Equal pay day.

Nevyn

Did you know where gender pay gaps are in place and up held, this is the last day where men and women are paid equally and from now until the end of the year many women are effectively working for free while thier male counterparts still get paid.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/11/women_-_time_to

Today is Equal Pay Day 2010. Despite the Equal Pay Act of 1970, full time working women on average are still paid less than full time working men by around 16%. This means, figuratively, that if the average man and woman both work a full year, the man gets paid for the full year whilst the woman’s last paycheck comes today.

Reasons for the paygap are complex and may differ from case to case, but include the following factors:


* “women’s work” is undervalued compared with “men’s work” - so jobs of similar skills levels which are traditionally female (cleaning, caring) are paid less than similarly skilled jobs which are traditionally male (transportation, construction)

* individual level direct and indirect discrimination still exists

* women still pay a “motherhood penalty” in terms of career progression and salary

* women are more likely to work part time, which is relatively undervalued by employers; and

* the recession is making things worse - a higher proportion of the female workforce has been made redundant than the male workforce

The Fawcett Society is spearheading Equal Pay Day 2010, and is calling on the government to do three things to help:


* Implement the Equalities Act 2010 in full, including forcing employers to reveal their gender pay gap if they haven’t done so by 2013

* Extend the right to request flexible working to all employees (not just mothers) and work to change employer attitudes to part time and flexible working

* Encourage shared parenting by promoting flexible parental leave

In Ireland, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act was passed in 1974 and came into force in 1977 but it took Mary Robinson taking a case for women who were not being paid the same to the EU court for change to happen.

But those changes were then undermined in 2006 when the EU courts ruled it was ok to discriminate against parents where they have to take time other then maternity leave and give that we have no paternity leave and it is usually women who end up being the carer on call when they do go back to work we still have women who are not on equal pay.

Agent Smith

There is a very simple solution to this problem

If a woman is getting paid less to do a job then a male is doing. they should bring the company to court.

Silverfish

The act establishes four main defenses for employers. An employer may pay a male employee more than a female employee if the employer can establish that payment is based upon (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a system whereby earnings are based upon the quantity and quality of production by the employees, or (4) a differential based upon any other factor other than the sex of the employees. Although the first three of these defenses have been the subjects of litigation, the fourth exception has been litigated more frequently.

Tough one to prove. Especially if you're the only female in the particular role, and it was your predecessors who were on more.

I was getting somewhere with my case, however there is now a full pay freeze in effect for the last 2 years, and for the foreseeable future.

As much as I hate the phrase, I'm currently personally in the "lucky to have a job" camp.

pickarooney

^I think that's from American legislation.

Silverfish

pickarooney wrote: »

^I think that's from American legislation.

Seems so but it still reflects accurately the arguments I faced.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fair play to them for bringing up shared parental leave.

the_syco

“women’s work” is undervalued compared with “men’s work” - so jobs of similar skills levels which are traditionally female (cleaning, caring) are paid less than similarly skilled jobs which are traditionally male (transportation, construction)

This really is a case of apples and oranges. Also, I have seen a few female bus drivers: it's a case of what women wish to do. Look at two courses in college, an office skills course, and a mechanical course. You may get 1/10 men:women in the office skills course, with a gender reversal in the mechanical course.

As for construction, it's more genic. On average, men would be physically stonger, and thus be able to lift more. Also, men are able to use applications such as CAD than their female counterparts. Think this one is to do with spatial awareness, but I'm not sure: I do know it's to do with how mens and womens brains are different.

women still pay a “motherhood penalty” in terms of career progression and salary

Agreed. Unfortunately, taking a few months off work will go against anyone, male or female. Added to that, taking days off due to children being sick, etc, will go against anyone.

the recession is making things worse - a higher proportion of the female workforce has been made redundant than the male workforce

I find this surprising, taking into account the amount of builders, etc, that have been laid off. Unless the stats are skewed to particular sectors/countries/etc, of course.

SugarHigh

Agent Smith wrote: »

There is a very simple solution to this problem

If a woman is getting paid less to do a job then a male is doing. they should bring the company to court.

Exactly, until you show me a case where 2 equally skilled people are doing the exact same job but someone is being paid more then I really don't see the issue.

yawnstretch

Parental leave - yes please.

g'em

the_syco wrote: »

This really is a case of apples and oranges. Also, I have seen a few female bus drivers: it's a case of what women wish to do.

Wish to do or are encouraged to do? I think there's still a case that both male and female job preferences are moulded much earlier than when they are filling out their CAO applications.

the_syco wrote:

Look at two courses in college, an office skills course, and a mechanical course. You may get 1/10 men:women in the office skills course, with a gender reversal in the mechanical course.

Again I don't think that this is down to unbiased choice, there are environmental and societal barriers for both genders in traditionally gender specific roles. I don't think we've reached that point now where anyone can choose a job they want without having been grossly influenced about it all their lives. The "traditional" gender roles are trotted out all the time right from an early age.

the_syco wrote:

As for construction, it's more genic. On average, men would be physically stonger, and thus be able to lift more. Also, men are able to use applications such as CAD than their female counterparts. Think this one is to do with spatial awareness, but I'm not sure: I do know it's to do with how mens and womens brains are different.

I'd really like to see stats for men being able to use a particular type of software better than a woman can because frankly I'll call BS on that. and the brains differences are just as disputed as they are agreed on at this point.

LenaClaire

SugarHigh wrote: »

Exactly, until you show me a case where 2 equally skilled people are doing the exact same job but someone is being paid more then I really don't see the issue.

I personally lived through this and was told that the courts could not do anything as I could not *prove* that the reason the only man with our job description got paid more and was on a bonus structure was because he was male that I had no case. I had nothing in writing saying, pay this man more since he is a man so they could not help me.

I had a senior position and a higher education degree and was making 40% less than the only man in that position in our company. I have talked to many women who have been in similar positions and told that we could not *prove* that the company was discrimination based on gender rather than just being stupid. This is what needs to change.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well it would potentially cost a company more to hire women if they had to pay the same amount as men, there's no risk with men of being out for several months because of pregnancy. Same goes for promotion prospects, you can't take several months off work and then expect to be on the same footing as co workers who were working the entire time you weren't.

g'em

SugarHigh wrote: »

Exactly, until you show me a case where 2 equally skilled people are doing the exact same job but someone is being paid more then I really don't see the issue.

The issue is right there in the OP. Your (and I say "your" as it's so symptomatic of so many of the detractors in these arguments) apathy towards it is unfortunate, but unsurprising. Do you think that the gender pay gap does not exist or are you just waiting for black and white irrefutable proof - which, btw, no-one is claiming to have. This is not a black and white issue which is one of the most frustrating things about trying to combat it.

LenaClaire

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well it would potentially cost a company more to hire women if they had to pay the same amount as men, there's no risk with men of being out for several months because of pregnancy. Same goes for promotion prospects, you can't take several months off work and then expect to be on the same footing as co workers who were working the entire time you weren't.

The problem is that employers use this to lower pay for ALL women. If I have absolutely no intention over ever getting pregnant do I need to proclaim that to all employers just to pacify their worries?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

jujibee wrote: »

The problem is that employers use this to lower pay for ALL women. If I have absolutely no intention over ever getting pregnant do I need to proclaim that to all employers just to pacify their worries?

that is true and completely unfair on women with no intention of having children, whether they are young or past child bearing age. But im pretty sure you can't legally ask a woman if she intends on having a child before discussing her pay, so to protect their bottom line they tar all women with the same brush which as you said, is horribly unfair.

SugarHigh

jujibee wrote: »

I personally lived through this and was told that the courts could not do anything as I could not *prove* that the reason the only man with our job description got paid more and was on a bonus structure was because he was male that I had no case. I had nothing in writing saying, pay this man more since he is a man so they could not help me.

I had a senior position and a higher education degree and was making 40% less than the only man in that position in our company. I have talked to many women who have been in similar positions and told that we could not *prove* that the company was discrimination based on gender rather than just being stupid. This is what needs to change.

If you can't prove that he was being paid more just because he was a man than what do you expect the court to do?

We are only hearing one side of the story and the company obviously told you some justification as to why they were paying him more. If they could get away with employing you for 40% less then they would have sacked him and hired another one of you.

LenaClaire

SugarHigh wrote: »

If you can't prove that he was being paid more just because he was a man than what do you expect the court to do?

We are only hearing one side of the story and the company obviously told you some justification as to why they were paying him more. If they could get away with employing you for 40% less then they would have sacked him and hired another one of you.

Actually they never did justify the discrepancy and I got written up 2 weeks after reporting the issue. I went from stellar reviews to being a slacker in two weeks. Amazing. I could have taken legal action at that point but was frankly sick of the whole company so I quit.

And besides.. if it takes them writing down that we need to pay more to men for someone to ever win a court case then that is just plain ridiculous. That would be like saying you could only try someone for stealing if they confessed.

Silverfish

jujibee wrote: »

The problem is that employers use this to lower pay for ALL women. If I have absolutely no intention over ever getting pregnant do I need to proclaim that to all employers just to pacify their worries?

Or even if as soon as we have gone through the menopause having had no children and no maternity leave, they put us onto the same pay with backpay :pac:

amacachi

* the recession is making things worse - a higher proportion of the female workforce has been made redundant than the male workforce

Love to see the stats for that.

In fact I'd love to see the raw data and other data in general. The most recent report stated that women get paid (I can't remember the exact numbers) 71% as much as men, but someone pointed out that they went on yearly rather than hourly pay, and once that was taken into account it was over 80%. That still didn't account for the fact that men were more likely to work fulltime (better pay per hour) or overtime (better pay per hour).

Also looking at the public sector and say medicine, men obviously get paid more as the older workers get paid more and it's the more recent and future hirings that are predominantly female. That's not discrimination.

As for the value placed on different areas, some areas should have more value placed on them than others. Though why the hell construction was valued so much for the last 15 years is beyond me. Looking at certain Arts subjects in college which serve very little public function and seeing the points being higher for them than science and engineering makes me despair also, and the fact that those subjects tends to be mainly made of females is also odd. They could have walked into a science or engineering course and instead chose not to.

My main point though is my point about the method of comparing hourly pay between the genders, any report about it I've seen for this country has had gaping holes in it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

g'em wrote: »

Wish to do or are encouraged to do? I think there's still a case that both male and female job preferences are moulded much earlier than when they are filling out their CAO applications.

Again I don't think that this is down to unbiased choice, there are environmental and societal barriers for both genders in traditionally gender specific roles. I don't think we've reached that point now where anyone can choose a job they want without having been grossly influenced about it all their lives. The "traditional" gender roles are trotted out all the time right from an early age.

I think theses are deep rooted problems in society. I don't think they can be fixed with affirmative action type employment legislation. So at present I can't really disagree with the_syco's assertion of apples and oranges


Agree with your last line and it bothers me a lot which is why I advocate shared, equal parental leave. If even 30% of children had house-husband dads and working mums the stereotypes and pay gaps would crumble in a generation.

I'd really like to see stats for men being able to use a particular type of software better than a woman can because frankly I'll call BS on that. and the brains differences are just as disputed as they are agreed on at this point.

Totally agree.

SugarHigh

jujibee wrote: »

Actually they never did justify the discrepancy and I got written up 2 weeks after reporting the issue. I went from stellar reviews to being a slacker in two weeks. Amazing. I could have taken legal action at that point but was frankly sick of the whole company so I quit.

You really should have went to court because now it's kind of hard to believe you. In any argument between two people it's pretty pointless to listen to one side on it's own.

And besides.. if it takes them writing down that we need to pay more to men for someone to ever win a court case then that is just plain ridiculous. That would be like saying you could only try someone for stealing if they confessed.

Who said that's what it would take?

You didn't go to court so how do you know you wouldn't have won?

SugarHigh

g'em wrote: »

The issue is right there in the OP. Your (and I say "your" as it's so symptomatic of so many of the detractors in these arguments) apathy towards it is unfortunate, but unsurprising. Do you think that the gender pay gap does not exist or are you just waiting for black and white irrefutable proof - which, btw, no-one is claiming to have. This is not a black and white issue which is one of the most frustrating things about trying to combat it.

I think the issue is that people on your side of the argument spend so much time twisting figures(comparing part time hourly pay to full time hourly pay) that when they are shown to be false their entire argument (which may have had valid points) loses credibility.

LenaClaire

SugarHigh wrote: »

You really should have went to court because now it's kind of hard to believe you. In any argument between two people it's pretty pointless to listen to one side on it's own.


Who said that's what it would take?

You didn't go to court so how do you know you wouldn't have won?

I talked to a lawyer who specialized in discrimination law. He said that since the company had a few women executives I would not be able to portray a pattern of discrimination. That I would need proof that the variance in our pay was not just based on "stupidity" and that it was actually based on gender.

It is hard to believe me because I got frustrated and walked away rather than going to court? I think that makes me easily frustrated but not a liar or someone who is confused on the issue. I did not go to court as I was planning on leaving the country anyway and did not think that I could handle the stress of flying back and forth and having to testify against people that I had previously trusted. I think my emotional health is worth more than the small amount of money I would have received even if I had won. I have seen other people go through cases like this and I did not want to be that stressed and miserable.

SugarHigh

jujibee wrote: »

It is hard to believe me because I got frustrated and walked away rather than going to court?

Yes, the same way if someone was fired and then told me they were just fired out of nowhere but didn't want to bother claiming unfair dismissal. Why would I believe when it's pretty unlikely they were fired for no reason and more than likely did something stupid that they decided to leave out of the story they told me, but if they then took legal action and won I'd at least have a reason to believe them.

That I would need proof that the variance in our pay was not just based on "stupidity" and that it was actually based on gender.

I just don't see why if you could hire women for 40% less why you wouldn't just fire all the men.

Bottle_of_Smoke

jujibee wrote: »

Actually they never did justify the discrepancy and I got written up 2 weeks after reporting the issue. I went from stellar reviews to being a slacker in two weeks. Amazing. I could have taken legal action at that point but was frankly sick of the whole company so I quit.

And besides.. if it takes them writing down that we need to pay more to men for someone to ever win a court case then that is just plain ridiculous. That would be like saying you could only try someone for stealing if they confessed.

I find your story very difficult to believe. You were in a senior position where a colleague was being paid 40% more...

For perspective if you were on 30K that would mean he was on 42K.

Why would a company pay someone that much more for being a man? Was he there longer? When I worked in a bank some people I supervised earned more than me due to years of service.

And besides.. if it takes them writing down that we need to pay more to men for someone to ever win a court case then that is just plain ridiculous. That would be like saying you could only try someone for stealing if they confessed

You can't convict someone for stealing without a confession or a reasonable amount of evidence. The same applies to you, either they confess or you provide reasonable evidence to show the other guy got paid more solely for being a man.

I don't mean to sound harsh on you but how else could these disputese be handled? If it went on the person's opinion everyone would try and sue.

LenaClaire

SugarHigh wrote: »

I just don't see why if you could hire women for 40% less why you wouldn't just fire all the men.

Why do you think he was the only man in that position in the company?

SugarHigh

jujibee wrote: »

Why do you think he was the only man in that position in the company?

Were all the men getting paid 40% more than you?

Silverfish

So, to all the naysayers in the thread, do you think this is just made up, or some form of female conspiracy we're all in on, and we're actually matched euro for euro across the board with our male counterparts?

Just curious due to the reactions to this.

The_Minister

Firstly, it isn't true that women lost out more in the recession.
Male-dominated industries (such as Construction) were hit more, and more men lost their jobs than women - doesn't mean it doesn't suck for everyone.


As for the "motherhood penalty"...

....your pay goes up the longer you work, if you take half a year off to have a baby, you aren't working for that half year, and you don't gain experience in your role during that time.
If we were to treat maternity leave as normal work, that would discriminate against males.

The_Minister

Silverfish wrote: »

So, to all the naysayers in the thread, do you think this is just made up, or some form of female conspiracy we're all in on, and we're actually matched euro for euro across the board with our male counterparts?

Just curious due to the reactions to this.

Several explanations have been given in this thread which shrink the discrepancy between our rates of pay.

We may not have absolute parity (we don't) but the gap is nowhere near 71:100 unless you use very, very unfair measurement criteria.

Most of the reasons for the gap are not our fault.

Iago

jujibee wrote: »

I personally lived through this and was told that the courts could not do anything as I could not *prove* that the reason the only man with our job description got paid more and was on a bonus structure was because he was male that I had no case. I had nothing in writing saying, pay this man more since he is a man so they could not help me.

I had a senior position and a higher education degree and was making 40% less than the only man in that position in our company. I have talked to many women who have been in similar positions and told that we could not *prove* that the company was discrimination based on gender rather than just being stupid. This is what needs to change.

Not to be flippant, but I had the same job as a woman in one company I worked in and she was earning close to 50% more than me even though our objectives/revenue targets where identical.

I have members of teams in the past where female members earned more than their male counterparts and vice versa.

LenaClaire

SugarHigh wrote: »

Were all the men getting paid 40% more than you?

He was the only man working in a comparable job. All other positions in our department at that level or lower were filled by female staff. I would not compare my salary to someone at a higher level as they would of course be paid more. I am not sure where you are going with this?

SugarHigh

Silverfish wrote: »

So, to all the naysayers in the thread, do you think this is just made up, or some form of female conspiracy we're all in on, and we're actually matched euro for euro across the board with our male counterparts?

Just curious due to the reactions to this.

Yes where the jobs are identical. Comparing construction work to cleaning work and then saying the cleaners are getting paid less because they're women isn't helping your argument. Builders were more in demand than there were people willing to be builders when compared to the cleaning industry so they got paid more it really is as simple as that.

Why would a company voluntarily give a bonus to men?
If women are capable of doing the job to the same standard but willing to work for less than men then they would get all the jobs. Just because the top CEO's are normally men doesn't mean they will have some sort of loyalty to men and pay them more they will do what ever gives the best value for money. It's like claiming a company is racist because they outsource all their work to countries where they will work for less.

LenaClaire

Iago wrote: »

Not to be flippant, but I had the same job as a woman in one company I worked in and she was earning close to 50% more than me even though our objectives/revenue targets where identical.

I have members of teams in the past where female members earned more than their male counterparts and vice versa.

I am not claiming that all companies only discriminate against women there are probably companies that discriminate the other way but I am betting they are the minority. I am not even claiming that all companies discriminate, I am sure there are many companies working very hard to ensure parity of pay.

I am just saying that yes, there are instances where women who do the exact same job as a man get paid less which was the initial contention and it is not uncommon.

It seems that people find it hard to believe that there are any pay discrepancies based on gender.

SugarHigh

The_Minister wrote: »

As for the "motherhood penalty"...

....your pay goes up the longer you work, if you take half a year off to have a baby, you aren't working for that half year, and you don't gain experience in your role during that time.
If we were to treat maternity leave as normal work, that would discriminate against males.

I completely agree although I do have sympathy for women who's careers suffer because of motherhood.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Silverfish wrote: »

So, to all the naysayers in the thread, do you think this is just made up, or some form of female conspiracy we're all in on, and we're actually matched euro for euro across the board with our male counterparts?

Just curious due to the reactions to this.

I've only worked in a few places but I would say hour for hour, work for work, euro for euro yes in all those places.

I would say there is perhaps discrimination when it comes to promotions, one large place I worked the team leader positions seemed to go 50% men 50% post menopausal women! This kind of situation is inevitable with the current parental leave structures if you ask me.

I wouldn't say its a conspiracy but I think the use of figures in the first paragraph are dishonest and misleading. When they are analysed it discredits the article, which is unfortunate as it makes some excellent points later on.

SugarHigh

Iago wrote: »

Not to be flippant, but I had the same job as a woman in one company I worked in and she was earning close to 50% more than me even though our objectives/revenue targets where identical.

I have members of teams in the past where female members earned more than their male counterparts and vice versa.

You will probably be chased out of here for bringing that up.

bronte

Has anyone ever been asked if they're single or married in an interview?

Iago

Silverfish wrote: »

So, to all the naysayers in the thread, do you think this is just made up, or some form of female conspiracy we're all in on, and we're actually matched euro for euro across the board with our male counterparts?

Just curious due to the reactions to this.

I'm not really a naysayer as such, but I'll answer anyway.

In my time I have had access to and vision of salaries for various people across organisations I've worked in. The numbers aren't really statistically significant, although the do number over 100 rather than under 10, but it is my experience with actual numbers as opposed to what I think somebody might have been earning.

I have noticed no massive discrepancies in salaries on the basis of gender. There were discrepancies based on experience or responsibility, but that's to be expected. There were also anomalies (as I pointed out in a previous post) but again I didn't see them as being gender related in either genders favour. For the most part salaries where consistent with role level and experience rather than gender, which is to say there was less than a 10% difference between similar people in similar roles on average.

I would also point out that I've had more female than male managers in my career and most of my female managers have had children without it unduly affecting their careers. That's not to say that I believe it doesn't impact on careers generally, because I think it does, but in my direct experience it hasn't.

SugarHigh

jujibee wrote: »

I am not claiming that all companies only discriminate against women there are probably companies that discriminate the other way but I am betting they are the minority. I am not even claiming that all companies discriminate, I am sure there are many companies working very hard to ensure parity of pay.

I am just saying that yes, there are instances where women who do the exact same job as a man get paid less which was the initial contention and it is not uncommon.

It seems that people find it hard to believe that there are any pay discrepancies based on gender.

What Iago described might not have been discrimination. Just because a woman gets paid more than a man or a man gets paid more than a woman doesn't make it discrimination. I'm sure there are many cases where two men in similar jobs are on different wages simply because one of them negotiated a better contract.

Iago

bronte wrote: »

Has anyone ever been asked if they're single or married in an interview?

It's very dodgy ground to ask any questions like that in an interview, but I've been asked in a roundabout way as to whether I was married/children/where I lived etc.

As I said, any interviewer asking those questions is untrained and is opening up a can of worms for the company in question.

bronte

Iago wrote: »

It's very dodgy ground to ask any questions like that in an interview, but I've been asked in a roundabout way as to whether I was married/children/where I lived etc.

As I said, any interviewer asking those questions is untrained and is opening up a can of worms for the company in question.

Yeah, I thought as much.
Got asked in an interview back in 2005 for a pretty well known company back home. I'd already filled in a form that said Ms.Bronte and the guy made a point of asking me if I were married or single.
I said I was single and was offered the job a week later.

Silverfish

SugarHigh wrote: »

Yes where the jobs are identical. Comparing construction work to cleaning work and then saying the cleaners are getting paid less because they're women isn't helping your argument. Builders were more in demand than there were people willing to be builders when compared to the cleaning industry so they got paid more it really is as simple as that.

I didn't personally state that, so I don't think it's applicable to my argument. I do the exact same as my predecessors in the role, in fact I do more as I am computer literate where they were not. Incidentally, they were on a third more than me. The only, sole difference is they were men, and I am not.
I was asked in the interview was I married or single, and if I had children.


However, I accept this point:

What Iago described might not have been discrimination. Just because a woman gets paid more than a man or a man gets paid more than a woman doesn't make it discrimination. I'm sure there are many cases where two men in similar jobs are on different wages simply because one of them negotiated a better contract.

Perhaps this may be what it boils down to? I was informed at interview stage that there were two other male candidates, and that I would be the first woman ever hired, so to be honest, with that piece of information, I didn't feel I held all the cards when it came to negotiating the pay - which they also added was not negotiable.

Procasinator

jujibee wrote: »

I am not claiming that all companies only discriminate against women there are probably companies that discriminate the other way but I am betting they are the minority. I am not even claiming that all companies discriminate, I am sure there are many companies working very hard to ensure parity of pay.

I am just saying that yes, there are instances where women who do the exact same job as a man get paid less which was the initial contention and it is not uncommon.

It seems that people find it hard to believe that there are any pay discrepancies based on gender.

Often, when taking a job (or continuing in one), salary expectations can be negotiated.

Did you ever consider that gender did not enter the equation but rather he negotiated a better deal?

In other words, there are cases where 2 people of the same-sex do the same job (with roughly the same qualifications and experience) yet one gets paid more. Should the aim then not just be equal pay, regardless of gender? Why would you assume, especially with no pattern, that you were paid less purely on the basis of you gender?

EDIT: Didn't notice SugarHigh had mentioned about negotiating wages, making a lot of what I said redundant.

Ectoplasm

SugarHigh wrote: »

You will probably be chased out of here for bringing that up.

What was the point in saying this? I'm genuinely asking. Just to take a dig at regular posters here? Why? I don't understand this.

It's an interesting discussion, and in response to the post you referenced I would be asking, was there any reason for such a discrepancy (length of service etc.) and if not, if they felt it was unfair - and not, as you implied, chasing anyone out.

amacachi

Silverfish wrote: »

I didn't personally state that, so I don't think it's applicable to my argument. I do the exact same as my predecessors in the role, in fact I do more as I am computer literate where they were not. Incidentally, they were on a third more than me. The only, sole difference is they were men, and I am not.
I was asked in the interview was I married or single, and if I had children.

How long have you been there, starting wages are falling everywhere, and how long had they been working there?

Stheno

bronte wrote: »

Has anyone ever been asked if they're single or married in an interview?

no but I did go to one interview where the ef employer checked out my wedding ring, and my address/age on my c.v. and asked how I balanced living in x place, with working in y, given that I obviously had children.

100% illegal unless he asked that of every candidate

I came across something recently which showed that that the pay gap is not so marked in men and women in their twenties, but does widen between men and women in their thirties, indicative of the impact of pregnancy on women's careers.

Iago

EMF2010 wrote: »

It's an interesting discussion, and in response to the post you referenced I would be asking, was there any reason for such a discrepancy (length of service etc.) and if not, if they felt it was unfair - and not, as you implied, chasing anyone out.

Yes length of service was a factor, but not to that degree imo.

I thought it was unfair, I raised the point, they disagreed, I resigned

Silverfish

amacachi wrote: »

How long have you been there, starting wages are falling everywhere, and how long had they been working there?

Well, the first guy had been there a number of years, so that may well be fair enough, I still have a larger workload than he had

The second person started 7 months before me, and was sacked after 6 months.

When I started, the workload increased as I brought 'more skills, experience and ability' to the table. However, the reason I *know* I got slightly shafted is I managed to find the job spec on a job site which was still up after I had gotten the job - advertised at more than I was told at interview (no salary mentioned on the site where I saw the job).

Unfortunately, without scanning up payslips, job specs, and other details, there's no more proof I can provide other than my word.

Ectoplasm

Iago wrote: »

Yes length of service was a factor, but not to that degree imo.

I thought it was unfair, I raised the point, they disagreed, I resigned

Which is completely reasonable. That kind of discrepancy is far to much to be explained away by length of service imo.

I accept that there are a lot of reasons for different pay rates - such as better negotiating, length of service. The fact of the matter is though, there is a gender gap for reasons which are sexist - the motherhood penalty is one where sexism affects both partners; women suffer in promotion and pay, men suffer in not even having the option for paternity leave. The gap may not be anything like 71:100 but the fact that it exists at all is a problem.

I'm curious though, for those who don't see it as a problem, does it boil down to the fact that you don't believe it exists?

LenaClaire

Procasinator wrote: »

Did you ever consider that gender did not enter the equation but rather he negotiated a better deal?

In other words, there are cases where 2 people of the same-sex do the same job (with roughly the same qualifications and experience) yet one gets paid more. Should the aim then not just be equal pay, regardless of gender? Why would you assume, especially with no pattern, that you were paid less purely on the basis of you gender?

I did initially assume that it was due to some sort of history or due to negotiations. When I approached the VP about the variance in our bonus structures I assumed he would have a valid reason for the discrepancy and that I would have the opportunity to ask for a change in my bonus structure as I had just been promoted again. Instead I was told he would look into it was was written up two weeks later.

That is when I changed my assumption.