|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2015 11:23 IgnE wrote:
I actually think the pay gap is a relic of older generations and distorted somewhat by male-dominated executive positions. I would like to see some data on the pay-gap in 21-30 year olds with a college degree.
For what it's worth and I've said it before, I agree the gap is smaller than the $0.70 figure that is highly exaggerated and often used. The real issues are more complicated than that.
But as we see Jonny struggling to comprehend how HR actually works in real life, trying to get into the nuance of the fading gender gap might be lost on him and others.
Yeah once a certain tipping point is reached in society a lot of the problems just slowly fade out from people having diverse enough experiences to realize their parents/peers have some really ignorant/jerky tendencies/beliefs.
They may not be openly ok with it themselves, but they don't brand their children with those beliefs, then those children grow up and more of them aren't so jerky (in those particular ways) and it works kind of like evolution from there, the frequency of people with the 'non-jerk' allele become more prevalent.
EDIT: From the little I know though the gap is still there but it's for many of the same reasons it exists elsewhere which go much deeper than 'preference'.
|
|
|
Weird, I would have thought the pay gap is opposite actually. One reason why I stay home and my wife works, is there is simply more opportunity for her and can find work that pays around double that of anything I'd find.
|
On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Show nested quote +Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion.
The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise.
|
On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. [quote] Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise.
You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's a group of posters dedicated to proving that racism does not exist. it's pretty much useless to discuss things with this group.
|
On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also?
Again your source kind of craps on your point again...
[quote]
You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary.
I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all.
|
On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women.
Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all.
Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary.
|
On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits.
EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it?
Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary.
Judging by your response you experience seems like none? Hard to believe you aren't old enough to have worked a job, if not several. Did you negotiate your pay with HR? Who told you your pay was set by HR? How many companies don't have an 'HR' manager or even specific person?
I mean your position here is pretty silly to anyone who has worked pretty much any job.
EDIT: Now I'm genuinely confused though. I've thought for a while you were a business student (you never challenged anyone who said so), but then after misunderstanding some random posts tangentially related to you I thought maybe that was just a character you were playing kind of like Colbert, now with you being so oblivious to such a basic part of business like the roll HR plays in determining wages, I'm having a hard time believing you're a business student or pretending to be one.
I'm trying to imagine how you think it works....
+ Show Spoiler +Business owner Jonny: **Walks into his HR department** Good morning ladies!
Women: Heeeeyyy Jooonnnnnyyyyy **swoon**
BOJ: I was going to hire these two people one man one woman. I was going to pay the woman less because she can't lift heavy stuff.
Women: Well boss, we did an extensive study that showed the position they are filling doesn't require any heavy lifting.
BOJ: Ok ladies *growing upset*... Sometimes stuff needs moved around the office and such so he's getting some extra pay for that.
Women: Well we did an extensive statistical analysis that actually shows that it's such a rare occasion it would only warrant a $250 annual raise
BOJ: well I was going to pay him $100k and her $85k
Women: Based on our extensive statistical analysis that would not be reflective of their expected productivity
BOJ: But it's my business and I want to pay him more
Women: Well it's our decision
BOJ: Well who do you work for!?
Women: You Jonny.
BOJ: Oh ok ladies, you're right I can't set the wage of my employee because someone I hired said no.
Something like that maybe?
|
On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits.
EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it?
Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary.
These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there.
A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there.
|
On May 14 2015 12:51 rod409 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law.
Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary. These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there. A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there.
I think you're nit picking a bit. While you have a point that HR isn't strictly responsible for setting pay for each individual, it's still an integral part of the function.
And GH, no need for personal insults. It's against forum rules.
|
reading these last few pages, all I've gathered is Jonny is trying way too hard to convince someone who has no intention on budging, despite his best efforts gathering data.
|
On May 14 2015 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 12:51 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? [quote] SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary. These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there. A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there. I think you're nit picking a bit. While you have a point that HR isn't strictly responsible for setting pay for each individual, it's still an integral part of the function. And GH, no need for personal insults. It's against forum rules.
No personal insult? I seriously don't understand how you think HR and pay determinations work?
|
On May 14 2015 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:51 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary. These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there. A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there. I think you're nit picking a bit. While you have a point that HR isn't strictly responsible for setting pay for each individual, it's still an integral part of the function. And GH, no need for personal insults. It's against forum rules. No personal insult? I seriously don't understand how you think HR and pay determinations work?
I seriously don't understand how you think question marks work.
|
On May 14 2015 13:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:51 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed.
Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary. These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there. A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there. I think you're nit picking a bit. While you have a point that HR isn't strictly responsible for setting pay for each individual, it's still an integral part of the function. And GH, no need for personal insults. It's against forum rules. No personal insult? I seriously don't understand how you think HR and pay determinations work? I seriously don't understand how you think question marks work.
It's shorthand, and you've understood it fine for over a year.
I didn't personally insult you. If I did, I'd like you to show me please?
But seriously how do you think a typical pay negotiation goes and HR's role in it? Because your original assertion doesn't fit the facts as we understand them in real life.
Did we agree on what that article and you meant by 'dominate' by the way?
