Wednesday, January 23rd 2019

Intel Achieves Gender Pay Equity Globally

Today, Intel announced a major milestone in global inclusion - achieving gender pay equity across our worldwide workforce while also adding stock-based compensation to its pay equity analysis. Our commitment to achieving gender pay equity is central to making Intel a truly inclusive workplace, which we believe is a key factor in employee performance, productivity and engagement. A diverse workforce and inclusive culture are essential to our evolution and growth.

Intel defines pay equity as closing the gap in the average pay between employees of different genders or races and ethnicities, where data is available, in the same or similar roles after accounting for legitimate business factors that can explain differences, such as performance, time at grade level and tenure.
In addition to expanding pay equity to our global workforce, we have also evolved our methodology to take a more comprehensive approach to analyzing our global workforce pay data and closing identified gaps. In the past, adjustments were only made to the cash portion of employees' compensation, meaning base pay and bonus. In 2018, we began evaluating total compensation, including stock grants.

With a diverse workforce of approximately 107,000 regular employees in over 50 countries, identifying and closing gender pay equity gaps is a complicated task. Our legal and human resources teams worked with an external vendor to use proven statistical modeling techniques to identify countries where a gender pay gap existed. Individual employees in these countries who were identified as having a gap received appropriate adjustments.

Different countries have varying legislation around how pay equity is measured. In the U.K., for example, the data compares the average employee compensation for all men to all women. The result of this measurement methodology reflects that Intel has a lower representation of women in senior roles. This is a gap we - and the entire technology industry - are working hard to address. We continue to improve representation and progression opportunities for women at Intel, in all countries in which we do business.

Our work in pay equity is never done. We will continue to assess and close pay gaps to maintain gender pay equity globally. We will also maintain race and ethnicity pay equity in the U.S.

In October, we announced reaching full representation in our U.S. workforce two years ahead of our 2020 goal. Global pay equity is another step in our journey to create a more inclusive workplace where all employees feel supported and empowered to create the future.

I am proud to highlight Intel's ongoing commitment to doing what's best for all of our employees. We encourage all companies to join us in making pay equity a global priority.

The above is an opinion editorial by Julie Ann Overcash of Intel Corporation. Julie Ann Overcash is vice president of Human Resources and director of Compensation and Benefits at Intel Corporation.
Add your own comment

81 Comments on Intel Achieves Gender Pay Equity Globally

#1
XiGMAKiD
I think this is the biggest reason for Intel's price hike :D
Posted on Reply
#2
dj-electric
This means Intel has made everybody actually work for they are getting paid for, hopefully.
Posted on Reply
#3
Axaion
Hopefully they didnt "fix" this by just giving people who works less, and are worse at their jobs, more money just because of their skin color and gender.
Posted on Reply
#4
rpsgc
Axaion said:
Hopefully they didnt "fix" this by just giving people who works less, and are worse at their jobs, more money just because of their skin color and gender.
You already know the answer to that.
Posted on Reply
#5
hat
Enthusiast
Heh, if anything they probably paid higher paid workers less to level it out.
Posted on Reply
#6
xkm1948
So a shortcut to better pay for same effort output is to pick something else on the gender spectrum? Fantastic! Ain't nobody gonna complain about extra dollars if all it takes is saying I am interested in more than one type of holes, or sticks, or whatever floats your boat.

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="trmXwkLgdOM"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/trmXwkLgdOM/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trmXwkLgdOM" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#7
Dr_b_
Intel really needs to focus on making the best products they can, they are in business not to right the wrongs of society, but to crank out processors that people want. No one should be paid differently for equal work, but how the hell do you measure that, when its not something tangible?
Posted on Reply
#8
R0H1T
Wait so gender pay parity is "PC" BS now? And what's wrong if corporations set an example, the politicians certainly aren't doing their job basically since forever!
If no one sets a precedent do we continue with all the current evils in our society, are you just happy living in your bubble so long as it doesn't affect you? Even if it is sometimes a little extreme it's a step in the right direction, but looking at some of the comments here people are happy to go back to the 18th century :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#9
mtcn77
I can tell you, one friend I got never shut up about which vendor had the best performance numbers, when it came to pick either of these companies guess which one was it that he didn't choose(he was an EE)?
Posted on Reply
#10
Beertintedgoggles
R0H1T said:
Wait so gender pay parity is "PC" BS now? And what's wrong if corporations set an example, the politicians certainly aren't doing their job basically since forever!
If no one sets a precedent do we continue with all the current evils in our society, are you just happy living in your bubble so long as it doesn't affect you? Even if it is sometimes a little extreme it's a step in the right direction, but looking at some of the comments here people are happy to go back to the 18th century :rolleyes:
The problem is this is a false argument from the very get go..... imagine a scenario where all genders are equally productive (the one which people are trying to paint right now). Now imagine one of those genders are paid less.... wouldn't it be prudent for all companies to first hire the equally productive and qualified gender that is paid less??? I mean, that is the capitalistic way right? Same amount and quality of work for less pay. But wait.... that's not what has happened. There are still more men than women in these industries. Must be that men are keeping women out of these industries. But then we have all these scholarships and grants that go to the "minority" gender in engineering or other STEM fields. See how your twisted view of things starts to fall apart?? On top of that, there are many studies that highlight the fact that women, on average, take more sick days than men. As more and more of the talking points of pay equality are studied, the more and more it shows that it is very much a fallacy. Where I work right now (all men and all engineers), there is no set wage; we all knew what we valued ourselves at and negotiated our salary ourselves, not as a collective gender.

But the above argument is mostly for the US since I can't comment on work force experience outside of here, but for what I have experienced myself, yeah it is PC bullsh*t.
Posted on Reply
#11
Xaled
dj-electric said:
This means Intel has made everybody actually work for they are getting paid for, hopefully.
Or maybe this will lead to females getting paid the same despite working less or being underqualified.
Posted on Reply
#12
R0H1T
Beertintedgoggles said:
wouldn't it be prudent for all companies to first hire the equally productive and qualified gender that is paid less
In case of tech I can't fathom any situation where a gender would be superior to any other - objectively, decisively. If you look at some other sectors where manual work is a necessity then sure men are more productive over there, I don't see any plausible scenario where that'd apply to Intel or any other tech company, again with the exception of certain menial jobs.
Beertintedgoggles said:
There are still more men than women in these industries.
Yes, because more men graduate in this area than women.
Beertintedgoggles said:
Must be that men are keeping women out of these industries.
Not necessarily but prejudices against certain genders or races, ethnicities are more systemic in nature than most on this forum are willing to admit. When did women first get voting rights? That should tell you something.
Beertintedgoggles said:
See how your twisted view of things starts to fall apart??
Twisted how? The excesses that have built up over decades or centuries don't just get dismantled in a day or two, this action is but not even a drop in the ocean!
Beertintedgoggles said:
On top of that, there are many studies that highlight the fact that women, on average, take more sick days than men
Alright & I'm sure they should get their pay deducted appropriately, unless you're telling me that men get their salaries docked for taking leaves & women don't?
Beertintedgoggles said:
But the above argument is mostly for the US since I can't comment on work force experience outside of here, but for what I have experienced myself, yeah it is PC bullsh*t.
I wonder if you'd support the same culture that preys on the weak, women usually (but not always) are considered soft targets. Hence the #metoo
Posted on Reply
#13
Beertintedgoggles
R0H1T said:
In case of tech I can't fathom any situation where a gender would be superior to any other - objectively, decisively. If you look at some other sectors where manual work is a necessity then sure men are more productive over there, I don't see any plausible scenario where that'd apply to Intel or any other tech company, again with the exception of certain menial jobs.Yes, because more men graduate in this area than women.
Not necessarily but prejudices against certain genders or races, ethnicities are more systemic in nature than most on this forum are willing to admit. When did women first get voting rights? That should tell you something.
Twisted how? The excesses that have built up over decades or centuries don't just get dismantled in a day or two, this action is but not even a drop in the ocean!
Alright & I'm sure they should get their pay deducted appropriately, unless you're telling me that men get their salaries docked for taking leaves & women don't?
I wonder if you'd support the same culture that preys on the weak, women usually (but not always) are considered soft targets. Hence the #metoo
Wow... really reaching aren't you. Or just putting your head in the sand and trying to act like a white knight. Yes, we had women work in our office and they did less work. She also cried when confronted about mistakes even when our bosses went out of their way to pamper her and try to be as soft as possible, something the rest of us never got the privilege of. Check out the YouTube videos where women start their own company and hired only females and they ate themselves out of a job in two years time (the whole thing went under). And I'm not about to fall for your arguments of the past, that's exactly where that is pertinent.... in the past and not the present. There is no patriarchy keeping women down, they do that just fine themselves. Just get a group of women together then show them a profile of a successful and happy women and see all the vitriol they start spewing. Don't get me wrong, us men are just as likely to hunt for a weakness in our peers (fellow men) but that should be evidence that we don't necessarily have it out for women. Any by the way, yes men are better in the STEM fields. Look at GPA, graduation percentages (ratios of those entering STEM field to those graduating so we don't need to do the whole but there are more men in the fields so of course they graduate more..... percentage of those graduating that entered) and simply look at the number of entrepreneurs in the tech industry; many more men starting businesses than woman. So again, your argument is a fallacy and you will not convince me otherwise. It's called experience, and I draw my conclusions from it.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
Dr_b_ said:
Intel really needs to focus on making the best products they can, they are in business not to right the wrongs of society, but to crank out processors that people want. No one should be paid differently for equal work, but how the hell do you measure that, when its not something tangible?
It is tangible, you've got a job description and you've got performance criteria.
Posted on Reply
#16
Prince Valiant
All that should matter to a business (or anyone really) is how good or bad the job is done; gender, skin color, or their favorite brand of pants shouldn't matter at all. Underpaid employees should seek employment with a competitor and the problem would sort itself out with the underpaying corp going under or offering better pay.
Posted on Reply
#17
R0H1T
Beertintedgoggles said:
Wow... really reaching aren't you.
Oh really, for every example you can dig up about women there's 2x or more where men have acted worse against women or other men.
Beertintedgoggles said:
Yes, we had women work in our office and they did less work.
The US does have flexible labor laws doesn't it? Can you not fire or demote under-performing employees or is that also against company policy?
Beertintedgoggles said:
Check out the YouTube videos
Great source that, excellent in fact.
Beertintedgoggles said:
that's exactly where that is pertinent.... in the past and not the present.
Coming even from the US that seems disingenuous at best.
Beertintedgoggles said:
There is no patriarchy keeping women down, they do that just fine themselves.
There's vast evidence in the public space that'd repudiate that claim, heck evidence is still piling up.
Beertintedgoggles said:
So again, your argument is a fallacy and you will not convince me otherwise
Just because you say it's a fallacy doesn't make it so & no one's changing their mind on the internet, that's pretty clear to me so I'm not even trying.
Beertintedgoggles said:
So again, your argument is a fallacy and you will not convince me otherwise.
And you think I'm speaking from, what?

