Thanks, if that's what was referenced above, it certainly isn't a study to see if women were underpaid - but to see if anyone was underpaid.
And reading the brief content:
> There are a couple of reasons that the pay equity analysis required more adjustments in 2018, compared to 2017. First, the 2018 analysis flagged one particularly large job code (Level 4 Software Engineer) for adjustments. Within this job code, men were flagged for adjustments because they received less discretionary funds than women. Secondly, this year we undertook a new hire analysis to look for any discrepancies in offers to new employees—this accounted for 49 percent of the total dollars spent on adjustments.
I suppose a natural question would be if an overpaid se4 is an underpromoted se5, or if an underpaid se4 is an overpromoted sr3.
I understand the try to correct for "similar roles" - but that doesn't mean the promtion/roles are accurate.
And reading the brief content:
> There are a couple of reasons that the pay equity analysis required more adjustments in 2018, compared to 2017. First, the 2018 analysis flagged one particularly large job code (Level 4 Software Engineer) for adjustments. Within this job code, men were flagged for adjustments because they received less discretionary funds than women. Secondly, this year we undertook a new hire analysis to look for any discrepancies in offers to new employees—this accounted for 49 percent of the total dollars spent on adjustments.
I suppose a natural question would be if an overpaid se4 is an underpromoted se5, or if an underpaid se4 is an overpromoted sr3.
I understand the try to correct for "similar roles" - but that doesn't mean the promtion/roles are accurate.
Either way; interesting link.