emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 1, 2016 19:44:41 GMT -5
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 I have had an offer withdrawn when I attempted to negotiate, and my current job acted as though I out of line for negotiating.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. I don't. They might have just been an ass. But, I do know that after I had that offer withdrawn I was very concerned about trying to negotiate in the future in case I had another job withdrawn. In terms of my current employer, some of my male co-workers have shared that they didn't have the same sort of experience that I did. I think ink that is part of the issue. You don't know if a company is treating you differently or just treating all their potential employees like crap. It is why I think salary ranges should be posted for positions, because it's the secrecy that causes the majority of the issues.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 1, 2016 20:08:24 GMT -5
But do you know that they wouldn't have done to a man? The person interviewing you could have just been an ass. I don't. They might have just been an ass. But, I do know that after I had that offer withdrawn I was very concerned about trying to negotiate in the future in case I had another job withdrawn. In terms of my current employer, some of my male co-workers have shared that they didn't have the same sort of experience that I did. I think ink that is part of the issue. You don't know if a company is treating you differently or just treating all their potential employees like crap. It is why I think salary ranges should be posted for positions, because it's the secrecy that causes the majority of the issues. I disagree. If I had an offer withdrawn because of negotiating I would know that was not a place I wanted to work. It would not deter me from negotiating in the future. I don't know of any professional jobs that aren't negotiable. I see it all the time where I work. Even if it is just negotiating vacation (I'm entitled to two weeks per policy but I get four). We have one sales guy that gets 5 weeks because that is what he negotiated.
The lower the level position the less room for negotiation. I certainly wouldn't give a clerk 4 weeks upon hire but I would go up in salary a little if I thought they had skills that warranted it.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 1, 2016 20:29:49 GMT -5
By a strange coincidence, this was a topic I read on Vox just this morning. Conclusion was, it's a tiny bit the negotiating, but mostly the flexibility: www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12108126/gender-wage-gap-explained-real...and before saying, well there you go! How about thinking of ways to allow for more flexibility? I mean, there's some collaboration needed at work, but is it really necessary 100% of the time? In what ways can we make jobs more flexible for everybody--men and women alike?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:24:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 20:40:45 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." I agree. My nephew was passed over for a promotion but the woman who got it said she couldn't travel because she was a single mother. Nephew ended up traveling a lot to make up for it. It was good exposure for him (and missed opportunities for her) but he eventually got fed up and found another job.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 5:56:25 GMT -5
By a strange coincidence, this was a topic I read on Vox just this morning. Conclusion was, it's a tiny bit the negotiating, but mostly the flexibility: www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12108126/gender-wage-gap-explained-real...and before saying, well there you go! How about thinking of ways to allow for more flexibility? I mean, there's some collaboration needed at work, but is it really necessary 100% of the time? In what ways can we make jobs more flexible for everybody--men and women alike? But if the men don't require flexibility and are willing tonso whatever is needed to be done, don't they deserve more in the form of compensation and promotions?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 2, 2016 6:07:06 GMT -5
I think Miss T does have a point in that negotiation likely only applies to professional and semi professional jobs. But if you're doing a job most everyone can do, there's a lot less room for negotiation because the employer will just get someone else.
Keep in mind it's been an employers market for a long time. Thousands of people have applied for a few open jobs at Walmart.
