel took time out from its hardware woes to buff its inclusivity halo and announce it had reached gender "pay equity" globally. While the company has failed to deliver much in the way of 10nm chippery and has had problems stamping out the stuff it actually knows how to make, it said it has been able to achieve what few in …

  1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

    I wonder if Oracle are taking note?

    1. Aitor 1 Silver badge
      Trollface

      I see

      I see what you are doing there...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GenZ will see you now and throw you out.

    When will we stand up to these people and say enough?

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: GenZ will see you now and throw you out.

      for Intel to focus on hiring women, does this mean they will DISCRIMINATE *AGAINST* MEN???

      This whole 'quota-based' hiring standard needs to GO AWAY anyway. If real injustices are happening, let them be settled in the courts, without ANY discrimination in hiring (either FOR or AGAINST a particular 'class' or 'identity').

      If the pay scale is the same for men and women for equal job title etc. then where's the beef?

      I think more women should APPLY for work from Intel. That'd actually fix things. Perhaps Intel can make something that women like happen at their company to encourage this? Otherwise, the only thing that will happen is just MORE DISCRIMINATION to "fix" alleged discrimination. To that, I say *STOP".

      1. EN1R0PY

        Re: GenZ will see you now and throw you out.

        They identified a problem and took steps to fix it, what wrong with that? Oh I know you don't see how you benefit so your getting your knickers in a twist. People like you give the industry a bad name.

        Oh and yes I'm a white man who thinks the industry should do more to attract more women and other minorities, not because it will benefit me but because it's the right thing to do. Like I said I'm a MAN not a whiney little boy crying "what about me WAAAAAAAAA!"

      2. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: GenZ will see you now and throw you out.

        This whole 'quota-based' hiring standard needs to GO AWAY anyway.

        If it were only hiring it might not be the problem that it is. It's promotions too. For the last 10 years or so pretty much every male working in IT for any bank has had their career sidelined to "make room" for women to be promoted. That includes where they have less experience or ability.

        The whole thing is toxic and were it aimed at anyone other than predominantly straight white males, would have the left in fits of apoplexy. Apparently you can be sexits, racist and heterophobic, because its not discrimination if it adversely affects straight white men.

        I've been told twice not to send any more male candidates for promotion from my teams until my ratio is "in balance", by which HR mean 50:50 across grade and gender. The only problem with that, of course, is the applicants for the job, and therefore the team members, aren't split 50:50 across gender, and they never will be (unless we force women to do a job they don't want as a way to even the numbers). The result, while I have many talented and brilliant female employees, equally talented and brilliant male employees are languishing a grade or two below them.

  3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Ok, I give in

    If we all say this is wonderful, will you go back to reporting the news?

  4. Mark 85 Silver badge

    They didn't take the easy way and improve profits?

    I'm surprised that they just didn't lower the male pay to match the female pay. The stockholders would love what that would do to the bottom line.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They didn't take the easy way and improve profits?

      The article states: 'The affected employees then enjoyed an "adjustment".' Which 'affected employees' and the nature of the 'adjustment' are not specified. So maybe they did cut back on men's pay...

      But I reckon that in Intel's case, increasing pay for women workers to achieve parity with men workers is such a tiny outlay compared to its other operating costs that they might as well up the rates: think how it'd look if they did it the other way and then got caught out. The main reason leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing is mind-bogglingly expensive is the equipment, the materials, the energy to run the fabs, all that sort of stuff. It's highly automated these days, too: more machines, fewer people.

      The cynical side of me suspects that this is just window-dressing by clever beancounters. Still, it's a step in the right direction, even if it's not a very big one.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    here its men and women workers aren't paid the same

    i.e. when they're not paid the same as on the Intel home turf? Yeah, right :D

  6. Snowy
    Facepalm

    Sure

    [quote]By this it means, "on average", equal pay for equal work in the same or similar roles after accounting for things like "tenure, performance, time at grade level" et cetera.[/quote]

    Sure they are "not", things like tenure and time at grade level should not be a factor in pay. If your doing the same job and your performance is the same you should get the same pay it should not matter how long you have been there, or how long you have been doing that job. The only thing that should matter is how well you do it.

