The cold hard realities of the market place (and seriously—you’d better get used to them—this isn’t class where we have to prove the evaluation standards are all equal) is that jobs are at will employment. That means people reserve the right to hire and fire you at will and you reserve the right take and leave a job at will. At will. As in I owe you nothing.

Employers hire people ‘at will’ based upon market value. My company doesn’t need to pay those at equivalent positions the same as they pay me. They just don’t.

When I want more money (like now) I have to make a valid business argument for it. A valid business argument for more money is rooted in the market, my market value, the options I have to procure that fair market value and the company’s options and costs of replacing me in that same market.

Here’s what a market based argument looks like: “I have skill sets that I and you have invested in and that have demonstrable results that are replicable and translatable to other areas to mutual benefit. Given those facts it makes sense to leverage our mutual investments in ways that capitalize on that—here are some ways we can do that and the impact on scope of responsibilities, compensation and the projected ROI.” Feel free to throw in a smidgeon of basic fairness issues once you’ve outlined the BUSINESS CASE. In short—I get paid based on what I can demonstrate I’m worth to the company and by convincing them of that, and if not them, than by convincing somebody else to pay that to me. If I can’t, guess what—that’s my market worth. Market worth is the maximum you can convince someone to pay for your services.

Here’s what a market based argument doesn’t look like: “He makes more than me. I really need to make more money to pay my bills! It’s not fair! I’m getting married. I’m having a kid. I’m buying a house. I need surgery or am sick. The cost of everything is going up and I need more money. They’re going to foreclose on my house/I’ll lose my apartment. I can’t pay my tuition. I have loans to payback” Pick your personal event that is really none of your employers concern or business.

Hint; in the business world nobody really cares if you make more or less than someone else—that’s not a reason to change anything (and out of curiosity what would you do if they cut your colleague’s pay to shut you up and told him why?) Nobody needs to ensure you keep your job or get paid or keep you on board—especially if they decide they don’t want to deal with the hassle and it’s easier to just eliminate the position and then reinstitute it later.

Guess what; the cost of replacing you is negligible—your market value is almost nil. Interns are a dime a dozen and most are glad to have any kind of a job. The market equation to your employer looks like this; intern does unskilled labor. Requisition and budget for position is X. Fill position and move on. Intern complains of compensation in comparison to peer. Terminate at will employment (eliminate the position for budget reasons). Replace position with new requisition based upon budgeted project if more unskilled labor is desirable, move on.

Bottom line—you have no market based argument here until you can demonstrate a value worth more than what you’re making (not in comparison to what someone else is making) and the rational could have been as simple as this is what we had in the budget for the first and second positions.

You can complain. It could well cost you your internship (which the employer sees as more of a benefit to you than they do to them).

That could well be the first and most important business lesson of your career.

I would urge you to lay out a market based argument on what you do that is worth more and why, what the ROI is on that, why it’s better to pay you more to do that (understanding of processes, training, demonstrated skills, etc.) rather than replace you with cheaper labor.

That too will be a useful and educational experience for you on an internship.

Demosthenes2:

Employers hire people ‘at will’ based upon market value. My company doesn’t need to pay those at equivalent positions the same as they pay me. They just don’t.

That's true to an extent. However, it is illegal under federal law to discriminate in pay based on certain protected classes, including race, religion, and sex. It is also illegal to retaliate. State laws provide additional protections.

Companies know this, so if they are smart, they have a policy that explains how they determine pay, and can demonstrate that the policy is non-discriminatory.

Most intern positions aren't paid at all. There's nothing stopping the company from firing her and taking on interns that are willing to work for free. They have every right, and if she complains loud enough, every reason to do that.

In this case, I suspect that the squeaky wheel could get a greased staircase - right out the door.

Yes, that’s true—however in practice it would be impossible to prove that gender was the cause and actionable (especially for an at will position and an unskilled one, and internship). All they really need to do is claim that these are essentially unskilled positions, internships, and they budgeted them at different levels. Period. That’s perfectly legal and it’s a disservice to this young intern to 1) allow her to think that the reality that another employee makes $1 more an hour and is of a different gender is somehow demonstrable proof of cause or 2) that there’s any benefit in approaching this in any way other than rooted in the market.

You get what you can convince someone you’re worth (either your employer or a someone else) not a penny more or less. Arguments rooted in ‘but you pay him more’ or anything other than the market argument are doomed.

That’s probable. My former company hired interns every summer because it was a good thing to do for the community and helpful to identify future employees who were hard working and ‘keepers’. However, the rule was always that interns aren’t worth throwing lots of resources at. If they cause more problems than the issues they help with, eliminate that intern position and if necessary open another requisition attached to a funded project with an internal billing code at a later date.

If she complains she’s likely to lose her position but the real issue is she’ll negate any chance of a long term opportunity and that’s really the opportunity of an internship. Not experience. It’s like a temp job. You try to parlay it into a permanent position.

Most internships have contracts. "I will work for X company for Y hours per week for a total of Z week. I will be paid $A per hour, and I will accomplish B, C, and D, as demonstrated by tangible Q."

If she signed a contract like that, she has no recourse until the end of the contract. Maybe the other guy had two other companies who wanted him as an intern, and she didn't. She could ask HIM why he's getting more!

Demosthenes2:

Yes, that’s true—however in practice it would be impossible to prove that gender was the cause and actionable (especially for an at will position and an unskilled one, and internship).

She'd need to prove a pattern of females being underpaid with respect to males with similar jobs, such as the female at Walmart were able to do. Since her pool of examples consists of one male and one female, that's far from a pattern of discrimination.

She could still raise a fuss with EEOC, and let them harass the company for years to come, while they search for a pattern. If so, she may as well find a new major now, as she'll be completely unemployable in her field. Also, any recompense due if she were being discriminated against would be years in coming, if the company is still in business by then.

Demosthenes2:

... in practice it would be impossible to prove ...

... All they really need to do is ...

Real cases are determined by the real facts on the ground. There is no "magic bullet" for the employer, especially if they do have a gender bias. That's why I recommend that she consult a (free) lawyer to go over her options. Discrimination cases are made, evaluated, litigated and settled all the time.

As far as a "market-based" solution goes, what's wrong with appealing to fairness? If it works, you get "what you're worth" based on that appeal. Most employers want to treat their employees fairly, as it is in their long-term best interest.

That's one possible approach, and one possible outcome, but not the only one of either.

For instance, rather than "proving" a pattern of pay discrimination, she might establish other facts that demonstrate that her lower pay was based on her sex. If a supervisor makes a remark about "having to hire a woman" or giving her "the girl jobs" to do, that could be evidence of bias.

The EEOC is unlikely to harass a company over a baseless claim. If she does handle it badly and ruin her reputation, changing fields would not be likely to help - unless her field has a bias against women, thinking that they are a lawsuit risk.

The most likely outcome, if she approaches the company correctly, is that they will provide some valid explanation for the difference, such as their respective grades in their classwork. It would be interesting to hear the actual results, though.

Mostly, the fact that fairness isn’t legally mandated. It could just be that one department had more budget—and that’s legal (as is the fact that one person values one intern more than another). The problem with appealing to fairness is that it may be perfectly fair—to the employer. There’s no rule that says that two people in the same position have to make the same pay (or for that matter that they’re even allowed to discuss pay).

Almost any reason is sufficient to justify different pay (as long as it’s not explicitly something barred). Given the market value here of an intern, I’d be inclined to take a different tack than a complaint.

Exactly.

That happens all of the time—especially if there’s bidding for one specific applicant that looks to be exceptional (for whatever reason).

Nobody ever pays you something because the other guy got it. We hire all of the time. We have a range for positions. They are not cast in stone, but half the people who work for us were willing to take the lower end of that and half were not. Some rejected offers out of even the high range. They had better offers. That’s life.

it might be worthwhile finding out why there's a pay discrepancy. It doesn't have to be a "women's rights" thing. This could just as easily be two guys making a different rate.

And you're right about market value and everything, but that still doesn't explain the why part in this case. If there's a market value difference between the two, why can't she find that out?

That said, I wouldn't make this a gender bias issue. Even implying that is a crutch, isn't it?

Demosthenes2:

Almost any reason is sufficient to justify different pay (as long as it’s not explicitly something barred). Given the market value here of an intern, I’d be inclined to take a different tack than a complaint.

This is absolutely correct.

This young lady may have think she's assessed their skills, their merits, their talents, their grades, etc., and found them to be exactly equal except for their sex (and they may be) but the fact is the employer can elect to pay one employee more than another for something as ephemeral as the perception that they would be a greater asset to the company by their manner and carriage, by the way they present themself to clients and customers. Does she really think that they'll come right out and say they pay her coworker more because he's a man? Of course not. They will have a perfectly legitimate explanation and she will be branded a troublemaker from the get-go. She needs to chart her own course and stop comparing herself to her coworkers before she drives herself and everyone else crazy. She probably had an older sibling that she competed with because this sounds just like, "well if Marcia got one why can't I have one?"

Umm… sorry. Couldn’t resist.

Look, here’s the deal—some people get paid less than others. Employers offer people the least they can and still get the applicant (if they want them) for the same reason a dog licks his balls—because they can.

I was told last year that my first year guarantee was higher than the President’s was. My response was: so? I didn’t hold a gun to anybody’s head. I told you what I had made, what my other offers and options were (and demonstrated both) and outlines my business plan. You decided whether I was worth keeping or not.

The reality is that I got that because I negotiated it. If I had negotiated a package two thirds of my colleagues, nobody would have come to me and said—gee, we’ve made a terrible mistake! Here—have more salary! No, no, we insist!

I offer people jobs. In fact, I’m hiring right now. The position pays from between $120,000 to $140,000 a year (believe, me that’s not much in New York—in fact, most people I know in the Westchester area would literally starve on that here).

If I can get a good engineer for $100-k to $120, I will. It will probably take the $140 (and probably another $10-k on top of that) to get the person I really need. But in the negotiation I will be damn sure I know what the other offers are (and have them documented) and bench mark accordingly. If I can save on our budget, I will. That’s my responsibility too.

Where I come from, negotiations for pay scales are based strictly on what value you bring. Never on pay discrepancies because they are meaningless.

Saying you want to discuss scope of responsibility, value of those responsibilities, ROI and compensation is one thing. Saying you want to know why someone else is paid more is another (the answer could be as simple as ‘because we think that other person has a better attitude and more long term potential. Next question?”)