I've only recently gotten to the point in my professional career where I feel I have the experience and qualifications to negotiate future jobs. When you're hungry for a job, many people don't feel the need to negotiate.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 6:11:32 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." I agree. My nephew was passed over for a promotion but the woman who got it said she couldn't travel because she was a single mother. Nephew ended up traveling a lot to make up for it. It was good exposure for him (and missed opportunities for her) but he eventually got fed up and found another job. I think it depends on the situation. If the position itself requires travels, than I absoltely agree with you. However, if it is a matter of which clients that they send you to then it can work. Women used to leave my firm in drives because they weren't flexible at all for working moms. Women now make up half the accountants. They didn't institute "mommy tracking" to be nice to women. They did it because they were having major staffing issues. To be clear, they didn't hire in women to go on tr mommy track but they did allow those of us that had children once we were there to do it. Im sure the men didn't like traveling but they knew it was part of the job and what will get them the higher salaries and promotions. We were paid less than the men and women who could travel. And most likely since bonuses and raised are usually a % of your existing compensation, we probably never caught up. But to me that was the trade off and I would never complain about making less than a man who was willing to give up his life (public accounting is not an easy career) when I wasnt.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 2, 2016 10:07:52 GMT -5
By a strange coincidence, this was a topic I read on Vox just this morning. Conclusion was, it's a tiny bit the negotiating, but mostly the flexibility: www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12108126/gender-wage-gap-explained-real...and before saying, well there you go! How about thinking of ways to allow for more flexibility? I mean, there's some collaboration needed at work, but is it really necessary 100% of the time? In what ways can we make jobs more flexible for everybody--men and women alike? But if the men don't require flexibility and are willing tonso whatever is needed to be done, don't they deserve more in the form of compensation and promotions? Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,103
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 2, 2016 10:13:10 GMT -5
But if the men don't require flexibility and are willing tonso whatever is needed to be done, don't they deserve more in the form of compensation and promotions? Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours? DH's previous workplace was like that. He got chided for only putting in "40 hours" and that clearly meant he must be doing sloppy work because "look at so and so she's working 60-80 hours a week". In reality DH knew they were milking the clock because they had bragged about it to him! The one person waited to do all her paperwork at the very end of the day so she could get at least two hours of overtime every day. DH did his paperwork as he went along because it was more efficient. Instead of looking into why he could get the same amount of work done in 40 hours he was told he needed to "find busy work" in order to get to the same amount of hours as his co-worker. So he started dicking around on the internet and suddenly he got better performance reviews because of all the "face time" he was putting in.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 2, 2016 12:09:52 GMT -5
But if the men don't require flexibility and are willing tonso whatever is needed to be done, don't they deserve more in the form of compensation and promotions? Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours? While it would be nice if it worked like that, often it just doesn't, and sometimes there are reasons for it not working that way.
First, there are some jobs where simply being "there" is a big part of the job. Jobs in support roles often fall into this category.
There are other jobs where part of the job (or maybe even most of it) is essentially "be available to solve problems that come up". I probably fall into this quite a bit. I'm a business analyst...I could probably do my "designated duties" in about 10 hours a week. I don't get paid what I do for just doing that work though, I get paid because when people have a problem, I'm around to help them figure it out without letting them crash the company.
This seems to work similarly in a lot of IT functions as well. It's great that you're done with your job at 5pm, but if everyone else is slow as hell and working until 10pm, and part of the expectation is that you're around to help them when they get stuck...then you're kind of screwed if you're not staying late also.
It's not always about "what you do"...often it's about being paid to be available. And like it or not, there are still a lot of companies (and people within those companies) who want someone on-site as their availability. In some ways I understand it, it takes me about 3x as long to walk someone through a solution when I'm working remotely than it does if I can just go to their desk and show them (I'm not IT, but people are still clueless).
Even though our company policy is pretty progressive towards working virtually, I still see it all the time in people I work with. I'm working at home today, I was on PTO Friday and Monday...I've received VERY few requests for things today (which normally I'd be slammed after being out 2 days). I guarantee when I go back into the office tomorrow I'll be slammed with people who just didn't want to call or email their problems to me, they want to stop by my desk and talk to me about them. It's not logical, nor is it efficient (primarily I stay home on days I'm not busy because I can't stand to have to "look busy" when it's slow, nor do I really want to surf the internet). Whoever comes up to me tomorrow is going to be told to wait and that I'll work on it on Friday...when I'm back working at home not busy again. They pay no mind to the fact that when they email me at home I solve their problem in an hour, and when they catch me at work it takes me 2 days because those are my busy days...they just WANT that face to face contact. People still attribute value to be in the same physical location.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 12:16:58 GMT -5
But if the men don't require flexibility and are willing tonso whatever is needed to be done, don't they deserve more in the form of compensation and promotions? Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours? I'm not sure you understand how public accounting works. There is work product that is due. if a person charges a shit ton of hours while they "fuck around on the internet" the clients will have outrageous bill, pushback will be made and excess hours will have to be explained. And if one employee continues to blow the budget (each audit has a budget set my the partner) he/she will be cut. NOt to mention, your close out on your jobs is a function of your bonus...so pretending to work excess hours results in no overtime (we are salaried) and a reduced bonus. Where is the incentive?
During busy season, the normal work week when I was there was 70 hours a week with 7 days a week not being uncommon. Employees are scheduled out each week with 55 hours being the minimum and could go up. The problem is that there is always wrap up from other jobs that you need to do once you move to another client...hence the hours way beyond 55 that a person is scheduled.
