Gender Pay Gap Among Doctors
May 31, 2016 10:59 AM Subscribe
A new survey released by Medscape (owned by WebMD) shows that female doctors are paid significantly less than male doctors. Some of this may be due to specialty choice, but not all; the pay gap is $33,000 even among primary care physicians. A 2012 study also found that, among a study group of highly ambitious physician-researchers, women MDs make $12,000 less than men, after controlling for myriad factors other than gender (full paper).
I think a big part of it is that all of these salaries are negotiated one-on-one and in secret. Women and men definitely have, on average, different strategies and thresholds for negotiating these things.
posted by newdaddy at 11:17 AM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by newdaddy at 11:17 AM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
how unsurprising.
posted by suelac at 11:17 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by suelac at 11:17 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Absolutely agree newdaddy. Publicly available salary data would be a huge benefit to workers everywhere. It's a shame that talking about salaries is so taboo.
posted by MadMadam at 11:28 AM on May 31, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by MadMadam at 11:28 AM on May 31, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think a big part of it is that all of these salaries are negotiated one-on-one and in secret. Women and men definitely have, on average, different strategies and thresholds for negotiating these things.
That's as may be, but the salary information is not a secret to the employer. Assuming equally qualified employees, if an employer offers $X to a man and then offers <$X to a woman, the employer is discriminating. If an employer offers $X to a woman and then offers >$X to a man, the employer is discriminating. The negotiating strategy or threshold shouldn't enter into it. Saying "oh, we would've offered the woman >$X, but she didn't ask the right way" is bullshit. Saying "oh, we would've only offered the man <$X, but he asked the right way" is bullshit.
I agree that making salary information more transparent would be a good thing, as a check on bad behavior by employers, but the obligation is first and foremost on employers to stop discriminating, not on women to negotiate their way through a sexist work environment or a sexist industry.
posted by jedicus at 11:35 AM on May 31, 2016 [69 favorites]
That's as may be, but the salary information is not a secret to the employer. Assuming equally qualified employees, if an employer offers $X to a man and then offers <$X to a woman, the employer is discriminating. If an employer offers $X to a woman and then offers >$X to a man, the employer is discriminating. The negotiating strategy or threshold shouldn't enter into it. Saying "oh, we would've offered the woman >$X, but she didn't ask the right way" is bullshit. Saying "oh, we would've only offered the man <$X, but he asked the right way" is bullshit.
I agree that making salary information more transparent would be a good thing, as a check on bad behavior by employers, but the obligation is first and foremost on employers to stop discriminating, not on women to negotiate their way through a sexist work environment or a sexist industry.
posted by jedicus at 11:35 AM on May 31, 2016 [69 favorites]
These appear to be American numbers. I suspect that results would be more equitable in single-payer countries. In Canada, my understanding is that doctors are typically remunerated on a fee-per-procedure basis which wouldn't allow for bias like this.
Mind you, fee-per-procedure has some perverse incentives. I've heard of a doctor in my town who runs an insanely profitable circumcision assembly line.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:36 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mind you, fee-per-procedure has some perverse incentives. I've heard of a doctor in my town who runs an insanely profitable circumcision assembly line.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:36 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
> That's as may be, but the salary information is not a secret to the employer. Assuming equally qualified employees, if an employer offers $X to a man and then offers <$X to a woman, the employer is discriminating.
Devil's advocate here, but if their policy is "we pay as little as we can get away with negotiating", is that actually discrimination? I get that it's an apparently-neutral policy that disproportionally effects women, but what would a court say?
posted by Leon at 11:40 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Devil's advocate here, but if their policy is "we pay as little as we can get away with negotiating", is that actually discrimination? I get that it's an apparently-neutral policy that disproportionally effects women, but what would a court say?
posted by Leon at 11:40 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get that it's an apparently-neutral policy that disproportionally effects women, but what would a court say?
Title VII prohibits disparate impact as well as disparate treatment discrimination.
posted by praemunire at 11:44 AM on May 31, 2016 [21 favorites]
Title VII prohibits disparate impact as well as disparate treatment discrimination.
posted by praemunire at 11:44 AM on May 31, 2016 [21 favorites]
Some of this may be due to specialty choice
Such "choice" being an entirely free one that is not at all influenced by societal attitudes, professional bias, and differing valuations by society and the profession of particular specialties that purely coincidentally happen to be populated by more men than women or vice versa, of course.
posted by Etrigan at 11:46 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
Such "choice" being an entirely free one that is not at all influenced by societal attitudes, professional bias, and differing valuations by society and the profession of particular specialties that purely coincidentally happen to be populated by more men than women or vice versa, of course.
posted by Etrigan at 11:46 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
Devil's advocate here
That is not an issue that needs a devil's advocate. If equally qualified men and women are being paid differently for the same work, that's wrong. If it's a market norm, then the market must be made to change, by unionization or by regulation. If it's not legally prohibited, then the law should change. If the law isn't being enforced, then it should be.
posted by jedicus at 11:52 AM on May 31, 2016 [66 favorites]
That is not an issue that needs a devil's advocate. If equally qualified men and women are being paid differently for the same work, that's wrong. If it's a market norm, then the market must be made to change, by unionization or by regulation. If it's not legally prohibited, then the law should change. If the law isn't being enforced, then it should be.
posted by jedicus at 11:52 AM on May 31, 2016 [66 favorites]
The Medscape report the first article mentions and is based upon is well worth a read as it goes into a lot more detail.
Of particular interest to me [given that my wife is a resident and that we want to stay in Philadelphia] is that there is also a huge geographical disparity in pay for doctors with poor and rural areas paying significantly more. That is an odd disparity since jobs in those sorts of areas typically pay less due to the lower cost of living.
It would be interesting to know if the gender breakdown varies by location type. For instance, are women more likely to get jobs in lower paying urban areas and men in higher paying rural areas? Unfortunately the JAMA study linked in the summary only controlled for region which really isn't the specificity needed.
posted by nolnacs at 11:59 AM on May 31, 2016
Of particular interest to me [given that my wife is a resident and that we want to stay in Philadelphia] is that there is also a huge geographical disparity in pay for doctors with poor and rural areas paying significantly more. That is an odd disparity since jobs in those sorts of areas typically pay less due to the lower cost of living.
