Empowering Transformation in Sales with SaaS, AI, HR Tech & Analytics | Lifelong Learner | Catalyst for Change
Challenging traditional methodologies, Gail Greenfield's insights offer a more neutral and comprehensive approach to identifying pay disparities, aligning with critical legal standards, and enhancing equity in the workplace. #PayEquity #WorkplaceInclusion #Trusaic
In Part 8 of my Pay Equity Deep Dive series, I explore 3 additional myths and misconceptions with pay equity methodology. One myth: The reference class for gender should be male and the reference class for race/ethnicity should be White. The prevailing market approach is to impose a reference class of “Male” for gender globally and a reference class of “White” for race/ethnicity in the U.S. As an example, many organizations report their gender pay gap in the form of: “Women are paid xx cents-on-the-dollar compared to men.” While this approach may be reasonable when reporting enterprise-wide pay equity results, it’s not the preferred approach when identifying and remediating pay disparities. Our recommendation at Trusaic is to define the reference class based on the highest paid class in a Pay Analysis Group (PAG). The primary benefit of this approach is that it’s neutral in looking for pay disparities (i.e., any demographic class can be identified as having a disparity), thereby reducing the chance of missing any “reverse discrimination” risks. Moreover, in the U.S., this approach is in keeping with the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Check out the full blog here: https://bit.ly/4bSfqz2 Mark Dwyer
