On 10 Jan 2000, Kirrily 'Skud' Robert wrote:
> Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> >Women ARE several times more likely to quit jobs than men for a variety of
> >reasons, some of which have to do with childrearing and some which do not.
> >Given that the costs of replacing someone in a position are high and the
> >expected tenure is lower, what do you propose a fair non-sexist way would
> >be to offset these financial risks to the company?
>
> 1) pay them as much as men, in order to give them an incentive to stay;
(still playing devil's advocate):
As we have seen that women will take, on average, jobs that pay less than
those of men, do you think women would be highly motivated by money?
More to the point, in the US, never-married women have salaries that are
close to those of men's. However, after marriage the picture changes
radically.
Looking at the last few jobs of mine:
0) This last week, I very nearly resigned from my current position because
I was told I needed to use Windows for company functioons that couldn't
yet be done on Linux. After soul-searching, I realized I could do them on
a Mac. So I bought an iBook and stayed.
1) I quit because I was constantly told that I would need to use Windows
depsite my being clear on that in my arrangements. Interesting thing to
note is that the company was partly owned by Microsoft but that this
wasn't disclosed to me when the recruiter talked to me about the position.
2) I was fired for asking for a raise for myself and four others in my
department. Realizing their error, they to bring me back in, but I
refused, blowing off 12,000 pre-IPO stock options. (For the record, I'm
now making about 25% more, but long-term that move probably cost me a LOT
of money). One of the other four also left (only to find a job paying more
with better options elsewhere). The other three are there and have been
promised, but not delivered, raises. (Fwiw, of the five of us, the highest
and the lowest paid were women; I was the highest paid, but all of us
were paid at LEAST 20k under market)
3) I quit to move where my SO was living. Long distance relationships
suck. I took a significant effective pay cut to do so and to work at a
"cool" Linux company that, for me at least, wasn't.
4) I quit when I was going to be forced to use Windows NT because a server
that was my main job (I was a DBA at the time) was migrating to NT from
AIX.
5) I was fired from a job where we had agreed that I'd be exploring using
Linux for some projects, but my primary role would be as a Unix coder. I
was asked to use and help debug a Windows product, which meant a Windows
machine on my desk. When I called the agency to say the job that I
actually got materially differed from that I was offered (and I wouldn't
have taken the job that I got), I was terminated. It was a good thing --
their business goals had changed and I wasn't a fit for the position.
6) I was laid off in a massive corporate downsizing where 1/3 of the
people in the company were terminated. At that time, I and a male were
doing the same job. We were paid exactly the same amount.
My point in listing this (other than personal embarrasment I suppose <g>)
is to demonstrate my point: I left primarily for quality-of-life issues.
In one case, it had nothing to do with the job itself. I really really
love the company. I would work for them again in a heartbeat.
Money only became an issue in job #2 when the experience of working there
had degraded due to broken promises. When push came to shove and I had the
option of staying (I was told I'd blown off $3,500,000 -- we'll see),
money was NOT a motivating factor in the stay vs. go decision. People
were. This despite the fact that I'm aware that that kind of money would
allow me to retire. It wasn't worth the hassle.
So, I guess what I'm asserting is that, while paying women the same for
the same job would be a start, it wouldn't GET or KEEP the women there as
a whole, particularly if they're not treated well.
> 2) offer them (unpaid, if necessary) maternal leave so that they don't
> have to quit to have children;
>
> 3) encourage men to take a share of childrearing (probably by
> destigmatizing it in the media etc); and
>
> 4) allow flex time, childcare etc (which would benefit any childcarer,
> and flex time would benefit non-childcarers, not just women) to make it
> easier to work with children or other commitments
These three would affect those women more likely to quit because of
childrearing. But not those who quit for other reasons. BTW, we do have
unpaid maternal leave in the US for companies over a minimum size (I think
it's like 15 employees). It's also for sudden illness in the family. I
remember that the company I was working in at the time of my husband's
death was too small to qualify, but they gave me a week of paid leave. I
chose to return to work after that not for monetary reasons but because I
needed to work for my own benefit right then.
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net
"Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator
"That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
