December 2, 2019 • 19 mins
SuperManager: Equal Pay and Gender Bias - Part 2 (Overcoming Bias)
So how do we get past Gender Bias? Does the law provide the solution? Or is there another, more personal approach that employers have to take in order to overcome their unconscious bias? This week our super panel discusses overcoming bias.
Listen in like a fly on the wall in this week's discussion with:
Samantha Naes - CN Video Production (Corporate Video Production)
Victoria Wors - Wors Consulting (HR Services)
Joel Emery - Ignite Strategies (Sales Systems)
Amy Narishkin - Empowering Partners (HR Services)
Gerald Richardson - Evans & Dixon, LLC. (Legal Services)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Christine (00:02):
You're listening to SuperManager, the podcast for
people who manage people andbusiness.
With ideas, friends, and expertinterviews to help you be a
SuperManager.
Sam (00:13):
Welcome back to part two of our conversation about equal pay
and gender bias.
I have got my totally equalsuper friends with me.
Gerry (00:20):
I'm Gerry Richardson.
I'm a lawyer at Evans and Dixon.
I work with employers.
I help them manage theirrelationships through the
courtship, the marriage and thedivorce.
Joel (00:30):
Joel Emery with Ignites Strategies.
I serve as a sales systemsarchitect for small and midsized
businesses.
Vicki (00:34):
Vicki Wors, Wors Consulting.
I am a human resourcesconsultant for small to midsize
businesses, helping themmaneuver through some of the
uncomfortable issues they face.
Amy (00:45):
I'm Amy Narishkin.
I'm a cultural intelligencestrategist with Empowering
Partners, which is actually mybusiness, so I'm a consultant as
well, and I help organizationsreach broader markets by hiring
people that they think aredifferent.
Sam (00:59):
And I am Samantha Naes with CN video.
We do corporate videoproduction.
Gerry, it sounds like you've gotan equal pay story for us
Gerry (01:07):
Of recent note, probably the most interesting one would
be the U S women's soccer team.
Who won the World Cup.
Amy (01:18):
Hello!
Gerry (01:18):
You have the men's team, which has never won the World's
Cup.
But from a lawyer standpoint,it's kind of an interesting
question.
They are different teams andthey don't play the same
opposition.
They play different teams.
And so the question is does thatmake a difference?
Now I think the allegations andperhaps some of the evidence
(01:41):
favors the women's team in that,well in terms of what women are
paid, they're paid like abouthalf, I think they're getting
paid around a hundred thousandand the males are 230,000 those
are averages and in terms.
Amy (01:55):
And that's before all the sponsors.
Gerry (01:56):
Well, no, but when you, but then you look at, okay, well
what are the revenues that theseteams are.
Sam (02:03):
That's what I was gonna say, that's a tough one.
It's gotta be based on revenuetoo.
Gerry (02:03):
Well but wait but wait a minute, but, but wait a minute.
Because the woman's team,because it's been so good, draws
larger audiences and morediverse so that.
Sam (02:17):
Well, now I didn't realize that.
Gerry (02:17):
because of the larger audiences, they're actually
generating more money than themen's team.
Sam (02:23):
Oh
Gerry (02:23):
and they end up on TV much, much more than the men's
team.
Amy (02:28):
The irony
Sam (02:28):
Okay.
Well, I can't defend that.
Gerry (02:30):
So that, but that's not always the case.
Amy (02:32):
Right
Sam (02:33):
Right.
Gerry (02:33):
So if you're comparing the NBA to the WNBA,
Sam (02:37):
Right
Gerry (02:37):
that's way different.
Amy (02:38):
Right, right.
Vicki (02:40):
Well I think it has to get down to income generation.
If one particular team, whetherthey are male or female, are
they generating with regard toprofits or
Sam (02:54):
Well like in sales, it would be based on sales.
Gerry (02:56):
But let's take gender out of it.
That's a little harsh, becauseyou take a league like the NFL.
There's revenue sharing going onbecause if I have a team in New
York, it will generate a lotmore advertising revenue than if
I have a team in St.
Louis or Kansas City or...
Amy (03:16):
Market share.
Gerry (03:17):
Yeah, yeah.
Well it was just revenues arejust based how many eyeballs are
going to watch it.
Amy (03:22):
Right.
Gerry (03:22):
And so if you're in an area where there's a lot more
eyeballs, and that's why the NFLhas been such a success because
early on they decided to dorevenue sharing.
So small market teams then get ashare of all the revenues from
the advertising and they canafford to get expensive players.
