Apple punishes women for same things that get men promoted

[Page]

This is why you discuss how much you make with your coworkers, people. It's not a social taboo, not a real one, it's a fake taboo invented by bosses to keep employees powerless and disorganized.

There are some employment agreements that specify such discussions are punishable offences up to and including termination. Anti-labor of course, but the legality of such is a state-by-state thing.

AFAIK prohibiting employees from discussing their wages is illegal in every US state. I'm pretty sure there's a federal law.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are some employment agreements that specify such discussions are punishable offences up to and including termination. Anti-labor of course, but the legality of such is a state-by-state thing.

AFAIK prohibiting employees from discussing their wages is illegal in every US state. I'm pretty sure there's a federal law.

There are also laws which would punish Apple as well as is male employees for telling the truth, namely that their male employees are in fact more talented than their female employees of the same role. They would have to go to great lengths to contextualize such a claim to have a hope of it not resulting in a lawsuit, as we've seen here. Seems like structurally, the laws guide us towards this outcome of female privilege.

[Neu California]

AFAIK prohibiting employees from discussing their wages is illegal in every US state. I'm pretty sure there's a federal law.

There are also laws which would punish Apple as well as is male employees for telling the truth, namely that their male employees are in fact more talented than their female employees of the same role. They would have to go to great lengths to contextualize such a claim to have a hope of it not resulting in a lawsuit, as we've seen here. Seems like structurally, the laws guide us towards this outcome of female privilege.

Their male employees are more talented than their female employees of the same role?

I'd love to know which deep, dank hole you pulled that claim out of, especially since I doubt you work at Apple.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are also laws which would punish Apple as well as is male employees for telling the truth, namely that their male employees are in fact more talented than their female employees of the same role. They would have to go to great lengths to contextualize such a claim to have a hope of it not resulting in a lawsuit, as we've seen here. Seems like structurally, the laws guide us towards this outcome of female privilege.

Their male employees are more talented than their female employees of the same role?

I'd love to know which deep, dank hole you pulled that claim out of, especially since I doubt you work at Apple.

->

Apple also seemingly has "a policy or practice of selecting individuals who have 'talent' and compensating those persons more highly than other employees." But neither Jong nor Salgado—although both have held various leadership roles—were ever designated as "talent" deserving of a pay increase, the lawsuit said. They've alleged that this Apple policy is biased against women, more often rewarding male "talent" while female talent goes unacknowledged.
"More men are identified as having talent," the complaint said.

One of the complaints raised was that women are paid less than men with the same education and qualifications. This is downstream of discrimination against men in education.

A man with a 2:1 is flatly more talented than a woman with a 2:1, and this is obviously reflected in the pay scales. This is not because the company is discriminating against women. It is because the education system discriminates against men. Women then leave education with a lack of awareness of this discrimination, and expect to be treated equally to more talented men.

A base assumption in this article is that obviously men are not more talented than women so it must be sexism. The trick is played in assuming *these* men are not more talented than *these* women. There's no basis to think that, and plenty to suspect it is in fact the case that in any given field where qualifications are required, the male candidates will be more competent and deserving of higher pay until you "Cap out". (There's no way to determine for example which two A+ students are better. But a male A student and a female A student? The man is an A+ and she's a B+.).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31 ... knesses%22.

See here;

"Is it a good thing? Maybe in the short run, you get a better school certificate," said the OECD's education director, Andreas Schleicher. "In the long run, the world is going to penalise you because the labour market doesn't pay you for your school marks, it pays you for what you can do."

The complaints and the broader movement against the gender pay gap is an attempt to expand the discrimination of the school system and overvaluing of girls talents into the broader labour market while insisting women are being discriminated against, despite the exact opposite being the case.

It would be akin to if every white person got a bachelors degree handed to them, then complained they weren't getting jobs and pay rises at the same rate as other ethnicities and weren't "Recognized for their talent.". We would laugh at them. But we're expected to take women seriously for some reason. Probably because white people as a group have more self-awareness than women as a group.

Given the evidence here, unless you can find some proof that Apple has accounted for this in their hiring practices and expects higher qualifications from women for the same roles, it is a necessary consequence of the discrimination in the school system that the male employees of the same position are in fact more talented than the women, because the mens grades were downsized and the womens upsized before they were even hired.

