Hopefully they didnt "fix" this by just giving people who works less, and are worse at their jobs, more money just because of their skin color and gender.
Seriously? Did you even read what they said?
Intel defines pay equity as closing the gap in the average pay between employees of different genders or races and ethnicities, where data is available, in the same or similar roles after accounting for legitimate business factors that can explain differences, such as performance, time at grade level and tenure.
This really isn't very complicated.
So a shortcut to better pay for same effort output is to pick something else on the gender spectrum? Fantastic! Ain't nobody gonna complain about extra dollars if all it takes is saying I am interested in more than one type of holes, or sticks, or whatever floats your boat.
See above.
The problem is this is a false argument from the very get go..... imagine a scenario where all genders are equally productive (the one which people are trying to paint right now). Now imagine one of those genders are paid less.... wouldn't it be prudent for all companies to first hire the equally productive and qualified gender that is paid less??? I mean, that is the capitalistic way right? Same amount and quality of work for less pay. But wait.... that's not what has happened. There are still more men than women in these industries. Must be that men are keeping women out of these industries. But then we have all these scholarships and grants that go to the "minority" gender in engineering or other STEM fields. See how your twisted view of things starts to fall apart?? On top of that, there are many studies that highlight the fact that women, on average, take more sick days than men. As more and more of the talking points of pay equality are studied, the more and more it shows that it is very much a fallacy. Where I work right now (all men and all engineers), there is no set wage; we all knew what we valued ourselves at and negotiated our salary ourselves, not as a collective gender.
But the above argument is mostly for the US since I can't comment on work force experience outside of here, but for what I have experienced myself, yeah it is PC bullsh*t.
I see your cherry-picked statistics and raise you a more complex view of the world:
-Hiring doesn't follow gender wage gap spending patterns when there also exists a stigma in society saying that one group (gender, ethnicity, etc.) is somehow better at said job than others. When that's the case, hiring follows the latter pattern.
-Men aren't keeping women out, nor are white (and to some extent asian) people keeping other people of color out - but patriarchal and racist social structures where men and people from certain ethnic groups are believed to be better at these jobs are indeed keeping people not belonging to those groups out of these industries. Of course, this is systemic and not just something found in hiring practices, which means that the problem shows itself at far earlier stages (from socialization into interest for particular subjects to the adaptation of study programmes to teaching/learning styles more suited to the socialized behaviours of certain groups).
-Plenty of studies show that taking sick day
increases productivity when compared to
not taking sick days and coming in to work sick. Recovery takes significantly longer, productivity drops over a longer period of time, and the chance of infecting co-workers increases dramatically. This aligns with countries with generous sick leave laws generally having high levels of productivity - Norway has one of the most lenient sick leave policies in the world, yet in 2017 we were 3rd globally on the OECD's ranking of level of GDP per capita and productivity.
-Your last point just proves that rules and norms are necessary - expecting everyone to negotiate their own salaries is something that ultimately gains employers, not employees (seriously, look it up), and advantages privileged groups (white men in particular) as they are far more likely to have their demands met by management due to inherent (and often unconscious) bias. With women as an example, they are both socialized to value themselves less than men and to be less demanding in situations like this,
and are seen as less valuable employees and less productive despite evidence to the contrary - in other words, they are doubly disadvantaged in any salary negotiation.
Bunch of meaningless crap to make it seem like they are fulfilling their progressive/socialist agenda, or rather the agenda that is imposed to them due to political circumstances.
You can bet your ass most of their employees, at least when talking about engineering positions, are still overwhelmingly men and are definitely getting paid more on average because they still perform more complicated jobs after all. This will always be the case and there is nothing unfair/wrong about it.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha XD XD XD
Intel has (or is pretending to have) a socialist agenda? Seriously? Please, enlighten me as to what exactly this might be, as Intel is about as much of a predatory capitalist company as you'll ever find.
And, again, nobody has said anything about wage equality between different jobs or for people with different levels of education - this is about wage equality in
equivalent jobs
when accounting for factors such as performance, tenure, and time at grade level. You're (intentionally or not) misunderstanding the basic premise of what this is about - which from your rhetoric seems like a scare tactic to make this look like the scary PC mafia is coming for the high-paying jobs for well-educated people. That is obfuscation at its very worst.
To sum up: We closed the gender pay gap by giving women a higher wage than men
That is ... an interesting take. Where, exactly, do you find any support whatsoever for that statement? 'cause from where I'm looking, that would
create a wage gap, not remove one.
