Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) released its diversity report, which noted that women and men were being paid equally by the company. This diversity report went ahead to showcase Intel efforts to offer equal chances to women and minorities. For instance, women represent 24.8% of all employees within the company. This is a 5.4% increase from December 2014. Women currently are holding 20.1% of all technical jobs, which is a rise of5.8% over the previous year.
Click Here For More Market Exclusive Updates & Analysis
The increase in female employees across the company was a conscious effort on Intel’s part. 35% of Intel’s 2015 hires were women. The increasing number of women was not only in technical jobs but also in executive leadership which increased from 14.3% in 2014 to 17.6% in 2015. The company last year resorted to the Rooney Rule when making a senior hiring decision. The Rooney Rule states that every slate of candidates must include at least one underrepresented minority and one woman. Whether this policy will help the company or not remains to be seen.
In 2016, Intel is aiming at a 14% minority rate for new hires. Minorities comprised 11.8% of new hires in 2015.
Intel’s diversity report is an update of the promise made by the company earlier last year. It had stated that it will invest $300 million in its diversity effort over the next five years until it attains what it referred to as ‘full representation at all levels of the company’.
Speaking after the report was made public, Danville Brown, chief diversity officer noted that the report came back at 100% parity.
The Intel report comes a few days after U.S President Barack Obama had proposed a rule that will mandate companies to share pay data with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission based on gender, race and ethnicity. This will provide the federal government with the chance of monitoring pay disparities at companies. This data would not be made public, but it could open employers to a lawsuit that could force them to make it public.
Intel’s report may only be an attempt at preempting legislative action that would mandate sharing pay data with a government agency.