The OECD education director even notes this. It's not just me saying it. It's merely a fact people who complain about the pay gap don't want to engage with and play the "Trick" I pointed out earlier of conflating;

"How dare you suggest women are less talented than men" with "How dare you suggest THESE women are less talented than THESE men". They are. We can demonstrate why. The attempt here and in the broader movement is to force the legal system to expand discrimination against men into the labour market.

Can you explain why you think women in these roles are equally talented to the men, given what we know about the education system?

[Neu California]

Apple also seemingly has "a policy or practice of selecting individuals who have 'talent' and compensating those persons more highly than other employees." But neither Jong nor Salgado—although both have held various leadership roles—were ever designated as "talent" deserving of a pay increase, the lawsuit said. They've alleged that this Apple policy is biased against women, more often rewarding male "talent" while female talent goes unacknowledged.
"More men are identified as having talent," the complaint said.

One of the complaints raised was that women are paid less than men with the same education and qualifications. This is downstream of discrimination against men in education.

A man with a 2:1 is flatly more talented than a woman with a 2:1, and this is obviously reflected in the pay scales. This is not because the company is discriminating against women. It is because the education system discriminates against men. Women then leave education with a lack of awareness of this discrimination, and expect to be treated equally to more talented men.

Your misogyny is speaking again. Unless you have actual evidence that this is the case in the workplace (and no, educational does not matter once they're hired and they can be compared apples to apples on quality and speed of work done), this can safely be dismissed as more of your hatred of women.

A base assumption in this article is that obviously men are not more talented than women so it must be sexism.

Considering that after review, her pay was increased to match her colleague's:

Finally, late last year, Salgado's insistence on fair pay was resolved after Apple hired a third-party firm that concluded she was "paid less than men performing substantially similar work." Apple subsequently increased her pay rate but dodged responsibility for back pay that Salgado now seeks to recover.

I'd say that's a fair assumption. If you have actual evidence that these women are actually much poorer workers than the men, please provide it.

The trick is played in assuming *these* men are not more talented than *these* women. There's no basis to think that, and plenty to suspect it is in fact the case that in any given field where qualifications are required, the male candidates will be more competent and deserving of higher pay until you "Cap out". (There's no way to determine for example which two A+ students are better. But a male A student and a female A student? The man is an A+ and she's a B+.).

And that excuses putting men on a higher pay scale from day one, how?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31751672#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20teachers,'%20academic%20strengths%20and%20weaknesses%22.

See here;

"Is it a good thing? Maybe in the short run, you get a better school certificate," said the OECD's education director, Andreas Schleicher. "In the long run, the world is going to penalise you because the labour market doesn't pay you for your school marks, it pays you for what you can do."

Which evidence in the real world, does not support. Unless you can show that everywhere that's not Minnesota, women in the tech sector are worse at their jobs than men (for the same work!), I call bullshit.

The complaints and the broader movement against the gender pay gap is an attempt to expand the discrimination of the school system and overvaluing of girls talents into the broader labour market while insisting women are being discriminated against, despite the exact opposite being the case.

Nope, don't buy it in the least. Especially not from someone who said that a woman complaining about being sexually assaulted on live TV had brain worms for daring to complain about being discriminated against, then implied that the guy who broke the law and did something psychologically damaging should receive no punishment, in a case where there was significant evidence of male advantage.

It would be akin to if every white person got a bachelors degree handed to them, then complained they weren't getting jobs and pay rises at the same rate as other ethnicities and weren't "Recognized for their talent.". We would laugh at them. But we're expected to take women seriously for some reason. Probably because white people as a group have more self-awareness than women as a group.

False equivalence. This is more akin to if minorities were paid less for the same work their white colleagues do just as well as they do, because bias.


Also, I'd love to see you justify these behaviors by Apple, mentioned in the article:

According to the complaint, several of Apple's policies favoring men have further entrenched the alleged pay gap. That includes Apple's performance evaluation system, which women suing alleged rewarded men in categories such as teamwork and leadership but "penalized" women for excelling in those areas.

Apple also seemingly has "a policy or practice of selecting individuals who have 'talent' and compensating those persons more highly than other employees." But neither Jong nor Salgado—although both have held various leadership roles—were ever designated as "talent" deserving of a pay increase, the lawsuit said. They've alleged that this Apple policy is biased against women, more often rewarding male "talent" while female talent goes unacknowledged.

"More men are identified as having talent," the complaint said.

Until such time as it's proven that men are better in those areas, to the point of making 10k more a year with more than just "Oh, educational bias", then thje argument of discrimination against women goes unrefuted.

Separately, Jong has also alleged that Apple subjected her to a hostile work environment after a senior member of her team, Blaine Weilert, sexually harassed her. After she complained, Apple investigated and Weilert reportedly admitted to touching her "in a sexually suggestive manner without her consent," the complaint said. Apple then disciplined Weilert but ultimately would not allow Jong to escape the hostile work environment, requiring that she work with Weilert on different projects. Apple later promoted Weilert.

As a result of Weilert's promotion, the complaint said that Apple placed Weilert in a desk "sitting adjacent" to Jong's in Apple’s offices. Following a request to move her desk, a manager allegedly "questioned" Jong's "willingness to perform her job and collaborate" with Weilert, advising that she be “professional, respectful, and collaborative,” rather than honoring her request for a non-hostile workplace.

This experience, Jong alleged, caused her "profound emotional distress and mental anguish"—including PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia—and required her to take a medical leave that only ended when Weilert left her team of his own volition. Jong has continued to suffer from PTSD since rejoining Apple, where she alleged her career has since "stalled."

Considering what you said about Jenni Hermoso (the brain worms comment I linked to above), I'd love to see you justify this nonsense.

Because California laws, as well as the federal Equal Pay Act, require that "women and men are paid equally for performing substantially similar work," women suing have asked California's Superior Court in San Francisco to intervene. They're hoping a jury will agree that Apple must be stopped from alleged "immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and offensive" business practices.

Until you can show that the women have been submitting substantially different work (whether in quality or some other area), then your argument that women are inferior is just a claim without a leg to stand on, mr. "the woman has brainworms" for daring to complain about being sexually harassed.

[Outer Bratorke]

There are also laws which would punish Apple as well as is male employees for telling the truth, namely that their male employees are in fact more talented than their female employees of the same role. They would have to go to great lengths to contextualize such a claim to have a hope of it not resulting in a lawsuit, as we've seen here. Seems like structurally, the laws guide us towards this outcome of female privilege.

Their male employees are more talented than their female employees of the same role?

I'd love to know which deep, dank hole you pulled that claim out of, especially since I doubt you work at Apple.

It comes from down south, I'll tell you that.

[Kerwa]

“Upper upper middle class person expresses workplaces dissatisfaction”. Haha. Don’t care. Still buying iPhones.

This has top be up there with “top banker experienced workplace homophobia”.

In fact both of those things are probably good.

[New-Minneapolis]

So much for being a progressive company.

[Galloism]

This is why you discuss how much you make with your coworkers, people. It's not a social taboo, not a real one, it's a fake taboo invented by bosses to keep employees powerless and disorganized.

There are some employment agreements that specify such discussions are punishable offences up to and including termination. Anti-labor of course, but the legality of such is a state-by-state thing.

There’s actually a federal rule on this. You cannot prohibit an employee from discussing their own pay.

You can prohibit employees with access to other employees pay rates from discussing that information with other people. Which makes sense. You wouldn’t want your payroll processor blabbing about your pay without your consent.

[TRUMP ALMIGHTY]

This is why you discuss how much you make with your coworkers, people. It's not a social taboo, not a real one, it's a fake taboo invented by bosses to keep employees powerless and disorganized.

I disagree. I believe it promotes Rude Uncouth behavior that leads to arguments and violence in a workplace. This is NOT power and organization. It would NOT build a Safe Prosperous America where anyone can thrive as our Founding Fathers desire!

[Repreteop]

This is why I'm voting for Trump, women won't ever have to complain about lower pay because they won't be allowed to work. God bless America.

[Isla de La Nueva Axarquia]

Some men are trying so hard to disprove this claim. I'd bet the same men that do that would be foaming in the mouth if instead of women it was underpaying male employees. They really want to be oppresed so bad .

The solution is not to reduce men's salary to increase women's, that's a lie that corporations want you to believe so they can have cheap labour. The solution is for corporations to stop being rats and paying more. Trust me that they can totally afford it without any issues.

[TRUMP ALMIGHTY]

This is why I'm voting for Trump, women won't ever have to complain about lower pay because they won't be allowed to work. God bless America.

Vote for Andrew Tate instead, he will offer a government-mandated GF for every young men

Andrew Tate will offer that up as a campaign promise, but the moment he enters the White House, he will hoard all of the women for himself. As a wise man once said, NEVER trust a politician without golden hair to tell the truth. Lies Lies Lies!

[Dimetrodon Empire]

So much for being a progressive company.

Progressive and Company are inherent oxymorons.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Apple should be dismantled.

[New-Minneapolis]

So much for being a progressive company.

Progressive and Company are inherent oxymorons.

Anything short of abolishing “the bourgeoisie” class is considered “right-wing”’to you.

[Juansonia]

So much for being a progressive company.

Progressive and Company are inherent oxymorons.

In America, the name "Progressive" is the trademark of an insurance company. The odds of actual progress here are slim.

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

So much for being a progressive company.

A progressive company is either an NGO, or a hypocrite, and even then, the NGO rarely reconciles its position between the public and politics it serves without a double standard or three.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Progressive and Company are inherent oxymorons.

Anything short of abolishing “the bourgeoisie” class is considered “right-wing”’to you.

This post is idiotic.

A corporation's function is to provide profit to the shareholders, nothing more. That is what they're designed to do, and me pointing that out has nothing to do with socialism or anything else. They couldn't give a damn about social progressivism or even social conservatism beyond using them to market themselves. Shame on you for not knowing a basic fact about the economic system you live under.

[The Black Forrest]

AFAIK prohibiting employees from discussing their wages is illegal in every US state. I'm pretty sure there's a federal law.

There are also laws which would punish Apple as well as is male employees for telling the truth, namely that their male employees are in fact more talented than their female employees of the same role. They would have to go to great lengths to contextualize such a claim to have a hope of it not resulting in a lawsuit, as we've seen here. Seems like structurally, the laws guide us towards this outcome of female privilege.

I was going to write my surprise you didn’t mention feminist. I guess your new code phase is female privilege.

SOSDD dude. But hey at least you consistently do you.

[The Black Forrest]

Anything short of abolishing “the bourgeoisie” class is considered “right-wing”’to you.

This post is idiotic.

A corporation's function is to provide profit to the shareholders, nothing more. That is what they're designed to do, and me pointing that out has nothing to do with socialism or anything else. They couldn't give a damn about social progressivism or even social conservatism beyond using them to market themselves. Shame on you for not knowing a basic fact about the economic system you live under.

There lies the problem. It used to be acting in the best interests of the company and the shareholders. It’s been replace by acting in the best interests of the shareholders.

[The Black Forrest]

There are some employment agreements that specify such discussions are punishable offences up to and including termination. Anti-labor of course, but the legality of such is a state-by-state thing.

There’s actually a federal rule on this. You cannot prohibit an employee from discussing their own pay.

You can prohibit employees with access to other employees pay rates from discussing that information with other people. Which makes sense. You wouldn’t want your payroll processor blabbing about your pay without your consent.

That is true. When I was able to work; the companies suggested to not discuss it. And there is merit in that as I have seen people get really fracken petty about it.

[Pale Dawn]

Shame apple workers don't have a proper union. Seems this has been developing for awhile. It should be obvious that any two workers with the same work, experience and output should receive the same pay. I wonder what the percentage difference was. 10k of how much?

[The Black Forrest]

Shame apple workers dont have a proper union. Seems this has been decloping for awhile. It should be obvious that any two workers with the same work, experience and output should receive the same pay. I wonder what the percentage difference was. 10k of how much?

Well?…..

Apple tends to hire 20 somethings. How likely are 20 somethings going to unionize?

[Pale Dawn]

Shame apple workers dont have a proper union. Seems this has been decloping for awhile. It should be obvious that any two workers with the same work, experience and output should receive the same pay. I wonder what the percentage difference was. 10k of how much?

Well?…..

Apple tends to hire 20 somethings. How likely are 20 somethings going to unionize?

More than half last i checked have a positive opinion on unions with millennials more positive than gen xers