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.
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.
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.
81 Comments on Intel Achieves Gender Pay Equity Globally
I've already addressed the point about under performing or non performing workers i.e. they shouldn't get any leeway for whoever they are.So now Google is biased as well :wtf:
As long as it's performance based then it's fine; it's probably just seniority and demographics based which means a bunch of people get underpaid for their work while a many are overpaid.
Men and women are both shitty in different ways.They've also had a disproportionate hand in every new invention, and technology that you take for granted. We have far fewer wrongs today than we have ever had before. They had a huge hand in that too. To view the world from a men vs women perspective is fundamentally stupid.
In general, the tech sector and private business in general are awful with pay parity. They usually threaten employees with discipline if they discuss wages with their coworkers, or suggest that it is "confidential." It's not. In the US, it's actually illegal to discipline or fire someone for discussing their pay. Believe it or not, this push for pay parity is going to help men that are soft spoken or marginalized for other reasons as well. Some studies show that overweight and bald employees are usually paid less for doing the same job too. Having pay parity for equal work is only fair, and since unions are a bad word now, it's getting harder and harder to make equal pay a reality.
This will probably help Intel recruit all sorts of new graduates, not just women. Everyone feels better when their wages are more transparent, because then they get an idea of how to improve their wages, other than being a thin, full-headed man or loud enough to demand a raise. If you're mad at the fact that a woman and a man will get the same pay when they are initially hired, you should do some introspective thinking. The answer is not that men are better at programming. In my personal experience, that is just not true at any level.
But paying as little as you can get away with is 1000% accurate.
Also engineers vary in productivity and contribution during their career; my wife just had a kid - I am beyond worthless to my company for the last 4 months. Still get paid the same though. Also some people are busting their butts now but in the future will scale back. So it would be interesting to see if salaries could be tied to performance (like in sales) for professional positions.
Of course, that would be the ideal for me. I know that it might be a pipe dream. It would just be nice not to have to do the whole dance of leaving a job and coming back just to get a raise, or enter high-stakes negotiations every year instead of actually trying to become a better employee to get more pay.
Yes because of PC culture, or how more people made noise about discrimination!
By "they" you mean men?
Is that all you got from this debate?
As for some of you having this theory that boys (always?) do better than girls, or men vs women, how about you take a look at the rest of the world?
cbse.nic.in/newsite/attach/statistics-12-2018.pdf
cbse.nic.in/newsite/attach/PRESS NOTE 2016 FOR CLASS XII (stat).pdf
cbse.nic.in/newsite/attach/PRESS NOTE 2017 FOR CLASS XII (Region Wist Stat.).pdf
cbse.nic.in/attach/Press Note for class 12th - Stat. 2015.pdf
cbse.nic.in/attach/NOTIFICATION FOR CLASS XII _ajm,ran,cha,bhu,pat_2014.pdf
BTW dumb article. Why even give this attention when there is no such thing as a pay gap. Women just make different life decisions which lead to less pay, such as having a baby or not working long hours to spend more time with their children or family. And if you want to go further, remember that to you liberals out there who think gender is a social construct, then the pay gap can not exist since gender is a made up thing, right? And is the pay gap and equality even between all the many genders you claim exist? Just stop the non-sense!
I mean look at this thread... perfect example: We have a bunch of computer geeks, who want people to be paid fairly for their work, arguing over ... men vs women.
If I was a conspiracy guy, I would 100% believe that Intersectional Gender Studies was invented by the Russians to sow discord in American society.
-Hiring doesn't follow gender wage gap spending patterns when there also exists a stigma in society saying that one group (gender, ethnicity, etc.) is somehow better at said job than others. When that's the case, hiring follows the latter pattern.
-Men aren't keeping women out, nor are white (and to some extent asian) people keeping other people of color out - but patriarchal and racist social structures where men and people from certain ethnic groups are believed to be better at these jobs are indeed keeping people not belonging to those groups out of these industries. Of course, this is systemic and not just something found in hiring practices, which means that the problem shows itself at far earlier stages (from socialization into interest for particular subjects to the adaptation of study programmes to teaching/learning styles more suited to the socialized behaviours of certain groups).
-Plenty of studies show that taking sick day increases productivity when compared to not taking sick days and coming in to work sick. Recovery takes significantly longer, productivity drops over a longer period of time, and the chance of infecting co-workers increases dramatically. This aligns with countries with generous sick leave laws generally having high levels of productivity - Norway has one of the most lenient sick leave policies in the world, yet in 2017 we were 3rd globally on the OECD's ranking of level of GDP per capita and productivity.