And there were plenty of women who didn't want to be scheduled for 55 hours a week (which was the minimum schedule for 4 months out of the year for all full time employees) nor did they want to travel.
Perhaps you work at a cushy job where no one is expected to work more than 40 hours a week. That isn't the case in public accounting (which is where I pulled my experience from). And since no one gets overtime and it would reduce your bonus, there is absolutely no incentive to sit around just to look like you are working a lot. Or pretend to work 80 hours a week instead of 40. That would kill your reputation and your career as no client is going to pay double for an audit.
I think you come from a different world than I do...of course, I don't sit around accusing you of "twiddling your thumbs, gabbing, fucking around"....glad to know you can discuss issues without making stuff up and going on the attack
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 12:18:19 GMT -5
Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours? DH's previous workplace was like that. He got chided for only putting in "40 hours" and that clearly meant he must be doing sloppy work because "look at so and so she's working 60-80 hours a week". In reality DH knew they were milking the clock because they had bragged about it to him! The one person waited to do all her paperwork at the very end of the day so she could get at least two hours of overtime every day. DH did his paperwork as he went along because it was more efficient. Instead of looking into why he could get the same amount of work done in 40 hours he was told he needed to "find busy work" in order to get to the same amount of hours as his co-worker. So he started dicking around on the internet and suddenly he got better performance reviews because of all the "face time" he was putting in. That makes no sense to me. Your husband and his co-workers are hourly employees. Why in the hell would they want them to work more hours??
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 2, 2016 12:22:14 GMT -5
DH's previous workplace was like that. He got chided for only putting in "40 hours" and that clearly meant he must be doing sloppy work because "look at so and so she's working 60-80 hours a week". In reality DH knew they were milking the clock because they had bragged about it to him! The one person waited to do all her paperwork at the very end of the day so she could get at least two hours of overtime every day. DH did his paperwork as he went along because it was more efficient. Instead of looking into why he could get the same amount of work done in 40 hours he was told he needed to "find busy work" in order to get to the same amount of hours as his co-worker. So he started dicking around on the internet and suddenly he got better performance reviews because of all the "face time" he was putting in. That makes no sense to me. Your husband and his co-workers are hourly employees. Why in the hell would they want them to work more hours?? Could be a few reasons:
-If you're the direct boss, having employees work a ton of hours may signal "look how busy we are, we're understaffed, no chance of trimming the budget here" -If you're the boss, and those employees are your friends, the last thing you want is someone shining light on your friends milking OT -People just put a weird value on face time -What a "boss" wants is often not the best thing for the company overall
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,103
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 2, 2016 12:24:06 GMT -5
DH's previous workplace was like that. He got chided for only putting in "40 hours" and that clearly meant he must be doing sloppy work because "look at so and so she's working 60-80 hours a week". In reality DH knew they were milking the clock because they had bragged about it to him! The one person waited to do all her paperwork at the very end of the day so she could get at least two hours of overtime every day. DH did his paperwork as he went along because it was more efficient. Instead of looking into why he could get the same amount of work done in 40 hours he was told he needed to "find busy work" in order to get to the same amount of hours as his co-worker. So he started dicking around on the internet and suddenly he got better performance reviews because of all the "face time" he was putting in. That makes no sense to me. Your husband and his co-workers are hourly employees. Why in the hell would they want them to work more hours?? The owner and president of the company were very big on face time. The owner once told DH to go find work because if the owner was in his office then he better be able to see across the hall that DH was in his seat. DH better not be leaving until he saw the owner of the company leave. The president was the same way. A LOT if people figured out how to play the game. They were not happy when new owners came in and started making people prove 60 hours were justified. What was REALLY interesting was apparently the VPs were also hourly and milking the clock to look good in front of the owner. They were REALLY pissed off when not only did the new company make them salaried but questioned why there were so many of them in the first place. I understand not every profession under the sun can be done in a 40 hour work week and that there are professions where there are high/low periods of work. However I do think that our country as a whole tends to wear the "60+ hour work week" as a badge of honor. Instead of racing to work ourselves into the graves faster it would be worth examining how many of these jobs REALLY need to be that long.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 2, 2016 12:27:54 GMT -5
Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours? I'm not sure you understand how public accounting works. There is work product that is due. if a person charges a shit ton of hours while they "fuck around on the internet" the clients will have outrageous bill, pushback will be made and excess hours will have to be explained. And if one employee continues to blow the budget (each audit has a budget set my the partner) he/she will be cut. NOt to mention, your close out on your jobs is a function of your bonus...so pretending to work excess hours results in no overtime (we are salaried) and a reduced bonus. Where is the incentive?
During busy season, the normal work week when I was there was 70 hours a week with 7 days a week not being uncommon. Employees are scheduled out each week with 55 hours being the minimum and could go up. The problem is that there is always wrap up from other jobs that you need to do once you move to another client...hence the hours way beyond 55 that a person is scheduled.
And there were plenty of women who didn't want to be scheduled for 55 hours a week (which was the minimum schedule for 4 months out of the year for all full time employees) nor did they want to travel.
Perhaps you work at a cushy job where no one is expected to work more than 40 hours a week. That isn't the case in public accounting (which is where I pulled my experience from). And since no one gets overtime and it would reduce your bonus, there is absolutely no incentive to sit around just to look like you are working a lot. Or pretend to work 80 hours a week instead of 40. That would kill your reputation and your career as no client is going to pay double for an audit.
I think you come from a different world than I do...of course, I don't sit around accusing you of "twiddling your thumbs, gabbing, fucking around"....glad to know you can discuss issues without making stuff up and going on the attack
I was speaking in general terms. Public accounting is one job out of thousands, you know? The objective isn't to find the jobs where flexibility isn't possible, it's how to better incorporate the flexibility that is possible.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 2, 2016 12:31:22 GMT -5
Having no personal life /= great job performance. How about, if lots of hours are actually required for a certain project, they get a bonus for exactly what they did, not what they possibly could do because they hang around the office--sometimes twiddling their thumbs, gabbing about unwork-related stuff, or fucking around on the internet looking like their putting in a ton of hours? While it would be nice if it worked like that, often it just doesn't, and sometimes there are reasons for it not working that way.
First, there are some jobs where simply being "there" is a big part of the job. Jobs in support roles often fall into this category.
There are other jobs where part of the job (or maybe even most of it) is essentially "be available to solve problems that come up". I probably fall into this quite a bit. I'm a business analyst...I could probably do my "designated duties" in about 10 hours a week. I don't get paid what I do for just doing that work though, I get paid because when people have a problem, I'm around to help them figure it out without letting them crash the company.
This seems to work similarly in a lot of IT functions as well. It's great that you're done with your job at 5pm, but if everyone else is slow as hell and working until 10pm, and part of the expectation is that you're around to help them when they get stuck...then you're kind of screwed if you're not staying late also.
It's not always about "what you do"...often it's about being paid to be available. And like it or not, there are still a lot of companies (and people within those companies) who want someone on-site as their availability. In some ways I understand it, it takes me about 3x as long to walk someone through a solution when I'm working remotely than it does if I can just go to their desk and show them (I'm not IT, but people are still clueless).
Even though our company policy is pretty progressive towards working virtually, I still see it all the time in people I work with. I'm working at home today, I was on PTO Friday and Monday...I've received VERY few requests for things today (which normally I'd be slammed after being out 2 days). I guarantee when I go back into the office tomorrow I'll be slammed with people who just didn't want to call or email their problems to me, they want to stop by my desk and talk to me about them. It's not logical, nor is it efficient (primarily I stay home on days I'm not busy because I can't stand to have to "look busy" when it's slow, nor do I really want to surf the internet). Whoever comes up to me tomorrow is going to be told to wait and that I'll work on it on Friday...when I'm back working at home not busy again. They pay no mind to the fact that when they email me at home I solve their problem in an hour, and when they catch me at work it takes me 2 days because those are my busy days...they just WANT that face to face contact. People still attribute value to be in the same physical location.
So find ways where some flexibility can be incorporated. Remind people that they can contact you when you're working from home and you can tackle their requests quicker. It takes some effort to change company culture.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 2, 2016 12:43:58 GMT -5
I don't personally care when people contact me, it doesn't really affect me. I'm just saying that until people (people in the generic sense, society, the majority of employers, whatever) put value into work accomplished vs time spent...it's going to be tough for women to get equal treatment. Much of that has nothing to do with work, and lots to do with social convention, specifically that women are primary caretakers of children.
If people attribute value to simply physically being in a set location, then those with the flexibility to be "around" will be deemed more valuable. Typically those are men and childless women (or perhaps more specifically single women since there are still plenty of assumptions that married childless women will be around to "keep house"). I guess what I'm saying is that it's not JUST about some conscious or sub-conscious decision of "he's a man, give him more", it's also about what companies value in a completely gender-agnostic way. It just happens that the things they value tend to be things that are found in people with more flexibility to be on-location, which typically ends up being dominated by males. It's not just about handing women the same paycheck, it's about changing how we ascribe value to employees. Flexibility helps everyone who is valuable...it just helps women a lot more as they have more ground to make up.
So if I'm a robot with absolutely no concept of male/female (in order to remove prejudice), and my value system is in large part based on how long you're on the company premises...I'm probably paying men more. Until that bias toward face-time disappears, or the gender norms of women being primary caretakers of others (children, elderly parents, etc) changes...it's not JUST about bias towards women. It's often a bias towards things not really related to gender as a workplace, but which societal norms push towards one gender or another completely outside of any individual employer.
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Aug 2, 2016 16:08:03 GMT -5
People like to complain about Millennials but I think they have positively influenced public accounting. Now most public accountants still tend to be the achiever sort, so most are internally motivated to work like crazy. However, I have seen younger associates are more willing to push back and say no I'm not working this weekend, I'll do it Monday. I think that is the only way the accounting profession will change.
I think sometimes people want the big salaries but sometimes those big salaries come with chains that IMO are not worth it. I still see that most partners who are male have stay at home wives and female partners are generally single and childless. I'm not in a big hurry for a promotion since as far as I can see it will just come with more work and I'm not sure the extra money is worth working 7 days a week.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 16:43:24 GMT -5
People like to complain about Millennials but I think they have positively influenced public accounting. Now most public accountants still tend to be the achiever sort, so most are internally motivated to work like crazy. However, I have seen younger associates are more willing to push back and say no I'm not working this weekend, I'll do it Monday. I think that is the only way the accounting profession will change. I think sometimes people want the big salaries but sometimes those big salaries come with chains that IMO are not worth it. I still see that most partners who are male have stay at home wives and female partners are generally single and childless. I'm not in a big hurry for a promotion since as far as I can see it will just come with more work and I'm not sure the extra money is worth working 7 days a week. Pushback is great but deadlines are deadlines and the workload is what it is. Unless they have hired a lot more bodies than when I worked (I left public 5 years ago) I'm not sure how refusing to work a weekend would fly.
And I am definitely in agreement that big salaries come with chains. But that's the basis of this thread. Why do women make less and a lot of the time it is because we don't think the big salaries are worth the trade off of losing time with our families.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 2, 2016 17:21:28 GMT -5
DS's girlfriend is a CPA. She can work from home 3x a week now. She only needs to show up at the office twice a week. She just got a promotion, a bonus, and a fat raise. She'll be 36 next week, childless, but plans on having them in a few years.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 2, 2016 17:22:15 GMT -5
She does work for one of the big ones.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 17:28:48 GMT -5
DS's girlfriend is a CPA. She can work from home 3x a week now. She only needs to show up at the office twice a week. She just got a promotion, a bonus, and a fat raise. She'll be 36 next week, childless, but plans on having them in a few years. Times are a changing. But I also think it makes a difference as to your level and what you do. When you are a lower level staff you have to work at clients to do their audits. Once you are in a review capacity you can get away with not being at the client as much...but then you have a bunch of clients to take care of at the same time.
Do you know what she does? Being a CPA doesn't really define her role or what she does. I'm not in private finance which is completely different than when I worked in public accounting. But if you are an auditor, especially before you get to the review stage, your work is done at clients. You can't audit a client from home.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 2, 2016 17:33:14 GMT -5
She's upper level. That just happened. Her client is in Orlando so she has to go there at certain times. I'll ask more. I just never think of it. It's been years since I dated an accountant! Last one was DH who worked for Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell, if I'm remembering and spelling it right.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 2, 2016 18:15:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure you understand how public accounting works. There is work product that is due. if a person charges a shit ton of hours while they "fuck around on the internet" the clients will have outrageous bill, pushback will be made and excess hours will have to be explained. And if one employee continues to blow the budget (each audit has a budget set my the partner) he/she will be cut. NOt to mention, your close out on your jobs is a function of your bonus...so pretending to work excess hours results in no overtime (we are salaried) and a reduced bonus. Where is the incentive?