So it's not, the Yankeesscenario was the Yankees always
(03:45):
had more money and the way thatMajor League Baseball is set up,
they didn't have salary caps andthings like that.
And so other leagues have goneabout it in a different way
because they want morecompetitive games.
Sam (03:58):
I think what we're talking about though mostly is just
gender bias, discrimination andlack of equal pay in the
workplace where you don't haveas many people watching women's
basketball as you do watchingmen's basketball.
You have a group of computerprogrammers where the company
says, we're on a budget,therefore we hire women.
Gerry (04:16):
What I'm saying is you have to look at more than just
the pay differential.
That's a good place to start.
There's a pay differential.
Sam (04:24):
Right.
Gerry (04:24):
But is there an explanation that's
non-discriminatory because thelaw allows non-discriminatory
explanations to trump adifference in pay in terms of
does, it require the sameskills, efforts and
responsibilities?
Perhaps it does, but is theresome other nondiscriminatory
reason that explains it?
(04:44):
Well, if there is an incomegeneration that's present for
one gender, that's not foranother.
Yes, that explains it.
So.
Amy (04:53):
What's your saying kind of triggers, I'm feeling angry.
Because taking gender out of it,as I sit with this anger, I'm
just realizing that unlessyou're aware of your bias, the
bias is going to influence youractions.
I just want to be careful aboutjust saying the words, taking
(05:15):
gender out of it.
We can take gender out of it.
I remember for example, a pastortelling me that he hires based
on merit and what I wanted tochallenge him, but it wasn't the
time, was to realize that meritis based on how you're
enculturated.
So you think somebody isvaluable based on your
(05:37):
experience.
So if all you've known is onekind of person as valuable,
that's who you're going togravitate toward.
So when for example, a whitemale CEO said to me recently,
there just aren't people ofcolor to fill positions in my
company, well for people ofcolor, when they hear that, that
(05:58):
just irks them to no end becauseall of the experience of this
white male CEO, he's not exposedto people that are of different
color.
Sam (06:09):
Right.
Amy (06:09):
And so the folks of color will say, I'm thinking about
engineering societies andhistorically black colleges, and
women's engineering association.
If we're going to overcome biasand really hire people based on
merit, we're going to have tokind of double down and really
look for people that havediverse backgrounds.
Sam (06:30):
Gerry...
Gerry (06:31):
So you should go to my blog from about two months ago.
Amy (06:35):
Oh, I'd love to.
Gerry (06:35):
That was exactly about what do you do with those in the
context of tight labor markets,where do you find the talent?
You fish where the, where thefish are.
And you find them and then youexpand your pool.
Amy (06:49):
Awesome.
Sam (06:50):
Gerry, I have to say though, when you were, when you
were talking about about before,when you were talking about
going back and taking gender outof it and examining other
reasons.
What was going through my mindas I was listening to you was,
okay, so you've got gender biasthat you may or may not be aware
of, and what Gerry's talkingabout is essentially justifying
it.
Going back and finding ways tojustify why this person is
(07:14):
making less than this personother than gender.
And that's kind of what I was, Idon't know if...
Joel (07:19):
Let me interject an observation, I mean there's two
different ways of weighing that.
I think Gerry was talking aboutit from a very legalistic legal
precedent perspective.
Sam (07:27):
Right.
Joel (07:27):
And then there's an ethical human dialogue too.
And those are not necessarilythe same conversation.
They can be at times, but theyare not necessarily the same.
So I think Gerry was trying toarticulate what is legal based
in case law or regulationsprecedent.
And I think, well other parts ofthe conversation are more going
on values.
And that's some of the thingslike that...
Vicki (07:48):
That's one of the big differences between Gerry, in a
legally trained mind and say meas a human resources
professional.
You have the law and followingthe tenants of the law, what is
appropriate, what is right asfar as ethically and morally are
(08:09):
concerned.
And sometimes they don't...
Amy (08:15):
Jive?
Vicki (08:16):
They don't jive! And in human resources over the years
that I've been involved, I don'tknow how many times I have
argued salaries with CFOs, CEOs,why are we paying him more than
her?
He's married, he has a family.
She's single.
Amy (08:36):
Ouch...
Vicki (08:35):
Okay.
So it's like, Okay...
And myself, I had an experience,I got laid off.
Why?
Because I was a college graduateand I was single and I could
find another job, but they keptall the men.
Gerry (08:54):
You have to look at things.
The market values janitors at adifferent rate than it values
investment bankers.
And so there's, you can't say,well there is a female janitor
and she's getting paid$9 an hourand there's this investment
banker who's male that's making250 a year.
Sam (09:13):
I don't think that's what anybody's comparing though...