    Including things like "tenure and time at grade level" is going to tend to hit women (yes some men do instead) due to them mostly being the ones you may take a break from work to raise children.

    1. DavCrav Silver badge

      Re: Sure

      So you don't think there should be increments within a given salary band? The longer you have been on that level, the more likely it is you will have been given an increment, whether or not they are automatic. If I perform the same as a woman, and we both get the same raise, but I've been in the job longer than she, I will have obtained more raises, so will be paid more at that time.

      1. JulieM Silver badge

        Re: Sure

        Surely if you had the same job description, then when she started, she would have been earning the same amount you were already earning by then, aot the amount on which you started years ago when it was worth more?

        I used to earn six figures after tax. If you included the pence, anyway .....

        1. Jimmy2Cows

          Re: Sure

          Why? Methinks maybe a point was missed. She hasn't been there as long as he, since she only just started and presumably starting at the lowest rank in the salary band (let's assume he also start at the lowest rank in that same salary band), while he's been there years.

          In a truly fair system, loyalty/tenure/inflationary/whater pay rises will apply the same to both over time, so once she's been there 5/10/whatever years she should be at the same salary he reached after his 5/10/whatever years.

          Or are you suggesting she should start with no time served at the same salary band he is on after time served, just because... eqaulity...?

          1. Snowy
            Facepalm

            Re: Sure

            If "she" or even a "he" as only just started and is performing the same as someone who as been in the jobs years then I see no reason why they should get paid less.

            1. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: Sure

              If "she" or even a "he" as only just started and is performing the same as someone who as been in the jobs years then I see no reason why they should get paid less.

              If appraisal / performance grades reflected reality rather than make believe, then pretty well anyone under 30 would get sacked every year for poor performance. Sorry, but there's no dev with 6 years experience is keeping up with on with 26 years experience.

              Learning something new works much faster and better when it can be related to something you already know. They typical mid-career dev will know an awful lot more than someone with up to 6 years experience and they'll be able to see a better solution a hell of a lot faster.

      2. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Sure

        So you don't think there should be increments within a given salary band?

        Only in the public sector. Annual increments don't really exist in the real world. There's fairly wide salary bands depending on role, and salary is negotiable before taking the contract.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Sure

      "The only thing that should matter is how well you do it."

      Agreed, mostly. The thing is, some other wage-related factors (like tenure) encourages people to 'not quit' and their experience sometimes has additional value to the company that's not apparent on the surface.

      But ultimately, a job is something that must (in some way) make money for the company [or alternately, save money]. The total cost of the employee needs to be LESS than the amount gained, in bean-counter measurements. [this fact can also work in your favor at raise time, if you can monetize what you do]

      /me points out that 'compliance' jobs save the company on the cost of fines for non-compliance, and other 'service' type jobs (which might even include I.T.) save time/money indirectly.

    3. LucreLout Silver badge

      Re: Sure

      If your doing the same job and your performance is the same you should get the same pay it should not matter how long you have been there, or how long you have been doing that job.

      Sorry, but that's rubbish.

      We have 5 appraisal grades at my bank, same as every bank I've ever worked at. And we have about 4 grades of developer role. There is no way, on any day, best or worst, that a senior developer with 7 years experience is going to do the same work as a senior developer with 25 years experience.

      All the youngsters are not going to be happy with low grade appraisal scores because they can't work at the same pace as the older workers because they lack the experience to do so: that difference IS going to show up in salaries. It always has done and it always will do.

      1. but what do I know?

        Re: Sure

        How much of that 25 years experience is still relevant? A senior developer with 7 years experience should be performing at a level that will not be surpassed by somebody whose only difference is more years experience. It's IT not rocket science.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019