Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 1, 2016 9:21:01 GMT -5
Perhaps this question belongs on the politics board, but I had a question on the platform proposal of equal pay for women.
How exactly could equal pay for women be legislated by the government?
The only equal pay system I've seen is as a government employee. The system works such that each job has a certain pay band associated with it, and you start at the bottom of the pay band and get promoted up the pay band at distinct time intervals. Like, for example, after one year you go from GS 7 step 1 to GS 7 step 2 and get a 2k a year raise. This system does not take into account race or gender, simply time in service. But it's also decried as a system that promotes mediocrity and discourages going above and beyond.
As I understand how pay is handled in the private industry, pay is initially negotiated up front when hired and employees are forbidden from discussing pay with other employees. Furthermore raises are also negotiated by the employee with their employer. And overall, I assume the system to be a lot more open to interpretation by management to the employees contributions.
Unfortunately, I think that's where the pay disparity comes into play. Employee pay is often made subjective and when things are subjective, bias can take hold.
So back to my original question, how could congress and the president pass a law mandating equal pay between men and women without enforcing a pay system that removes all subjectivity (and therefore potential bias) from the pay system?
Basically, if how would you apply a macro, country wide law to a micro scale.
If I'm a business owner and I have a male and female employee, and I feel like the male employee performs better, he should get a better annual raise right?
But if I report those statistics to the government, could I be in violation of a law mandating equal pay among genders? Or could a potential law be written such that this pay per performance/contribution could be accounted for?
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 1, 2016 9:34:10 GMT -5
Employees are never forbidden to talk about their salaries. In fact, it violates federal law to prohibit employees to discuss wages/salary. However, most employers do discourage discussing salary between employees.
I wish all employers had to publish their average salary per job category (perhaps not specific job titles, but general job categories). And I think there are laws that could address some of those issues.
But, most decent employers do try and fellow the law. So if there was a law in place, most employers would try and follow it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,242
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 1, 2016 9:42:05 GMT -5
... How exactly could equal pay for women be legislated by the government? ... You do it like you do everything else. For example, there is a law that says don't take other people's stuff. If you are found guilty of doing it by a court of law, here are the consequences. The same applies to equal pay for equal work. The law says you can't have gender bias in pay. If you are found guilty of doing it by a court of law, here are the consequences.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 1, 2016 10:31:11 GMT -5
Perhaps this question belongs on the politics board, but I had a question on the platform proposal of equal pay for women. How exactly could equal pay for women be legislated by the government? The only equal pay system I've seen is as a government employee. The system works such that each job has a certain pay band associated with it, and you start at the bottom of the pay band and get promoted up the pay band at distinct time intervals. Like, for example, after one year you go from GS 7 step 1 to GS 7 step 2 and get a 2k a year raise. This system does not take into account race or gender, simply time in service. But it's also decried as a system that promotes mediocrity and discourages going above and beyond. As I understand how pay is handled in the private industry, pay is initially negotiated up front when hired and employees are forbidden from discussing pay with other employees. Furthermore raises are also negotiated by the employee with their employer. And overall, I assume the system to be a lot more open to interpretation by management to the employees contributions. Unfortunately, I think that's where the pay disparity comes into play. Employee pay is often made subjective and when things are subjective, bias can take hold. So back to my original question, how could congress and the president pass a law mandating equal pay between men and women without enforcing a pay system that removes all subjectivity (and therefore potential bias) from the pay system? Basically, if how would you apply a macro, country wide law to a micro scale. If I'm a business owner and I have a male and female employee, and I feel like the male employee performs better, he should get a better annual raise right? But if I report those statistics to the government, could I be in violation of a law mandating equal pay among genders? Or could a potential law be written such that this pay per performance/contribution could be accounted for? I think most large employers make an honest effort to avoid gender bias in compensation. When I graduated from college many years ago, I went to work for a company that already employed a female classmate of mine. After I'd been around for several months, one of my coworkers let me know that the classmate had gotten a good raise when I started in the department. Apparently she thought her time was worth less than I thought my time was worth when we negotiated our initial pay. That said, I think where bias creeps in to compensation is through the promotion process. Because who and when someone is promoted is a lot more subjective and difficult to analyze than how much various people get paid to do a particular job.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 10:47:03 GMT -5
This is VERY hard to enforce with legislation- too many variables.