Vicki (09:13):
I was the department manager!
Gerry (09:13):
Well, well no, that's taking gender.
No, no, no, you're, you're,you're taking you have to take
gender out.
There are things such as themarket that value different
things and that's why the law,at least until now, a few states
are moving in a differentdirection, but has said there is
no comparable worth theory.
(09:34):
Comparable worth was somethinglitigated in the 90s and it
ended up being rejected by thecourts, but it was saying, well,
gee, here's a job classificationwhere predominantly females are
in it, in the same employer.
Here's a job classification withpredominantly males.
They say the males are paid more, so they're roughly doing the
same thing or something similar.
(09:57):
You get people withundergraduate degrees, they
don't have to have say mastersand above to start.
Well one might be highlytechnical and the technical
fields were paid more andanother one might be you could
put anyone in there with anycollege degree as a starting.
That's a significant differenceand so that comparable worth
(10:17):
theory was rejected.
As I said, there were a fewStates change.
I think California is.
Sam (10:22):
I think the, the issue I'm having with this conversation is
I feel like the problem and canwe all agree that there's a
problem?
Vicki (10:29):
Well certainly.
Sam (10:30):
is that this may not be a...
and Gerry's kind of looking"Eh,I don't know."
Gerry (10:33):
That's, that's way too broad because there are many
employers I have worked with,they have a essentially a system
for pay grades and the way thatit's done, gender doesn't really
matter and you can study and youdo studies.
Sam (10:51):
Well those are the companies that are doing it
right.
Vicki (10:52):
You give me a broadband compensation structure.
You give me a compensationstructure that, Oh wow, women
take just tend to be down at thelower end, but we have a broad
band.
Okay, well bite me.
Okay.
Sam (11:09):
No, what I was gonna say is.
Vicki (11:11):
It's like okay.
The reality of it is, in what Ihave worked with in the past, I
understand what you're sayingabout engineering and technical.
Okay.
I am saying all things beingequal.
Okay.
That over a period of time it'sabsolutely beyond me and
(11:33):
hopefully it's getting better.
I haven't had to deal with thecompensation issues in some of
my consulting, thank God anyway,but the idea is that the mindset
was number one, you hire adivorced woman with children
that she has to work.
You can work or as many hours asyou want and pay or whatever you
(11:59):
want and if you get mean, thiswas the mindset because she has
to work.
She has children, so this waswhere a lot of women got into
the workforce, but they getstuck at a level because we
can't do without you, we can'tpromote you.
(12:20):
Who else is going to do thatcrap job you had?
Sam (12:23):
I think the point that I was going to make about what
concerns me about thisconversation and first of all,
Gerry, thank you for throwingyourself in the middle of this.
But I feel like this is less ofa legal issue and more of a
cultural intelligence issue.
I think that laws can only go sofar.
Even if you made, and this islike in a fictitious world, you
(12:46):
made a law that said a femalecounterpart has to be paid
exactly the same amount as amale counterpart.
There are going to be workarounds, there are going to be
people that disagree with it.
They're going to be problems andissues.
It's more a change of themindset.
It's people realizing this, whatdid you call it?
Unconscious...
Amy (13:02):
Unconscious bias.
Sam (13:03):
Unconscious bias.
It's more people actuallyrealizing that and changing the
way people think and the waythey feel and less about
changing the laws and that'sjust kinda my opinion.
Gerry (13:10):
I disagree because before Title VII of the Civil Rights
act of 1964 there was rampantdiscrimination throughout the
economy.
That was enacted, 64, if youlook around now, there is much
less discrimination.
I'm not going to say it's goneentirely away, but much less
(13:33):
discrimination.
I think that's a fine examplewhere the Americans with
Disabilities Act, same thing ofyou can legislate morality
Sam (13:41):
But there's a time for law and there's a time for
Vicki (13:41):
Except what are you basing that on?
Number of times, Number oflawsuits brought, is that what
you're basing it on?
Gerry (13:46):
There were no laws, before 64 there were no
lawsuits,
Vicki (13:49):
OK, so
Gerry (13:49):
there was no law that required equal trades.
Amy (13:52):
We talk about the number of CEOs in America, there are more
CEOs named John than there arefemale CEOs in the United
States.
I'm not sure discriminationis...
gone.
Gerry (14:00):
Before 1964 there were no female CEOs.
Sam (14:04):
Right.
Gerry (14:04):
Okay, so what I'm saying,
Amy (14:05):
So we can count the number of...
Sam (14:07):
The laws were necessary then, and we have some laws in
place now, but now it's becomingmore mindset.