It would be interesting to know if the gender breakdown varies by location type. For instance, are women more likely to get jobs in lower paying urban areas and men in higher paying rural areas? Unfortunately the JAMA study linked in the summary only controlled for region which really isn't the specificity needed.
posted by nolnacs at 11:59 AM on May 31, 2016
Just finished reading the paper and my statistics are a little bit rusty, (Disclosure- my wife is a primary care physician, and I have a lot of doctors in my family, so I had a vested interest in reading it). But the take home message I read is women are paid less and it's almost completely due to specialty. The thing that drives the male numbers up are the surgery specialties- High 300 and 400K salaries that are inhabited by 90% men. Surgery has always been a boys' club, and it's very hard for women to break in. Honestly, once women are equally represented as men in surgery, I wouldn't be surprised if surgery procedures go down, which in some ways already has happened for obstetrics surgeries, once it it became "women's" work. That's an effect that's been noted in many other industries. Once the people in charge find out that women can do the work, they say "I guess it can't have been that hard after all!"
The mean hours worked thing is statistically significant in the paper as well. It doesn't have the same explanatory power as the specialty mix, but it is there. For an anecdote, my wife dropped her hours by 10% after we had our baby and her pay drop was more than that. It's a paper policy that makes sense if you are not thinking about all the downstream effects, but women are more likely than men to work fewer hours, and having a policy that affects only part-time workers is likely to disproportionately affect women as a side effect.
posted by thewumpusisdead at 12:02 PM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
In Canada, my understanding is that doctors are typically remunerated on a fee-per-procedure basis which wouldn't allow for bias like this.That probably would not be true, because even Canada doesn't require that there are equal numbers of male and female specialists. So if in Canada most of the high-fee surgeries and procedures are done by men (which I believe is true), my guess is that you'd see it too.
The mean hours worked thing is statistically significant in the paper as well. It doesn't have the same explanatory power as the specialty mix, but it is there. For an anecdote, my wife dropped her hours by 10% after we had our baby and her pay drop was more than that. It's a paper policy that makes sense if you are not thinking about all the downstream effects, but women are more likely than men to work fewer hours, and having a policy that affects only part-time workers is likely to disproportionately affect women as a side effect.
posted by thewumpusisdead at 12:02 PM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think that salary negotiation with an employer may be a red herring, given that this gap appears to exist even for self-employed physicians.
posted by biogeo at 12:03 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 12:03 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, I know this totally isn't the point of this and it's really petty of me to even think it, but... holy crap, why didn't I go to med school?
posted by biogeo at 12:04 PM on May 31, 2016
posted by biogeo at 12:04 PM on May 31, 2016
For a while there, med school applicants were trending majority-female; I've always wondered if that was the driver towards lower salaries for doctors in general, since employers apparently think it's fine to pay women less if they'll take it. But according to this PDF women's application to med school is trending down again. Because of gendered pay gap reasons, work-life balance reasons, economic trends? Hard to say.
posted by blnkfrnk at 12:05 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by blnkfrnk at 12:05 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some day there will be a study which controls for everything under the sun and the moon in perfect and total calculation that reveals once and for all the discrimination, bias, prejudice, malice, incompetence, resentment, cowardice and general a/ntipathy the systems of authority have exhibited towards women/trans/pregnant/sick/different/colored/foreign people was, like we suspected all along, a figment of the imagination
posted by an animate objects at 12:06 PM on May 31, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 12:06 PM on May 31, 2016 [27 favorites]
biogeo: "Also, I know this totally isn't the point of this and it's really petty of me to even think it, but... holy crap, why didn't I go to med school?"
Well, my wife is just completing her residency, and I'd say:
* med school is hard
* residency is hard
* being an attending is hard
* you have to take on an immense amount of debt
* many specialties pay less than you would think
I mean, don't get me wrong, we're doing fine, but it is definitely not the road to Easy Street.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:08 PM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, my wife is just completing her residency, and I'd say:
* med school is hard
* residency is hard
* being an attending is hard
* you have to take on an immense amount of debt
* many specialties pay less than you would think
I mean, don't get me wrong, we're doing fine, but it is definitely not the road to Easy Street.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:08 PM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
A good friend was a trauma surgeon for 20 years at a major inner city hospital and recently found out that she was making substantially less than her male colleagues while putting in substantially more hours. She only briefly thought about filing a formal complaint, but I know she's had a lot of personal things to deal with in the last couple of years and she was just too tired, so she left.
posted by maggiemaggie at 12:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by maggiemaggie at 12:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
These appear to be American numbers. I suspect that results would be more equitable in single-payer countries. In Canada, my understanding is that doctors are typically remunerated on a fee-per-procedure basis which wouldn't allow for bias like this.
This "wouldn't allow for bias" system wouldn't be staffed at some point by people, would it?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
This "wouldn't allow for bias" system wouldn't be staffed at some point by people, would it?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
Of particular interest to me [given that my wife is a resident and that we want to stay in Philadelphia] is that there is also a huge geographical disparity in pay for doctors with poor and rural areas paying significantly more. That is an odd disparity since jobs in those sorts of areas typically pay less due to the lower cost of living.
I have heard this is the case and in fact very common to attract doctors to work in rural areas. Is that correct?
It would be interesting to know if the gender breakdown varies by location type. For instance, are women more likely to get jobs in lower paying urban areas and men in higher paying rural areas? Unfortunately the JAMA study linked in the summary only controlled for region which really isn't the specificity needed.
It seems like an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps there are sociological factors that draws women to urban areas more than men. Perhaps women think it might be harder to find a suitable spouse in a rural area than men?
posted by gyc at 12:09 PM on May 31, 2016
I have heard this is the case and in fact very common to attract doctors to work in rural areas. Is that correct?
It would be interesting to know if the gender breakdown varies by location type. For instance, are women more likely to get jobs in lower paying urban areas and men in higher paying rural areas? Unfortunately the JAMA study linked in the summary only controlled for region which really isn't the specificity needed.
It seems like an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps there are sociological factors that draws women to urban areas more than men. Perhaps women think it might be harder to find a suitable spouse in a rural area than men?
posted by gyc at 12:09 PM on May 31, 2016
Chrysotom: I mean, don't get me wrong, we're doing fine, but it is definitely not the road to Easy Street.
