smann@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
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!gellerbrian@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
davidl@mako.UUCP (David Levine) (05/18/84)
According to Pat Iurilli:
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.
It's only what I'd expect from Allstate (or any insurance company), since all
their rates are discriminatory based on sex. I guess they figured that since
women don't have to pay as much for insurance, they don't need as much pay!
--
Come to think of it, taxation with representation ain't so hot either...
David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl) [UUCP]
(...tekecs!davidl.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]tims@mako.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
jee@ihnp1.UUCP (John Emrich) (05/21/84)
I and my wife were former employees of Allstate over 7 years ago. At that time it was common knowledge though out my wife's department (commercial underwriting) that the some women got paid less for doing the same work as the men. However in the department I was in (software & systems) no such descripancy existed. In fact management went to some extreme measures to insure that pay and other factors where the same between males & females as well as between other minority groups. In fact some of the measures got down to amount of office space for a given title. This view was held by management all the way up to the vice president level. However, our area had a reputation of being better run than some other areas in the company. In fact Allstate insurance at the time consisted of 7 different companies (even more now), many of which was run sort of automnously. The problem stated sounds like a clerk employed in a regional or probably a field office (I am guessing). Historically many of those positions have been predominately filled by women. Also Allstate has had problems in some of these offices at times with inequatable treatment (such as pay). However, when the home office finds out about these they usually quickly address the problem and things back into line within a reasonable time frame. I speak from seeing a significant number of cases go this route. However this proces doesn't work instantly. In fact usually there have been several lawsuits per year initiated against Allstate by former employees. These ranged from invalid reason for discharge to unequal pay. Also equal pay for equal work is a catchy phrase, but I thing a more appropriate phrase (and hopefully a little more accurate) is "equal pay for equal capability". Capability is something that is expressed in on the job performance. But it also includes how a person handles a job related situation that does not fit the book. (By analogy it is said it only takes 1 year to become a medical doctor when everthing works right, but it takes another 4 years to learn what to do when things go wrong. I would the doctor have that additional 4 years). However I am surprised to here the president of Allstate, (I mean Allstate Enterprises Inc. (of which insurance is only one of their business lines)) say such a thing publicly. It would be better to see the quote in the context it was made. -- J.E. Emrich IW 1T-457 979-7440 Bell Labs - Indian Hill ihnp4!ihnp1!jee
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
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
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
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