Gerry (14:13):
Beware of those statistics, because I think
those are only publicly tradedcorporations,
Amy (14:18):
They are.
Gerry (14:18):
so closely held, there are many more and there are many
more females and so we getsnippets of information and we
broadly generalize withstatistics that aren't accurate
broadly, and that happens frequently.
Vicki (14:34):
Well, and there is a prime example of cultural bias
sitting in the White House.
Sam (14:41):
Why whatever do you mean?
Vicki (14:43):
You had, you had a very qualified,
Sam (14:48):
This is about to get really heated really quick I think.
Vicki (14:48):
okay, you had a very qualified candidate, very much a
what we'd call l ightning rod.
Okay.
Admittedly, a lot of people hadissues, but what was the
comment?
There's not going to be a womanpresident in the United States
of America.
Hopefully that will change.
But the cultural bias that saysa woman is too emotional to
(15:13):
handle being president of theUnited States.
That is the cultural bias.
Gerry (15:18):
Okay.
But wait a minute.
We've had, and still do have,women who serve on the United
States Supreme court.
We have women that have beenSecretary of State.
We have women throughout thelegislature's.
So I guess I go through.
Vicki (15:34):
But they cannot become, president.
Sam (15:34):
What did they have to go through to get there, though?
Gerry (15:34):
I don't think Hillary, no , Hillary Clinton didn't lose
because of her gender.
She did not run a smart campaignand I voted for Hillary Clinton.
Okay.
But she did not run a smartcampaign.
Vicki (15:47):
But again, look what you've got.
Gerry (15:50):
Okay.
But you're attributing that togender.
And you have a lot of people Ithink that had grievances with
this vague system and that theyas individuals were being done
in by the system and so theyvoted for this
anti-establishment character,Donald Trump, because he said
(16:13):
he's an insider and he canfigure it out and turn it on its
head.
That's really what he's done,isn't it?
Vicki (16:18):
Yeah.
Last 50 nuclear in Syria.
Sam (16:21):
He dropped it on it's head is I think what it...
Vicki (16:21):
O kay, but a side, I shouldn't have put the political
thing in there, but I did out of just absolute frustration, but
t he issue, having been inemployment, I've consulted for
the last 13 years, but in the workplace and being in the cat
bird seat, being over thecompensation structure, over
(16:45):
hiring, over the wholeenchilada, let's say, okay.
What you've seen is that you sawthe bias a nd what you would see
so often would be a g uy come inand interview that a particular
(17:05):
manager or a n executive reallyfound attractive.
I'm saying he liked the way theguy l ooked.
He liked the fact that he wasover six foot tall, there's a
bias for you.
He liked the fact that h e camefrom the same college, yada,
yada.
All the way down.
What happens is those guys arethen looked at through that C
(17:29):
EOs vision as t heir young selfand they live through their
young self.
It doesn't matter if this guy can't even find their way out of
a box.
Sam (17:39):
I had a friend recently who lost her job because the CEO's
wife didn't want her husbandworking with this woman.
Vicki (17:48):
I got news for that happens quite a lot too.
Sam (17:50):
Yep, because she's pretty.
Gerry (17:51):
That's been litigated too .
Sam (17:55):
Alright, well that seems like a good place to wrap up
part two of our conversation onequal pay and gender bias, but
before we go, anybody have agood horror story?
If not, I've got one.
I actually worked in a workenvironment one time where I had
a male counterpart.
We both had the same title, thesame job, just very similar
(18:16):
departments.
And I was approached aboutcoming across too bossy, too
overbearing and mostly in emailmessages.
And so we did an experimentwhere we switched whenever I
sent out an email to mydepartment, I had him, I had him
type up the email and send itunder my name and whenever he
(18:37):
needed to email his department,he had me type it up and send it
under his name.
And we did this for a couple ofweeks and then I asked have I
improved?
And they said no, if anythingyou've gotten worse.
And I said, well what about him?
And they said, he's fine.
Nobody has a problem with him.
Joel (18:52):
Funny.
Sam (18:52):
Now, at one point they had somebody come in to do, I think
it was the Myers Briggs, theydid personality testing and I
was told, and I quote"Sam, yourproblem is that you're an ENTP
and the N T combination ispredominantly male." And so
people expect you...
Amy (19:12):
That's your problem.
Sam (19:13):
That's my problem.
Yeah.
And so people have a certainexpectation.
Amy (19:17):
That's so sad.
For women...
Sam (19:17):
for me to behave differently because they're not
used to seeing the N Tcombination in a female and that
I needed to be aware of that.
What kind of struck me?
