On the Concept of "Protected Class" (or Race) at IBM
Are only top managers protected from accusations of being overpaid? Because they're immune and exempted from scrutiny/cuts?
Nowadays at IBM there is this insulting concept of "overpaid" (usually - in practice - this simply means rewarded in proportion to one's value to the company/clients, overall experience, acquired skills etc. as opposed to underpaid, exploited, robbed etc.) - a term traditionally meant to describe a situation where one is paid at the wrong rate or for a wrong number of hours (e.g. payroll miscalculating something).
Do dictionaries do gymnastics to favour landowners?
Some IBM workers can moreover be labeled with insulting terms like "dinobaby" (it's classic ageism, implying experience is detrimental, an impediment to progress), usually based on geography or demography rather than something objective like role/rank. The basic idea is, if you get "too high" or work in an "expensive market" (like Western Europe), you'll get "marked for death". Walk the plank or be pushed...
Your 'choice'...
This situation favours "cheaper" (lower salary expectations, not being a euphemism at all) or less skilled workers*, who IBM assumes it can compensate for "in quantities" (more of the same don't typically add up quality-wise). It's a fallacy. It's self-harming as in practice it imperils the company and harms the reputation/brand. Internally, it hurts morale and loyalty to one's employer.
We prefer not to use any racial overtones to explain this phenomenon, which isn't just happening in or is "limited" to IBM.
There are many taboo connotations/points around this debate, even if the core issues are economic rather than racial/national. To be clear, this "race to the bottom" (e.g. salaries) isn't to be blamed on those at the bottom but those who arrange the race, notably the CEO, CFO and Board of Directors (which includes the CEO). █
____
* This one is hours old:
