> Legislation to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act have stalled in Congress for years, and today women still only make about 80 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by men. But congressional inaction does not absolve companies from their responsibility. Since learning that we were paying women less than men for equal work at Salesforce, we have spent $10.3 million to ensure equal pay; today we conduct annual audits to ensure that pay remains equal.
If Benioff is going to quote the .80/$1 statistic, then the equal pay audits of SalesForce need to use the same comparison which is to take the average pay of all women in the company regardless of position or job and compare it to the average of all the men in the company regardless of position or job.
If you actually do the comparison taking into account job and position, you get something like .93/$1
This whole discussion is so tired to me. I’d like to see organizations who genuinely want to end inequality to start compensation transparency practices. Let’s see the numbers and we’ll decide for ourselves. After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded.
It does (or at least should) put Benioff in a difficult position, in terms of argument, if he cites his own company's pay gap as evidence of why we need broad societal change, but then refuses to provide the transparency and data that would enable society to evaluate his claim.
If Benioff says "our company did an internal audit, discovered an internal pay gap, and took internal measures to correct it", ok then. But if he says they did an internal audit and on the basis of these results, the rest of us need to change, then he needs to allow us to verify his claim, the way we'd do with any policy argument based on data.
>After all, it’s not in our interest that salaries are so closely guarded.
I think it's in my interest that salaries are closely guarded. Virtually every time in my private life someone has found out how much I make it's been a problem for me.
I don't think it's too unfair to read deeper into Marc's motives. Salesforce has never been interested in noble pursuits like making high quality products. They've been interested in creating moats to rent seek off of. They've been interested in promising functionality, then making it too hard for clients to leave once they find out its deficiencies.
To that end, I'm sure Marc wants regulation because he knows that paying lawyers $5m a year to adhere to them is no big problem for Saleforce to pay, but it will sure as hell prevent Paul Graham from being able to seed a new company to disrupt Marc's fortune. And he will quote whatever statistic is necessary to accomplish that goal.
I think given the amount of effort Benioff had put in, I do think he comes from the right place. But just don't have the same level of rigor and mental investment as say Gates.
So why is average pay for women across all positions less than men? It's not like Salesforce employees are doing heavy manual labor that skews itself towards hiring more men. Why aren't women being hired in positions at the same rates as men (at which point we can then address the issue of pay inequality for the same position?) If this is an issue of "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."
> If this is an issue of "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."
Which is exactly the point. The solution may be much farther back in the pipeline, when young people are making educational choices, and can't be solved at the point companies are looking to hire someone.
But it can be driven by those companies. Companies in the US have a huge influence on the educational pipeline, and in turn, who gets encouraged in that pipeline.
I live in Silicon Valley, and I've yet to see any major tech company representatives show up at our local school board meetings. Occasionally they kick in a small grant for a specific program. But their influence on the really important stuff like budgets, curriculum, and hiring is nearly zero.
Their influence is more at the level of university and higher-education. My personal opinion is that they should be doing more for K-12, but I hesitate to let large corporations be involved in deciding what gets taught and who gets hired in public schools. I'm not sure what their role is at that level.
If that is the case, it might still be problematic to have a society that economically disadvantages ~50% of its members for what they naturally strive for.
Of course this gets philosophical and idealistic fast, but I think it's still worth considering even though it's not a simple design/engineering problem with some obvious perfect solution.
Ehh I'm not exactly convinced of this. There's a lot more factors to consider than raw earning potential, and I'm a little more inclined to be suspicious of trying to redirect people away from what they actually like to do.
I naturally strive to stay in bed in the morning and do a lot of hobby projects. That's what I'd like to do, but I'd never argue that other people should be forced to pay me some sort of "bed bonus" to ensure that my natural strivings don't disadvantage me.
At a company like SalesForce, most of the most skilled employees will be developers and most of them will be men, because women, by and large, do not find computers interesting. Anyone who's ever tried to engage women in an enthusiastic conversation about programming languages knows this is true. The resulting "pay gap" isn't a pay gap at all but an earnings gap: it's correct and as it should be.
Higher-paying executive and engineering positions tend to skew more male, and lower-paying executive assistant/secretarial/administrative positions tend to skew more female.
There is plenty of overlap but the distribution skew results in men, on the aggregate, being paid slightly more than women.
Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?
It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. There's this creepy urge to pressure women to share exactly the same preference distributions as men. This restriction of women's choice for the sake of some neat gender parity is antithetical to human rights and equal opportunity.
> It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be.
I haven't seen any research showing one way or the other why this is. Have any links to share?
Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?
The most likely explanation is not that society values male work more than female work, but rather that men prioritize work that is socially valuable (i.e., prefer salary compensation) while women prefer to do work that affords them more flexibility. No one is punishing anyone or being punished by anyone; just different kinds of compensation.
> Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?
I think you are 100% mixing up correlation and causation. "We" don't value anything. The market places a value on things based on what individuals are willing to pay, and has no knowledge or care about the gender of the person performing the task.
Have you ever looked? There's lots of research out there and the scientific consensus is that biological differences drive different selection of jobs.
If you think skewed gender ratios are a computing-specific phenomenon, look here:
Almost every profession has a skew one way or another. The professions with the most women are at the top. Look at them and ask yourself if they're high earning: preschool and kindergarten teachers at 97.5% female is first, with, oddly, speech language pathologists being the second most female-dominated job. Then there's dental hygienists, secretaries, more childcare workers, nurses, more dental related positions, medical assistant, hairdresser, etc.
At the bottom you have the usual suspects with brickerlayers, electrical line workers, etc, anything heavy and dangerous being dominated by men.
Is it really a total mystery why childcare jobs are >90% female and crane/tower operators are >99% men?
As a side answer, why do we as a society punish men who take low paying jobs but not women? Why is high income only correlated for men with reproductive success, health and social support, but not for women?
When given a choice between safer work, more meaningful work and higher income, why does more men pick higher income? Why do more men prioritize getting an income above studying in their early 20s compared to women?
Lets conduct an experiment with two groups where we punish members of Group A if they don't choose a high income job and keep Group B as control. What should we expect about the relative income between the two from a initial round of just choosing a profession? Next, lets introduce negotiation where the employee balance job security, job satisfaction and wages, and the employer balance the cost of supplying those needs with their own need to retain the employee. Should we expect a different outcome between Group A and Group B? In the last step of the experiment, what would we need to change in order to get equal outcome for Group A and Group B?
Are they not electing to because it doesn't interest them, or are they opting out/washing out due to other factors? Have links to any studies that show one way or the other?
I think there are a significant number of initiatives, groups, scholarships, etc which provide girls and women beginning at a young age the resources and tools and encouragement into the engineering track.
> heavy manual labor that skews itself towards hiring more men
That's perpetuating a gender stereo type.
> "we're not hiring women to the same higher paid positions as men", that is a problem separate from the problem of "we're not paying women equally to men in the same position."
The former is a way to cover the latter. A woman might be employed in a role similar to a man, but the actual title of the position might be different, and thus different pay, even though their job function might be completely identical.
> Why aren't women being hired in positions at the same rates as men
Women face exclusion early in their careers (according to many women), so it's hard for them to have any level of experience. Most good paying jobs are mid to senior level, and those jobs are being filled by the endless supply of people that hold "Masters Degrees" from overseas.
Downvotes are fine with me; I don't put much stock in Internet points. I'm not trying to be persuasive in my single-sentence internet quip; if people care to learn more, they can do their own research.
I think this kind of misses the point. Even if there's only an 8% gap, the question isn't just "what causes the gap". Assume you can rationalize it. Is rationalized inequity OK? Why or why not?
Women aren't the only group this applies to, of course. There's lots of inequity in our society. But I don't think anyone in modern-day times would agree that this is "the way it's supposed to be", as if women are supposed to make less. In the past, philosophers have justified slavery because it seemed to make sense, but now we realize it's immoral. Couldn't the same be true of all kinds of equity gaps in our society?
To reframe it a bit, men are the minority population, yet this pay gap still exists in their favor. If men were the ones making 8% less, I bet there'd be a lot more work to reach pay parity.
You can't get rid of "inequity" if inequity reflects different desires and choices by human beings.
Beauty, strength, intelligence, youth and health are wanted by most men and women. But they are not distributed or desired equally. That unequal distribution of desires and characteristics among people will lead to some kinds of inequality.
Sure we can - we did it with slavery! The inequity of slavery reflected the desires and choices of human beings. But over time (nearly 200 years) we changed our ethics so that these desires and choices were no longer acceptable, and eventually outright abolished the practice.
Lots of people said it couldn't be done. Not only because it was "natural" to own slaves, but because our nation's economy was deeply tied to the practice. We changed it anyway, purely out of deference to our moral philosophy.
Inequality is inherent in nature, sure, but our moral philosophy can be used to change our desires and choices to create greater equity. So before we settle on "people just do what they do", let's ask ourselves: should we be doing something different?
Are you just now learning how to read and want me to confirm your eyeballs work? Or are you capable of more complex thought, and are intentionally ignoring the point I was making?
Like, I'm honestly curious, in what way did you expect me to respond to this question? You literally just asked me if I said what I said.
If the inequity is due to free people freely making different choices, then it is strictly better than coercing people to make the choices <some group> wants them to make. It is eminently desirable that _all_ people are free, even if that freedom doesn't yield some neat behavioral parity. Pressuring women to behave in a certain way is creepy.
He identified the problem being "companies shouldn't wait for government to take action".
Then, he proposed solutions that still seem to involve increasing taxes.
If government is inefficient in allocation of resources and has disincentivizes to actually solve problems in reasonable timelines with reasonable red tape, then perhaps letting private companies take on improving infrastructure or providing care easier might be a good solution.
Look city governments have huge cash chests: neither homelessness nor poverty had ever been addressed by throwing government/money at these problems. You need the right inventives to tackle these challenges. And frankly governments need to reduce the friction in terms of money allocation and regulations to get things done.
>You need the right inventives to tackle these challenges. And frankly governments need to reduce the friction in terms of money allocation and regulations to get things done.
Churches did this in the past (with all the bad side effects). But I guess in more secular regions government needs jump in (with all the bad side effects).
> When government is unable or unwilling to act, business should not wait.
I hope this is all based in good intentions, and have no real reason not to believe so, other than past experience.
I just had this idea though: Seeing the current state of US regulatory capture; I wonder what would happen if companies that felt the way Marc Benioff claims he does (as well as the other companies in that roundtable) would just start paying the same lobby money as business has done previously, but instead ask for sane regulation, aiming for what they claim to be working towards.
If I was a politician beholden to corporate money, but also still had a sliver of a soul left in me, and was given the option of the same money, but to work for the people that elected me, I could actually get some real legislative work done. At least if the same was true for other representatives and senators.
Or campaign finance reform and outlawing outside payment to politicians, but that's a catch 22 given the above.
If you don't lobby for your selfish interests, you'll get out-regulated by companies who do. Lobbying is not an optional luxury. You have to do it. At least in politically sensitive industries.
As a partially made up example, I'm guessing the plastic straw industry didn't think they had to lay a groundwork lobbying for their existence over the decades. And now they're dead.
I see your point, but bad example. There isn't a plastic straw industry. There is a plastic industry and a restaurant supply industry. There is no single focus on straws ...
And no they are not dead. Get our of your bubble. The places where plastic straws are not allowed is tiny, tiny tiny.
The extremely wealthy keep talking about how to tackle inequality, many of them pledge to do something about it but nothing ever happens.
We all know how this plays out, we'll get lip service until we start to kill the rich. Then they'll apologize, reform, and do it a little more subtly next time.
Killing the rich and seizing their property always turns out well for the everyday joe and never creates a generation of ultra wealthy and corrupt ruling class /s
Wait you didn’t think YOU were going to get that stuff did you?
People who cry loudest for revolution are usually the ones who don't ever study the history of successful revolutions. Especially: who the actual revolutionaries were, what positions they held in society before and after the revolution (hint: most successful revolutions aren't peasant uprisings), and what happens to people who weren't either the revolutionary leaders or the ruling class before, during, and after the revolution. The average French peasant did not fare well during or after the French Revolution.
