"Women who have children ruin their career"

faceman

Was reading an article in the paper that commented on people's careers, the struggles of family life etc.

One of the items it focused on was women who have children and how it jeopardies their long term career and can hinder them reaching their full career and earning potential.

What is your view on this? Do men play a big enough part in child rearing? Should men? Does the state to enough for women?

Note that this is a discussion about the impacts of having children, NOT a discussion on whether men are better than women.

kizzyr

I read that same article ( Eddie Hobbs was the one who said it wasn't he) and have to say that I agree with it to a certain extent. I am 30 years old and the question of to have or not to have is going to have to be answered in the next few years. I'm not overly pushed about having kids (at the moment at least) and this is partly because I love my lie ins on a Sunday morning:o but also because things are starting to happen for me in a work related sense and taking the time out to have a child will impact on this.
To gain some insight into the minds of other people I asked my OH if he he was in the position to give a job to one person and he had the choice between two people, one male one female but equally qualified and capable of doing the job and both of these people had two children each; who would he give the job to. He said he'd give it to the man. When I asked him why, he said that if the kids got sick and time off was needed the woman would be gone.
This interested me because my OH is not chauvinistic, misogynistic etc etc but still his automatic reaction was that the mother would be the primary point of contact for care for the children. I'm sure he isn't the only one who would have this automatic reaction.

faceman

Its interesting you mention about your OH and the scenario you presented to him. Its not the first time Ive heard it off the record, and sometimes from quite senior people myself. I also do the hiring in my line of work but i can say with hand on heart ive never discriminated against anyone on the basis of gender.

However as an aside to your point. One senior executive i know was discussing equality in the workplace recently in relation to the equal pay issue. (Women are paid less than men) He said that the study needs to be done in conjunction with hours worked. He is of belief that there are plenty of women you dont work a full week due as they have an agreed shorter week with their employer and thus less hours equals less money.

L31mr0d

faceman wrote: »

I also do the hiring in my line of work but i can say with hand on heart ive never discriminated against anyone on the basis of gender.

that you know of. A lot of your opinions about people are formed subconsciously, you might think you are being unbiased but you might have already judged someone before they have sat down in front of you.

In regard to Women and careers I think it comes down to the decision on the part of the women whether she'd like to be the bread winner and have a house-husband who doesn't work. I've voiced this with a lot of people and for the majority I get the same answers. A man has no problem with their wife not working and staying at home to look after the kids while they work, but most women don't like the idea of their husband not working at all and just looking after the kids. Women want equality more than they want the power in a relationship to be shifted to them, ergo, they'd rather both partners worked and earned equally.

kizzyr

faceman wrote: »

Its interesting you mention about your OH and the scenario you presented to him. Its not the first time Ive heard it off the record, and sometimes from quite senior people myself. I also do the hiring in my line of work but i can say with hand on heart ive never discriminated against anyone on the basis of gender.

However as an aside to your point. One senior executive i know was discussing equality in the workplace recently in relation to the equal pay issue. (Women are paid less than men) He said that the study needs to be done in conjunction with hours worked. He is of belief that there are plenty of women you dont work a full week due as they have an agreed shorter week with their employer and thus less hours equals less money.

I would agree with the Senior Exec to a certain extent. Where I work I see many women who work a 3 day week and fit their child care in around this and as you would expect they get paid for the 3 day week, annual leave is deducted accordingly etc. However, many of these women work damn hard in the 3 days there are at work and I would go so far as to say fit 5 days worth of work into the 3 days while all around them there are absolute wasters (both male and female) who don't do a tap all week long and are paid more. That really is a different argument though and comes down to productivity.

Back on topic though, as I said earlier this question over children and a woman's career is on my mind lately and I would be leaning towards the not having them decision given how being a mother would make me look to many employers. Now I don't know how I would change if I became a parent, maybe I'd be delighted to give up working, maybe I'd be filled with the "mother knows best" ideas and never trust their father to take care of them properly but right now the thought of being judged as less well able to do my job simply because I had a child really annoys me and perhaps if there was an increase in the level of good quality affordable childcare in the workplace, so many women wouldn't feel like I do.

