|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not a separate issue at all, because the employee has to prove that the pay difference is because they're women and not for other reasons such as differences in skill, effort, responsibility, merit, output quality or quantity, or any other factor besides gender. Technically it's the employer's responsibility to prove this, but it's easier for them to make a case for it than it is for the employee to debunk that case - especially if the subject of debate is widened to all women's salaries at the company rather than just one. And since the Supreme Court has smacked down class action pay discrimination cases, each and every female employee has to sue separately for their particular case of pay discrimination. Making the data available in and of itself makes the situation easier to fix. It may not fix it by itself, but it's a significant improvement.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
It'd be hilarious to see the number of awkward water cooler conversations occur when a public wage database initially goes online. There are going to be a lot of pissed off employees when they find out how underpaid they are relative to their colleagues or superiors. I'd support it just on that basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
As far as I can tell public sector employees at most state universities can look up their colleagues' salaries for years and there hasn't been much kidney stabbing as a result of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
It's not that surprising that it'd be less of an issue with public sector jobs given that pay/promotions tend to follow a more methodical stepwise process (GS etc.) I think it'd be a lot more common to see issues with entry level hires making more than early career hires or external hires making more than internally promoted hires in the private sector.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
I work in a union shop, and everyone knows what pay rates everyone else gets. It cuts out so much bullshit that I would hate to go back to everyone getting paid differently for "reasons", and everyone trying to keep it a secret. Most Americans don't even work jobs were they can really leverage any sort of great skill to get better pay. They are mostly just interchangeable cogs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's not that surprising that it'd be less of an issue with public sector jobs given that pay/promotions tend to follow a more methodical stepwise process (GS etc.) No, I already posted this but was ignored. For example, check out UC salaries: http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/#req=employee%2Ftop%2Fyear%3D2013 Professors all get paid different amounts (even at hire), and there are no stabbings. Or unionization either. Edit: Actually, look at any department on that site, and sort by job title. Everyone within a title makes a different wage. Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
How much variance is there within a title? I'm not familiar with academic pay so if it was something like 10%, it's still less of an issue than in industry. To give you an example, my previous firm jacked up fresh grad pay from 120k to 150k in the past 4 years, I wouldn't be surprised if there were new grads making more than earlier hires. And I'm not sure why the threshold for unhappiness with disclosure has to be literal stabbings. The website you linked to is pretty awesome though. I have friends on the list so it'll make for conversation the next time I see them. To be clear, I'm for something like this. All I'm saying is that there's going to be a period of adjustment among private sector employees about social mores regarding salary comp. It's definitely a social taboo to talk about it. shrike82 fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:As far as I can tell public sector employees at most state universities can look up their colleagues' salaries for years and there hasn't been much kidney stabbing as a result of that. Generally speaking university jobs are also highly likely to be unionized and have all sorts of ironclad contracts to make sure that people actually get paid what they're worth. It's part of why the right hates on teachers' and professors' unions so much. Hidden, "merit-based" pay allows for all sorts of behind-the-scenes fuckery to go on and hides information from employees, who may not have even the slightest clue what they're actually worth. Employees won't even know what avenues they have to get more money if they want it and may not even know what's required to get promoted. If the job and pay structure are laid out then the information is public. Transparency also reduces nepotism, which is rampant in America. It doesn't matter how skilled you are if the owner's nephew needs a job and he owes his brother a favor and there is one position open. Perhaps the biggest irony here, though, is that the extremely rich are expecting everybody else to produce more for longer hours and lower pay, which just pisses everybody off. One of the most successful businessmen I know actually pays the ever loving poo poo out of his employees and everything he touches turns to gold. I'm talking like he goes out to look for how much a person in X position with Y experience makes, finds the highest amount they're usually paid, then looks at them and says "I'll give you 25% more than that." He gets very talented, motivated people that get him freaking results in everything they do. Some people say he's being stupid because he isn't maximizing his profits but really, part of the reason he's so successful is because his employees know they're very well taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Only if you're in the tiny minority of academics with tenure. The vast majority of adjuncts and postgrads get paid poo poo money and benefits, and aren't unionized. There's been some movement among postgrads to unionize and get a living wage + benefits but it hasn't gone very far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Only if you're in the tiny minority of academics with tenure. That's a reflection of the general U.S. labor market, sadly, which is also damaging the quality of education. Many colleges are hiring part-time professors that don't get unionized, tenured, paid, or provided benefits. Which is, of course, making education suck more and leading to weird things like a student having their gas pumped by one of their professors. No, I'm not making that up, I briefly dated a woman who was a part-time English professor with an advanced degree that made so little money teaching in a freaking college that she had to pump gas full time on top of it to not starve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Doesn't the wage gap nearly disappear when you compare childless men and women in the same field with the same education, etc? Seems to me that they ought to be investigating why women seem to be bearing the brunt of childcare costs career-wise and seeing what can be done to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Doesn't the wage gap nearly disappear when you compare childless men and women in the same field with the same education, etc? Seems to me that they ought to be investigating why women seem to be bearing the brunt of childcare costs career-wise and seeing what can be done to fix it. What are you a nanny-state socialist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The reason you change jobs in the first place is more money, why would knowing how much you get paid change that? For some, yes. Others change because they don't like their current job, see no chance to move up at their current job, are getting out before they get fired, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:As far as I can tell public sector employees at most state universities can look up their colleagues' salaries for years and there hasn't been much kidney stabbing as a result of that. I'm not going to lie, I'd use it as an excuse to finally kidney stab a couple of coworkers. I have mixed feelings about transparency in salary. It would fix a lot of issues, but would also expose some massive inequities and cause collateral damage because of it. I seriously feel like a bunch of businesses would close if the workers suddenly demanded what they were actually worth and had proof of what it was, because you know upper management isn't taking one dollar out of their personal profits to pay the workers. Basically what I'm saying is if our engineering staff suddenly realized they were being taken advantage of, either we or my company (or both) end up seriously hosed. I don't think we are, but who knows? No one, because pay scale isn't transparent and is taboo to talk about! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
That's not usually the type of nepotism that shows up though, it's typically "I know a guy that's qualified for this position, could you give him an interview before/while you're posting this ad".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I'm not going to lie, I'd use it as an excuse to finally kidney stab a couple of coworkers. Well if your company can't afford to pay high enough wages to attract employees, then you need to stop mooching and build a better business. Why should your employees subsidize your failure  Oh wait no, that argument only works when a worker can't afford to support his family, nevermind, silly me
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
The moment I have dreaded for months finally arrived tonight. The janitor wanted a job at my company. I have always wanted to make the young ~24 year old janitor feel at home, even though I shared none of his interests. It was obvious that he wanted to talk me, and so I let him. I gave him my best impression of an interested friend. We speak often because I cover a late shift alone and he cleans when nobody else is around except for me. We have become friends, but he is a dalit, he cleans trash, and I can hear his accent of the ghetto. We are both white on the east coast of america. At my non-trash related job, we need to speak to wealthy people on the phone and assure them that educated people are helping them with their complicated problems. This under-caste janitor has a voice accent which I can hear, as a loving person who can overcome all prejudice, I can hear it. I know that he would never be hired by our bosses. I saw his giant smile when he spoke of how happy it would make him. He has seen glimpses of our wonderful office. He cleans our trash and he can never change this unless he goes to school for how much money! he told me he can't drive a car due to medical problems which he didnt want to describe!!!! edit I forgot to say that he finally divulged to me for the first time tonight also, he is planning on moving to LA in a few years. Cool Bear fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Doesn't the wage gap nearly disappear when you compare childless men and women in the same field with the same education, etc? Seems to me that they ought to be investigating why women seem to be bearing the brunt of childcare costs career-wise and seeing what can be done to fix it. Nop. The gap is much smaller for single childless women with the same job and education, but they're still at a 6% pay disadvantage. Which is better than the 23% pay disadvantage for women as a whole, but I consider it important to note that although the researchers can get the gap to shrink by controlling for various factors and singling out specific demographics, they're never able to make it disappear - no matter how they attempt to massage the data, some of the wage gap always remains. As for why women get penalized for marrying and having children and men don't, that's got more to do with biased attitudes and outdated gender roles than with any real factors that can be addressed. People simply assume that when a couple has a child, the woman will be more committed to that child than to the workplace and will lose productivity and cut back on hours to spend more time with the kid, while men will work harder than ever in oder to fulfill their role of providing for the family. The people writing the paychecks are largely convinced that thse stereotypical gender roles are in fact unshakeable ~biotruths~, so they cut back on the woman's hours and take her off the promotion list so she won't be doing anything important when those so-called ~maternal instincts~ kick in. Of course, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - since she's been relegated to boring shitwork and is no longer getting promotions or even decent raises, the woman's productivity declines and she sometimes quits, which the manager/HR person blames on the child and uses that result to validate their sidelining the woman in the first place. Same sort of thing happens with marriage and such: stereotypical gender roles dictate that the man works to provide for the family while the woman stays home to cook and clean, and a lot of people still buy into that to some extent, so the instant a female worker gets engaged, managers start expecting them to quit or start working less any day now, and treat them accordingly. How do we fix that? Short of removing a considerable amount of subjectivity from the hiring and salary determination processes, I don't think it's feasible. Bigotry is a difficult problem to fix, and much like with institutional racism, many of the people involved either don't even know they're doing it or have come up with reasons that they refuse to believe are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:No, I already posted this but was ignored. For example, check out UC salaries: http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/#req=employee%2Ftop%2Fyear%3D2013 Sidenote: Florida has one too for all of their state workers. When I worked for the state, I knew exactly how much every employee at the center I worked at was making and how small the pay raise was from my position to Supervisor, but that's a Red state for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
For some more anecdotal evidence- I have been job seeking so I can make better money/ I'm afraid the company I work for now is going out of business. My fiancee (same qualifications and experience and industry) has also been job seeking. When he mentions he is engaged he is generally offered a higher starting salary on the basis that it will "help him start a family" and I am offered less because "I will be dedicating time to our future kids." We have respectively been told this by several different recruiters. A friend of mine is also job seeking and is trying to exploit this even though he doesn't have a girlfriend. Also I tried to bring a lawsuit against my old job with HP because of the pay difference, but it was cost prohibitive for me to do so, AND I was told I had to provide proof I was the only one being paid differently. Considering I didn't have access to anyone's paystubs but my own and one other persons (my fiancee worked there too so I had that one obviously) unless everyone else were kind enough to give me that info I was screwed. Now I do have the money to hire a lawyer to make this happen but the statute of limitations has passed so they got away with it scot-free. A database of everyone's salaries would've solved this problem for me and likely would've made it impossible for the company to gently caress me on pay to begin with, but since that wasn't information I had going into the job (so I could've negotiated a better salary or just worked someplace else) I got shafted. This isn't even going into the harassment problems women in IT tend to face. I'd seriously quit the industry if I had a more viable option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Sidenote: Florida has one too for all of their state workers. When I worked for the state, I knew exactly how much every employee at the center I worked at was making and how small the pay raise was from my position to Supervisor, but that's a Red state for you. Texas does this for at least public University personnel. http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/agencies/
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not usually the type of nepotism that shows up though, it's typically "I know a guy that's qualified for this position, could you give him an interview before/while you're posting this ad". For some reason people in D&D think that the only valid way to land a job is to submit anonymous applications online. Finding jobs through networking isn't a problem that needs to be stamped out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Branman posted:For some reason people in D&D think that the only valid way to land a job is to submit anonymous applications online. Finding jobs through networking isn't a problem that needs to be stamped out. It's great if your family is well-off enough to have those kinds of connections or you went to an Ivy League, but the size of your useful network is pretty much directly proportionate to your income, so it tends to lead to jobs being snatched away from the lower class to be given to the wealthy. Also, the personal connection tends to lead to the person getting more generous pay than someone of their experience might otherwise be getting in that position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Branman posted:For some reason people in D&D think that the only valid way to land a job is to submit anonymous applications online. Finding jobs through networking isn't a problem that needs to be stamped out. The problem is that networking takes time and travelling. Networks aren't built overnight and, in some cases, a person with a network will be faced with a situation where nobody they know knows somebody that is looking. Sometimes your bank account is empty, your unemployment just ran out, and you need a job right goddamned now, which leads to just spamming applications and resumes to anyone you can think of. It isn't that finding jobs through networking is bad in and of itself it's that some people don't have the time or resources to go that route. It should also not be the only way to find a job. Having a job should not be the sole providence of "well I knew a guy..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's great if your family is well-off enough to have those kinds of connections or you went to an Ivy League, but the size of your useful network is pretty much directly proportionate to your income, so it tends to lead to jobs being snatched away from the lower class to be given to the wealthy. Also, the personal connection tends to lead to the person getting more generous pay than someone of their experience might otherwise be getting in that position. You're really strawmanning what actually happens in real life and only focusing on top-tier jobs. Going to an Ivy League school or being wealthy isn't going to help you network into an average blue collar job. The average case is a lot closer to "I know a guy in the local union/shop/etc. so I can get an interview because someone vouched for me." ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem is that networking takes time and travelling. Networks aren't built overnight and, in some cases, a person with a network will be faced with a situation where nobody they know knows somebody that is looking. Sometimes your bank account is empty, your unemployment just ran out, and you need a job right goddamned now, which leads to just spamming applications and resumes to anyone you can think of. I'll agree with this. If anything, networking rewards people who are established in a field. However, from an employer's perspective, it's a far less risky prospect to hire someone that one of your employees knows or has worked with and can vouch for how they actually perform on the job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's great if your family is well-off enough to have those kinds of connections or you went to an Ivy League, but the size of your useful network is pretty much directly proportionate to your income, so it tends to lead to jobs being snatched away from the lower class to be given to the wealthy. Also, the personal connection tends to lead to the person getting more generous pay than someone of their experience might otherwise be getting in that position. Are you under the impression the totality of networking is when your dad play's golf with the CEO of some company that will give you a job as a favor or something? Edit: Networking isn't something you do when you need to find a job, its something you do so that you can find a job when you need one. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you under the impression the totality of networking is when your dad play's golf with the CEO of some company that will give you a job as a favor or something? So what do you do if you're 20 years old, don't have 15 years of networks to fall back on, have no marketable skills, and nobody is hiring?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
If you have no experience, no marketing skills and no one is hiring, how would you get a job even if you aren't competing against people with large networks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Branman posted:You're really strawmanning what actually happens in real life and only focusing on top-tier jobs. Going to an Ivy League school or being wealthy isn't going to help you network into an average blue collar job. The average case is a lot closer to "I know a guy in the local union/shop/etc. so I can get an interview because someone vouched for me." Poorer people are less likely to know someone at a decent company with the authority to inform hiring/firing decisions, especially early in their career. When you grew up in a lovely neighborhood and went to a lovely college, you've got a much less useful network because most of the people you know are working shitjobs like mopping floors. When you don't have much opportunity, odds are good none of the people you know have much opportunity either. Hell, almost the entire value of fancy colleges like Harvard is in having the opportunity to network with the upper class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Poorer people are less likely to know someone at a decent company with the authority to inform hiring/firing decisions, especially early in their career. When you grew up in a lovely neighborhood and went to a lovely college, you've got a much less useful network because most of the people you know are working shitjobs like mopping floors. When you don't have much opportunity, odds are good none of the people you know have much opportunity either. Hell, almost the entire value of fancy colleges like Harvard is in having the opportunity to network with the upper class. lovely is not "everything that's not an Ivy League School".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Poorer people are less likely to know someone at a decent company with the authority to inform hiring/firing decisions, especially early in their career. When you grew up in a lovely neighborhood and went to a lovely college, you've got a much less useful network because most of the people you know are working shitjobs like mopping floors. When you don't have much opportunity, odds are good none of the people you know have much opportunity either. Hell, almost the entire value of fancy colleges like Harvard is in having the opportunity to network with the upper class. Your definition of a person without opportunity is someone who only went to a "lovely" college? Would it blow you mind to find out people who never even went to college find employment through networking? I'm not trying to be insensitive to people struggling to get started in this poo poo economy but this line of complaint seems to be largely "gently caress those people who managed to establish themselves". I'm struggling to see the difference between this and complaining that companies would higher someone with relevant experience over someone without. The poo poo economy and youth unemployment are definitely issues that need attention, trying to make networking into some sort of weapon the upper-class are oppressing you with is silly. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Branman posted:For some reason people in D&D think that the only valid way to land a job is to submit anonymous applications online. Finding jobs through networking isn't a problem that needs to be stamped out. what happens when your network is blindingly racist and won't hire blacks? To quote Nancy DiTomaso, known communist and vice dean of Rutgers Business School: quote:Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The poo poo economy and youth unemployment are definitely issues that need attention, trying to make networking into some sort of weapon the upper-class are oppressing you with is silly. But it's 100% true? Networking is inherently about gaining access to people in your field, and for many people that is a huge barrier for a variety of reasons including race and gender. Like, the requirement of 'networking' is literally one of the most important reasons to have affirmative action. The more white, male, and straight you are the better access you have to management. Slobjob Zizek posted:Most state governments and state universities already make salaries public. As far as I know, this really hasn't helped anyone's bargaining power. If you're in the US military, you can know all of your coworkers pay down to the Penny (unless you're a moron), and somehow there aren't massive riots over it. Same thing for the vast majority of public workers. I don't even know how it would be possible to strive for equal pay without knowledge of how much others get paid, unless there was a countrywide mandate to just pay all female employees more. Also, the arguments people are afraid of ALREADY exist, except now it happens with imperfect information. You see a coworker who is worse than you drive up in a Benz one day, you might assume they got a raise and then bitch anyways, despite the fact you're not certain that's where the money came from. On another note, I was going to make this thread and I'm glad someone beat me to the punch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:what happens when your network is blindingly racist and won't hire blacks? You should make better friends? Go meet different people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Poorer people are less likely to know someone at a decent company with the authority to inform hiring/firing decisions, especially early in their career. When you grew up in a lovely neighborhood and went to a lovely college, you've got a much less useful network because most of the people you know are working shitjobs like mopping floors. When you don't have much opportunity, odds are good none of the people you know have much opportunity either. Hell, almost the entire value of fancy colleges like Harvard is in having the opportunity to network with the upper class. Not just poor; There's been plenty of literature (like Royster's Race and the Invisible Hand) that shows black workers have significantly less profitable networks a lot of the time, even when you control for class. Working class, young (~24) black workers generally have access to networks that include work in the service industry as opposed to their white working class counterparts who more often knew parents/friends/teachers/etc who knew someone who knew someone in their field and could help them out a bit. Whites are also pretty likely to believe in some non-existent level of government interference, like affirmative action or welfare, that's helping black workers get ahead and were shown to "counter" this by explicitly only or primarily helping other whites advance in the market. Even if you cut out all racism in the workplace, you'd still have a very unequal amount of white vs black workers (and possibly men vs women), simply because of past and present social networks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You should make better friends? Go meet different people? You're literally advocating to just be fine with racism in the employment force and advocating against mechanisms that could easily move to establish more equality. Jesus, why is pay transparency so threatening to people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
mugrim posted:You're literally advocating to just be fine with racism in the employment force and advocating against mechanisms that could easily move to establish more equality. Why would pay transparency affect nepotism and racism? I don't think that's been proven in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Why would pay transparency affect nepotism and racism? I don't think that's been proven in this thread. In hiring it's a bit hairier, but promotions and pay are two huge forms of discrimination among race, gender, and sexual orientation for people who already have a foot in the door. Then companies face law suits for continuing those practices, and minorities/women begin making more. Minorities and women start making more, and they're use as a hiring tool for other minorities and women increases as well as their direct social networks including their family and businesses they attend. mugrim fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Poorer people are less likely to know someone at a decent company with the authority to inform hiring/firing decisions, especially early in their career. When you grew up in a lovely neighborhood and went to a lovely college, you've got a much less useful network because most of the people you know are working shitjobs like mopping floors. When you don't have much opportunity, odds are good none of the people you know have much opportunity either. Hell, almost the entire value of fancy colleges like Harvard is in having the opportunity to network with the upper class. While we're saying that networking at your university is inherently unjust and is nepotism, can we also shout down poor black people networking through their churches as nepotism and unjust? Finding jobs through networking isn't a bad thing. It's a thing with plusses and minuses. To act as if the only valid way of finding employment is to send an anomyous resume to a job board is incredibly shortsighted and ignores reality. The problems that you are bringing up are symptoms of much larger problems in the economy or society and would be better addressed elsewhere. By all means, go ahead and denounce actual nepotism. However, trying to classify a random mid-career professional finding a better job at another company through his or her lifetime of contacts in an industry as nepotism is laughible. Branman fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Branman posted:While we're saying that networking at your university is inherently unjust and nepotism, can we also shout down poor black people networking through their churches as nepotism and unjust? I literally just pointed to a book which shows that black people's social networks are generally less profitable and useful for getting positions with any sort of advancement potential. All groups have social networks, but not all social networks are inherently equal, don't draw false equivalencies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:15
|
|