Having certain protections against discrimination is a good thing but they should be very carefully applied. We can already see that the New York Times Tech Guild does not seem to want careful application of these rules if their website doesn't even mention any evaluation of worker productivity or value, all their study apparently did was to look at pay difference without looking at work difference. A perfect example of a total failure to care about the correct things, a total failure to care about what the company needs to achieve (=actual value) and just looking at pay with no connection to possible reasons I enumerated. https://www.nyguild.org/post/pay-inequity-at-the-new-york-ti...
I can imagine an orange when we're talking apples, sure.
> We can already see that the New York Times Tech Guild does not seem to want careful application of these rules if their website doesn't even mention any evaluation of worker productivity or value, all their study apparently did was to look at pay difference without looking at work difference.
Come on, it's an adversarial negotiation. You seem to really want to argue the side of the employer, and for some strange reason seem also want everyone to argue that side as well.
There are these things that exist called courts and independent arbitrators...
> Pay discrepancies for "women or people of color" could easily have real world reasons, maybe they really are just worse at their job, less engaged, less ambitious, whatever it is that causes less pay.
> ...
> I need to have the legal power to pay worse people less money or we are in a situation where you just levied a massive hidden tax on my company.
Ok, then. We have these things called protected categories. If your contention is one of those categories actually consists of "worse people" that you need to be able to "pay less money," then you need to prove that each of those individuals is in fact "worse." A giant wall-o-text consisting of a bunch of coulds, maybes, and I-want-to-be-able-to-do-this's ain't gonna cut it.
> Yes it would be nice if we could all work how we want but how is that a legitimate negotiable thing for the union to involve itself in?
The short answer: yes. The long answer is: yes, and why is that news to you?
> The entire mindset here is so utterly divorced from reality...
Honestly, I could say the same about your comment.