Nevyn

It's not just the materinity leave and the career gap, it's not just the fact mother's are expected to take time of rather then fathers when kids are sick or need to go to the dentist and to drop and pick them up from school/childcare.

There is also the running of the house, many men despite thier partners working do not do a fair and equal share of the domestic chores. This also is a burden and a drain on rescources.

kizzyr

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's not just the materinity leave and the career gap, it's not just the fact mother's are expected to take time of rather then fathers when kids are sick or need to go to the dentist and to drop and pick them up from school/childcare.

There is also the running of the house, many men despite thier partners working do not do a fair and equal share of the domestic chores. This also is a burden and a drain on rescources.

One of my friends (married and has 2 kids) got home to her house at the same time as her husband. She had stopped off to collect the kids from the childminder before getting home as she did every evening (she also dropped them off in the morning, having gotten all of their stuff ready too). She got the kids into their PJs, put them to bed, read them a story etc. When she came downstairs and into the kitchen she was met by her husband who was putting his feet up, glass of wine in hand, complained about how tired he was and what was for dinner. My wonderful friend simply poured herself a glass of wine, sat down opposite him and said " haven't got a clue, what are you planning on making?". Sadly this scenario is played out in many homes all across the country and in effect women are doing two jobs: running the household and caring for the children AND going out to their paid employment too.
To be fair, this thread (from what I can understand) wasn't meant to be about man bashing, it was asking the question, do you think that having children has a negative impact on a woman's career? I think it does.

Imposter

I think it definitely has an influence on careers/work life and not just for the woman. The problem is not neccessarily because of the couple having kids it is more to do with the expectations companies generally have of a person. Most companies expect people to work longer hours, be it paid overtime or not. Most companies do not offer flexitime even if it should in theory be possible. For sure there are other things where the company is taking advantage of people as well.

If they can get a single guy in his early 20's to do the same job who may (or must be depending on the company) be willing to work extra hours etc, then you can see why companies would prefer this over someone who is going to do their agreed hours and no more (or at least rarely any more)! And in that case seen from the side of the company it's hard to see how anyone can argue that the woman/man with the kids is being discriminated against as the company is getting a better deal with the other person.

kizzyr

Imposter wrote: »

I think it definitely has an influence on careers/work life and not just for the woman. The problem is not neccessarily because of the couple having kids it is more to do with the expectations companies generally have of a person. Most companies expect people to work longer hours, be it paid overtime or not. Most companies do not offer flexitime even if it should in theory be possible. For sure there are other things where the company is taking advantage of people as well.

If they can get a single guy in his early 20's to do the same job who may (or must be depending on the company) be willing to work extra hours etc, then you can see why companies would prefer this over someone who is going to do their agreed hours and no more (or at least rarely any more)! And in that case seen from the side of the company it's hard to see how anyone can argue that the woman/man with the kids is being discriminated against as the company is getting a better deal with the other person.

I know you did say single guy in your post above but I think even a guy who was with someone and had kids would get a job like that above a woman with children. I posted the initial reaction my OH gave when I asked him about the scenario and he is far from the only one who would have that gut reaction that women would be the ones who'd go home to mind the kids while the men would stay behind to deal with the work load. This in itself is unfair to men. Where my OH works now, there are many times where he (and others) are expected to work late, this may be 40 mintues or so two or three times per week but that 40 minutes has a huge impact on the time he gets home at and any plans that may have been made for the evening. There is also at least one weekend per month where they are expected to work. This is due to the nature of the work done in their office and so is unavoidable but they aren't paid for it or given time in lieu. I know that if we had kids together and this was still carrying on I'd lose my reason whether I was a stay at home mum or not.

Sleepy

People who have children damage their careers. It's a simple fact that a person who has prioritised their career over having children will always progress faster than those who do not. No amount of legislation or childcare services will change this (short of barring anyone from working more than 35 hours a week and even then it's completely unenforceable).

Being a single man in my twenties I can see that my career is advancing at a faster rate than some of my colleagues who are just as capabale as, if not more capable than, me because I can be more flexible regarding working hours, travel etc. Maybe it's because I'm this side of the fence but I don't see anything wrong with that: my decisions in life to this point have given me a competitive advantage in the workplace. This is a consequence of my actions - just as having difficulty conceiving might be a consequence of those same actions if I leave it too late in life to start a family.

Our society still sees women as the primary care-giver and there are numerous reasons for this: historically women have always been the primary care-givers and most people do tend to raise their children in roughly the same fashion as they were raised; despite the increasing number of men who would be prepared to be the primary care-giver, these men tend to find that women see them as emasculated and sexually unattractive or that their partners adopt the 'mummy knows best' attitude and choose to adopt the primary role as care-giver; couples may decide that the male has the better career (or career prospects) and that they can better provide for their family if the woman lets her career take a back seat.

There is, of course, a more obvious (and I'd argue pretty common) alternative: both parents sacrificing their careers to a certain extent in order to bring up their children.

The gender inequality in the workplace is a result of our society's choices imho. More men are prepared to sacrifice their family lives to get ahead than women. (From personal experience I'd contend that more men are prepared to sacrifice their personal lives than women full stop - for parental reasons or not though that's a little O/T). As long as the vast majority of women choose to be the primary care-giver or choose partners unwilling to be an equal or primary care-giver the status quo won't change.

tuppence

I would totally agree that having children jeopardises women’s earning potential, for what unfortunately still appears to be the reinforced division of responsibilities in many households. Like any epic and brilliant but often-stressful event in ones life, it certainly is a leveller in a relationship. The most liberal folk falling into some type of learned behaviour. Families offering support can also reinforce these divisions. You have to be very strong indeed (in what is an extremely exhausting time in the first few years especially). To keep principled (both parties) often means batting from all sides. :rolleyes:

Then your battling against traditional stereotypes in the workplace, and policies that aren’t family friendly in the most. Its tends to be state organisations (I have experience with) that bring such family friendly policies in as "best practice". Alot of the time it appeared like they weren’t too bothered to flag them up to employees so you have to brief yourself up on what you are entitled to. If you then have to 'chase' something e.g. leave entitlement peers, who aren’t receiving such because of no family obligations may be more likely to scorn this.
So I suppose what I am saying is that in many ways family friendly policies I have found are just tokenistic. There really isn’t a culture yet in the employment arena thats tehres a real commitment to.
And then there’s top down polices; like the current claw back in affordable community childcare that appear to be backward step to enticing and assisting single parents and families on low income back to the workplace....

kizzyr

tuppence wrote: »

I would totally agree that having children jeopardises women’s earning potential, for what unfortunately still appears to be the reinforced division of responsibilities in many households. Like any epic and brilliant but often-stressful event in ones life, it certainly is a leveller in a relationship. The most liberal folk falling into some type of learned behaviour. Families offering support can also reinforce these divisions. You have to be very strong indeed (in what is an extremely exhausting time in the first few years especially). To keep principled (both parties) often means batting from all sides. :rolleyes:

Then your battling against traditional stereotypes in the workplace, and policies that aren’t family friendly in the most. Its tends to be state organisations (I have experience with) that bring such family friendly policies in as "best practice". Alot of the time it appeared like they weren’t too bothered to flag them up to employees so you have to brief yourself up on what you are entitled to. If you then have to 'chase' something e.g. leave entitlement peers, who aren’t receiving such because of no family obligations may be more likely to scorn this.
So I suppose what I am saying is that in many ways family friendly policies I have found are just tokenistic. There really isn’t a culture yet in the employment arena thats tehres a real commitment to.
And then there’s top down polices; like the current claw back in affordable community childcare that appear to be backward step to enticing and assisting single parents and families on low income back to the workplace....

Until there is a noticeable drop off in the birth rate as in Germany and the Scandinavian countries our government won't bother doing a damn thing to improve family policy. Many of the continental European countries are only short of paying women to have babies at this stage and you can really see how the balance of power has shifted in favour of making the work practices more family friendly, parental leave, paternity leave etc.

Sleepy

Wouldn't making workplaces more 'family friendly' also make them less competititve?

I can think of very few ways of accomodations afforded to state employees in the name of being family friendly that will be adopted by the private sector. Inefficiency in the running of a state organisation is tolerated by it's stakeholders (us the public) however it is not tolerated in the corporate world by shareholders. Commercially if your choice is to hire two job sharing parents or one singleton to fill a role, you'll always go for the latter as there's less overhead to hiring the single person, less chance for absence due to children's illnesses, less scope for problems to occur due to a mistake in handover at the start/end of the respective workers' weeks etc.

This is inefficient and in the modern, globalised, world companies who behave like this will be at a competitive disadvantage. It may seem cold but it must be remembered that a successful economy is built on the success of the businesses operating within it. Without a successful economy we won't be able to provide vital services such as health, education, policing, Bertie's makeup fund etc.

The world is already over-populated and we have become one of the major destinations of choice for migrants. There's no fear of us not having enough workers to keep the economy going. The question to be asked, as David McWilliams would put it, is: what kind of immigrants do we want?

Ger the man

All depends how you look at it really... I know a few women on amazing salaries who cant wait to get put of the rat race and have babies and never go back to work again. They are more than willing to ditch the career because child raring is more rewarding to them (myself included).

kizzyr

Sleepy wrote: »

Wouldn't making workplaces more 'family friendly' also make them less competititve?

I can think of very few ways of accomodations afforded to state employees in the name of being family friendly that will be adopted by the private sector. Inefficiency in the running of a state organisation is tolerated by it's stakeholders (us the public) however it is not tolerated in the corporate world by shareholders. Commercially if your choice is to hire two job sharing parents or one singleton to fill a role, you'll always go for the latter as there's less overhead to hiring the single person, less chance for absence due to children's illnesses, less scope for problems to occur due to a mistake in handover at the start/end of the respective workers' weeks etc.

This is inefficient and in the modern, globalised, world companies who behave like this will be at a competitive disadvantage. It may seem cold but it must be remembered that a successful economy is built on the success of the businesses operating within it. Without a successful economy we won't be able to provide vital services such as health, education, policing, Bertie's makeup fund etc.

The world is already over-populated and we have become one of the major destinations of choice for migrants. There's no fear of us not having enough workers to keep the economy going. The question to be asked, as David McWilliams would put it, is: what kind of immigrants do we want?

I don't disagree with what you've said there but many many women seem to feel that they have to have a child and ultimately that is their choice. If it comes down to choice should the employer be forced to facilitate that choice? Some believe they should. However, one simple way to help combat the problem would be to have childcare facilities in the workplace. That way the parent doesn't have different points of call on the way to and from work, if something happens to the child during the day and the parent is needed then they only have to go somewhere on site rather than a massive journey (as is often the case) to collect the child etc.

seamus

Ger the man wrote: »

All depends how you look at it really... I know a few women on amazing salaries who cant wait to get put of the rat race and have babies and never go back to work again. They are more than willing to ditch the career because child raring is more rewarding to them (myself included).

Indeed, many of these stories and surveys neglect to mention how many people dropped out of the working world and were happy to do so and not return, ever. What's wrong with "jeopardising" your earning potential if you don't care about it?

I still think the traditional roles are favoured by many couples, where the woman enjoys the "nesting" and the man enjoys providing for the nest. There's nothing wrong with this. Our biology nudges us towards these roles in any case.

You can look at it from a logical, "How much money can you make" point of view, or you can look at it from the commonsense point of view of, "What would you prefer to do?". I would always have more respect for the person who does what they enjoy doing rather than the person who does what they do to make as much money as they can.

However, one simple way to help combat the problem would be to have childcare facilities in the workplace

A number of workplaces have tried this (Revenue for example) and the general consensus seemed to be that people didn't really want to use it. Plenty of people enjoy having work as something of a break from the child while the creche or grandparent does the childcare. If your child is downstairs, then you're somewhat moving part of your home life into your workplace, which I know wouldn't sit right with me.
I know the biggest fear employers have is that parents would be up and down constantly checking on their child, but where the parent has previously had their child in a creche (i.e. have had the separation), then the opposite is true - they want to use their work day as a means to take a break.

donaghs

A bit of a minefield issue, almost as bad as trying to discuss immigration!

Controversial maybe: Shouldn't there be some incentives for educated, intelligent, career women to have children. Since many are opting not to, to further their career. They have the money certainly (if not the time) to afford a family, and they can pass on the benfits of their education to their children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=390951&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source=
Only link I could find, I don't like the Daily Mail.

kizzyr

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, many of these stories and surveys neglect to mention how many people dropped out of the working world and were happy to do so and not return, ever. What's wrong with "jeopardising" your earning potential if you don't care about it?

I still think the traditional roles are favoured by many couples, where the woman enjoys the "nesting" and the man enjoys providing for the nest. There's nothing wrong with this. Our biology nudges us towards these roles in any case.

You can look at it from a logical, "How much money can you make" point of view, or you can look at it from the commonsense point of view of, "What would you prefer to do?". I would always have more respect for the person who does what they enjoy doing rather than the person who does what they do to make as much money as they can.

A number of workplaces have tried this (Revenue for example) and the general consensus seemed to be that people didn't really want to use it. Plenty of people enjoy having work as something of a break from the child while the creche or grandparent does the childcare. If your child is downstairs, then you're somewhat moving part of your home life into your workplace, which I know wouldn't sit right with me.
I know the biggest fear employers have is that parents would be up and down constantly checking on their child, but where the parent has previously had their child in a creche (i.e. have had the separation), then the opposite is true - they want to use their work day as a means to take a break.

Looks like some people are just impossible to please then doesn't it:) Personally I think it should be the easiest and best solution for childcare for the working parent. Surely a creche is a creche and the separation takes place whether the actual building is on the same site as the work place or not. A baby who is 10 months old isn't going to realise that mum/dad is on the 10th floor. I can understand why employers would worry about parents popping up and down to see the child but that should be a rule properly enforced by both the employer and creche as it would only serve to disturb the child. I know if I was in this situation I wouldn't ask my parents to mind my children as I think this is hugely unfair and I wouldn't necessarily want my OHs parents to mind them either. A creche on site would be the ideal solution for me, provided of course that it was run properly and the child was happy and well cared for.
At the end of the day having a child is a choice most people make and they should look at how their lives will change and the sacrifices that will have to be made to do this. I do however, think more could and should be done to keep people in the work place as the State has a vested interest in keeping well educated, experienced, competent people in the work place and if improving child care provisions, parental leave etc is what it takes to do this then it should be done.

seamus

kizzyr wrote: »

Surely a creche is a creche and the separation takes place whether the actual building is on the same site as the work place or not. A baby who is 10 months old isn't going to realise that mum/dad is on the 10th floor.

There may be a fear on the part of the parents that the creche workers will take advantage of the parents being in easy reach. So phone calls like, "Your child won't stop crying, can you recommend anything?". Or, "Your child tripped and banged her head, do you want to come down?" may be what people fear. I don't have any children yet, but I can definitely understand the feeling of just wanting someone else to deal with the crying and banged knees and whining for a couple of hours without bothering me about it

kizzyr

seamus wrote: »

There may be a fear on the part of the parents that the creche workers will take advantage of the parents being in easy reach. So phone calls like, "Your child won't stop crying, can you recommend anything?". Or, "Your child tripped and banged her head, do you want to come down?" may be what people fear. I don't have any children yet, but I can definitely understand the feeling of just wanting someone else to deal with the crying and banged knees and whining for a couple of hours without bothering me about it

Me neither and yet here I am espousing about the wonders of childcare:o It is possible that the creche workers would do as you have outlined above but if I was paying over a lot of money I'd expect them to put up with all of the tears, tantrums, snotty noses etc during the day.
It really would seem that unless you're loaded and can afford an au pair or some such, having kids is going to involve giving up work (by one parent) or getting up at the crack of dawn to organise getting them to creches, child care, etc. Sounds like a lot of work, maybe I'll stick with being an auntie for now:)

tuppence

kizzyr wrote: »

Looks like some people are just impossible to please then doesn't it:) Personally I think it should be the easiest and best solution for childcare for the working parent. Surely a creche is a creche and the separation takes place whether the actual building is on the same site as the work place or not. A baby who is 10 months old isn't going to realise that mum/dad is on the 10th floor. I can understand why employers would worry about parents popping up and down to see the child but that should be a rule properly enforced by both the employer and creche as it would only serve to disturb the child. I know if I was in this situation I wouldn't ask my parents to mind my children as I think this is hugely unfair and I wouldn't necessarily want my OHs parents to mind them either. A creche on site would be the ideal solution for me, provided of course that it was run properly and the child was happy and well cared for.
At the end of the day having a child is a choice most people make and they should look at how their lives will change and the sacrifices that will have to be made to do this. I do however, think more could and should be done to keep people in the work place as the State has a vested interest in keeping well educated, experienced, competent people in the work place and if improving child care provisions, parental leave etc is what it takes to do this then it should be done.

It appears that some people can’t be pleased alright! What an incentive being passed. What an incentive for nursing mothers to have your child in the building? How great for giving options for mothers to continue breastfeeding in their lunch times etc. If employers would come down on them they'd have to chase the smokers too!

The one concern that seems to be coming to the fore is that people have the choice to have kids like a luxury item like a pet or car. Isn’t it for most a biological imperative. More and more we are living to work rather than working to live.
Its not about how we want to live our lives or lifestyle its about one of the fundamentals of life isn’t it? It’s also about what kind of country do we want and the place of family? How we value the jobs carers do, no matter whom they care for. Productivity isn’t always about time in a place its about outputs, its about wanting to be in the place, nurturing reliability, honesty etc in staff toward management. Surely a work life balance ethos should not be something as an add on, but integral to the work place. Private firms are thereby missing out on a lot of good workers and better morale if there were adopt a more supportive culture.

damnyanks

My boss's boss was working the day after she had a kid (Making calls from the hospital) She was back at her desk the day after that.

Some careers just have serious demands on your lifestyle. She wasnt married. Had lots of minders and crap like that.

It's mad but if its a career you want you can do it.

Why is it the other halfs fault if the woman is expected to do this and the other with regards to the house and child after a working day ?

Sleepy

Childcare being provided or not, who's going to be more useful in a job that may require some travel? Singletons will always have the edge in the workplace. Certainly I'd agree that a highly qualified/skilled person will be more beneficial to the state's economy in the workplace than at home minding the kids / doing the housework. (There is a social cost to this however that's probably a different debate).

So, while I'd agree with companies trying to facilitate parents where possible, I don't think we should ever expect parity in the workforce between primary care givers and singletons. Doing so would either discriminate in favour of parents (i.e. they'd have equal pay for less work) and/or would dis-incentivise the singleton from putting in the 'above and beyond' work which helps our economy's productivity levels.

kizzyr

tuppence wrote: »

It appears that some people can’t be pleased alright! What an incentive being passed. What an incentive for nursing mothers to have your child in the building? How great for giving options for mothers to continue breastfeeding in their lunch times etc. If employers would come down on them they'd have to chase the smokers too!

The one concern that seems to be coming to the fore is that people have the choice to have kids like a luxury item like a pet or car. Isn’t it for most a biological imperative. More and more we are living to work rather than working to live.
Its not about how we want to live our lives or lifestyle its about one of the fundamentals of life isn’t it? It’s also about what kind of country do we want and the place of family? How we value the jobs carers do, no matter whom they care for. Productivity isn’t always about time in a place its about outputs, its about wanting to be in the place, nurturing reliability, honesty etc in staff toward management. Surely a work life balance ethos should not be something as an add on, but integral to the work place. Private firms are thereby missing out on a lot of good workers and better morale if there were adopt a more supportive culture.

I read something a while back that said the true sign that you "have arrived" and are making a lot of money is to have a fourth child rather than a BMW/Merc/Range Rover/other luxury car in your driveway. Again people who believe this and chose to further prop it up are having their children to prove something to the world.

Sleepy

damnyanks wrote: »

My boss's boss was working the day after she had a kid (Making calls from the hospital) She was back at her desk the day after that.

Some careers just have serious demands on your lifestyle. She wasnt married. Had lots of minders and crap like that.

It's mad but if its a career you want you can do it.

Well, like you said, it's mad in your opinion (and irresponsible parenting if the father's not taking the primary care-giver role in mine) but it's her choice to sacrifice her time with her child rather than vice versa.

Why is it the other halfs fault if the woman is expected to do this and the other with regards to the house and child after a working day?

Because he's the one expecting it? There may be societal pressure for the woman to be the primary care-giver but the couple themselves can decide to disregard this. Societal pressure being no more than the collective attitude this will pass as more couples disregard it.

tuppence

I suppose my real concern is not the ones who can afford to have families and career, it the normal Joe soap struggling to juggle family and work. It’s how colleagues and management see family in the work place. This will effect whether a person (in alot of cases women) feel they can continue or not in the environment, thus putting them at financial risk even for a short career break. E.g. if you aren’t signing for pension credits you could be in a situation that you have an incomplete state pension when your older, not to mention the ability now to put into a private pension etc.
I'd be of the mindset of "what goes round come around" in a good way that is, in the working environment. Some of the best government policies would have be based on trust, like the social contract with pensions. (I pay for you now so that someone else will tomorrow for me).
And if that does'nt work then incentivise through offering other packages to 'singletons" (ah bless- that term!). Work life balance wouldn’t all be about family anyway I would have thought its about personal development opportunities too etc. Perhaps people feel that turnover in many private shareholder companies wouldn’t be conducive to such a reciprocal feature been promoted. Many turnovers are high because of a lack of such supportive policies. Anyway some of the most successful businesses are flat and user led, (e.g. co operative)

faceman

faceman wrote: »

One senior executive i know was discussing equality in the workplace recently in relation to the equal pay issue. (Women are paid less than men) He said that the study needs to be done in conjunction with hours worked. He is of belief that there are plenty of women you dont work a full week due as they have an agreed shorter week with their employer and thus less hours equals less money.

I was recently looking at average pay for engineers and discrepancies between male and female.
The inequality starts from day one with female graduates averaging 27 and male 29 irc for that year.

Sleepy

An 'average' doesn't really give anything to compare by though Moonbaby, does it?

Do the figures you're studying give any indication of the relevant experience of the graduates (e.g. a graduate civil engineer having experience on a building site rather than having worked in tescos during college holidays etc.)? Do they give any indication of the degrees attained by those graduates? Their extra-curricular activities in college or, while not directly relevent, 'additional' skills such as a full drivers license etc.

I honestly don't believe that a male will get more money than a female where they are in all ways equally qualified for the job and similarly motivated to pursue as high a salary as they can attain.