Amy (19:26):
And please stifle it.
Sam (19:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Please act more female becauseI'm making people uncomfortable.
Amy (19:30):
Ouch.
Christine (19:32):
Thanks for listening to SuperManager by CN Video
Production.
Visit our website cn-video.comfor additional episodes and lots
of SuperManager resources, orgive us a call at(314) VIDEO ME.
You're listening to SuperManager, the podcast for
people who manage people andbusiness.
With ideas, friends, and expertinterviews to help you be a
SuperManager.
Sam (00:13):
Welcome back to part two of our conversation about equal pay
and gender bias.
I have got my totally equalsuper friends with me.
Gerry (00:20):
I'm Gerry Richardson.
I'm a lawyer at Evans and Dixon.
I work with employers.
I help them manage theirrelationships through the
courtship, the marriage and thedivorce.
Joel (00:30):
Joel Emery with Ignites Strategies.
I serve as a sales systemsarchitect for small and midsized
businesses.
Vicki (00:34):
Vicki Wors, Wors Consulting.
I am a human resourcesconsultant for small to midsize
businesses, helping themmaneuver through some of the
uncomfortable issues they face.
Amy (00:45):
I'm Amy Narishkin.
I'm a cultural intelligencestrategist with Empowering
Partners, which is actually mybusiness, so I'm a consultant as
well, and I help organizationsreach broader markets by hiring
people that they think aredifferent.
Sam (00:59):
And I am Samantha Naes with CN video.
We do corporate videoproduction.
Gerry, it sounds like you've gotan equal pay story for us
Gerry (01:07):
Of recent note, probably the most interesting one would
be the U S women's soccer team.
Who won the World Cup.
Amy (01:18):
Hello!
Gerry (01:18):
You have the men's team, which has never won the World's
Cup.
But from a lawyer standpoint,it's kind of an interesting
question.
They are different teams andthey don't play the same
opposition.
They play different teams.
And so the question is does thatmake a difference?
Now I think the allegations andperhaps some of the evidence
(01:41):
favors the women's team in that,well in terms of what women are
paid, they're paid like abouthalf, I think they're getting
paid around a hundred thousandand the males are 230,000 those
are averages and in terms.
Amy (01:55):
And that's before all the sponsors.
Gerry (01:56):
Well, no, but when you, but then you look at, okay, well
what are the revenues that theseteams are.
Sam (02:03):
That's what I was gonna say, that's a tough one.
It's gotta be based on revenuetoo.
Gerry (02:03):
Well but wait but wait a minute, but, but wait a minute.
Because the woman's team,because it's been so good, draws
larger audiences and morediverse so that.
Sam (02:17):
Well, now I didn't realize that.
Gerry (02:17):
because of the larger audiences, they're actually
generating more money than themen's team.
Sam (02:23):
Oh
Gerry (02:23):
and they end up on TV much, much more than the men's
team.
Amy (02:28):
The irony
Sam (02:28):
Okay.
Well, I can't defend that.
Gerry (02:30):
So that, but that's not always the case.
Amy (02:32):
Right
Sam (02:33):
Right.
Gerry (02:33):
So if you're comparing the NBA to the WNBA,
Sam (02:37):
Right
Gerry (02:37):
that's way different.
Amy (02:38):
Right, right.
Vicki (02:40):
Well I think it has to get down to income generation.
If one particular team, whetherthey are male or female, are
they generating with regard toprofits or
Sam (02:54):
Well like in sales, it would be based on sales.
Gerry (02:56):
But let's take gender out of it.
That's a little harsh, becauseyou take a league like the NFL.
There's revenue sharing going onbecause if I have a team in New
York, it will generate a lotmore advertising revenue than if
I have a team in St.
Louis or Kansas City or...
Amy (03:16):
Market share.
Gerry (03:17):
Yeah, yeah.
Well it was just revenues arejust based how many eyeballs are
going to watch it.
Amy (03:22):
Right.
Gerry (03:22):
And so if you're in an area where there's a lot more
eyeballs, and that's why the NFLhas been such a success because
early on they decided to dorevenue sharing.
So small market teams then get ashare of all the revenues from
the advertising and they canafford to get expensive players.
So it's not, the Yankeesscenario was the Yankees always
(03:45):
had more money and the way thatMajor League Baseball is set up,
they didn't have salary caps andthings like that.
And so other leagues have goneabout it in a different way
because they want morecompetitive games.
Sam (03:58):
I think what we're talking about though mostly is just
gender bias, discrimination andlack of equal pay in the
workplace where you don't haveas many people watching women's
basketball as you do watchingmen's basketball.
You have a group of computerprogrammers where the company
says, we're on a budget,therefore we hire women.
Gerry (04:16):
What I'm saying is you have to look at more than just
the pay differential.
That's a good place to start.
There's a pay differential.
Sam (04:24):
Right.
Gerry (04:24):
But is there an explanation that's
non-discriminatory because thelaw allows non-discriminatory
explanations to trump adifference in pay in terms of
does, it require the sameskills, efforts and
responsibilities?
Perhaps it does, but is theresome other nondiscriminatory
reason that explains it?
(04:44):
Well, if there is an incomegeneration that's present for
one gender, that's not foranother.
Yes, that explains it.
So.
Amy (04:53):
What's your saying kind of triggers, I'm feeling angry.
Because taking gender out of it,as I sit with this anger, I'm
just realizing that unlessyou're aware of your bias, the
bias is going to influence youractions.
I just want to be careful aboutjust saying the words, taking
(05:15):
gender out of it.
We can take gender out of it.
I remember for example, a pastortelling me that he hires based
on merit and what I wanted tochallenge him, but it wasn't the
time, was to realize that meritis based on how you're
enculturated.
So you think somebody isvaluable based on your
(05:37):
experience.
So if all you've known is onekind of person as valuable,
that's who you're going togravitate toward.
So when for example, a whitemale CEO said to me recently,
there just aren't people ofcolor to fill positions in my
company, well for people ofcolor, when they hear that, that
(05:58):
just irks them to no end becauseall of the experience of this
white male CEO, he's not exposedto people that are of different
color.
Sam (06:09):
Right.
Amy (06:09):
And so the folks of color will say, I'm thinking about
engineering societies andhistorically black colleges, and
women's engineering association.
If we're going to overcome biasand really hire people based on
merit, we're going to have tokind of double down and really
look for people that havediverse backgrounds.
Sam (06:30):
Gerry...
Gerry (06:31):
So you should go to my blog from about two months ago.
Amy (06:35):
Oh, I'd love to.
Gerry (06:35):
That was exactly about what do you do with those in the
context of tight labor markets,where do you find the talent?
You fish where the, where thefish are.
And you find them and then youexpand your pool.
Amy (06:49):
Awesome.
Sam (06:50):
Gerry, I have to say though, when you were, when you
were talking about about before,when you were talking about
going back and taking gender outof it and examining other
reasons.
What was going through my mindas I was listening to you was,
okay, so you've got gender biasthat you may or may not be aware
of, and what Gerry's talkingabout is essentially justifying
it.
Going back and finding ways tojustify why this person is
(07:14):
making less than this personother than gender.
And that's kind of what I was, Idon't know if...
Joel (07:19):
Let me interject an observation, I mean there's two
different ways of weighing that.
I think Gerry was talking aboutit from a very legalistic legal
precedent perspective.
Sam (07:27):
Right.
Joel (07:27):
And then there's an ethical human dialogue too.
And those are not necessarilythe same conversation.
They can be at times, but theyare not necessarily the same.
So I think Gerry was trying toarticulate what is legal based
in case law or regulationsprecedent.
And I think, well other parts ofthe conversation are more going
on values.
And that's some of the thingslike that...
Vicki (07:48):
That's one of the big differences between Gerry, in a
legally trained mind and say meas a human resources
professional.
You have the law and followingthe tenants of the law, what is
appropriate, what is right asfar as ethically and morally are
(08:09):
concerned.
And sometimes they don't...
Amy (08:15):
Jive?
Vicki (08:16):
They don't jive! And in human resources over the years
that I've been involved, I don'tknow how many times I have
argued salaries with CFOs, CEOs,why are we paying him more than
her?
He's married, he has a family.
She's single.
Amy (08:36):
Ouch...
Vicki (08:35):
Okay.
So it's like, Okay...
And myself, I had an experience,I got laid off.
Why?
Because I was a college graduateand I was single and I could
find another job, but they keptall the men.
Gerry (08:54):
You have to look at things.
The market values janitors at adifferent rate than it values
investment bankers.
And so there's, you can't say,well there is a female janitor
and she's getting paid$9 an hourand there's this investment
banker who's male that's making250 a year.
Sam (09:13):
I don't think that's what anybody's comparing though...
Vicki (09:13):
I was the department manager!
Gerry (09:13):
Well, well no, that's taking gender.
No, no, no, you're, you're,you're taking you have to take
gender out.
There are things such as themarket that value different
things and that's why the law,at least until now, a few states
are moving in a differentdirection, but has said there is
no comparable worth theory.
(09:34):
Comparable worth was somethinglitigated in the 90s and it
ended up being rejected by thecourts, but it was saying, well,
gee, here's a job classificationwhere predominantly females are
in it, in the same employer.
Here's a job classification withpredominantly males.
They say the males are paid more, so they're roughly doing the
same thing or something similar.
(09:57):
You get people withundergraduate degrees, they
don't have to have say mastersand above to start.
Well one might be highlytechnical and the technical
fields were paid more andanother one might be you could
put anyone in there with anycollege degree as a starting.
That's a significant differenceand so that comparable worth
(10:17):
theory was rejected.
As I said, there were a fewStates change.
I think California is.
Sam (10:22):
I think the, the issue I'm having with this conversation is
I feel like the problem and canwe all agree that there's a
problem?
Vicki (10:29):
Well certainly.
Sam (10:30):
is that this may not be a...
and Gerry's kind of looking"Eh,I don't know."
Gerry (10:33):
That's, that's way too broad because there are many
employers I have worked with,they have a essentially a system
for pay grades and the way thatit's done, gender doesn't really
matter and you can study and youdo studies.
Sam (10:51):
Well those are the companies that are doing it
right.
Vicki (10:52):
You give me a broadband compensation structure.
You give me a compensationstructure that, Oh wow, women
take just tend to be down at thelower end, but we have a broad
band.
Okay, well bite me.
Okay.
Sam (11:09):
No, what I was gonna say is.
Vicki (11:11):
It's like okay.
The reality of it is, in what Ihave worked with in the past, I
understand what you're sayingabout engineering and technical.
Okay.
I am saying all things beingequal.
Okay.
That over a period of time it'sabsolutely beyond me and
(11:33):
hopefully it's getting better.
I haven't had to deal with thecompensation issues in some of
my consulting, thank God anyway,but the idea is that the mindset
was number one, you hire adivorced woman with children
that she has to work.
You can work or as many hours asyou want and pay or whatever you
(11:59):
want and if you get mean, thiswas the mindset because she has
to work.
She has children, so this waswhere a lot of women got into
the workforce, but they getstuck at a level because we
can't do without you, we can'tpromote you.
(12:20):
Who else is going to do thatcrap job you had?
Sam (12:23):
I think the point that I was going to make about what
concerns me about thisconversation and first of all,
Gerry, thank you for throwingyourself in the middle of this.
But I feel like this is less ofa legal issue and more of a
cultural intelligence issue.
I think that laws can only go sofar.
Even if you made, and this islike in a fictitious world, you
(12:46):
made a law that said a femalecounterpart has to be paid
exactly the same amount as amale counterpart.
There are going to be workarounds, there are going to be
people that disagree with it.
They're going to be problems andissues.
It's more a change of themindset.
It's people realizing this, whatdid you call it?
Unconscious...
Amy (13:02):
Unconscious bias.
Sam (13:03):
Unconscious bias.
It's more people actuallyrealizing that and changing the
way people think and the waythey feel and less about
changing the laws and that'sjust kinda my opinion.
Gerry (13:10):
I disagree because before Title VII of the Civil Rights
act of 1964 there was rampantdiscrimination throughout the
economy.
That was enacted, 64, if youlook around now, there is much
less discrimination.
I'm not going to say it's goneentirely away, but much less
(13:33):
discrimination.
I think that's a fine examplewhere the Americans with
Disabilities Act, same thing ofyou can legislate morality
Sam (13:41):
But there's a time for law and there's a time for
Vicki (13:41):
Except what are you basing that on?
Number of times, Number oflawsuits brought, is that what
you're basing it on?
Gerry (13:46):
There were no laws, before 64 there were no
lawsuits,
Vicki (13:49):
OK, so
Gerry (13:49):
there was no law that required equal trades.
Amy (13:52):
We talk about the number of CEOs in America, there are more
CEOs named John than there arefemale CEOs in the United
States.
I'm not sure discriminationis...
gone.
Gerry (14:00):
Before 1964 there were no female CEOs.
Sam (14:04):
Right.
Gerry (14:04):
Okay, so what I'm saying,
Amy (14:05):
So we can count the number of...
Sam (14:07):
The laws were necessary then, and we have some laws in
place now, but now it's becomingmore mindset.
Gerry (14:13):
Beware of those statistics, because I think
those are only publicly tradedcorporations,
Amy (14:18):
They are.
Gerry (14:18):
so closely held, there are many more and there are many
more females and so we getsnippets of information and we
broadly generalize withstatistics that aren't accurate
broadly, and that happens frequently.
Vicki (14:34):
Well, and there is a prime example of cultural bias
sitting in the White House.
Sam (14:41):
Why whatever do you mean?
Vicki (14:43):
You had, you had a very qualified,
Sam (14:48):
This is about to get really heated really quick I think.
Vicki (14:48):
okay, you had a very qualified candidate, very much a
what we'd call l ightning rod.
Okay.
Admittedly, a lot of people hadissues, but what was the
comment?
There's not going to be a womanpresident in the United States
of America.
Hopefully that will change.
But the cultural bias that saysa woman is too emotional to
(15:13):
handle being president of theUnited States.
That is the cultural bias.
Gerry (15:18):
Okay.
But wait a minute.
We've had, and still do have,women who serve on the United
States Supreme court.
We have women that have beenSecretary of State.
We have women throughout thelegislature's.
So I guess I go through.
Vicki (15:34):
But they cannot become, president.
Sam (15:34):
What did they have to go through to get there, though?
Gerry (15:34):
I don't think Hillary, no , Hillary Clinton didn't lose
because of her gender.
She did not run a smart campaignand I voted for Hillary Clinton.
Okay.
But she did not run a smartcampaign.
Vicki (15:47):
But again, look what you've got.
Gerry (15:50):
Okay.
But you're attributing that togender.
And you have a lot of people Ithink that had grievances with
this vague system and that theyas individuals were being done
in by the system and so theyvoted for this
anti-establishment character,Donald Trump, because he said
(16:13):
he's an insider and he canfigure it out and turn it on its
head.
That's really what he's done,isn't it?
Vicki (16:18):
Yeah.
Last 50 nuclear in Syria.
Sam (16:21):
He dropped it on it's head is I think what it...
Vicki (16:21):
O kay, but a side, I shouldn't have put the political
thing in there, but I did out of just absolute frustration, but
t he issue, having been inemployment, I've consulted for
the last 13 years, but in the workplace and being in the cat
bird seat, being over thecompensation structure, over
(16:45):
hiring, over the wholeenchilada, let's say, okay.
What you've seen is that you sawthe bias a nd what you would see
so often would be a g uy come inand interview that a particular
(17:05):
manager or a n executive reallyfound attractive.
I'm saying he liked the way theguy l ooked.
He liked the fact that he wasover six foot tall, there's a
bias for you.
He liked the fact that h e camefrom the same college, yada,
yada.
All the way down.
What happens is those guys arethen looked at through that C
(17:29):
EOs vision as t heir young selfand they live through their
young self.
It doesn't matter if this guy can't even find their way out of
a box.
Sam (17:39):
I had a friend recently who lost her job because the CEO's
wife didn't want her husbandworking with this woman.
Vicki (17:48):
I got news for that happens quite a lot too.
Sam (17:50):
Yep, because she's pretty.
Gerry (17:51):
That's been litigated too .
Sam (17:55):
Alright, well that seems like a good place to wrap up
part two of our conversation onequal pay and gender bias, but
before we go, anybody have agood horror story?
If not, I've got one.
I actually worked in a workenvironment one time where I had
a male counterpart.
We both had the same title, thesame job, just very similar
(18:16):
departments.
And I was approached aboutcoming across too bossy, too
overbearing and mostly in emailmessages.
And so we did an experimentwhere we switched whenever I
sent out an email to mydepartment, I had him, I had him
type up the email and send itunder my name and whenever he
(18:37):
needed to email his department,he had me type it up and send it
under his name.
And we did this for a couple ofweeks and then I asked have I
improved?
And they said no, if anythingyou've gotten worse.
And I said, well what about him?
And they said, he's fine.
Nobody has a problem with him.
Joel (18:52):
Funny.
Sam (18:52):
Now, at one point they had somebody come in to do, I think
it was the Myers Briggs, theydid personality testing and I
was told, and I quote"Sam, yourproblem is that you're an ENTP
and the N T combination ispredominantly male." And so
people expect you...
Amy (19:12):
That's your problem.
Sam (19:13):
That's my problem.
Yeah.
And so people have a certainexpectation.
Amy (19:17):
That's so sad.
For women...
Sam (19:17):
for me to behave differently because they're not
used to seeing the N Tcombination in a female and that
I needed to be aware of that.
What kind of struck me?
Amy (19:26):
And please stifle it.
Sam (19:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Please act more female becauseI'm making people uncomfortable.
Amy (19:30):
Ouch.
Christine (19:32):
Thanks for listening to SuperManager by CN Video
Production.
Visit our website cn-video.comfor additional episodes and lots
of SuperManager resources, orgive us a call at(314) VIDEO ME.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!