First, employers will pay you the least they can that will motivate you to keep working, and women generally are less likely to negotiate (and I put myself in that category). So, when you move to your next job and HR requires that you tell them your current compensation, that's their base.
Then there are differences among employees. Some are brilliant in front of clients while some are best left back at the office in front of the computer. Some are great at selling more services and bringing in more business. Some are very willing to travel. Some need a lot of notice or don't want to travel at all. Some just do the work; some go the extra mile.
Transparency would help; I agree with publishing averages or ranges in job categories. (I once asked an HR lady the range for my job class and she said tartly, "that's confidential information and no one has access to it". Well, except for a coworker who found she was at the top and would no longer get raises or bonuses.)
It would also help if prospective employers were prohibited from asking your current salary. They're in the seat of power most times, so if you want to continue you give up the information. I think they should just quote a range so you both have an idea of whether or not you should pursue it given your expectations.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 1, 2016 10:50:38 GMT -5
This is VERY hard to enforce with legislation- too many variables. First, employers will pay you the least they can that will motivate you to keep working, and women generally are less likely to negotiate (and I put myself in that category). So, when you move to your next job and HR requires that you tell them your current compensation, that's their base. Then there are differences among employees. Some are brilliant in front of clients while some are best left back at the office in front of the computer. Some are great at selling more services and bringing in more business. Some are very willing to travel. Some need a lot of notice or don't want to travel at all. Some just do the work; some go the extra mile. Transparency would help; I agree with publishing averages or ranges in job categories. (I once asked an HR lady the range for my job class and she said tartly, "that's confidential information and no one has access to it". Well, except for a coworker who found she was at the top and would no longer get raises or bonuses.) It would also help if prospective employers were prohibited from asking your current salary. They're in the seat of power most times, so if you want to continue you give up the information. I think they should just quote a range so you both have an idea of whether or not you should pursue it given your expectations. I agree with this. One of the issues that everyone faces (but I think disproportionately impacts women as they are less likely to negotiate) is that many employers require applicants to provide a salary history. What I have made in past jobs is irrelevant. I also think though that almost every employer should be required to disclose the pay band/range of the position either in the job ad or in the initial interview.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,600
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 1, 2016 11:13:20 GMT -5
Most businesses use an annual review. If you can demonstrate that employee A consistently got better annual reviews than Employee B, then you could back up your decision to pay Employee A more.
Where you would get into trouble is when you paid Employee A more just 'because I think he does a better job.' You would need to have specific metrics - never late for work, never late turning in assignments, gladly steps in to help others, always has the highest sales per month, etc.
Now, is it possible that you might fudge the annual reviews and sales numbers in order to make it appear that your buddy Employee A is doing better than Employee B? Sure - but Employee B would have to be able to demonstrate that bias. She would have to show that Employee A had the sugar hole of sales territories, but she took the crappiest sales territory and made it jump in value. Or show that she was always at work while Employee B took off a lot of personal leave days. Or that Employee A went bowling and drinking with you every week while the 'skirts' weren't allowed to go.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 12:01:36 GMT -5
I don't know how you would enforce something like that. I hired two different women for the same position and the pay differential was $20k. Why? Because the first one accepted the lowest amount I was offered (the scale was from $52k to $72k) while the second one wouldn't and told me what she was willing to accept. Absolutely no discrimination on my part. But had the person making $72k been a male then it could appear that there was discrimination. Unfortunately, women tend to accept lower offers than men. This was a blaring example because it was the exact same position. But I have seen it many times over my career.
Then there is the mommy track that a lot of people like to believe doesn't impact one's salary. When I worked at my firm, most women with young children couldn't travel. That meant the men had to travel more to offset (I can only think of one woman that could travel and she had a SAHD...not the norm in this area). Two people doing the same job but one has restrictions and the other doesn't. To me, if one will travel and one won't, the one willing to travel gets paid more and that's not discrimination.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 1, 2016 12:55:49 GMT -5
you could just say, "this is the position. It requires that you do XYZ and the salary is (insert salary here). Do you accept?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 13:47:45 GMT -5
you could just say, "this is the position. It requires that you do XYZ and the salary is (insert salary here). Do you accept?" You could still have one well-qualified candidate accept happily and the other equally well-qualified candidate say, "I'm really excited about the prospects of working with you, but I couldn't accept less than $Y". So, if you decide you want both, you've still got a disparity based solely on willingness to negotiate.
