|
|
|
|
|
by mullingitover
22 days ago
|
|
> I have not been able to find a single instance of a company successfully defending a policy of tying compensation to race and gender quotas. Simply repeating the conflation of quotas with incentives ad nauseam doesn't make them the same thing. |
|
"Your salary is $100k. If you don't meet a quota of X% women I'm reducing your pay by $50k."
"Your salary is $50k. But I'm offering an incentive of $50k if you meet a quo... - excuse me - diversity goal of X% women."
You can keep repeating that this isn't a quota as long as you call it an "incentive", but anyone engaging in good faith sees it for what it is: it's setting a specific numeric quota on the basis of protected class, and penalizing workers who don't meet that quota.
In fact IBM was sued and paid a settlement of over $17 million for tying compensation to diversity metrics: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ibm-pays-17-million-resolve-a...
> The United States alleged that IBM took race, color, national origin, or sex into account when making employment decisions, including by using a diversity modifier that tied bonus compensation to achieving demographic targets.