this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
330 points (98.2% liked)

Work Reform

10006 readers
153 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Apple has spent years "intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately paying women less than men for substantially similar work," a proposed class action lawsuit filed in California on Thursday alleged.

A victory for women suing could mean that more than 12,000 current and former female employees in California could collectively claw back potentially millions in lost wages from an apparently ever-widening wage gap allegedly perpetuated by Apple policies.

The lawsuit was filed by two employees who have each been with Apple for more than a decade, Justina Jong and Amina Salgado. They claimed that Apple violated California employment laws between 2020 and 2024 by unfairly discriminating against California-based female employees in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions and "systematically" paying women "lower compensation than men with similar education and experience."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I bet it actually punishes highly agreeable people for the same behaviors that get disagreeable people promoted.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

Speaking about culture, women who are confident in their engagement/initiative and take charge, or simply don't let themselves get talked over, are generally seen as "bitchy" or something similar (when a man doing the same thing is seen as normal or a good trait). Women being not allowed to "speak out of place" has morphed into it being seen as bad when they're dominant or demand anything, even respect; they're expected to fit a certain archetype of being submissive or extraordinarily "pleasing" to the others (especially men) they work with. Women are talked over all the time in meetings, but it'd be a problem if they expressed issue with that or if they talked over others.

Even superiors who are women will often refuse to give other equally-performing (or even better-performing) women employees raises because of the non-explicit but powerful social pressure of male peers, or how it would reflect on them to their male peers. Society encourages "competition".

My elaboration of your comment would be that "two people who are otherwise the same that have different external traits may be seen as having unequally agreeability, and therefore, have unequal mobility in a given hierarchy", which conveniently applies to more than just gender and sex but anything else that affects appearance (body shape & color, voice, even clothing/cultural presentation to an extent), although I'd say in the workplace sex is more important than other "innate" characteristics (ethnicity/name discrimination might be up there though); but that doesn't roll off the tongue...

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 5 months ago

Or disagreeable men are “strong and purposeful” but disagreeable women are “bitchy.”