pat@pyuxqq.UUCP (Pat M. Iurilli) (05/17/84)
Allstate Insurance Co, which is being sued by a former female employee who
was purposely paid less than men performing the same job, has announced
that it is good business practice to pay women less because it encouraged
higher productivity! Apparently this woman was paid $850 when men doing the
exact same job were being paid $1000. Can anyone believe that in this day
and age that people, especially someone in such a high corporate position,
could be like this? It's a little unnerving.
Pat Iurilli Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
{allegra,harpo,ihnp4}!pyuxqq!patsmann@ihu1g.UUCP (Sherry Mann) (05/17/84)
Pat, I believe it! Could you cite a reference for this information, I'd be interested in getting ahold of an article, or whatever. Also, I'm sure that there are many others that won't believe it. Sherry Mann ihnp4!ihu1g!smann
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/17/84)
You know, I am 100% in favour of equal pay for equal work, but how come I have never heard a complaint about the fact that Allstate will sell car insurance to a woman for FAR less than to a man, in spite of the fact they have equal driving records. As far as I am concerned, this "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the insurance companies is one of the worst kinds of sexism around, yet it is given the approving eye of society. Now this woman should win her suit and get her $1000 per month. It's wrong that they should do this kind of thing. At the same time they can make up the money by charging women the same as men for insurance!
geller@rlgvax.UUCP (David Geller x3483) (05/17/84)
If Allstate really is taking this position on pay issues then it seems
only logical to boycott all of their services, as well as those of other
corporations connected to Allstate (Sears, etc.) This, of course, is
solely my opinion and does not in any way necessarily reflect the opinions
or practices of my employer.
David Geller
{seismo}!rlgvax!gellersmann@ihu1g.UUCP (Sherry Mann) (05/18/84)
>...how come I have never heard a complaint about the fact >that Allstate will sell car insurance to a woman for FAR less >than to a man... Who am I to complain? :-) Sherry Mann
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (05/18/84)
<feeeeed me, I'm Huuuungry!> Insurance companies have always been run by jerks. Right now a big issue about retirement funds (a lot of which are handled by insurance companies) is equal retirement pay. They argue that: since women (on the average) live longer than men, their retirement pay should be lower so the average total pay is equal. Similar 'adjustments' in retirement & insurance rates based on race were outlawed years ago. I'm surprised that fat men that drink & smoke too much don't get higher retirement benifits, on the rationale that they will be dead sooner. Merlyn Leroy
tims@tekecs.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (05/18/84)
At least they give women a break on their car insurance. I pay Allstate considerably more that a women with my exact same driving statistics. I've never heard a woman complain about it yet, though.
ellen@unisoft.UUCP (05/19/84)
Are you kidding? Can I believe it? It goes on all the time -- it may not be spoken but actions speak louder than words. Over and over I see evidence of discrimination in the office world that isn't even cleverly disguised. Lower wages is the most obvious, but lack of office space, respect and power positions within a company leave their mark. Yes, women have come a long way since I started working 10 years ago, but equality in the business world is not YET a reality. I'm sure it will be, it is just going to take some more time. ellen
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (05/19/84)
Brad Templeton (looking!brad): I have never heard a complaint about the fact that Allstate will sell car insurance to a woman for FAR less than to a man, in spite of the fact they have equal driving records. As far as I am concerned, this "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the insurance companies is one of the worst kinds of sexism around ... But if you charge women a premium equal to men, even though their accident statistics are lower, then you are discriminating against women. To my mind, THIS is sexist. However, the last thing I heard, such a change was in fact going to be introduced here, on the grounds you give. Do you approve of higher premiums for drivers under 25 who have not had accidents? I do. Ideally, the insurance companies would study the way you, the individual, drive before they set your premium. That's impractical. The best approximation available is to use all the relevant statistical data. In the name of sexual equality, let's keep men's premiums higher. I don't pay these premiums these days, because I don't have a car. When I lived with my father, however, I was paying premiums on his car. Mark Brader
tims@mako.UUCP (05/20/84)
> You know, I am 100% in favour of equal pay for equal work, but how come > I have never heard a complaint about the fact that Allstate will sell > car insurance to a woman for FAR less than to a man, in spite of the fact > they have equal driving records. As far as I am concerned, this > "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the insurance companies is > one of the worst kinds of sexism around, yet it is given the approving eye > of society. Yes, I mentioned this to a feminist lady-friend of mine once and her response was that it was a perfectly justified practice since women are on the average safer drivers. Isn't funny how all those social-conditioning, environment, sex roles and expectations arguments go right out the window when they don't produce the desired result?
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/21/84)
+ Re: lower insurance rates for women. This is mixing apples and oranges. I've not heard any reasonable evidence that women don't work as hard or as well as men. But there is an enormous body of statistical evidence that women are safer drivers. However, if it is correct for insurance companies to charge women less because they are safer drivers, isn't it logically consistent to charge them more for retirement insurance because they live longer? Both forms of discrimination are based on statistical properties, and are done to equalize the cost-vs.-payout ratio for a given group. I disagree strongly with either practice. But I think the connection between them should be noted. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (05/21/84)
>Insurance companies have always been run by jerks. Right now a big issue >about retirement funds (a lot of which are handled by insurance companies) >is equal retirement pay. They argue that: since women (on the average) live >longer than men, their retirement pay should be lower so the average total >pay is equal. Similar 'adjustments' in retirement & insurance rates based >on race were outlawed years ago. I'm surprised that fat men that drink & >smoke too much don't get higher retirement benifits, on the rationale that >they will be dead sooner. Basic premise: you gets out what you puts in. If you want it all at once, you get the same amount. If you want it over a fixed period, you get the same amount. If you want it over your remaining life expectancy, thems that's expected to live longer gets a little less each time. Judges and the ACLU need some basic courses in math and common sense. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
lmf@drutx.UUCP (05/22/84)
<> For men out there who feels that lower car insurance rates for women are unfair: Remember men made those rules, women did not If you feel strongly about it get out there and do something about it. I doubt that women are going to do it for you. As Sherry Mann said, "Who am I to complain?". Lori Fuller ..!drutx!lmf
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (05/22/84)
I almost feel bad because this is the second reply I've made to this discussion but: If women recieve the same yearly benefits from a retirement plan after *investing* the same amount into said plan as a man then I don't want to deal with that insurance company. Pension plans are based on life expectancy not sexual equality. Of course, by the time our generation reaches *the golden years* male/female life expectancies may be nearly equal. I, too, dream of a time when our only percieved sexual differences are physical. Peter Barbee
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (05/22/84)
> Brad Templeton (looking!brad): > I have never heard a complaint about the fact that Allstate will sell > car insurance to a woman for FAR less than to a man, in spite of the > fact they have equal driving records. As far as I am concerned, this > "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the insurance companies is > one of the worst kinds of sexism around ... > > But if you charge women a premium equal to men, even though their > accident statistics are lower, then you are discriminating against women. > To my mind, THIS is sexist. However, the last thing I heard, such a > change was in fact going to be introduced here, on the grounds you give. > > Do you approve of higher premiums for drivers under 25 who have not had > accidents? I do. Ideally, the insurance companies would study the way > you, the individual, drive before they set your premium. That's impractical. > The best approximation available is to use all the relevant statistical data. > > In the name of sexual equality, let's keep men's premiums higher. > > I don't pay these premiums these days, because I don't have a car. > When I lived with my father, however, I was paying premiums on his car. > Mark Brader The whole idea of insurance is legalized gambling. You're placing a bet with the insurance company. If a catastrophe happens (car accident, house burns down, early death, etc) they pay off, otherwise you lose your premium. You're sharing the risk with a large pool of people. You take a small (sic) certain loss to prevent a large uncertain loss. Unfortunately, this has turned into a giant racket. To save face, the crooks try and make things "fair" by attempting to charge more to people who are "likely" to have claims, and less to people who are "unlikely" to have claims. This, taken to it's logical conclusion, would have the people "likely" to have claims paying for all the claims, plus the cost of the red tape, with the people "unlikely" to have claims paying nothing. Thus worse than no insurance at all. I notice they charge more if you're male(!?), under 25(!?), and unmarried (!?). They also charge more if you drive a car capable of avoiding accidents (!?) and of protecting you on the rare occasion when the accident is unavoidable (!?). They don't seem to care if you wear seatbelts, preferring to spend vast sums of money promoting explosion-bags. They don't adjust rates for the morons who drink and drive. They don't lower your rates if you take a high-performance driving school, which increases accident avoidance ability tremendously. I could see charging slightly more the first year, because of inexperience, but nine years????? What does gender or marital status have to do with driving ability? Nothing! -- _____ /_____\ That auto-crossing beagle, /_______\ Snoopy |___| BMWCCA, Windy City Chapter ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (05/22/84)
<...>
>At least they give women a break on their car insurance.
