Society isn’t designed to have qualifications as a shared certificate. Each degree requires a seperate student, you can’t have multiple people on a single law degree.
They probably got a family discount though and contributed to diversity stats, got extra assistance through student services for practical and defensible reasons.
But unless you’re asking for a company to spend twice as much on half the staff, they’d only ever get one salary as they can only ever complete one role at a time. They can’t go to two meetings at once, can’t independently move and most likely take leave at the same time.
I wouldn’t expect a company to pay 2x for each piece of work unless the quality was 2x as well. Would two people output more work than one? Not sure.
There are certainly companies that would pay an individual financial arrangement or private contract to have her on staff more than a normal worker just to publicise the moral benefit of hiring someone, but at that stage, you’re basically getting paid more just so you can be a show-pony for the company and some people with personal circumstances loathe the idea of being treated differently - even if preferentially - just because of that difference.
For instance, many people with autism refuse to tell work they have autism even though many workplaces have preferential hiring options and adjustments for people with neurodiversity. But the flip side is obvious that a policy doesn’t stop people from ignoring the policy and the policy only exists to the level of protecting the company from legal issues rather than protecting a worker from silent discrimination.
Taking a single salary would not only be less of a burden to justify less work for more expense, but also most likely reduce discrimination from peers that if they found out she got paid more, would treat her differently.
Don't know where you're living, but I can't imagine how telling a potential employer that I'm autistic would ever benefit me. Even if preferential hiring is a thing on paper.
A bit pedantic, but I wouldn't say "people with neurodiversity." I would just say I'm neurodivergent. A single person isn't diverse, but a group can be.
6
u/below_and_above 1d ago
Yup, this is pretty logical and you’ve got it.
Society isn’t designed to have qualifications as a shared certificate. Each degree requires a seperate student, you can’t have multiple people on a single law degree.
They probably got a family discount though and contributed to diversity stats, got extra assistance through student services for practical and defensible reasons.
But unless you’re asking for a company to spend twice as much on half the staff, they’d only ever get one salary as they can only ever complete one role at a time. They can’t go to two meetings at once, can’t independently move and most likely take leave at the same time.
I wouldn’t expect a company to pay 2x for each piece of work unless the quality was 2x as well. Would two people output more work than one? Not sure.
There are certainly companies that would pay an individual financial arrangement or private contract to have her on staff more than a normal worker just to publicise the moral benefit of hiring someone, but at that stage, you’re basically getting paid more just so you can be a show-pony for the company and some people with personal circumstances loathe the idea of being treated differently - even if preferentially - just because of that difference.
For instance, many people with autism refuse to tell work they have autism even though many workplaces have preferential hiring options and adjustments for people with neurodiversity. But the flip side is obvious that a policy doesn’t stop people from ignoring the policy and the policy only exists to the level of protecting the company from legal issues rather than protecting a worker from silent discrimination.
Taking a single salary would not only be less of a burden to justify less work for more expense, but also most likely reduce discrimination from peers that if they found out she got paid more, would treat her differently.