During busy season, the normal work week when I was there was 70 hours a week with 7 days a week not being uncommon. Employees are scheduled out each week with 55 hours being the minimum and could go up. The problem is that there is always wrap up from other jobs that you need to do once you move to another client...hence the hours way beyond 55 that a person is scheduled.
And there were plenty of women who didn't want to be scheduled for 55 hours a week (which was the minimum schedule for 4 months out of the year for all full time employees) nor did they want to travel.
Perhaps you work at a cushy job where no one is expected to work more than 40 hours a week. That isn't the case in public accounting (which is where I pulled my experience from). And since no one gets overtime and it would reduce your bonus, there is absolutely no incentive to sit around just to look like you are working a lot. Or pretend to work 80 hours a week instead of 40. That would kill your reputation and your career as no client is going to pay double for an audit.
I think you come from a different world than I do...of course, I don't sit around accusing you of "twiddling your thumbs, gabbing, fucking around"....glad to know you can discuss issues without making stuff up and going on the attack
I was speaking in general terms. Public accounting is one job out of thousands, you know? The objective isn't to find the jobs where flexibility isn't possible, it's how to better incorporate the flexibility that is possible. You quoted my post specifically talking about my experience in public accounting. And had a "well if you all would stop fucking around you would get done and not have to work a lot of hours". Again I explained to you how public accounting works and another snarky reply. So, you have it set in your mind that all women should be able to work whenever they want, work where they want, work as much as they want, and get paid as much as men who cover for them. Got it
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 2, 2016 18:36:16 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. The problem with that is it's too simplistic...there is more to jobs than just titles.
Before two people can have equal pay they should also have: Equal education Equal experience Equal merits Equal drive/ambition Equal competency
But, of course, politicos don't care about any of these things...all they see are two people who have the same job title being paid different wages. It's the idiocy of government pandering at work...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 2, 2016 18:39:51 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. The surprising thing I've found is that many companies expect (or maybe prefer) new hires to renegotiate the offered starting salary. Sure, they'll be tickled pink if you choose their offer, but they are usually willing to negotiate - and if they aren't, then that's the best signal you can have for NOT taking the job with that company.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,242
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 2, 2016 18:43:23 GMT -5
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. The problem with that is it's too simplistic...there is more to jobs than just titles.
Before two people can have equal pay they should also have: Equal education Equal experience Equal merits Equal drive/ambition Equal competency
But, of course, politicos don't care about any of these things...all they see are two people who have the same job title being paid different wages. It's the idiocy of government pandering at work...
That is why there is a court case to prove or disprove gender bias.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 2, 2016 18:49:12 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? I have on past jobs...especially the ones early on when I was getting paid piddly
I negotiated the salary at my first job after 18 months, was offered a $1.50/hour raise from another company, my current company wouldn't at least match it, so I took the new job.
In my last job, I had worked at for five years and only received one raise (this was during the high of the recent recession, though). But once business started picking up and I was putting in massive hours, I expected some higher compensation. They said no, so I left.
At my current job, before I was hired they offered me 12% more than I had hoped to get paid, so I didn't feel the need to negotiate! Plus it is a great company that I actually like working for...it may not last forever, but for now I'm going to enjoy it
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 2, 2016 18:57:40 GMT -5
The problem with that is it's too simplistic...there is more to jobs than just titles.
Before two people can have equal pay they should also have: Equal education Equal experience Equal merits Equal drive/ambition Equal competency
But, of course, politicos don't care about any of these things...all they see are two people who have the same job title being paid different wages. It's the idiocy of government pandering at work...
That is why there is a court case to prove or disprove gender bias. Will the lawyers be working pro bono on that?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 2, 2016 19:26:40 GMT -5
I was speaking in general terms. Public accounting is one job out of thousands, you know? The objective isn't to find the jobs where flexibility isn't possible, it's how to better incorporate the flexibility that is possible. You quoted my post specifically talking about my experience in public accounting. And had a "well if you all would stop fucking around you would get done and not have to work a lot of hours". Again I explained to you how public accounting works and another snarky reply. So, you have it set in your mind that all women should be able to work whenever they want, work where they want, work as much as they want, and get paid as much as men who cover for them. Got it I didn't quote anything about public accounting until the last one. I started out bringing up a link to a story, and you quoted me about men. You didn't specify men in public accounting. It's all there, so no need to get huffy about it. There's a lot more jobs in the world than accounting, and this inequality problem shows up in most (not so much in pharmacy these days, if you read the article).
|
|