One Way to Close the Gender Pay Gap: Lie

Government data say salary-history questions can keep women’s pay low.

This Office of Personnel Management finds that answering salary history questions can lower women's pay.
National Journal
Bourlee Lam, The Atlantic
Add to Briefcase
BOURLEE LAM, THE ATLANTIC
Aug. 14, 2015, 9:52 a.m.

There are a lot of hard ques­tions dur­ing most job in­ter­views, and there’s one in par­tic­u­lar that’s as wel­comed as it is dreaded: salary his­tory.

The ques­tion of salary his­tory is a prom­ising sign that a po­ten­tial em­ploy­er is ser­i­ously con­sid­er­ing hir­ing a par­tic­u­lar can­did­ate — they’re look­ing at their budgets and see­ing what they can af­ford. But an­swer­ing can back­fire, res­ult­ing in lower pay, and some re­com­mend the safe route of re­fus­ing to dis­close it, or the even ball­si­er ap­proach of ly­ing about it. The premise for the lat­ter op­tion: The game isn’t fair, so don’t play fairly.

In be­ha­vi­or­al-eco­nom­ics-speak, a po­ten­tial em­ploy­ee’s salary his­tory is in­form­a­tion that can res­ult in an­chor­ing — the cog­nit­ive bi­as that makes people fo­cus around a num­ber once it has been stated, with only some small room for ad­just­ment. Hence why ly­ing about one’s salary his­tory is use­ful: One study on the ef­fect of an­chors on salary of­fers found that even im­plaus­ibly high an­chors res­ul­ted in bet­ter com­pens­a­tion.

But this can have un­in­ten­ded — and un­fair — con­sequences: Beth Cobert at the Of­fice of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s hu­man-re­sources de­part­ment, ar­gues that the ques­tion can per­petu­ate gender in­equal­ity. Last week, Cobert is­sued a memo ad­vising fed­er­al agen­cies against an over-re­li­ance on salary his­tory for de­term­in­ing com­pens­a­tion.

“Re­li­ance on ex­ist­ing salary to set pay could po­ten­tially ad­versely af­fect a can­did­ate who is re­turn­ing to the work­place after hav­ing taken ex­ten­ded time off from his or her ca­reer or for whom an ex­ist­ing rate of pay is not re­flect­ive of the can­did­ate’s cur­rent qual­i­fic­a­tions or ex­ist­ing labor-mar­ket con­di­tions,” said Cobert in the memo.

While the memo men­tions both genders, the pat­tern is more likely to ad­versely af­fect wo­men, es­pe­cially those who have kids. One study found that while chil­dren in­creased a man’s earn­ings by 6 per­cent, a wo­man’s earn­ings de­creased by 4 per­cent for each child she had. Last year, OPM found in a study that the start­ing salar­ies of fe­male fed­er­al em­ploy­ees were 10 per­cent lower than those of male fed­er­al em­ploy­ees. The new rule would also help with eras­ing the ef­fects of pay dis­crim­in­a­tion at past jobs, which would carry over if salary his­tory is the basis for how much a work­er is paid at a new job.

When it comes to the over­all pic­ture, one re­cent study by Pew had some en­cour­aging res­ults: Young wo­men are clos­ing the gap, earn­ing 93 per­cent of what young males earn. But that doesn’t ac­count for the fact that it’s later in people’s ca­reers that the biggest gaps hap­pen — due to the moth­er­hood pen­alty and the need for more wo­men in high­er-pay­ing jobs and po­s­i­tions.

Re­prin­ted with the per­mis­sion of The At­lantic. The ori­gin­al ver­sion can be found here.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
1 days ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
1 days ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
2 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login