-Your last point just proves that rules and norms are necessary - expecting everyone to negotiate their own salaries is something that ultimately gains employers, not employees (seriously, look it up), and advantages privileged groups (white men in particular) as they are far more likely to have their demands met by management due to inherent (and often unconscious) bias. With women as an example, they are both socialized to value themselves less than men and to be less demanding in situations like this, and are seen as less valuable employees and less productive despite evidence to the contrary - in other words, they are doubly disadvantaged in any salary negotiation.Ahahahahahahahahahahaha XD XD XD
Intel has (or is pretending to have) a socialist agenda? Seriously? Please, enlighten me as to what exactly this might be, as Intel is about as much of a predatory capitalist company as you'll ever find.
And, again, nobody has said anything about wage equality between different jobs or for people with different levels of education - this is about wage equality in equivalent jobs when accounting for factors such as performance, tenure, and time at grade level. You're (intentionally or not) misunderstanding the basic premise of what this is about - which from your rhetoric seems like a scare tactic to make this look like the scary PC mafia is coming for the high-paying jobs for well-educated people. That is obfuscation at its very worst.That is ... an interesting take. Where, exactly, do you find any support whatsoever for that statement? 'cause from where I'm looking, that would create a wage gap, not remove one.
....and we wonder why the world is in its present state..... its mind boggling the level of sheer ignorance those who claim superior intelligence often produce. Its because of this mentality that we need draconian systems, laws and protective acts like this. I applaud Intel and every other company who's doing their part to level the playing field by tearing down the walls of these - good old boys / He man woman haters / must look like me / clubs which strangle and diminish true growth and creativity.... ok go ahead...you can hate me now.
When it comes to resentment due to sick leave, that's a workplace culture issue, not a productivity issue, likely mostly caused by overly competitive work environments and lack of trust between co-workers - a classic set of conditions caused by weak or nonexistent unions and labor laws, and what neoliberals, libertarians and the right all love - as infighting between workers means more power to management and owners, and ultimately more profits and worse working conditions across the board. If co-workers see sick leave when you're sick as a legitimate thing (which it really ought to be - nobody should be forced to work when sick), the chance of resentment to a degree that might harm productivity is minimal.
As for sick leave causing a fall in productivity, that's only if the leave is long-term and the company is too cheap to hire a temp to cover the workload - which ought to be part of the cost of doing business (people get sick, it's unavoidable, so to maximise productivity you need to a) get them healthy as quickly and thoroughly as possible, and b) cover their work while they do so (that's of course without mentioning what comes before that, which is creating a work environment conducive to protecting workers' health)), but the Milton Friedman school of economic thinking (which is not only the norm in the US, but the law) states that profits should be increased short-term by minimizing costs in any and all ways (to increase shareholder profitability), and thus working conditions suffer immensely. And that's how we get companies either denying people sick leave (lowering productivity) or refusing to hire temps replacing people on long-term sick leave (causing resentment due to increased workload on those still there, again lowering productivity).
Thirdly, affermative action exists precisely to counter bias - because due to the unconscious and nigh-unnoticeable (for the biased person) nature of the phenomenon, it's practically impossible to account for without legal restrictions. There's also plenty of data showing that hiring bias is alive and well even with affirmative action. It is getting better, and affirmative action policies help, but they have not come even close to creating a level playing field.
Most people here portraying this as either unfair or bad in some way are also presenting a fundamentally wrong understanding of what "wage equality" means. Either you're blinded by ideological bias and unable to read what the press release says (see my above post), or you need to read up on the definition. Wage equality does not mean equal pay for unequal work - it means equal pay for equal work. Period.
Also, for those of you saying there is no wage gap: cool. If so, Intel has simply done the research to be able to say this to shareholders without being sued for lying. If so, nothing at all has changed - so why are you protesting? And if not, and something has changed, you either have to accept that your preconceived view was wrong or that you hold a fundamental bias against this phenomenon existing. Your choice.That's a view with a very short historical horizon. Binary gender as we know it is to a large degree a 20th century (Western) phenomenon - quite a few cultures, including Western countries, have had non-binary gender structures before modernity. The 20th century (and the 19th, though to a lesser degree) was generally characterized by ever-increasing systematization and formalization of designations, which (thanks in large part to the lack of actual knowledge among a lot of the people making these definitions official, or their morality) has created a far more rigid and restrictive society than any seen before. "PC culture" is a necessary and obvious response to this, particularly later developments such as gender studies and understandings of social interaction such as actor network theory - these are schools of thought that seek to break down oversimplified and overly restrictive categorizations that don't match reality so that we can understand reality better. Period. They're not always right (at least not right off the bat), but they generally move us in a positive direction.
They're basically getting free brownie points for doing nothing.
Thanks for reminding me why I stay away.
vir·tue sig·nal·ing
noun
noun: virtue signalling; noun: virtue signaling