Are women paid less for IT jobs? 10

[Anniemn42]

Is it common to have women paid less in technical fields than men? What has your experience been?
While reviewing old files I found that the person I replaced was making more than I am now, two years later. He was fired for not meeting expectations. I have had two reviews with high marks in most categories, no items were less than satisfactory. In the time I've been with the company I installed two manufacturing wireless systems, a new POS, moved the network from frame relay to VPN, and managed to create management reporting tools. I have over 15 years experience in IT.

When asked what name to put on the new business card I replied: Goddess of Technology.

 

[Onyxpurr]

I was in a hurry. I'm not saying it was completely accurate, but in my personal experience, I believe i would have been paid more in the past, if I had simply just asked for it.

For the last interview I had, I asked for what I thought I was worth and actually got above and beyond it.

Don't ever undersell yourself.

 

[pmrankine]

Is it just me...?

There are so many factors that come into pay,
...
For one example, what if a woman takes a year off after having a baby?

What if a woman takes a year off after having a baby? Please don't say that we should be penalised.

I returned from maternity leave in Sept. and I've been given a pay rise as they realised how much work I actually do.

 

[spamly]

Interesting point. Who do you think a manager should pay more?
-Somebody who has a big chance of leaving the workcenter for a year (for whatever reason)
-Somebody who has a small chance of leaving the workcenter for a year

On this note, do you think that people should be compensated for how long they've been at the company? All things equal, what about this scenario?
-Somebody that has been successful in a company for X years, but who has taken a year off of work
-Somebody who has been successful in a company for X years and who has not taken a year off work

I don't want to turn this specific comment into a male/female issue although it obviously touches on the larger thread. By no means am I trying to say that someone should be penalized for having a baby or taking time off for a valid family issue. It’s just that I’ve heard this issue mentioned and often time’s people only seem to discuss being fair to the woman who takes time off. What about the person (woman or man) who doesn’t take time off?

 

[DoubleD]

Spamly,
You pose an interesting point. I'll counter it by expanding your question:
If you're going to penalize women for taking time off to have a child, should you also penalize National Guardsmen and Reservists who are called to duty?
I don't think these people should be penalized, but I do believe we should be treated fairly.

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[spamly]

DoubleD,
I just want to clear something up real quick.

By no means am I trying to say that someone should be penalized for having a baby or taking time off for a valid family issue.

It's a slippery slope you walk. Where do you draw the line? Is it honestly possible to be fair to both the person taking time off (for a national emergency/child/whatever) and to the person who doesn't?

 

[DoubleD]

spamly,
It's a very slippery slope whether you're rewarding one group or penalizing another. It becomes a question of interpretation.

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[jaymaechtlen]

The term "fair" tends to be pretty subjective.
ref Spamley's post and DoubleD's responses:

In what cases should the company reward the person taking time off (for whatever reason)?
What about very small companies? My buddy (a contractor, with maybe 4 employees) would have a tough time covering some of the expenses we're talking about above.
Perhaps in most cases, the company should reward persons for work done and time on the job? Perhaps there should be other mechanisms for compensating people for taking time for Natn'l Guard, parenthood, etc.?
food for thought.
Jay

 

[aquias]

Interesting article, and I'm not going to comment on the whole man vs woman in the workplace as I don't watch it enough to bring anything truly new or exciting to the table.

This is in reference to the time off comments and pay scale. I have a few questions for you on this...

You're interviewing for a position here are you two prime canidates.

1. Been out/off of work for over a year.
2. Currently working, seeking new and expanding opportunities.

Now, both seek equal salary and both have similiar backgrounds, one just happened to have taken a year off. Who do you hire?

Personally I take the person with current experience. Taking that year off should affect your payscale. NOT, in the fact that you take a pay cut (unless applying for a new job), but in the fact that you don't get the same raises or performance based incentives people over the past year have gotten.

 

[Onyxpurr]

Whatever happened to equal pay for equal work?

The year off shouldn't matter, however work ethic and quality should.

Just because I take a year off to have a child (or perhaps even my husband takes a year off to raise our child) should make no difference in pay.

However our abilities to perform our work, when we are there, should be the determining factor of pay.

I'm really not sure how taking time off has anything to do with what I get paid due to a viable reason to do so. I can understand someone calling out sick all the time and not getting work done, but someone who is now in their position full-time and does a great job?

once again we're talking about looking at personal reasons to determine pay. How about we look at:

1) In previous positions, did they do a good job at the tasks they were given?
2) What is market scale?

Does this mean if a man takes a few months off because he had a heart attack, we should ding him in pay scale too?? How about that National Reservist?

 

[aquias]

I'm not talking about current employment payscale being knocked down (beyond the fact that you don't receive raises and such, because you aren't at work). I'm talking about hiring practices, man or woman you take a year off you've lost a years worth of experience and I'm less likely to hire you (unless you were a reservist getting other kinds of experience).

Now, want my honest opinion? Which will not be popular here, or anywhere for that matter. I don't care the reason you take off, to have a baby, for a heartattack, or even for the brave people fighting in Iraq and around the world, my duty is to keep my company running and profitable.

What does that mean? That means I stick to the letter of the law regarding you or anyone else taking a LoA for any reason. If it becomes to much for me to function without you filling your position, I'm going to fill it and open up a different position for you (whether it be opening mail or a lower role in your old job depends on the needs of the company).

Taking time off, where you aren't actively working on viable skills for your job, means you are of less value to me. Scream all you want, it's the truth of the situation. Most people, MOST people, cannot take a year off and pick up right where they left off. Most people cannot step up and take on a greater degree of responsibility after a year off. It may sound harsh, but I'd take the person who had been continually working vs the person who hadn't touched something for a year. I don't care if you're a man, woman, or something in between.

 

[Stella740pl]

I'm talking about hiring practices, man or woman you take a year off you've lost a years worth of experience and I'm less likely to hire you ...
Oh sure, a year's worth of experience is very important. So would you always hire someone with 14 years worth of experience over someone with 13 years, same education? You would probably say that it depends on some other factors, right? Then how much difference a year off taken by someone 3-5 years ago would make to you? Well, someone skipped a year's worth of promotions/raises, and someone started a year later, you can't tell who would be making more in just a few short years.

I understand, it's hard to find a new job if you have just taken a break. But it's equally hard for someone who was made redundant for one reason or another, but it's possible, and often with a higher pay.

Also I understand that if you are a small employer, you will be hard pressed to fill out my position whether I'm taking time off for having a baby or heart surgery or anything else.

But if you are a decent size employer, you will find a way to make things going for some reasonable time, because you know how valuable good workers are. (Otherwise, why did you hire and kept them in the first place? Only because you believed they wouldn't take time off, or for some other skills and qualities?) People work to live, not live to work, they have lives outside of the workplace, and a good employer will only win from understanding/respecting this fact, and being flexible correspondingly.

Scream all you want, the truth of the situation is that people did, are, and always will procreate, get sick, have families and family situations that require time off (otherwise you would have to hire robots). And the sooner you as an employer will realize that, the better situation you will be in.

Most people I know at one point or another in their lives (usually by the time they already have some solid experience and still pretty energetic) found a reliable employer with good benefits that allow them some flexibility to have a life without penalizing them for that.

 

[aquias]

Very true, you make several points and I'll apologize now, I went a bit overboard to make my point there. But it seems I did make the point I wanted to, just with a bit of Makevalian twist.

You are correct, good employers that keep truly good people will allow that flexibility. It isn't always possible and everyone is subject to being "downgraded" when they take this time off.

Hrm...I think I'm all tapped on this at the second, very nicely written response.

 

[kHz]

I am a single white male without children in the top 20% of annual earnings.

I despise people who complain they want this or deserve that because it is discrimination. Child tax credits (my parents never had them and survived. Money has to be made up somewhere.) Family leave act (had a baby, gets to take weeks off without reprisal.) Affirmative Action. Etc., etc., etc.

If anyone wants to talk about getting shafted, the short end of the stick, whatever, re-read my first sentence.

 

[Stella740pl]

You also forgot to mention, how old are you?

 

[kHz]

39

 

[Stella740pl]

And you still think that you will never have to take time off, for whatever the reason?

Say, hit by a bus or impared in a car accident, got to a hospital for a long time, came back - oh, look, you missed some valuable experience. And also sorry, of course you were a major contributor on that project, but you were not here when we handed out raises for it successfull completion, so you don't get any. Of course you still can work with your head, but all we have for you is opening envelopes. Or you say you would expect it to be like this and consider it a fair treatment?

I thought you are in your early 20s. If you still don't get it in your late 30s,... Never mind.

 

[Dollie]

<insert a heavy round of applause and standing ovation for Stella>

 

[kHz]

One of my coworkers takes off frequently. Claims kids are sick. That would be nice to do, but I don't have kids. I get the same number of sick days, but it would seem obvious I was malingering if I called in 2 or 3 days a month sick. But hey, have kids, and they are sick 2 or 3 days a month.

And I am not talking about Guards or Reservists or getting deathly ill. I am talking everyday things like I mentioned. If you cannot get that... never mind.

 

[Dollie]

You've never gotten ill? Never had a death in the family? Never taken a vacation or driven a car or crossed a street or even left the workplace?

I'm talking everyday things. We all have lives, and each of us could be hit by a bus tomorrow. That bus could hurt us enough to be out of work for 6 months.

Technically, that would put you out of the job market, wouldn't it?

/wondering how much thinner this tightrope is going to get

 

[lespaul]

Do you get paid out your sick time at the end of each year? (We are only allowed to carry over a certain amount of time each year). If so, then you are getting the income from those hours just as your co-worker who takes the time to care for sick kids gets paid for the time. Now, if you just lose the hours at the end of each year and get no compensation for them, I could see how you might have a problem with that.

Trust me, I would rather come to work instead of staying home with a sick kid. Let's see, I can come to work, converse with intelligent people, accomplish the work that I have assigned to me OR I can stay home, clean up various bodily fluids and listen to a whining kid who's not happy about having to stay in bed all day.

Maybe next time my kids are sick you'll use your sick days to take care of them for me?

Leslie