zlacker

Protesting against sexual harrassement and and equal compensation are just 'your politics'? huh.

>>Afton+(OP)
When people say they want politics out of something, what they really mean is they want everyone else's politics out. My beliefs are common sense; your beliefs are partisan politics.

>>Afton+(OP)
The fact you're conflating sexual harrassment (which is illegal almost everywhere) with an incredibly politicized concept as "equal compensation" (which even within one's own family there are wide disparities in outcomes, as even siblings from the same house can have widely different career outcomes, let alone in society) says everything...

I also don’t like being told I support sexual harassment because I don’t think highly politicized work environments (note I said work environment not society) are a healthy environment. That’s a dirty tactic.

>>Phasma+k
If your politics are encouraging or even accepting of sexual harassment and pay discrimination based on gender, then your 'politics' aren't worth acknowledging, honestly.

>>dmix+O1
incredibly politicized concept as "equal compensation" (which doesn't exist [...]

Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work

>>pvg+f3
Way to chop off my sentence at the perfect point for you to counter it, while ignoring the rest of the context it was said. I’ve edited it now so it won’t be.

>>ionise+O2
The one you've responded to was clearly making fun of the one who dismissed the issues as "politics".

>>dmix+s3
Well, you edited it a bit now but my point is, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what "equal compensation" is about. If it's the former, the linked page is a good place to start.

>>pvg+B4
I could link you to plenty of politic hot topics that I care about. But I don’t see how that helps explain the role of highly politicized work environments.

Violence on the other hand also has no place in the work environment. Which is why harassment of all forms isn’t tolerated.

>>dmix+E5
It's not a matter of 'hot topics' or 'politicization'. Workers demands for fair compensation in general have a long history and are a central part of the relationship between employer and employee. If you think the fact that siblings might experience different economic outcomes has anything to do with this, you've (most charitably interpreted) misunderstood the topic.

>>Afton+(OP)
Protesting against x = claiming x is happening. It is a smear campaign.

Didn't Google just discover that they actually paid men less than women? Oopsie.

>>pvg+f3
Wikipedia is not a authoritative source. When it work perfectly it is a proportional description of what third-party sources write in regard to a topic, and at worst it is biased opinion based on a few authors. With political topics the most commonly written opinion might not be the most scientifically correct one.

The main criticism of equal compensation is listed in the Wikipedia page in the first sentences under the title Criticism: the methodology by which the gap is measured.

For example, a common argument is that together with a pay gap there is a similar gap in worked hours, about 1hr on average for full time employees in the same workplace for the same job. Then people tend to dip into discussions about gender roles and bit by bit move the discussion further into the realm of politics.

Equal compensation is thus politics. Not because people disagree on the principle, nor because we don't have a data, but because people will disagree on the interpretation and then jump into political topics in order to support their interpretation.

>>belorn+Fu
No imperfection in the Wikipedia page supports either of the notions that systemic compensation issues are an inappropriate topic of workplace advocacy or that equal compensation has anything to do with economic outcomes for siblings (???). Both of these are in nigh non-sequitur territory.