Not to be excessively cynical, but the purpose of this opinion piece probably has more to do with: “Marc Benioff is the chairman and co-chief executive of Salesforce and the author, with Monica Langley, of the forthcoming book, “Trailblazer: The Power of Business as the Greatest Platform for Change.”
Not to be even more cynical, but I can't help wondering how the advance and royalties on that book are split between the co-authors vs time spent writing/editing.
I often wonder why people who write these things don’t start with donating the mass of their fortunes first. Benioff could donate 5b to address poverty causes and still have more than a billion left over for himself.
I agree with Marc that many of the things he'd like to do will take money. Solving homelessness in San Francisco, for instance, will cost a lot. But that doesn't mean all we need to do is spend some money. We've tried that - we're already up to a conservatively estimated $300 million a year. But plenty of people, hardly all on the right - including Gavin Newsom, who admits he was behind some of these failed attempts, for instance - opposed Benioff's initiative on the grounds that if we keep spending money they way we've been spending it, another 300 million will just make things worse off.
And while San Francisco may be a wealthy city, there's only so many times we can go to the well. As an example, every year there's a story in the Chron about how low and middle income San Franciscans sit at their computers with a list of affordable city run summer programs for kids, looking at the international clock, desperate to hit "submit" as if it's tickets to a Stones reunion tour - and the aftermath and scramble for where to put their kid this summer if they don't get them, which is about half the time. 300 mil would go a long way to helping with the middle and low income families that San Francisco is, frankly, bleeding away.
If I thought 300 mil more would solve homelessness, I'd happily spend it - hell, I'd triple it. I grew up here and I still love this city, but things are bad. The main difference between me and the people who bash SF here on HN is that to me, it's extremely painful, I don't get the gleeful thrill of pointing out how shitty SF's policies have made things, it hurts. I'd be willing to dig pretty deep into my limited financial assets if I could see it get better. But unfortunately, I really do think that 300 million more of the same will produce, well more of the same, which is things getting worse and worse.
I agree. There's also a huge ambiguity in the term "homeless". This ambiguity was not an accident, I believe it is deliberate and is designed to serve a political purpose.
What I mean is, currently there is a large population of mentally ill and drug addicted people on San Francisco's streets, and many of San Francisco's residents and visitors are frequently berated, threatened, harassed, stalked, and even assaulted as they go about their business or vacations.
By "solve" I mean a humane and effective plan to greatly reduce this phenomenon. In spite of the intense and angry disagreements about what a humane and effective plan will be (must be?), I do think we (almost) all can agree on this as our objective. And in spite of my frustrations with Benioff, I do believe he sincerely wants the same thing I do.
> ...we need businesses and executives to value purpose alongside profit.
Profit is purpose. Profit means the value of the outputs of your business exceeds the value of its inputs. It means you've added something to society, it means you've provided a service to the public. It means when people actually have to choose what's important to them they value what your business has done for them.[0]
> ...where businesses...don’t just take from society but truly give back and have a positive impact.
See above.
I don't know why people think this thought process is new. Read The Road To Serfdom by Hayek. It was written in the 1940's about why these ideas don't work.
The free market is the best invention we know of for a society to express what it actually wants and to achieve those goals. Without it you have a small group of enlightened elites deciding what it is that people want.
> Americans overwhelmingly say C.E.O.s should take the lead on economic and social challenges, and employees, investors and customers increasingly seek out companies that share their values....When government is unable or unwilling to act, business should not wait.
No. We don't want businesses to become political entities. If the problem is businesses aren't using their power for good, the solution isn't to give them even more power. That's too close to Fascism.
This whole essay is an argument that businesses need more social power and governments need more financial power. The trade-off is an increase in power inequality (because we're giving the powerful even more power) to decrease financial inequality. At the same time we'd probably take on massive dead-weight losses from abandoning the profit motive which is essential for our economy to function. That looks like a bad deal to me.
It’s very interesting to me that he didn’t mention the B Corp organization, who attempts to do exactly that. Is there a reason for this? Maybe he thinks the requirements/audits are too burdensome?
It's unrealistic to hope businesses do the right thing, especially when profit inherently wins out over all else, and it means you cannot do the right thing in your business without losing to the competition who doesn't care.