The internet is helping with transparency whether companies like it or not. One large recruiting firm in the actuarial field (DW Simpson) compiles a detailed survey every year and just about every actuary out there (and his/her manager) knows about it. It does get harder to use at the highly-experienced levels; some are permanent spreadsheet monkeys, some are CEOs and some are partners in major consulting firms. So, of course there will be differences.
GlassDoor.com also compiles salaries within companies by job title, and shows averages.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 15:16:06 GMT -5
you could just say, "this is the position. It requires that you do XYZ and the salary is (insert salary here). Do you accept?" But all positions have ranges. That's just the way it works. And I start at the low end of the range and let the candidate negotiate from there
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Aug 1, 2016 15:28:50 GMT -5
From 1976-89 I worked for a company that discussing wages was a termination offense. The company bragged on low wages but had a great ASOP plan. However the wages were lower for the ladies than the gentlemen.
I had been working there a couple of years and they hired a couple of kids just out of high school for the same wages I was making then. I was training them to help in our dept and they told me about it. The reasoning? These kids had the 'potential' to go to college and become engineers. They lasted about six months and quit. They didn't like the work.
I learned at this company to never let any company own you body and soul. I was a good associate for 13 years, got screwed royally, was an employee the last 6 months before I found something else.
Yeah, I was 100% vested in my ASOP account and took it with me after 1 year. The company practice was to keep the account 5 years after separation, but someone took them to court.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,148
|
Post by alabamagal on Aug 1, 2016 15:35:47 GMT -5
First off, the discrepancy is not as high as people think when you compare people in the same positions and same experience level. And that is really the only thing you can compare. I work in Engineering. Currently work for a large multi-national company. Previously worked for a large Fortune 500 company. I have had many engineers working for me over the years and I never saw a pay discrepancy. Or if there was one, I think the female engineers were paid higher, up the middle management level. And I may be biased, but the female engineers I have worked with are generally better at communication than the male engineers, and better at completing tasks. The Fortune 500 company that I worked for started all engineers just out of college across the entire company at the same pay level - there was no negotiation. One time I had a husband and wife both working for me, the husband had 1 more year of experience and made less than his wife . Where I do see more issues is the number of women who make it into upper management of a company. The company I work for now is based in Europe. As much as we think things are not equal in this country, I can tell you at the technical conference I went to, the European contingent was >90% white male. The US contingent is way more diverse, both ethnically and gender. There are things women can do to lower the pay discrepancy. 1) Negotiate better. 2) Don't be afraid to promote yourself. I once had a mentor tell me I was too hard on myself on self-evaluations. 3) Understand that the parent track could slow your career. I was never on mommy track since I was high earner in family, DH started a business where he was more flexible time wise.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,601
|
Post by Ombud on Aug 1, 2016 15:39:26 GMT -5
I don't know how you would enforce something like that. I hired two different women for the same position and the pay differential was $20k. Why? Because the first one accepted the lowest amount I was offered (the scale was from $52k to $72k) while the second one wouldn't and told me what she was willing to accept. Absolutely no discrimination on my part. But had the person making $72k been a male then it could appear that there was discrimination. Unfortunately, women tend to accept lower offers than men. This was a blaring example because it was the exact same position. But I have seen it many times over my career.
Then there is the mommy track that a lot of people like to believe doesn't impact one's salary. When I worked at my firm, most women with young children couldn't travel. That meant the men had to travel more to offset (I can only think of one woman that could travel and she had a SAHD...not the norm in this area). Two people doing the same job but one has restrictions and the other doesn't. To me, if one will travel and one won't, the one willing to travel gets paid more and that's not discrimination. women are notoriously bad salary negotiators
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 15:40:40 GMT -5
I don't know how you would enforce something like that. I hired two different women for the same position and the pay differential was $20k. Why? Because the first one accepted the lowest amount I was offered (the scale was from $52k to $72k) while the second one wouldn't and told me what she was willing to accept. Absolutely no discrimination on my part. But had the person making $72k been a male then it could appear that there was discrimination. Unfortunately, women tend to accept lower offers than men. This was a blaring example because it was the exact same position. But I have seen it many times over my career.
Then there is the mommy track that a lot of people like to believe doesn't impact one's salary. When I worked at my firm, most women with young children couldn't travel. That meant the men had to travel more to offset (I can only think of one woman that could travel and she had a SAHD...not the norm in this area). Two people doing the same job but one has restrictions and the other doesn't. To me, if one will travel and one won't, the one willing to travel gets paid more and that's not discrimination. women are notoriously bad salary negotiators That has been my experience
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 1, 2016 16:49:10 GMT -5
women are notoriously bad salary negotiators That has been my experience But, it's not all on women. Many women try and negotiate and yet are dismissed because the employer doesn't react well to the woman's attempts. It's a chicken and egg thing, I think. If more women tried to negotiate employers would react better, but if employers reacted better more women would try to negotiate.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 1, 2016 17:31:34 GMT -5
Employees are never forbidden to talk about their salaries. In fact, it violates federal law to prohibit employees to discuss wages/salary. However, most employers do discourage discussing salary between employees. I wish all employers had to publish their average salary per job category (perhaps not specific job titles, but general job categories). And I think there are laws that could address some of those issues. But, most decent employers do try and fellow the law. So if there was a law in place, most employers would try and follow it. Yes, I agree that requiring business over a certain size to publish pay data to their employees and the public would help. Even if in and of itself it didn't prevent the pay gap, at least it would allow employees to make informed decisions. I guess the only potential problem I see is perhaps it could hurt business in the sense that businesses are competing with each other for talent, and publishing pay data might put someone at a disadvantage? Would such a move also open up businesses to potential frivilous lawsuits, in addition to the legitimate ones? Another idea, if businesses have to report pay data to the government, perhaps if the gender wage gap becomes too large, the business would have to be investigated? It may not be a perfect solution, but it might stop the most egregious offenders.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 1, 2016 17:41:13 GMT -5
I don't know how you would enforce something like that. I hired two different women for the same position and the pay differential was $20k. Why? Because the first one accepted the lowest amount I was offered (the scale was from $52k to $72k) while the second one wouldn't and told me what she was willing to accept. Absolutely no discrimination on my part. But had the person making $72k been a male then it could appear that there was discrimination. Unfortunately, women tend to accept lower offers than men. This was a blaring example because it was the exact same position. But I have seen it many times over my career.
Then there is the mommy track that a lot of people like to believe doesn't impact one's salary. When I worked at my firm, most women with young children couldn't travel. That meant the men had to travel more to offset (I can only think of one woman that could travel and she had a SAHD...not the norm in this area). Two people doing the same job but one has restrictions and the other doesn't. To me, if one will travel and one won't, the one willing to travel gets paid more and that's not discrimination. If the job requires travel, it isn't fair to put it on those without children vs. those that have them. I'd be pissed if I had to travel more because someone else " couldn't."
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 17:54:53 GMT -5
That has been my experience But, it's not all on women. Many women try and negotiate and yet are dismissed because the employer doesn't react well to the woman's attempts. It's a chicken and egg thing, I think. If more women tried to negotiate employers would react better, but if employers reacted better more women would try to negotiate. I've never had an employer react negatively to me negotiating. I think it goes against our nature. I would never hold it against a woman for negotiating. I actually think less of a person that accepts a lower salary without question.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 17:56:55 GMT -5
I don't know how you would enforce something like that. I hired two different women for the same position and the pay differential was $20k. Why? Because the first one accepted the lowest amount I was offered (the scale was from $52k to $72k) while the second one wouldn't and told me what she was willing to accept. Absolutely no discrimination on my part. But had the person making $72k been a male then it could appear that there was discrimination. Unfortunately, women tend to accept lower offers than men. This was a blaring example because it was the exact same position. But I have seen it many times over my career.
Then there is the mommy track that a lot of people like to believe doesn't impact one's salary. When I worked at my firm, most women with young children couldn't travel. That meant the men had to travel more to offset (I can only think of one woman that could travel and she had a SAHD...not the norm in this area). Two people doing the same job but one has restrictions and the other doesn't. To me, if one will travel and one won't, the one willing to travel gets paid more and that's not discrimination. If the job requires travel, it isn't fair to put it on those without children vs. those that have them. I'd be pissed if I had to travel more because someone else " couldn't." It is all what you want. If you want the promotions and the big bonuses you travel when needed. The men didn't complain because they were compensated for it. Not just men but the women without children. But I can only remember one woman who traveled and worked an insane amount of hours once her kids came. And I can tell you she was judged very harshly by everyone. But the men weren't.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 1, 2016 18:01:09 GMT -5
If the job requires travel, it isn't fair to put it on those without children vs. those that have them. I'd be pissed if I had to travel more because someone else " couldn't." It is all what you want. If you want the promotions and the big bonuses you travel when needed. The men didn't complain because they were compensated for it. Not just men but the women without children. But I can only remember one woman who traveled and worked an insane amount of hours once her kids came. And I can tell you she was judged very harshly by everyone. But the men weren't.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 18:03:47 GMT -5
It is all what you want. If you want the promotions and the big bonuses you travel when needed. The men didn't complain because they were compensated for it. Not just men but the women without children. But I can only remember one woman who traveled and worked an insane amount of hours once her kids came. And I can tell you she was judged very harshly by everyone. But the men weren't. I've been gone 5 years now. Maybe things are changing.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 1, 2016 18:06:15 GMT -5
If the job requires travel, it isn't fair to put it on those without children vs. those that have them. I'd be pissed if I had to travel more because someone else " couldn't." It is all what you want. If you want the promotions and the big bonuses you travel when needed. The men didn't complain because they were compensated for it. Not just men but the women without children. But I can only remember one woman who traveled and worked an insane amount of hours once her kids came. And I can tell you she was judged very harshly by everyone. But the men weren't. So moms are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Aug 1, 2016 18:11:51 GMT -5
It is all what you want. If you want the promotions and the big bonuses you travel when needed. The men didn't complain because they were compensated for it. Not just men but the women without children. But I can only remember one woman who traveled and worked an insane amount of hours once her kids came. And I can tell you she was judged very harshly by everyone. But the men weren't. So moms are damned if they do and damned if they don't. How's the saying go? Work as if you don't have kids but parent as if you don't have a job?
|
|
Anne_in_VA
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:09:35 GMT -5
Posts: 5,547
|
Post by Anne_in_VA on Aug 1, 2016 18:16:17 GMT -5
In the past when I tried to negotiate salary, I was told! "This is what we're offering". What was unsaid but was just as plain, was the take it or leave it attitude.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 18:18:39 GMT -5
In the past when I tried to negotiate salary, I was told! "This is what we're offering". What was unsaid but was just as plain, was the take it or leave it attitude. I've said that in the past to candidates. The difference is that Ivr had women take it. The men either continue to negotiate or they walk. Not always but definitely the majority.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 18:22:13 GMT -5
It is all what you want. If you want the promotions and the big bonuses you travel when needed. The men didn't complain because they were compensated for it. Not just men but the women without children. But I can only remember one woman who traveled and worked an insane amount of hours once her kids came. And I can tell you she was judged very harshly by everyone. But the men weren't. So moms are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Im not disagreeing. It is still rare in my area for the mom to not want to be home with the kids. That might change as the younger, more liberal, generation enter the professjonal world. So the trail blazers are judged.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,313
|
Post by chen35 on Aug 1, 2016 18:27:57 GMT -5
In my years of hiring, I've only had one person (male) negotiate a salary. He didn't even end up taking the job because he was just using it to get a better offer from his current employer. Do most people, even most men, negotiate?
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 1, 2016 18:44:26 GMT -5
But, it's not all on women. Many women try and negotiate and yet are dismissed because the employer doesn't react well to the woman's attempts. It's a chicken and egg thing, I think. If more women tried to negotiate employers would react better, but if employers reacted better more women would try to negotiate. I've never had an employer react negatively to me negotiating. I think it goes against our nature. I would never hold it against a woman for negotiating. I actually think less of a person that accepts a lower salary without question. Unfortunately, I have. I have had an offer withdrawn when I attempted to negotiate, and my current job acted as though I out of line for negotiating. But, I always negotiate, because raises, 401k contributions, etc., are all based on salary.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 18:56:00 GMT -5
I've never had an employer react negatively to me negotiating. I think it goes against our nature. I would never hold it against a woman for negotiating. I actually think less of a person that accepts a lower salary without question. Unfortunately, I have. I have had an offer withdrawn when I attempted to negotiate, and my current job acted as though I out of line for negotiating. But, I always negotiate, because raises, 401k contributions, etc., are all based on salary. But do you know that they wouldn't have done to a man? The person interviewing you could have just been an ass.
|
|