EDIT: I think I might of missed this getting debased into a grammar fight.
|
On May 14 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 13:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:51 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited.
Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited.
Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay.
You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented.
Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made"
100% verified by the data I presented.
Edit 2: [quote] That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary. These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there. A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there. I think you're nit picking a bit. While you have a point that HR isn't strictly responsible for setting pay for each individual, it's still an integral part of the function. And GH, no need for personal insults. It's against forum rules. No personal insult? I seriously don't understand how you think HR and pay determinations work? I seriously don't understand how you think question marks work. It's shorthand, and you've understood it fine for over a year. + Show Spoiler +I didn't personally insult you. If I did, I'd like you to show me please?
But seriously how do you think a typical pay negotiation goes and HR's role in it? Because your original assertion doesn't fit the facts as we understand them in real life.
Did we agree on what that article and you meant by 'dominate' by the way?
EDIT: I think I might of missed this getting debased into a grammar fight.
That's not what shorthand is.
I'm also done with this conversation. You have nothing of substance to ad.
|
On May 14 2015 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 13:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:51 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 12:24 rod409 wrote:On May 14 2015 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 11:54 rod409 wrote:
[quote]
The HR department does not set pay for individuals. There is corporate structure around pay for positions and you negotiate with your boss or hiring manager. Nobody should ever go to HR to ask for a raise. You should fully read my posts, and not just the one line summary. I have, pay is not set by HR there might be a range for a position but the manager knows their budget and decides your pay. I have had jobs and interviews where I don't interact with someone from HR at all. Generally an HR function. The manager probably interacted with HR on the issue as well. Companies are often different though, so your experience may vary. These pay ranges are corporate wide and can often have significant differences between the low and high. Discrimination is not going to come from HR when they are so disconnected from individuals, you might as well say the market sets pay. There are plenty of employers that don't have an HR department either so they are a non-factor there. A time I did talk to HR. I got a job offer for a position and the offer letter came from an HR manager, I never talked to her before. I asked for more pay, she said she would to talk to the hiring manager. I was already working with the hiring manager since I was an outsourced temp. He told me he will look at his budget, then he matched what I asked for. HR didn't do anything there. I think you're nit picking a bit. While you have a point that HR isn't strictly responsible for setting pay for each individual, it's still an integral part of the function. And GH, no need for personal insults. It's against forum rules. No personal insult? I seriously don't understand how you think HR and pay determinations work? I seriously don't understand how you think question marks work. It's shorthand, and you've understood it fine for over a year. + Show Spoiler +I didn't personally insult you. If I did, I'd like you to show me please?
But seriously how do you think a typical pay negotiation goes and HR's role in it? Because your original assertion doesn't fit the facts as we understand them in real life.
Did we agree on what that article and you meant by 'dominate' by the way?
EDIT: I think I might of missed this getting debased into a grammar fight. That's not what shorthand is. I'm also done with this conversation. You have nothing of substance to ad.
lol I was merely pointing out that your assertion that lots of women managers in HR blah blah... meant shit with regards to what we were talking about or the larger point you were attempting to imply.
It was based on a incredibly inept understanding of how pay negotiations and HR's role within them work.
You've demonstrated you had no clue how they worked when you were citing some crap that said they played a role or whatever.
Further your dodging of explaining how you thought it worked when you made that assertion in the first place is further evidence that you were clueless about this particular issue.
Finally your leaving and claiming it's because of a lack of substance is more evidence of what I already predicted would be the outcome of this hours ago, and several people have pointed out about how you engage here. Something I first noticed about you more than a year ago.
Oh and the question mark and shorthand comments are the most telling as they are the most typical and universal signs of this type of thing.
|
Several people have also noted that you yourself GH, tend to engage quite poorly. So it's not surprising someone chooses to disengage with you.
I wish people would stop making me be a voice of reason, it's much more fun to be ranting at foolishness than trying to be reasonable about it and calm things down civilly.
|
On May 14 2015 14:11 zlefin wrote:
Several people have also noted that you yourself GH, tend to engage quite poorly. So it's not surprising someone chooses to disengage with you.
I wish people would stop making me be a voice of reason, it's much more fun to be ranting at foolishness than trying to be reasonable about it and calm things down civilly.
I came to this forum really hot originally IIRC, then I got warned or whatever a few times and toned it down a bit, then a few particular posters drove me nuts. I'm generally pretty amiable and easy to converse with when it comes to people who haven't said some obnoxiously ignorant stuff or worn my patience long ago.
Sometimes I do let my tone carry onto replies towards people who are merely agreeing with something someone who I clearly disagree with (and is one of those who has already worn out my patience) and that's not really fair to them, so to them I apologize (that probably includes you at some point).
But come on, you've had a job before right? Did you negotiate your pay with HR?
Normally I might agree with you, hell had he left earlier I might even agree with you, (I was mimicking his technique and it's infuriating on the other side [though now I understand better the enjoyment he may get from it]) but leaving without addressing a very simple aspect at the core of his original point is at best lazy and/or more likely the explanation I provided.
Think of how easy it would be to make me look like an ass by just describing the process in the way he seems to think it works and see if that matches reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