That's kind of a big issue with capitalism, and any revisionist/reformist take on capitalism has to try really hard to convince me this won't be an issue.
This article misses that point badly. If you're going to criticise capitalism at least try to understand what actually makes it bad.
Each time I read a billionaire criticizing the current capitalistic system, that reminds me of Jacques Attali's argument on how Karl Marx was misunderstood with Socialism.
Extract:
"Attali: What he tried with the international socialist movement was an amazing attempt to think about the world in global terms. Marx is an amazingly modern thinker, because when you look at what he has written, it is not a theory of what an organised socialist country should be like, but how capitalism will be in the future. Contrary to the caricature of Marxism, he is first an admirer of capitalism. For him, it is a much better system than any other before it, because he considers the earlier systems to be obscurantist. Once or twice he had the idea that it was going to be the end, but he very rapidly decided that this was not the case, and that capitalism had a huge future.
What is very modern also in his view is that he considered that capitalism would end only when it was a global force, when the whole of the working class was part of it, when nations disappeared, when technology was able to transform the life of a country. He mentioned China and India as potential partners of capitalism, and said, for instance, that protectionism is a mistake, that free trade is a condition for progress.
For Marx, capitalism has to be worldwide before we think about socialism. Socialism for him is beyond capitalism and not instead of capitalism. He has much say on globalisation, what is happening to movement of companies, delocalisation and everything that is linked to the way we live today. In a sense, the Soviet Union was destroying or interrupting the validity of Marx's thinking and the fall of the Berlin Wall is giving back a raison d’être to his work, because Marx was thinking of the world globally and the Soviet system was a nightmare that he did not forecast."
sigh. Benioff again with his convenient philanthropy. Berating the system he was happy to and remains happy to take advantage of. Whilst shaming others, that are in in less to much less good positions to demonstrate largesse, to act.
Honest question, why do people listen to this guy?
OK, he does try to start off strong: "Capitalism, I acknowledge, has been good to me." But it's not quite true, is it. It's not as if he was a disinterested 3rd party, strong in his belief of equality (socialism if we take it to extreme), that had capitalism foisted upon him.
Sorry, but for me the messenger has tainted the message. It's a clear do-as-I-say, not-as-I do.
It's behind a paywall, sorry. The headline is: Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff made $4,653,362 for fiscal year 2018 — a total made up of $1,550,000 in base salary, and $3,100,000 in non-equity insentive compensation. This means that the median employee got paid at a rate of 1-to-30, raking in about 3% of what Benioff made.
This is easy for Benioff to say because he's already wealthy. Let's table this until such a time as I become wealthy too. After that we can talk about dismantling capitalism.
I unironically agree. Either nobody is rich, or we all have the opportunity to get rich. I will not settle for inequality which is what is proposed under the hood by this author.
He's not wrong. Most ideas for fixing capitalism will lead to fewer grossly wealthy people. Many rich people support this despite the fact that it will make them less wealthy.
Well, he gave a nice list of problems caused by capitalism, and said we need a new capitalism, but gave no reason why. Why a new capitalism? Why not something different, like market socialism, where the shareholders are the employees?
How many employees (even high earning employees like engineers) are actually in a position to purchase enough shares to make a difference? Even for most "publicly owned" companies the vast majority of shares are held by a small number of investors who aren't giving up their control and power.
I don't think it's possible. If a company's market cap is low enough that its employees can afford to buy all the shares with their salaries I think that would be a significantly failing business.
I think they either have no concept of another system or are in denial about how problematic capitalism really can be and are blaming the wrong things.
We have a lot of evidence it works on small scales (something like half of marriages work out). That might seem silly, but I would call it "minimum viable Communism".
I'd like to see a concerted effort for many small-scale communes (sub Dunbar's number) to be more legally viable in the US.
The problem with Communism at scale is that the logistics and planning beurocracies end up authoritarian, but it seems optimal at smaller scales.
Our implementation of capitalism has experienced a lot of regulatory capture and that needs some work. Democracy and capitalism are also totally compatible with a bit more public infastructure and an a more accessible healthcare system.
You are misunderstanding the Animal Farm. It was a criticism to the Soviet system and not socialism, Orwell literally fought for the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.
He still wrote the book as a critique from a socialist standpoint. The whole point of the book was that the USSR was not real socialism and was damaging the Socialist movement.
What are you actually defending here? A version of capitalism that is imploding under the weight of usurious debt, that considers widespread homelessness around the bases of empty "investment" apartment towers a feature and not a bug, that bankrupts half a million families a year because of health insurance sharking, that is regularly implicated in unquestionably immoral scandals and corruption (Boeing, opioid sales, Enron, S&L...), that is linked to violent wars and oppressive regimes around the world, and has also been the single biggest driver of climate change, and climate change denial, in the last century?
Do you really think these are somehow justifiable with a glib "But socialism!"
Anyway - the Scandi countries do a nice line is social democracy, which includes policies that seem to be considered outright socialist extremism by US standards.
You should find out how they're doing. By all accounts they're not particularly unpleasant places to live.
Marx was so popular because he's really great at identifying problems. He could pinpoint exactly what was wrong with far more insight and acuteness than you did. What he never ever could do was propose a better one. We have tried his plan of having the government temporarily seize the means of production several times, and it never ever ceases and becomes Socialism. He's like a philosopher version of the hipster who will mock your taste in music, but never tell you what makes music good.
I don't love our problems. But I hate every single other large country's problems more. I am open to change, but if your change wants to be some minor variation on the old, perpetually failing socialism-like ones that we've seen kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people, I'll pass.
Most socialistic societies fell due to outside interference in an already weaker society. (Weaker because of their starting position, not because of socialism).
This was for example the case with Venezuela, to name a recent one.
You'd need a country with an already strong economy to try socialism to see where it goes. We have western civilisations with some socialist aspects (European countries) but they're all still majorly capitalistic.
A lot of countries labelled as socialist/communist were/are really just state-capitalist countries (China, to name a good example. Communist only in name, same way the nazi party was socialist)
Venezuela's failures were primarily due to the usual incompetence and corruption. Outside interference was a relatively minor factor. In fact they actually received significant assistance from some other countries.
There has never been a truly communist society, they were marketed as being socialist (nazi party) or as communist (lenin and mao). None of those were what they claimed to be at all, or at best a corrupted version of what they were supposed to be.
So there hasn't been any communism that turned into fascism, as there hasn't been any communist society. Most of the misconceptions about communism stem from post-WW2 propaganda, which boils down to "Capitalism = good, Communism = bad". (at least on western side of the iron curtain)
Sure it would be great for business leaders to change their ways, but the beauty of capitalism is that consumers can force businesses to change by their actions. Mark Zuckerberg could change Facebook overnight, but what incentive does he have? It’s still one of the most populous websites in the world.
It’s easy to blame to rich and wealthy for the problems but they cannot force us to give them money. Every time I buy Facebook ads, I’m telling Mark that it’s okay for him to continue what he’s doing.
It’s very fun these days to blame the 1% for societies problems. But the 99% enable them.
If you take a very simplistic model of how the economy works, this is true.
The problem is when you get into a situation/equilibrium where enabling business practices that you consider to be bad for society as a whole is the rational choice because anything else will just leave you out-competed by someone else who doesn't care.
I am not saying that this makes it OK to do whatever because "everyone does" or "if I don't, someone else will", I'm just saying that appealing to individuals to just "do the right thing" has almost never worked to efficiently/swiftly bring about changes like this.
> I'm just saying that appealing to individuals to just "do the right thing" has almost never worked
Which is exactly what Mr. Benioff is trying to do with this article. Companies change when it's in their financial interest to do so; and rarely before then.
common folk don’t hate rich people (or the products they offered to get rich), they hate that rich people put a thumb, a palm, an elbow, and a foot on the scales in their favor. no one wants a handout, we want fairness.
You've been breaking the site guidelines a lot lately. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using the site as intended from now on?
If Benioff is going to quote the .80/$1 statistic, then the equal pay audits of SalesForce need to use the same comparison which is to take the average pay of all women in the company regardless of position or job and compare it to the average of all the men in the company regardless of position or job.
If you actually do the comparison taking into account job and position, you get something like .93/$1
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr...