Reply to post: Not this again....

Big Red's big pay gap: $13,000 gulf between male and female Oracle staffers – reports

LucreLout Silver badge

Not this again....

This found that women were paid on average $13,000 less than men, even after controlling for various factors such as career level, performance review scores and office location, according to The Guardian.

Which means nothing at all. There's a number of people at my corporate level with the same appraisal score, that earn less than I do. That's because they have less work experience and fewer skills, and thus work at a slower rate. That gap, is much larger than USD 13k.

Neumark is said to have claimed that the probability of the discrepancy happening by chance was less than one in a billion.

It'll be due to the number of years worked. Those maternity breaks just don't and won't get recognised as work by future employers no matter how much your employer at the time had to pay in maternity leave. The only way to close that gap is to give both parents the same amount of time off thus ensuring men also have identical career gaps. It's by far the simplest thing legislators could do.

The analysis found that women made 13.2 per cent less in bonuses, and 33.1 per cent less in stock value.

Well, there's only one share price, so that can't be discriminating. Bonuses are used in lieu of overtime, because it's cheaper than paying overtime. Perhaps they should investigate number of hours worked rather than hours per contract and see if that explains some of the difference. Some of it might indeed by discrimination. All of it isn't.

Females also made 3.8 per cent less in base salaries on average than men in the same job categories. This discrepancy is partly due to Oracle's practice of using a staffer's prior pay to set starting rates. California banned this practice in October 2017 to crack down on discrimination.

Again, that's because nobody is counting years at home with baby as useful work experience. Its a maternity gap not discrimination.

CA. might think it's banned prior salary as a discriminator, but it hasn't. I simply tell the agent what I'll take in order to go for interview and as such it still plays into my job offer. How could it not?

Marilyn Clark, alleged that she had discovered a colleague was making about $20,000 (22 per cent) more than her when she found a pay stub he had left behind in a common area.

Pay swings between role and review grade are way higher than that at most employers, once you reach a certain level, even within race & gender segments. 22% feels significant, but it isn't.

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