+156 It would be really sneaky if companies actually calculate how much less to pay women than men by calculating the loss they incur due to pregnancy and spread it over the estimated working lives of women, thereby indirectly making maternity leave unpaid, amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Please note that I am saying that it is wrong to pay women less.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If this were true, i would fully support a company thinking like this.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If people work 30 years, that's 360 months. If the average umber of pregnancies per woman is 2.5 (This doesn't mean you usually have half a pregnancy) If pregnancy reduces productivity by half If paid maternity leave is 5 months, I would think they use an equation like this: [5+(9-5)/2]x2.5=22.5 so women work an average of 22.5 months less than men So per month, 22.5/360=0.0625 1-Ans=0.9375 Women work for 0.9375 of the month. Let's say 0.9 to take periods into account Men's pay x 0.9=woman's pay. Women usually work for shorter than men, so IRL it would probably be like 0.85, but I'm not sure if CEOs take that into account. Women: If your pay is less that 0.9 time that of a man doing the same job at equal efficiency, there is no way anyone can say you don't deserve more.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A great number of companies, however not all, base their pay on Major choice and previous skills. It's a shame a great number of women go to Major in Women's studies, or liberal arts, or a poorly done history class, instead of Physics, Engineering, or other sciences. That is however, not the cause of all of the pay gaps.

by Anonymous 12 years ago