We've all seen and read about the gender wage gap, but now it looks like Illinois has passed a bill in hopes of closing it. According to this article;
A day after advocates descended on the Capitol to push for women's rights, the Illinois House passed a bill that proponents say would help close the pay gap between men and women.
So what would this bill do? Well as stated by the author;
the measure would bar employers from asking job applicants for prior wage or salary history unless it's already public information or the applicant is moving within the company
The bill was sponsored by Democratic Rep. Ana Moeller of Elgin, who;
said her bill also would strengthen Illinois' Equal Pay Act by requiring employers to justify paying people different wages and ensuring those differences are based on legitimate, legal reasons like experience. In addition, the bill would increase the penalties for employers that violate the law.
One of the reactions noted in the article was from Rep. Peter Breed who said;
"This bill has nothing to do with pay equity," Breen said. "All it's doing is putting additional restrictions on people who want to create jobs in this state. That's the reason every single business group in the state is opposed. Please. This is the stupidest bill we've considered, at least this week. Please vote no.
Questions:
1. Do you think this bill would actually do anything to close the gender pay gap?
2. Or is just to show that the state is doing something about the gap?
It won't do a fucking thing.
You're not going to turn nurses and teachers into engineers and salespeople. The former groups are dominated by women and the latter are dominated by men. You know which ones pay more. This bill won't change that for these or numerous other professions. Not to mention that more men have more continuous experience than women because of unequal parenting burdens.
That's why I'm sure it's just to show people they're "doing" something about the gender gap. It won't last long..people will eventually protest again.
I think disparate instead of unequal would illustrate the point better.
This.
Also, I'll take this entire movement a bit more seriously once the start complaining about how women are underrepresented in jobs which are not glamorous like plumbing, garbage collection, and road work.....which, incidentally, all pay better than what you typically make with a non-STEM from an unranked state Uni)
They just did this in Philly. It's not meant to create equal pay on the macro scale, but equal pay among individual positions you mentioned above. To what extent the current "gender pay gap" currently exists in those positions is up for debate, but the bill was never intended to turn nurses into salespeople.
Santa clause and the pay gap. Only one fantasy has any value.
The wage gap discussion is annoying. In high school I remember someone talked about how there weren't enough women taking physics. Perhaps the interest of the women didn't lie there? You don't see people complaining that there aren't enough men in nursing. In fact, if there was a big rush of men into nursing, there would probably be an outrage that men are now also going to steal womens' jobs.
Like the parental leave laws, this is likely to help me as much as my wife
Interesting. I don't think this will address the gender gap (to the extent it exists), but I do think it will remediate a different phenomenon in our labor market. As an Illinois resident, I'll share a personal (long) antidote for illustration:
Four years ago, my job moved me and my wife to Brazil for eighteen months. She left her job at a digital ad agency making $60k, and without a Brazilian work Visa, planned to teach English and accompany me on our personal adventure. Eventually, she found worked at a non-profit. The role paid only $25k, but was fewer hours and served a higher purpose than her previous roles, so she took the work.
Once back in the U.S., she began applying again to digital ad roles and secured an offer within a few weeks. On the application, in good faith she provided her work history and most recent salary info ($25k). The job offer came in at $30k, less than half of the market rate for this position. She spoke with the hiring manager in confusion, who explained that they didn't understand her frustration, as they were offering $5k more than her previous role. She then explained that her non-profit was a short term solution and that her most recent salary in the industry was $60k. They came back less than 24 hours later with a revised offer of $65k, and she took the job.
I note this, not because she's a woman, for our roles could have easily been reversed. The issue here is that they clearly valued her skills at at least $65k, but tried to obtain her services at the lowest price possible (as any sensible business would). However, without her previous in-market data point, she would have had far less leverage with this or any other employer to increase her wages over time. This practice of asking for previous salaries is an extremely pro-business custom that artificially depresses wages and one that I believe should be outlawed.
So what if someone makes more than the average and a company wants them. They then offer them a predetermined wage and lose the person.
Previous salary provides a jumping off point. With Glassdoor and the internet, salary ranges should be well known to people. If you have the skills and are in demand you can negotiate your salary.
Putting up further restrictions to employees only impeeds hiring.
A different way to approach that question is to respond by saying, "I would require at least an $85k salary to take a new position." Or "I would expect to make X this year in total comp". This simply changes the anchor. Any new offer is a discount to that ask.
There is a lot more to it than this, but the point is that you need to change the frame of reference to your advantage. Ask for a lot and be flexible in exactly how your needs are met. The best is to leverage multiple competing offers. This is Negotiating 101.
Wait - isn't the actual moral of your story that, for those willing to negotiate the point and provide evidence supporting their position, this practice has no negative impact?
I mean, if your story was supposed to illustrate that greedy capitalist business owners are exploiting people, why does it seem like they responded in a totally understanding, accommodating manner once provided additional evidence?
I understand the thinking. However, let's say she never had that $60k salary and received three job offers, of all of which tethered her new salary offer to her most recent salary of $25k, even though she is qualified for this role that pays a "market rate" of $65k. She now is anchored to a salary half her market worth, and would need to negotiate 3 offers of each other in a (hypothetical) bidding war. She'd never see $60+ in that scenario.
State legislators are by and large idiots. Whether it is Democrats not understanding the legitimate reasons behind the wage gap and trying to pass stupid legislation or Republicans passing bill after bill restricting abortions laws that inevitability get shot down by state or federal judges.
What if one day, we realize that centrally planned economies don't work? What if one day, we realize that by attempting to control things, we inevitably cause their destruction? What if one day, we realize that if we just did nothing, we would prosper?
God fcking damn it. This wage gap myth persists in the public debate like a really nasty STD. No matter how many times and in how many ways the statistics are described to liberal Democrats it bounces off of their thick, pea-brained skulls. Jesus fcking Christ.
I agree, I lean left but this issue and affirmative action is where the Democratic Party have no logical explanation for their ideas.
It's a tricky situation. It will probably solve some issues, create some new ones, and not really address what it set out to do in the first place
Sometimes I think we should just go back to loincloths
It will keep employers from being cheap bastards. How about they start listing what they paid the last employee in the position? No? Didn't think so.
It could really suck for someone who got a crappy job and low pay to get lowballed time after time.
Want to know what is funny, this already exists on a national level.
I have no idea whether this will actually help gender equality. However, I do think it's a great idea to bar companies from asking for previous pay history. For the majority of people, I imagine that salary negotiations are a little like how M&A would look like if everyone only ever used transaction comps.
Why don't we just have the government wipe our ass, too? It can mandate permanent red tag sales at car dealerships, forbid price negotiations on craigslist, and mandate that all plane tickets cost the same. Heck, the government should wave its magic wand and get make one federal, one-size-fits all operating agreement for LLCs.
The government should help people negotiate the price of a car also. Pathetic.
This area is one which I believe currently suffers from some informational asymmetry. The market only works perfectly when all parties have access to perfect information, and that just isn't the case here. People like you and I might have a rough idea of what the market rate is, and sites like Glassdoor have helped to close the gap in recent years, but the fact remains that right now large employers have generally much better access to salary information than individual employees do.
The handjob afterwards is a nice little perk too. Dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Thank god for illegal immigrants since I tried to hire Americans, but, sadly, I had no takers.
Est provident iure harum voluptas voluptates molestias. Dignissimos provident in eligendi consectetur. Beatae voluptatem neque in laborum. Quis commodi blanditiis illum id aut eos adipisci. Quis iusto a expedita ad inventore. Soluta sapiente laudantium ea vel delectus nulla. Aut nisi ut eligendi culpa.
Sit harum quibusdam quasi cum nihil rem dolor. Dolorem voluptatem quisquam enim dignissimos. Velit minus rerum recusandae rerum suscipit quae incidunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Molestias enim suscipit qui voluptatem consequatur quibusdam. Qui odio perspiciatis quae aliquid. Id exercitationem ut quod. Qui sit inventore nihil voluptates.
Aut repellat tempora dolores quisquam animi. Neque iste aut autem est. Incidunt quia et molestiae nulla delectus optio.
Consectetur voluptas et nesciunt et cum enim dicta. Id et consectetur natus suscipit possimus. Est incidunt perferendis et dolorem. Commodi minima qui perferendis corrupti fuga nam similique. Tempora corporis aperiam magnam iure. Unde quis aut dolor maxime nihil.
Excepturi est velit vitae dolorem voluptatem alias rem. Ut est sapiente dolore quia. Atque est ea qui. Dolor dicta unde voluptatem dolores voluptas quam.