That has everything to do with [accident] statistics, but nothing with sexism.
But discrimination has always been part of business, so I'm afraid that e.g.
underpayment of certain groups (women, minority groups) will never cease to
exist. And if it ever would in the open, then it won't in "secret".
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (05/22/84)
Sherry Mann asked for a reference--I can't give a detailed one, but WBBM Newsradio broadcast the item during the week of 5/14-5/18, as one of Neil Chayet's (sp?) "Looking at the Law" shorts. A brief call to WBBM led to the information that transcripts of this item can be obtained by contacting Neil at his parent station: Neil Chayet "Looking at the Law" c/o WEEI 4450 Prudential Tower Boston, MA 02199 Tel. No.: (617) 262-5900 The number, incidentally, is a general station number. When I tried it, the department was out to lunch--it's your turn to do some sleuthing. Incidentally, as I remember, the worst part in the issue was the fact that the woman had lost an appeal to, I believe, the Federal District Court. They claimed that the law only applied to equal pay, and didn't address unequal workload; as Neil says, "one dissented, saying that unequal work violated the spirit of the law; but the majority rules..." Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (05/23/84)
<Urp!> (..in reply to 'you gets out what you pays in' for retirement benifits..) But an income of x dollars for y months is not what retirement pay is! It is an income of x dollars per month for the rest of your life, whatever that may be, and I think it is damn unfair to base life expectancy on arbitrary things like sex, and not smoking, drinking, weight, etc, which has FAR MORE to do with your total life expectancy. If insurance companies DID base rates on these factors, it would be obvious how ridiculous the system really is, since (as I said) fat men who smoke & drink would get the highest reitement pay. You are thinking of an IRA, not retirement benifits. Merlyn Leroy
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (05/23/84)
> But if you charge women a premium equal to men, even though their > accident statistics are lower, then you are discriminating against women. > To my mind, THIS is sexist. However, the last thing I heard, such a > change was in fact going to be introduced here, on the grounds you give. OK, if that's all right, then since women are statistically higher credit risks, let's make sure that loan companies apply stricter rules to them, after all, women make less money, on the average. Also, women are statistically weaker physically than men, so let's pay them less for jobs that require physical strength. And let's also make sure noone calls these practices 'sexist' or 'discrimination,' unless we want to be hypocrytical. > Ideally, the insurance companies would study the way > you, the individual, drive before they set your premium. That's impractical. > The best approximation available is to use all the relevant statistical data. But whenever such statistical data is not in favor of women, it is branded as sexual discrimination. And in the car insurance case, social factors determining driving habits are completely ignored by the same people who are quick to point out social conditioning in women in order to attack similar practices against women that are considered inexcusable. One thing the feminist movement can never be justly accused of is consistency. > In the name of sexual equality, let's keep men's premiums higher. See what I mean?
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (05/29/84)
The net effect of the pension/annuity benefits controversy is that more companies are converting their plans to "fixed" value payout. In other words, you can accept a lump sum, or x dollars for y months. If you die before you receive all your money, your estate gets the rest. If you live too long, that's your tough luck (or good luck, as the case may be)! Thus, there is no possible sexism, age discrimination, non-smoker bias, etc. It's all math and net present value calculations. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611 AT&T Bell Laboratories