Oh, I know, all respect to the hard work that medical students and doctors do. Just, by comparison, I'm a postdoc, and grad school was also hard, and being a postdoc is hard, but also the pay is crap. Anyway, I'll drop the derail. The real issue here obviously isn't whether doctors are fairly compensated, but whether there's a gender-based pay disparity. Obviously there is and that's crappy.
posted by biogeo at 12:11 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh, I know, all respect to the hard work that medical students and doctors do. Just, by comparison, I'm a postdoc, and grad school was also hard, and being a postdoc is hard, but also the pay is crap. Anyway, I'll drop the derail. The real issue here obviously isn't whether doctors are fairly compensated, but whether there's a gender-based pay disparity. Obviously there is and that's crappy.
posted by biogeo at 12:11 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
These appear to be American numbers. I suspect that results would be more equitable in single-payer countries. In Canada, my understanding is that doctors are typically remunerated on a fee-per-procedure basis which wouldn't allow for bias like this.
That's generally how doctors are remunerated here, yes, and the structural sexism is the same in both places--which means that more men get to more top spots than women do.
Perhaps women think it might be harder to find a suitable spouse in a rural area than men?
BREAKING NEWS Finding a spouse isn't necessarily the #1 driver for female behaviour.
Off the top of my head, if we're going to assume that women are more drawn to urban rather than rural areas:
- safety & police response
- culture
- infrastructure
- not necessarily needing a car
o wait those apply to men too
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:13 PM on May 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
That's generally how doctors are remunerated here, yes, and the structural sexism is the same in both places--which means that more men get to more top spots than women do.
Perhaps women think it might be harder to find a suitable spouse in a rural area than men?
BREAKING NEWS Finding a spouse isn't necessarily the #1 driver for female behaviour.
Off the top of my head, if we're going to assume that women are more drawn to urban rather than rural areas:
- safety & police response
- culture
- infrastructure
- not necessarily needing a car
o wait those apply to men too
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:13 PM on May 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
I have heard this is the case and in fact very common to attract doctors to work in rural areas. Is that correct?
Yes, absolutely. We could make considerably more if we were willing to live somewhere less desirable.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:14 PM on May 31, 2016
Yes, absolutely. We could make considerably more if we were willing to live somewhere less desirable.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:14 PM on May 31, 2016
Regarding the rural/urban split - my friend did some locum tenens in a rural area near her city where she not only made more money but felt she was treated with more respect.
posted by maggiemaggie at 12:15 PM on May 31, 2016
posted by maggiemaggie at 12:15 PM on May 31, 2016
A good friend was a trauma surgeon for 20 years at a major inner city hospital and recently found out that she was making substantially less than her male colleagues while putting in substantially more hours. She only briefly thought about filing a formal complaint, but I know she's had a lot of personal things to deal with in the last couple of years and she was just too tired, so she left.
This makes me so sad (and pissed) because I have observed secondhand how difficult it can be to get relief for such complaints. Women have to be willing to take on their own employer, with the associated risk of retaliation, legal fees, and professional/personal repercussions (oh, don't work with her/hire her, she's a 'difficult person'). This calculus makes it very difficult for women to confront these deep-seated inequities. It's just fucked.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:15 PM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
This makes me so sad (and pissed) because I have observed secondhand how difficult it can be to get relief for such complaints. Women have to be willing to take on their own employer, with the associated risk of retaliation, legal fees, and professional/personal repercussions (oh, don't work with her/hire her, she's a 'difficult person'). This calculus makes it very difficult for women to confront these deep-seated inequities. It's just fucked.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:15 PM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
These appear to be American numbers. I suspect that results would be more equitable in single-payer countries.
Guardian: Female doctors working in the NHS are paid thousands of pounds a year less than their male colleagues as a result of widespread discrimination and a "hostile culture" at work, a study reveals.
posted by Catseye at 12:33 PM on May 31, 2016 [21 favorites]
Guardian: Female doctors working in the NHS are paid thousands of pounds a year less than their male colleagues as a result of widespread discrimination and a "hostile culture" at work, a study reveals.
posted by Catseye at 12:33 PM on May 31, 2016 [21 favorites]
World, please treat women doctors fairly, because we need them, and we need professionals to feel generally positive and focused on taking care of others, not fighting these lame battles.
If you are an executive somehow responsible for deciding salaries, there are compelling reasons for you to treat these people fairly. You are a human being living in the world. The number of happy, rested, focused doctors will affect you and your children.
posted by amtho at 12:36 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you are an executive somehow responsible for deciding salaries, there are compelling reasons for you to treat these people fairly. You are a human being living in the world. The number of happy, rested, focused doctors will affect you and your children.
posted by amtho at 12:36 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
I just want to add to this "women don't negotiate" thing. As a woman I have heard this my whole life and subsequently I have tried to negotiate my pay every time I've been the given the chance. It's always been met with like a "What? Negotiate? What? Ok Mr. Trump, LOL." The one time it worked it was for a pittance and kind of like "OK if it will shut you up fine have an extra thousand." Maybe women "don't" negotiate or maybe they're not taken seriously.
posted by bleep at 12:40 PM on May 31, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by bleep at 12:40 PM on May 31, 2016 [43 favorites]
I've heard of a doctor in my town who runs an insanely profitable circumcision assembly line.
That would be Dr Ford and his Mohel T, I do believe.
The discrepancies within specializations would seem especially hard to justify, and I would hope some large hospitals start coming under scrutiny.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:43 PM on May 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
That would be Dr Ford and his Mohel T, I do believe.
The discrepancies within specializations would seem especially hard to justify, and I would hope some large hospitals start coming under scrutiny.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:43 PM on May 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow: I've heard of a doctor in my town who runs an insanely profitable circumcision assembly line.
You don't say. Does he go...
takes off shades
...a mohel a minute?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:07 PM on May 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
You don't say. Does he go...
takes off shades
...a mohel a minute?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:07 PM on May 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
I just want to add to this "women don't negotiate" thing. As a woman I have heard this my whole life and subsequently I have tried to negotiate my pay every time I've been the given the chance. It's always been met with like a "What? Negotiate? What? Ok Mr. Trump, LOL." The one time it worked it was for a pittance and kind of like "OK if it will shut you up fine have an extra thousand." Maybe women "don't" negotiate or maybe they're not taken seriously.
Hi. Yes. Seconded.
My biggest raises have been surprises attached to no explanations. I've had the largest praise for my work when no raise was forthcoming, and the most stinging criticism (that wasn't based on anything factual, to boot) when I got raises after negotiating. Most famously: "We clearly overestimated you." I raised my eyebrows, said "really?" and watched as the director sat there with his mouth agape, unable to answer that simple query. I found another job elsewhere a week later. With a 15% raise compared to the old place. That one, I did negotiate.
Fucking depressing that even people responsible for our health and our lives see the same systemic discrimination.
posted by fraula at 1:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [16 favorites]
Hi. Yes. Seconded.