And to expand it a bit further - are there no performance bonuses in the US or EU, do people continue with their jobs even if they're doing nothing, like some of you have said above? If so then that reflects more on the middle/upper management & how they run the company than the predisposition that pay parity is BS :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#18
Xaled
R0H1T said:

Not necessarily but prejudices against certain genders or races, ethnicities are more systemic in nature than most on this forum are willing to admit. When did women first get voting rights? That should tell you something.
Women were only allowed to vote little short after men started. And men came up with this idea. not feminists.
When did women start to fight next to men at wars? or asked to join them at hard labor? never! shouldnt this tell you something. (like hypocrisy ..)
Posted on Reply
#19
Beertintedgoggles
R0H1T said:
Oh really, for every example you can dig up about women there's 2x or more where men have acted worse against women or other men.The US does have flexible labor laws doesn't it? Can you not fire or demote under-performing employees or is that also against company policy?Great source that, excellent in fact.Coming even from the US that seems disingenuous at best.There's vast evidence in the public space that'd repudiate that claim, heck evidence is still piling up.
Just because you say it's a fallacy doesn't make it so & no one's changing their mind on the internet, that's pretty clear to me so I'm not even trying. And you think I'm speaking from, what?

And to expand it a bit further - are there no performance bonuses in the US or EU, do people continue with their jobs even if they're doing nothing, like some of you have said above? If so then that reflects more on the middle/upper management & how they run the company than the predisposition that pay parity is BS :rolleyes:
Nope, you are completely wrong about this. Not even going to read all you typed. More than enough data out there and more importantly, enough people with their eyes open to see the truth for themselves. No one needs this shoved down their throats. Complete PC bullsh*t.

Edit: Are you too afraid to even watch two videos that contrast with your views and might give solid points to the contrary? It seems like you are. I was able to click on a story that I didn't agree with. It would seem the majority of commenters on this thread also feel differently than the agenda this topic is pushing as well and were still courageous enough to read it.

Edit again: Turns out I'm able to spam the ratings as well..... funny how that works.
Posted on Reply
#20
R0H1T
Xaled said:
Women were only allowed to vote little short after men started. And men came up with this idea. not feminists.
When did women start to fight next to men at wars? or asked to join them at hard labor? never! shouldnt this tell you something. (like hypocrisy ..)
Are you talking about the US or UK, anyone else?

How many women started major wars? Hypocrisy much?
Posted on Reply
#21
Steevo
R0H1T said:
Are you talking about the US or UK, anyone else?

How many women started major wars? Hypocrisy much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_who_led_a_revolt_or_rebellion

https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/

HyPoCrIsY MuCh?

Land ownership and war were the reasons wymn didn't have voting rights, and the majority didn't want voting rights if it came with conscripted service at the time, so again, the men made allowance for the wymen as life sucked for everyone at the time, but funny how men are still the military in almost every country. But all this doesn't matter if you aren't willing to go fight personally for female rights in Islamic majority countries where livestock have more rights than women.
Posted on Reply
#22
R0H1T
Really, can you count the number of casualties there besides major wars? Can you count the number from WW II or the last Iraq war?
Posted on Reply
#23
Xaled
R0H1T said:
Are you talking about the US or UK, anyone else?
it really doesnt make a different when considering long human history without voting.

R0H1T said:

How many women started major wars? Hypocrisy much?
Women may have started it sometimes but most of the fighters/victims were/are men
Posted on Reply
#24
Vya Domus
Bunch of meaningless crap to make it seem like they are fulfilling their progressive/socialist agenda, or rather the agenda that is imposed to them due to political circumstances.

You can bet your ass most of their employees, at least when talking about engineering positions, are still overwhelmingly men and are definitely getting paid more on average because they still perform more complicated jobs after all. This will always be the case and there is nothing unfair/wrong about it.
Posted on Reply
#25
Gungar
rpsgc said:
You already know the answer to that.
We all know the answer to that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment