Your advice to Women’s Rights on 5/15 is very poor. Your response implies that similar jobs provided by people with similar qualifications are entitled to the same pay. Prudence, this simply isn't true. The only facts that you have are:

1. Both are interns.

2. They both provide similar services to the company that employs them.

3. One intern is a young man, the other a young woman.

4. There is a $1 per hour difference in their pay.

5. The young woman makes less money.

Some things that aren't clear:

1. if the young man has been at the job longer

2. if he has some taken some classes or gained some meaningful experience that have value to the employer

3. if the young man is a member of an influential family in the community (this is unethical, but not illegal)

4. if the young man dressed nicer or made a more professional impression at the interview

This is only a small list of potentially influencing factors.

You are doing a disservice to your readers by asking them to believe that there it is not legally permissible to pay people with different genders different wages. It is only illegal when one group (race, religion, gender, etc.) isn't afforded the opportunity and the conditions to achieve equal pay.

When I first became a manager, I discovered that one of my best employees (a woman) was being paid what I thought was too low a salary given her experience, her tenure, and the level of work that she was performing. I reacted emotionally (much like you are doing with your response) and took this issue to my boss. He responded by telling me that any person's salary is 50% a reflection of their skills and experience, and 50% a reflection of their willingness and ability to negotiate. I thought that this was sound guidance, and I used it to coach my employee. After a little work, she became able to articulate her true value to the company to senior management, and was awarded a salary in line with her peers.

The most troubling aspect of your response is that you are coaching your reader to pursue additional compensation as a matter of entitlement. Prudie...this approach will NEVER EVER work. Rather, she should approach her boss and ask for a review of her current performance along with a stated goal of getting a $1 per hour raise. If then it becomes clear that a raise to parity with her co-worker isn't available to her or the terms of that raise are far out of line with what her co-worker contributes, she then has evidence for a complaint.

She should then file that complaint with the school through which the intern program is sponsored (as you suggest). They have leverage. She alone does not. As romantic as it may sound to attempt become the Susan B. Anthony of the world of internships, charging into her supervisor's office with the passive/aggressive stance that you suggest ("Gee, it makes me wonder if there might be some unconscious gender bias at work here") will most likely only serve attach to her the brand of a malcontent with an unhealthy sense of entitlement. And like it or not, those brands have a way of following you around your town and your career.

I agree 100% with you. You can hardly go in to the boss and say "I found out that XX is making $X and I want to make that much, too!" Doesn't work that way. It also makes you BOTH look unprofessional and not particularly trustworthy.

And unless LW has seen her male counterpart's pay stub, she shouldn't believe him anyway. People have a way of inflating things. He might have been lying.

In general, I've learned not to compare what I have with anyone else. There is always someone with more and always someone with less.

Good advice!

Here's what I would do personally -- if positive outcome not received by following advice.):

1) After the internship was over, final paycheck cashed, and recommendation received, I would quietly make it known to future interns that So&So Corp. seemed to discriminate against women and maybe they might want to take other opportunies elsewhere if they have a choice.

2) I would also vote with my pocket-book (if I can use that anachronism). I would be sure to not use my own money in the future on goods or services from that corporation, and would encourage family and friends to go to a competitor instead.

3) I would definitely look for employment elsewhere.

As a for instance, I don't think I'll be buying future tires from Goodyear.

sgrumann:

He responded by telling me that any person's salary is 50% a reflection of their skills and experience, and 50% a reflection of their willingness and ability to negotiate.

This may be true. It is certainly legal. But don't you think that it is bad business? Imagine this:

Company A rewards negotiating skills with a large pay bump.

Company B rewards hard work and bonus skills with a large pay bump.

Tell me, what do you think each of the companies' employees spend their time improving? What type of employees does each attract and keep?

And finally (given the obvious answer to the above) - do you want, as a boss, a company of good negotiators or a company of skilled, highly motivated workers?

I don't doubt that you had a boss that was a big enough ass as to actually say and believe that. I just doubt that that kind of person manages to be a successful boss on their own for very long.

SusanM:

This may be true. It is certainly legal. But don't you think that it is bad business? Imagine this:

Company A rewards negotiating skills with a large pay bump.

Company B rewards hard work and bonus skills with a large pay bump.

Tell me, what do you think each of the companies' employees spend their time improving? What type of employees does each attract and keep?

why are you arguing as if those two options are mutually exclusive? a company can certainly do both- reward those who work hard and those who negotiate a higher salary. and those two types of people aren't mutually exclusive either. we don't know what field this internship is in, but there are plenty where good negotiating skills would be extremely valuable to your overall job performance.

Because the original post put them as mutually exclusive? I know, it is loads of fun here to speculate about every possible option but I just went with taking somebody at face value today.

SusanM:

Because the original post put them as mutually exclusive? I know, it is loads of fun here to speculate about every possible option but I just went with taking somebody at face value today.

no, the original post does not do that at all. the original post states that both job performance and salary negotiation contribute to one's salary, not that a company chooses one method or the other to determine salaries.

you also assumed that people who negotiate salaries well and people who perform their jobs well are two separate groups of people, and a company has either one or the other. that's simply not the case.

Interesting reply. After considering it though, you've left out a key element.

Your example uses two companies that choose to reward on the basis of *either* 100% negotiation or 100% hard work and skill. In reality, the optimization of compensation of your own compensation requires both. In the end, I want to be the boss and work for the boss that not only expectes results, but expects those reporting to him or her (or me) to be able to at least iterate if not clearly articulate the value of those results. And some of that is on the boss. If you have employees that can produce but cannot tell you *why* what they produce and how they produce it is important, then you, as the boss, have falied to clearly articulate your business or department strategy. This leaves your employees at risk for not being able to adapt to change.

One more thing...though I did indeed consider your argument, I'd perhaps have considered it with more respect had you not resorted to unnecessary name calling.

Mmm and then he coached his employee on how to better negotiate and she got a salary bump. She didn't increase her job performance thus that didn't contribute at all.

I did not necessarily assume that one who negotiates salaries is one who doesn't perform well, I just didn't talk about it. If you'd like to talk about that possibility, knock yourself out.

If you just want to come in and say 'you're wrong' without any rational to back that up, knock yourself out.

Whatev... :)

Unless you are in sales, the ability to negotiate a salary and the ability to perform your work functions are completely separate skills. Another thing, the woman in the letter is in a completely unequal barganing position if she does not know what other people in a similar position are making. The company has complete access to this information.

In my opinion she is getting screwed. She should quit, and then she should sue.

SusanM:

Mmm and then he coached his employee on how to better negotiate and she got a salary bump. She didn't increase her job performance thus that didn't contribute at all.

presumably her experience and abilities had a lot to do with the salary she was already receiving....

Let's talk about an example I know. This woman has brought in over 1/3 of the total income of the company for the last five years. The other 109 employees have brought in the remaining 2/3. I don't want to discuss details because that would make it too easy to identify so you'll just have to trust me on that.

This woman is paid less that all of her peers. This woman is paid less than the majority of the people a level below her in title. Why? Because she isn't an assertive person who is going to walk in and demand a higher salary. It isn't that she isn't able to clearly articulate anything - her performance shows that. It is simply that she lacks the aggression needed to go in and force her boss to give her a raise.

So, the company has her and will have her until she retires at this low pay grade. But women coming up behind her, who know that they must fight for an equal salary, are just leaving to go to other companies. The company has lost some extremely skilled people who would rather just go somewhere that they are valued from the start rather than have to fight for it. To me, that is very bad for the top management - they are stopping 50% of their best workers from even considering staying.

sgrumann:

One more thing...though I did indeed consider your argument, I'd perhaps have considered it with more respect had you not resorted to unnecessary name calling.

I'll keep that in mind when I'm crying myself to sleep tonight, I'm such a bad bad girl ;)

benjaminkwhiskey:

Unless you are in sales, the ability to negotiate a salary and the ability to perform your work functions are completely separate skills.

you think sales is the only field where negotiating skills are useful? really?

Shshe should also consider that she will likely end up getting her classmate fired for discussing his salary with others workers. Most companies have policies against that, for this very reason. Sure you can't always enforce such a policy, but when it leads to a problem like this, you can dismiss the people who broke the rule.

SusanM:

sgrumann:

He responded by telling me that any person's salary is 50% a reflection of their skills and experience, and 50% a reflection of their willingness and ability to negotiate.

And finally (given the obvious answer to the above) - do you want, as a boss, a company of good negotiators or a company of skilled, highly motivated workers?

Thank you for saying this. We are so inundated by the idea that the loudest braggart is the best employee that it's nice to see some people still see that the best worker is the best employee.