My biggest raises have been surprises attached to no explanations. I've had the largest praise for my work when no raise was forthcoming, and the most stinging criticism (that wasn't based on anything factual, to boot) when I got raises after negotiating. Most famously: "We clearly overestimated you." I raised my eyebrows, said "really?" and watched as the director sat there with his mouth agape, unable to answer that simple query. I found another job elsewhere a week later. With a 15% raise compared to the old place. That one, I did negotiate.
Fucking depressing that even people responsible for our health and our lives see the same systemic discrimination.
posted by fraula at 1:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [16 favorites]
This makes me so sad (and pissed)
Me too, having known her almost a lifetime, and knowing how incredibly generous she is, and how much real good she's done for people who come her way :(
posted by maggiemaggie at 1:13 PM on May 31, 2016
Me too, having known her almost a lifetime, and knowing how incredibly generous she is, and how much real good she's done for people who come her way :(
posted by maggiemaggie at 1:13 PM on May 31, 2016
I work for surgeons, and am not privy to their salaries, but I observe that the female doctors tend to get shunted into committees and administrative roles (faculty senate, meoc, mentoring, etc) at much greater rates than the men. I don't know if this is because there are fewer women and they're trying to have equal numbers of men and women in those roles, or if it's an emotional labour expectation thing, but it's got to affect their numbers for number of surgeries done/patients seen/etc, which I know affects their salaries.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:30 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 1:30 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Even after controlling for specialization, marital/family status, and productivity, women physicians are paid less and achieve less success on average than their male colleagues. Similarly situated men and women do not appear to be rewarded similarly, even today.
Take, for example, the NIH K awards, which are highly competitive grants to junior faculty meant to foster career development, chiefly in the form of receiving an R01 grant within 5 years. The people who receive these grants are ambitious, hard-working individual, yet males are more likely to have received an R01 grant within 5 years than their similarly-situated female colleagues, after controlling for: type of K award, year of award, funding insitute, work institution, and specialty. (Citation here: paywall) There were also differences in career trajectories for male and female K grant recipients (Citation here: no paywall)
More relevant to the topic under discussion, in the 2012 study Jagsi et al found that significant gender difference in annual salary existed among surveyed mid-career K grant awardees after adjusting for: specialization, measures of productivity, age, race, marital status, parental status, additional degres, academic rank, leadership positions, current insitution type/region/NIH funding rank, change in institutions, receipt of an R01 or >$1,000,000 in grants, publications, work hours, and percent of time in research (Citation here: no paywall). Early career K grant awardees also show a gender wage gap, though smaller than for mid-career folks (Citation here: no paywall) In another study of cardiovascular physicians, the authors estimate that, in contrast to what they would have earned if they were men holding other traits constant, women are penalized by ~$32,000 in annual salary (Citation here: no paywall).
She suggests multiple contributors to the wage disparity, including the concept of the family wage (PDF) whereby men are assumed to need higher wages to support their families, unconscious bias (see Finding #5), and the disparate impact on women of facially gender-neutral norms and practices, such as leave policies and the tenure clock (PDF). Given that even a tiny bias in favor of men (1% advantage) can lead to massive disparities in computer simulations, 'fixing the woman' through networking opportunities through mentorship programs (PDF), improving negotiation skills, or selecting different specialties (paywall) may not be sufficient to ensure gender equity.
Instead, Jagsi and her colleagues suggest that gender equity must be promoted through changes at the institutional level, including supporting women during critical periods in their careers (PDF), the recognition that facially gender-neutral policies fall differently on men and women, and the development of transparent and consistent criteria for advancement and compensation.
Note: I once taught a course that was lucky enough to hear a guest lecture from Dr. Rashma Jagsi, lead author of the 2012 study mentioned in the post. Much of this post is drawn from that talk.
posted by palindromic at 2:06 PM on May 31, 2016 [37 favorites]
Take, for example, the NIH K awards, which are highly competitive grants to junior faculty meant to foster career development, chiefly in the form of receiving an R01 grant within 5 years. The people who receive these grants are ambitious, hard-working individual, yet males are more likely to have received an R01 grant within 5 years than their similarly-situated female colleagues, after controlling for: type of K award, year of award, funding insitute, work institution, and specialty. (Citation here: paywall) There were also differences in career trajectories for male and female K grant recipients (Citation here: no paywall)
More relevant to the topic under discussion, in the 2012 study Jagsi et al found that significant gender difference in annual salary existed among surveyed mid-career K grant awardees after adjusting for: specialization, measures of productivity, age, race, marital status, parental status, additional degres, academic rank, leadership positions, current insitution type/region/NIH funding rank, change in institutions, receipt of an R01 or >$1,000,000 in grants, publications, work hours, and percent of time in research (Citation here: no paywall). Early career K grant awardees also show a gender wage gap, though smaller than for mid-career folks (Citation here: no paywall) In another study of cardiovascular physicians, the authors estimate that, in contrast to what they would have earned if they were men holding other traits constant, women are penalized by ~$32,000 in annual salary (Citation here: no paywall).
She suggests multiple contributors to the wage disparity, including the concept of the family wage (PDF) whereby men are assumed to need higher wages to support their families, unconscious bias (see Finding #5), and the disparate impact on women of facially gender-neutral norms and practices, such as leave policies and the tenure clock (PDF). Given that even a tiny bias in favor of men (1% advantage) can lead to massive disparities in computer simulations, 'fixing the woman' through networking opportunities through mentorship programs (PDF), improving negotiation skills, or selecting different specialties (paywall) may not be sufficient to ensure gender equity.
Instead, Jagsi and her colleagues suggest that gender equity must be promoted through changes at the institutional level, including supporting women during critical periods in their careers (PDF), the recognition that facially gender-neutral policies fall differently on men and women, and the development of transparent and consistent criteria for advancement and compensation.
Note: I once taught a course that was lucky enough to hear a guest lecture from Dr. Rashma Jagsi, lead author of the 2012 study mentioned in the post. Much of this post is drawn from that talk.
posted by palindromic at 2:06 PM on May 31, 2016 [37 favorites]
Is this controlled for seniority?
From the super-conveniently linked article at the top of this very thread:
. A linear regression model of self-reported current annual salary was constructed considering the following characteristics: gender, age, race, marital status, parental status, additional graduate degree, academic rank, leadership position, specialty, institution type, region, institution NIH funding rank, change of institution since K award, K award type, K award funding institute, years since K award, grant funding, publications, work hours, and time spent in research.
