HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 24 Aug 2016, 08:00 AM Agree 0
Despite increased awareness from companies all over the world, findings indicate the wage gap hasn’t changed in almost 20 years.
  • HR Generalist | 25 Aug 2016, 11:40 AM Agree 0
    Is it so shocking that people with less experience make less? Gender aside if two individuals are equal in every way other than experience would you not expect the more experienced to make more? If this article had been rather "people with less experience make less" would we had bothered to read it? Are employers to equate time spent raising a child as equivalent to time working? Also in more educated career paths wouldn't you expect experience to make a larger difference? Perhaps I am way off base but I'm not particularly shocked by this article nor the reasoning that explains the discrepancy.
  • Ted McNicol | 26 Aug 2016, 02:26 PM Agree 0
    Experience-based pay is a safe way to avoid actually looking at an employee's contribution to the organization. Yet most organizations continue to pay based on experience or education on hiring and then base increases on previous pay. If a person falls behind due to maternity leave or taking a year off to work in another country, they face staying behind forever. This is because many organizations don't properly budget for salaries (they often take the existing salaries and allow for a small % increase year-over-year, rather than setting a salary target for each individual and then finding the money to get salaries to where they should be).

    If someone leaves your organization, do you base their replacement's pay on what you were paying or on what the market rate (presumably the "value" of a similarly qualified person is in other organizations) dictates? I believe the latter applies, so why would you continue to underpay individuals within your organization, knowing they can make more by joining the increasingly mobile workforce.

    Remember that in an era of competition where your financial inputs and raw materials are basically the same as your competitors, your ONLY competitive advantage is through your people. So doesn't it make sense that you retain the ones who make the largest contribution and disregard measurements that focus on education and/or experience.

    If additional experience does make a difference, it will show in their contribution but I believe it's more likely to vary based on individuals, their strengths and acquired skills.

    It's interesting that in less "formally educated" jobs the gap goes away although it's because there's typically a scale tied to years. So the big difference is that with no "scale" we continue to punish people for time away from the job for their whole career, even with numerous market surveys which dictate what a fully qualified individual should receive.
Post a reply