Did you have some idea of "seniority " not covered here or was that a throwaway question better interpreted as "I didn't like read anything but like are these researchers all like too stupid to dress themselves in the morning?"
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:16 PM on May 31, 2016 [23 favorites]
From the super-conveniently linked article at the top of this very thread:
. A linear regression model of self-reported current annual salary was constructed considering the following characteristics: gender, age, race, marital status, parental status, additional graduate degree, academic rank, leadership position, specialty, institution type, region, institution NIH funding rank, change of institution since K award, K award type, K award funding institute, years since K award, grant funding, publications, work hours, and time spent in research.
Did you have some idea of "seniority " not covered here or was that a throwaway question better interpreted as "I didn't like read anything but like are these researchers all like too stupid to dress themselves in the morning?"
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:16 PM on May 31, 2016 [23 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Don't show up in a thread like this to "well actually" or to needle people about the general subject; plenty to talk about in the actual articles.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:45 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:45 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have a friend who just completed veterinary school; apparently the American Association of Veterinarians put together a handy guide for graduates to determine what a reasonable starting salary request would be based on current salary numbers and demographic information, and rather than note that there are gender disparities in pay and that this might be an issue of concern, suggested that women veterinarians ask for lower salaries than their male counterparts. These problems are widespread and infuriating and important people with power to effect change don't seem to be taking responsibility to do so.
posted by ChuraChura at 3:04 PM on May 31, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 3:04 PM on May 31, 2016 [28 favorites]
rather than note that there are gender disparities in pay and that this might be an issue of concern, suggested that women veterinarians ask for lower salaries than their male counterparts.
I think my head just exploded. WTF
posted by Existential Dread at 3:24 PM on May 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think my head just exploded. WTF
posted by Existential Dread at 3:24 PM on May 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
Perhaps women think it might be harder to find a suitable spouse in a rural area than men
It's harder for women to find a stay-at-home spouse. Which is what you need if you're going to live in an area with few, or a narrow range of, job opportunities.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 3:41 PM on May 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's harder for women to find a stay-at-home spouse. Which is what you need if you're going to live in an area with few, or a narrow range of, job opportunities.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 3:41 PM on May 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
and rather than note that there are gender disparities in pay and that this might be an issue of concern,
Don't know where you're getting your info, and I'd be interested in seeing it, but the organization's website states categorically that they do indeed think this is a matter of concern (scroll down). You can believe them or not as you like, but let's at least give them the courtesy of checking them out directly.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2016
Don't know where you're getting your info, and I'd be interested in seeing it, but the organization's website states categorically that they do indeed think this is a matter of concern (scroll down). You can believe them or not as you like, but let's at least give them the courtesy of checking them out directly.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2016
It's harder for women to find a stay-at-home spouse. Which is what you need if you're going to live in an area with few, or a narrow range of, job opportunities.
From one of the links in my earlier comment: 86% of women physicians report that their partner works full-time, compared to 45% of male physicians. Among those physicians who report their partner works full-time, 43% of women and 12% of men were more likely than their partner to take time off as a result of childcare disruptions.
posted by palindromic at 3:53 PM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
From one of the links in my earlier comment: 86% of women physicians report that their partner works full-time, compared to 45% of male physicians. Among those physicians who report their partner works full-time, 43% of women and 12% of men were more likely than their partner to take time off as a result of childcare disruptions.
posted by palindromic at 3:53 PM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
As far as I know, that was updated after a lot of people complained, and the suggested salary numbers -lower for women -were presented without commentary.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:55 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 4:55 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have a friend who just completed veterinary school; apparently the American Association of Veterinarians put together a handy guide for graduates to determine what a reasonable starting salary request would be based on current salary numbers and demographic information, and rather than note that there are gender disparities in pay and that this might be an issue of concern, suggested that women veterinarians ask for lower salaries than their male counterparts. These problems are widespread and infuriating and important people with power to effect change don't seem to be taking responsibility to do so.
I actually had the...strange experience of advising someone who put together a "Men in Veterinary Medicine" panel at my school. We spent a lot of time talking about "why won't women ask for higher salaries," and from their side, it was insinuated that it was all the women's fault that it was considered less valuable work. I was completely flabbergasted. I think I tried to steer the conversation towards how male veterinarians could help support the women in the field so that everyone can have higher salaries/parental leave, but I really have no idea how it turned out, since I couldn't attend the panel. Yikeeees.
posted by yueliang at 7:56 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually had the...strange experience of advising someone who put together a "Men in Veterinary Medicine" panel at my school. We spent a lot of time talking about "why won't women ask for higher salaries," and from their side, it was insinuated that it was all the women's fault that it was considered less valuable work. I was completely flabbergasted. I think I tried to steer the conversation towards how male veterinarians could help support the women in the field so that everyone can have higher salaries/parental leave, but I really have no idea how it turned out, since I couldn't attend the panel. Yikeeees.
posted by yueliang at 7:56 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry for being so lazy as to not be able to offer anything other than personal experience, but I would like to offer some observations that I am certain to have contributed to pay gaps, though I am absolutely unsure to what extent.
First: yes, subspecialties pay differently. No, it doesn't explain the pay gap. See first link.
Second: contract negotiation absolutely plays a role in pay gaps, sometimes, and perhaps more often than one may think.
More and more physicians of all specialties are becoming employed under the auspices of health care companies. Where once physicians opened and held their own private practices or operated within a private group, they are becoming employees of national, regional, or more local medical groups.
As an example: say you live in, oh, Mesa, Arizona (I picked this city and state at random. Really. You can search for "give me a random city and state name," and there's a site that'll do that for you). Let us suppose there are ten hospitals in Mesa owned by SuperMedCo, whose name may or may not be emblazoned on the hospitals themselves. The organization comprises not just hospitals, but clinics, medical groups, and probably labs and imaging centers. The organization, like any corporation, has different departments and branches. There's one giant budget, but there are also budgets for each clinic, each hospital, and, you guessed it: the medical group and all the staff who fall under it.
So you've got SuperMedCo General Hospital, SuperMedCo Primary Care, SuperMedCo Orthopedics, SuperMedCo Urgent Care. So what am I trying to get at?
Well, this: it's a fucking corporation. Corporate standards, legal teams, HR departments, upper/mid/low-level management. Consultants. And the trend has been that companies like SuperMedCo have been hiring physicians as employees through its medical group section, to staff its hospitals and clinics.
What happens during the hiring process for physicians? The usual stuff for any job. You know, things like research and discussion about pay and benefits with people you know or the internet or whatever. Except there's this strange thing that happens between physicians from different specialties: very few people of one specialty will tell anyone else in the other specialties how much they make. Very few people ever talk about how they actually get paid or the specifics of their particular benefits package with people in the other specialties: primary care physicians may get one set of benefits where specialists get another, with more money for dues/fees/subscriptions/CME/conferences/trips/etc. Some people might get paid based on productivity, some people might get paid based on hours. There are a bunch of reasons why this happens, and I'm not saying any of them are good or bad in particular. It just happens.
The hiring process is opaque: it's right there in the contract: "blahblah, you can't talk about this contract with anyone but us and your lawyer." It's in the process itself: the recruiting section tries to hire people to work with you, even when you've referred someone you know to be a good MD. Even when you've referred someone you know to be a good MD, the managed group will do as much as possible to exclude you from the hiring process; it's a conversation strictly between SuperMedCo and the prospective employee.
On top of all this, add the fact that SuperMedCo wants to expand to Phoenix, Arizona (that site also shows nearby cities on minimaps!), and has to compete with the hospital system there, which, let us suppose, has the #1 top-rated transplant center in the world. And to compete, SuperMedCo has to buy or build a new hospital, outfit it with better gear, and attract staff and physicians they can tout as being superior. Who staffs the rest of the hospital and surrounding clinics, who are basically there to serve in a supporting role for the SuperMedCo's supernew transplant center? Whomever they can find.
And if Phoenix is a shithole, and no one really wants to live there, and the quality of life sucks compared to Mesa, SuperMedCo will pay more for the same type of MD. The folks in Mesa hear about this pay disparity. They already know that there's a lot of disparity in pay amongst the specialties. People want to get paid more. SuperMedCo wants to make more money and must spend the least amount of money.
So what does this all mean, in real terms? You must negotiate pay/salary/benefits. If you suck at negotiating, you'll get paid less. But the kicker is that you're already participating in an environment that is hostile to you, and even more hostile to you if you are not a white male. The hiring process is closed off. You are not, by contract, allowed to discuss the specifics of your pay with your future colleague.
I mean, shit: it's like we're destined for this. The hypercompetitiveness of getting into a top undergrad, top med school, top residency program in a top specialty is real for a lot of people. These people want to make top bucks, work at the top hospitals, in the top towns. It's really kinda fucked.
Is all this the reason for the gender pay gap amongst physicians? Nah. I know it isn't. But this is what I've personally witnessed:
- We need to hire another MD
- A colleague and I personally know a well-qualified MD who's looking for a job, who happens to be a woman
- We refer her to our superiors
- The folks in recruiting give us CVs of strangers from all over the US
- We refer her to them again
- They offer her a shit contract, and she takes the time to try to negotiate and go over the contract with her attorney
- They invite one of the strangers to visit, we say hello, he unwittingly spills the beans on how much he was offered, which is more than anyone else was getting paid, and he's hired within a week.
So what to do? Well, in my case this and several other reasons led me to told them to sukkit. I quit and formed my own group. We placed supreme importance on transparency and equality. Everyone knew what everyone else was getting paid, and everyone was getting paid the same apart from the person who was and continues to be the only person stupid enough to be the director (this poor sot deals with all the administrative stuff, and gets paid the same for all clinical duties, as well as a stipend for the admin stuff where the amount is known by all).
For a number of reasons, we became employed and eventually fell under the auspices of a medical group. Everything's cool. Years pass, CEOs and middle-management come-and-go, contracts come up for renewal, and everyone in corporate does what everyone else in every other corporation does and clamps down.
- We're told things have changed and we must renegotiate our contracts
- We're told that contract negotiations are individualized
- We're told we are not allowed to discuss the specifics of our contract
- We tell them about the importance of transparency and equality
- We tell them that we were initially hired because that's what they liked about us
- They tell us that it is a different time, with different people, and that the market has changed
- Then this one guy tells us that we're replaceable, and he's got a deskfull of CVs
- We explain that it would be very difficult to keep a group cohesive or even to survive if at the very least the director wasn't at least aware of the contracts of the people he's directing
- They agree. I am, to them, low-level management.
So I, being the director, tell my colleagues that I value organization, and that I've placed everyone's contract and proposed changes, including my own, in a lockable file cabinet in the office. Unfortunately, while I value organization I am not always organized and had lost the key.
Middle management becomes aware of this and they are upset with me. I tell them that I'm trying to save them money by not buying a new file cabinet or replacement keys. They don't think it's funny. They report me to their superiors, who are actually a few of the same folks who hired us way back when, but had climbed the corporate ladder and became promoted.
I'm reminded that discussing contract specifics with anyone is a breach of contract, but that they continued to value the work my group does and the stability it has exhibited, and that they, too, valued organization. Hah hah. Upper-level corporate winking.
We'd recently hired another physician who happens to be a woman. She was found through recruiting. She had recently finished her training, and during a tour and interview she asked how much our compensation was. I told her we couldn't legally talk about it, that she should hire an attorney to review any contract, and that while we've got a pretty small office, we do have a fridge and these filing cabinets right over here...
Ok, ok, so really everyone in the group wanted to hire her and I just told her what we were paid (just a bit below average for the area), how we were paid (equally, except for small stipend for anyone stupid enough to be the director), and where our contracts were (same damn filing cabinet! No, no key).
Yeah, mid-mgmt got pissed at me when she happened to request the exact same things we had in our contract. I told them they could fire me, but then they'd have no director, and that no one else was stupid enough to be the director for all the bullshit it entails for the stipend the position pays. Then they actually asked my colleagues, who all confirmed this by basically saying "fuck that. I'm not that stupid." She got hired. Her contract, apart from her name and some dates, is exactly the same as everyone else's.
And yes, the too-stupid-to-be-director thing is a running joke amongst us. I'm not that bad at it, though I think it's mostly because a) I'm pretty good at telling capital-B business people to fuck off, and b) the people I work with are pretty damn awesome on their own.
posted by herrdoktor at 8:35 PM on May 31, 2016 [21 favorites]
First: yes, subspecialties pay differently. No, it doesn't explain the pay gap. See first link.
Second: contract negotiation absolutely plays a role in pay gaps, sometimes, and perhaps more often than one may think.
More and more physicians of all specialties are becoming employed under the auspices of health care companies. Where once physicians opened and held their own private practices or operated within a private group, they are becoming employees of national, regional, or more local medical groups.
As an example: say you live in, oh, Mesa, Arizona (I picked this city and state at random. Really. You can search for "give me a random city and state name," and there's a site that'll do that for you). Let us suppose there are ten hospitals in Mesa owned by SuperMedCo, whose name may or may not be emblazoned on the hospitals themselves. The organization comprises not just hospitals, but clinics, medical groups, and probably labs and imaging centers. The organization, like any corporation, has different departments and branches. There's one giant budget, but there are also budgets for each clinic, each hospital, and, you guessed it: the medical group and all the staff who fall under it.
So you've got SuperMedCo General Hospital, SuperMedCo Primary Care, SuperMedCo Orthopedics, SuperMedCo Urgent Care. So what am I trying to get at?
Well, this: it's a fucking corporation. Corporate standards, legal teams, HR departments, upper/mid/low-level management. Consultants. And the trend has been that companies like SuperMedCo have been hiring physicians as employees through its medical group section, to staff its hospitals and clinics.
What happens during the hiring process for physicians? The usual stuff for any job. You know, things like research and discussion about pay and benefits with people you know or the internet or whatever. Except there's this strange thing that happens between physicians from different specialties: very few people of one specialty will tell anyone else in the other specialties how much they make. Very few people ever talk about how they actually get paid or the specifics of their particular benefits package with people in the other specialties: primary care physicians may get one set of benefits where specialists get another, with more money for dues/fees/subscriptions/CME/conferences/trips/etc. Some people might get paid based on productivity, some people might get paid based on hours. There are a bunch of reasons why this happens, and I'm not saying any of them are good or bad in particular. It just happens.
The hiring process is opaque: it's right there in the contract: "blahblah, you can't talk about this contract with anyone but us and your lawyer." It's in the process itself: the recruiting section tries to hire people to work with you, even when you've referred someone you know to be a good MD. Even when you've referred someone you know to be a good MD, the managed group will do as much as possible to exclude you from the hiring process; it's a conversation strictly between SuperMedCo and the prospective employee.
On top of all this, add the fact that SuperMedCo wants to expand to Phoenix, Arizona (that site also shows nearby cities on minimaps!), and has to compete with the hospital system there, which, let us suppose, has the #1 top-rated transplant center in the world. And to compete, SuperMedCo has to buy or build a new hospital, outfit it with better gear, and attract staff and physicians they can tout as being superior. Who staffs the rest of the hospital and surrounding clinics, who are basically there to serve in a supporting role for the SuperMedCo's supernew transplant center? Whomever they can find.
And if Phoenix is a shithole, and no one really wants to live there, and the quality of life sucks compared to Mesa, SuperMedCo will pay more for the same type of MD. The folks in Mesa hear about this pay disparity. They already know that there's a lot of disparity in pay amongst the specialties. People want to get paid more. SuperMedCo wants to make more money and must spend the least amount of money.
So what does this all mean, in real terms? You must negotiate pay/salary/benefits. If you suck at negotiating, you'll get paid less. But the kicker is that you're already participating in an environment that is hostile to you, and even more hostile to you if you are not a white male. The hiring process is closed off. You are not, by contract, allowed to discuss the specifics of your pay with your future colleague.
I mean, shit: it's like we're destined for this. The hypercompetitiveness of getting into a top undergrad, top med school, top residency program in a top specialty is real for a lot of people. These people want to make top bucks, work at the top hospitals, in the top towns. It's really kinda fucked.
Is all this the reason for the gender pay gap amongst physicians? Nah. I know it isn't. But this is what I've personally witnessed:
- We need to hire another MD
- A colleague and I personally know a well-qualified MD who's looking for a job, who happens to be a woman
- We refer her to our superiors
- The folks in recruiting give us CVs of strangers from all over the US
- We refer her to them again
- They offer her a shit contract, and she takes the time to try to negotiate and go over the contract with her attorney
- They invite one of the strangers to visit, we say hello, he unwittingly spills the beans on how much he was offered, which is more than anyone else was getting paid, and he's hired within a week.
So what to do? Well, in my case this and several other reasons led me to told them to sukkit. I quit and formed my own group. We placed supreme importance on transparency and equality. Everyone knew what everyone else was getting paid, and everyone was getting paid the same apart from the person who was and continues to be the only person stupid enough to be the director (this poor sot deals with all the administrative stuff, and gets paid the same for all clinical duties, as well as a stipend for the admin stuff where the amount is known by all).
For a number of reasons, we became employed and eventually fell under the auspices of a medical group. Everything's cool. Years pass, CEOs and middle-management come-and-go, contracts come up for renewal, and everyone in corporate does what everyone else in every other corporation does and clamps down.
- We're told things have changed and we must renegotiate our contracts
- We're told that contract negotiations are individualized
- We're told we are not allowed to discuss the specifics of our contract
- We tell them about the importance of transparency and equality
- We tell them that we were initially hired because that's what they liked about us
- They tell us that it is a different time, with different people, and that the market has changed
- Then this one guy tells us that we're replaceable, and he's got a deskfull of CVs
- We explain that it would be very difficult to keep a group cohesive or even to survive if at the very least the director wasn't at least aware of the contracts of the people he's directing
- They agree. I am, to them, low-level management.
So I, being the director, tell my colleagues that I value organization, and that I've placed everyone's contract and proposed changes, including my own, in a lockable file cabinet in the office. Unfortunately, while I value organization I am not always organized and had lost the key.
Middle management becomes aware of this and they are upset with me. I tell them that I'm trying to save them money by not buying a new file cabinet or replacement keys. They don't think it's funny. They report me to their superiors, who are actually a few of the same folks who hired us way back when, but had climbed the corporate ladder and became promoted.
I'm reminded that discussing contract specifics with anyone is a breach of contract, but that they continued to value the work my group does and the stability it has exhibited, and that they, too, valued organization. Hah hah. Upper-level corporate winking.
We'd recently hired another physician who happens to be a woman. She was found through recruiting. She had recently finished her training, and during a tour and interview she asked how much our compensation was. I told her we couldn't legally talk about it, that she should hire an attorney to review any contract, and that while we've got a pretty small office, we do have a fridge and these filing cabinets right over here...
Ok, ok, so really everyone in the group wanted to hire her and I just told her what we were paid (just a bit below average for the area), how we were paid (equally, except for small stipend for anyone stupid enough to be the director), and where our contracts were (same damn filing cabinet! No, no key).
Yeah, mid-mgmt got pissed at me when she happened to request the exact same things we had in our contract. I told them they could fire me, but then they'd have no director, and that no one else was stupid enough to be the director for all the bullshit it entails for the stipend the position pays. Then they actually asked my colleagues, who all confirmed this by basically saying "fuck that. I'm not that stupid." She got hired. Her contract, apart from her name and some dates, is exactly the same as everyone else's.
And yes, the too-stupid-to-be-director thing is a running joke amongst us. I'm not that bad at it, though I think it's mostly because a) I'm pretty good at telling capital-B business people to fuck off, and b) the people I work with are pretty damn awesome on their own.
posted by herrdoktor at 8:35 PM on May 31, 2016 [21 favorites]
I've re-read the links, and I just don't feel surprised at all and don't know why this gap amongst MDs is in any way special or different from wage gaps re:gender or race, period. It's terribly unfair, and I agree with jedicus' comment wholeheartedly.
posted by herrdoktor at 8:49 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by herrdoktor at 8:49 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I think a big part of it is that all of these salaries are negotiated one-on-one and in secret. Women and men definitely have, on average, different strategies and thresholds for negotiating these things."
Ugh. I'm so tired of hearing that women are at fault for not negotiating better. You know what I get told when I try to negotiate a better salary? "We think our offer is the right one." I can push one or two times with what I can bring them, but in the end, it's take what they offer or don't, and employers know we won't often walk away from an offer because we need the work. Hell, we would be interviewing if we didn't need the work. Isn't it possible that the same sexism at work when paying us less money the first time, is going on when women negotiate salaries or raises?
posted by greermahoney at 11:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
Ugh. I'm so tired of hearing that women are at fault for not negotiating better. You know what I get told when I try to negotiate a better salary? "We think our offer is the right one." I can push one or two times with what I can bring them, but in the end, it's take what they offer or don't, and employers know we won't often walk away from an offer because we need the work. Hell, we would be interviewing if we didn't need the work. Isn't it possible that the same sexism at work when paying us less money the first time, is going on when women negotiate salaries or raises?
posted by greermahoney at 11:09 PM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
Absolutely. And I'm sure there's a tendency in male-dominated professions to expect a woman candidate to accept an offer without negotiating because they're so gosh-darned-fortunate to be getting an offer in a male-dominated role in the first place. A similar thing happens when companies promote people to management from within and provide them a pittance for the privilege of having no overtime and more responsibility. "You should be grateful!"
Anyone else notice a tendency where women MDs are called "first name last name" instead of "Dr. Last name?"
I've seen it more than once and it's annoying. Like, "I know it's not appropriate to call her Kim so I'll call her Kim Johnson or whatever" where the "Doctor" prefix is dropped entirely but the last name is included along with the first name as some sort of half hearted gesture of respect.
posted by aydeejones at 11:55 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anyone else notice a tendency where women MDs are called "first name last name" instead of "Dr. Last name?"
I've seen it more than once and it's annoying. Like, "I know it's not appropriate to call her Kim so I'll call her Kim Johnson or whatever" where the "Doctor" prefix is dropped entirely but the last name is included along with the first name as some sort of half hearted gesture of respect.
posted by aydeejones at 11:55 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
If it's a market norm, then the market must be made to change, by unionization or by regulation. If it's not legally prohibited, then the law should change. If the law isn't being enforced, then it should be.
I wonder if the AMA would change its steadfast opposition to any kind of regulation or regulatory involvement of the government, given these statistics. Pay equality would raise overall salaries — raises might be a good argument to make to doctors to try to bring them on board with universal healthcare. Harder to argue for triangulation that only benefits health insurance companies, when one of the points of the triangle will benefit from getting online with a non-triangulated position.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:57 PM on May 31, 2016
I wonder if the AMA would change its steadfast opposition to any kind of regulation or regulatory involvement of the government, given these statistics. Pay equality would raise overall salaries — raises might be a good argument to make to doctors to try to bring them on board with universal healthcare. Harder to argue for triangulation that only benefits health insurance companies, when one of the points of the triangle will benefit from getting online with a non-triangulated position.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:57 PM on May 31, 2016
I think a big part of it is that all of these salaries are negotiated one-on-one and in secret. Women and men definitely have, on average, different strategies and thresholds for negotiating these things.
Women and men have different strategies because women are punished for things men aren't - like for negotiating too much and thus being undesirable as hires/employees. The difference in strategies is a result of discrimination, not the cause.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:53 AM on June 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Women and men have different strategies because women are punished for things men aren't - like for negotiating too much and thus being undesirable as hires/employees. The difference in strategies is a result of discrimination, not the cause.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:53 AM on June 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Absolutely. And I'm sure there's a tendency in male-dominated professions to expect a woman candidate to accept an offer without negotiating because they're so gosh-darned-fortunate to be getting an offer in a male-dominated role in the first place. A similar thing happens when companies promote people to management from within and provide them a pittance for the privilege of having no overtime and more responsibility. "You should be grateful!"
There is also a phenomenon of "I negotiated my pay and benefits, so it is on the candidate to do so as well," but to then respond very differently to negotiation from male versus female candidates.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:44 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
There is also a phenomenon of "I negotiated my pay and benefits, so it is on the candidate to do so as well," but to then respond very differently to negotiation from male versus female candidates.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:44 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe women "don't" negotiate or maybe they're not taken seriously.
I tried to negotiate the first salaried position I was ever offered--well, actually, it didn't even get to that point, because when I said "what does the benefits package look like" the guy laughed, said "benefits!" laughed again, and said "well, first you get a company car--you have your choice of a Porsche or a Ferrari..."
Motherfucker I just want to know how shitty your PTO allowance is.
A (male) friend of mine was offered the exact same job a few months later at a salary $5K higher. Starting offer of base salary, right out of the gate, $5K more.
posted by phunniemee at 10:53 AM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I tried to negotiate the first salaried position I was ever offered--well, actually, it didn't even get to that point, because when I said "what does the benefits package look like" the guy laughed, said "benefits!" laughed again, and said "well, first you get a company car--you have your choice of a Porsche or a Ferrari..."
Motherfucker I just want to know how shitty your PTO allowance is.
A (male) friend of mine was offered the exact same job a few months later at a salary $5K higher. Starting offer of base salary, right out of the gate, $5K more.
posted by phunniemee at 10:53 AM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
« Older Oh, no, it's distinctive; as a matter of fact I... | War of the Hashtaggers Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
oh
oh, i see that you did
well
good on you then
posted by radicalawyer at 11:05 AM on May 31, 2016 [24 favorites]