Women get paid less because they take more sick leave

Stheno

crashvictim wrote: »

You laugh at the fact that I say if women want to have equal career chances as men then they shouldnt have kids, well I laugh at that.

what about men who want kids? Should they abdicate their careers?

Bloody Nipples

ntlbell wrote: »

You missed the "not all" then...

I did actually :P apologies.

crashvictim

Stheno wrote: »

what about men who want kids? Should they abdicate their careers?

Well they generally need the consent of a female partner to have kids. If they force there other half to copulate its generally considered as rape. The other half knows the commitment she is giving when she agree's to become pregnant. The nine months of pregnancy, the maternity leave etc etc. The female is fully aware of the affects this will have on her career. If she wants to go all the way to the top of the organisation she should refuse to have kids.

Stheno

crashvictim wrote: »

Well they generally need the consent of a female partner to have kids. If they force there other half to copulate its generally considered as rape. The other half knows the commitment she is giving when she agree's to become pregnant. The nine months of pregnancy, the maternity leave etc etc. The female is fully aware of the affects this will have on her career. If she wants to go all the way to the top of the organisation she should refuse to have kids.

And you wouldn't consider that if the male and the female chose to equally share all of the parenting that that could be a solution so that it doesn't impact on either career?

Sleepy

Stheno, in that case, tbh, it'd effect both careers. For most couples with kids, a decision has to be made as to who has the better career / salary to support the family and the other sacrifices career opportunities. Maternity leave has a big impact on career prospects (likelihood of the woman having more children, time needed to get back up to speed on return and loss of experience/skills etc. making her less likely to be promoted) and, all other things being equal, it'll usually be her career that gets sacrificed. Fair? Maybe not. Solution? Enforced paternity leave of equal duration. Though, even at that, gender differences will most likely still see the women being more likely to adopt the primary carer role imho.

Men statistically earn more than women because men statistically work longer hours and take less career breaks than women. Feminazis would insist that statistically men and women should have the same pay, completely disregarding the individual career choices regarding work/life balance involved and that to equalize rates of pay in isolation would leave women being paid higher hourly rates than men they have the same number of "years" of experience as even though the likelihood is that they've worked less hours in those years and therefore have less experience.

Many women will out-earn their make counterparts because they're simply worth more to the organisation than their counterparts and that's fine. The feminazis need to realise, however, that it's ok for a man to be worth more to an organisation than a woman too.

BTW, I'm the sole-earner in our family, however, if my partner had a better paying or similar paying with better prospects career than myself, I'd have happily been the primary carer, either as a stay-at-home dad or in a position where I didn't have to work unsuitably long hours for a parent.

Scanlas The 2nd

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

That a women who doesn't have children is more likely to be promoted isn't in question. It's the fact that a woman in NZ doing the same job as a man can expect to earn 88 cents for every 1$ the man earns.

QUOTE]

I'd say a large percentage of the difference is due to the fact that men ask for raises and promotions more or say they will quit if they don't get a raise or promotion. I just don't think women would do that nearly as much as men. I'd put the difference that is down to sexism to be a small percentage.

Stheno

Sleepy wrote: »

Stheno, in that case, tbh, it'd effect both careers. For most couples with kids, a decision has to be made as to who has the better career / salary to support the family and the other sacrifices career opportunities. Maternity leave has a big impact on career prospects (likelihood of the woman having more children, time needed to get back up to speed on return and loss of experience/skills etc. making her less likely to be promoted) and, all other things being equal, it'll usually be her career that gets sacrificed. Fair? Maybe not. Solution? Enforced paternity leave of equal duration. Though, even at that, gender differences will most likely still see the women being more likely to adopt the primary carer role imho.

Men statistically earn more than women because men statistically work longer hours and take less career breaks than women. Feminazis would insist that statistically men and women should have the same pay, completely disregarding the individual career choices regarding work/life balance involved and that to equalize rates of pay in isolation would leave women being paid higher hourly rates than men they have the same number of "years" of experience as even though the likelihood is that they've worked less hours in those years and therefore have less experience.

Many women will out-earn their make counterparts because they're simply worth more to the organisation than their counterparts and that's fine. The feminazis need to realise, however, that it's ok for a man to be worth more to an organisation than a woman too.

BTW, I'm the sole-earner in our family, however, if my partner had a better paying or similar paying with better prospects career than myself, I'd have happily been the primary carer, either as a stay-at-home dad or in a position where I didn't have to work unsuitably long hours for a parent.

I agree with everything you say, Sweden have the shared maternity/paternity leave system in place and enforce paternity leave iirc for a minimum period. Making a leap such as crashvictim has saying that women shouldn't have kids full stop if they want to do well in their career is a bit much imo. Your last post being an example of how it could be achieved.

Scanlas The 2nd

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

You're also assuming that all women are in discomfort while on their periods which isn't the case by a long shot. only 2-5% show significant symptoms.

That's enough to bring average productivity down and which could bring average wages down.

ninjasurfer1

Here's some information that may point to women taking more time off than men:

From an article on risk equalisation (BUPA vs VHI).

"average health expenditure is higher for women than for men after age 25. At 38, the average age of BUPA Ireland members, expenditure per female is about double that for male. Between 38 and 44 female health expenditure per person falls by almost a third. Female per head health expenditure exceeds male health expenditure per head by about a quarter at age 44".

www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2005_papers/TEP8.doc

Given the big difference in health spending, i think its fair to assume that some of this expenditure may result in more time taken off....

Otis Driftwood

Im locking this thread for the moment til I can do a full review however my initial reaction is that Im not one bit impressed with some of the stuff being trotted out.

Otis Driftwood

Ive re opened this thread however let me make one thing clear.

OP,Im not sure what you are hoping to gain with this thread however any more insults from you directed at other members will result in a ban.You are also throwing around some pretty outlandish sentiments so Id tread carefully and read our charter if I were you.

If posters have an issue with a post,then report and the mods will take a look.

Please keep it civilized and there will be no problems.

Dr Galen

Some of you may notice that the original OP has been site banned.

This is not specifically for this thread or his posts in it. Rather, he was identified as a re-reg of a previously banned poster.

For that reason, I wouldnt expect any replies to questions you have put to him. I'm sure the discussion can carry on though, and I'd echo what Otis says above.

Do remember the charter, and please also bear in mind where this discussion is taking place and the ethos of the forum. We welcome posts from men and women once they are OT and are not malicious in nature.

the_syco

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

That a women who doesn't have children is more likely to be promoted isn't in question. It's the fact that a woman in NZ doing the same job as a man can expect to earn 88 cents for every 1$ the man earns.

Every woman, or the average women? For example, if 40 women gave birth during the career, and 5 didn't, it'd mean 87.5% of the women would be unavailable for a certain time frame. Because of this, it would seem the employers in NZ value the men more. Sure, not all women will want a shild, but due to statistics, the employers in NZ are discriminating against women. As it's shown in Ireland, statistics are used against men, and likewise in NZ, against women, it only takes a few people to screw it up for everyone else.

Stheno wrote: »

And you wouldn't consider that if the male and the female chose to equally share all of the parenting that that could be a solution so that it doesn't impact on either career?

Does this include childbirth? If anyone is not in work for a few months, it can impact on their job. Holidays are usually planned, and can be done around the busy time of business. Pregnancy can't always be such an exact science, and thus if it happened during a busy season, someone else may reap the rewards of working hard during that time period.

Sleepy

Stheno wrote: »

I agree with everything you say, Sweden have the shared maternity/paternity leave system in place and enforce paternity leave iirc for a minimum period. Making a leap such as crashvictim has saying that women shouldn't have kids full stop if they want to do well in their career is a bit much imo. Your last post being an example of how it could be achieved.

I also forgot to mention one other big factor here: women who would prefer to keep their careers whilst their partner becomes the primary child-carer need to agree this with their partner before ever getting pregnant i.e. only have kids with "modern" men who have no problem with / would enjoy being primary carer.

With society norms being what they are, an assumption that a man will give up his career so that she can pursue hers is probably a little presumptuous. Not saying she needs his permission or anything like that but given the way most of us have been brought up, it makes sense to have the discussion before the kids and any resentment that may build up afterwards.

Sparky_Larks

I am amazed how this same discussion come up again and again.

A posters personal experience which differs to the average case does not make the average incorrect.

I am also amazed at how many people take a post like , women take more time off, to mean every woman takes more time off than a man, and not the clearly implied on average women take more time off then men. This is then followed up by about 20 posts discussing whether people said Every or some ....

Any way, over a working live women on average will work less than a man in the same job.

1) A large percentage of women will become pregnant and take 6 to 9 months off. No men take maternity leave so that will skew the average down.

2) Many families choose that the father starts to work harder and longer hours to progress their career to allow the mother to stay become the primary care giver. There are many reasons for hosing this. Some families choose not to do this , in some others the mother works the longer hours and the father becomes the primary caregiver.

This again brings the average down.

3) IMHO, Women tend to be better at keeping a work life balance, and are less likely to work 12 hour days. Some do

BUT from my experience , Women to work long hours get rewarded. Men who work long hours get rewarded.

In New York studies show young women ear 17% more than young men. I have also read studies which suggest that childless women earn more than childless men.

eoferrall

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

That a women who doesn't have children is more likely to be promoted isn't in question. It's the fact that a woman in NZ doing the same job as a man can expect to earn 88 cents for every 1$ the man earns.


For the most part yeah. There were some areas like the checkouts which were female dominated, but in the drapery and grocery floor areas, men and women did the same jobs. Packing out shelves, hygiene teams, deli counters etc.

You keep saying that for every man who earns $1 a woman earns 88c for the same job, this is untrue as you have to take into account the wide range of jobs that feed into this statistic. In my office for example, there is no difference in male and female pay grades, only you performance rating impacts your wage and everyones is originally the same.

BUT if you take into account EVERYONE who works in the building, cleaners receptionists etc then the AVERAGE female wage drops as I can guarantee you a cleaner earns less than the average professional in the office. and to be honest in every job I have had the cleaning staff is considerably weighted towards the female gender. Thus you need to look at sectors and jobs to compare. not just some stupid average across all areas. as that 12% is VERY meaningless. it proves nothing one way or the other.

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

I am amazed how this same discussion come up again and again.

A posters personal experience which differs to the average case does not make the average incorrect.

I am also amazed at how many people take a post like , women take more time off, to mean every woman takes more time off than a man, and not the clearly implied on average women take more time off then men. This is then followed up by about 20 posts discussing whether people said Every or some ....

Any way, over a working live women on average will work less than a man in the same job.

1) A large percentage of women will become pregnant and take 6 to 9 months off. No men take maternity leave so that will skew the average down.

2) Many families choose that the father starts to work harder and longer hours to progress their career to allow the mother to stay become the primary care giver. There are many reasons for hosing this. Some families choose not to do this , in some others the mother works the longer hours and the father becomes the primary caregiver.

This again brings the average down.

3) IMHO, Women tend to be better at keeping a work life balance, and are less likely to work 12 hour days. Some do

BUT from my experience , Women to work long hours get rewarded. Men who work long hours get rewarded.

In New York studies show young women ear 17% more than young men. I have also read studies which suggest that childless women earn more than childless men.

Having read this thread the whole way through there is a lot of discussing as you say of every and some etc. all about a meaningless statistic. If someone can provide a proper range of facts then an effective discussion can take place.

for instance if someone can show that a bank teller (tried to chose a job where gender can have no impact on ability) who is male earns more then a discussion on wage differentials in that job and the fairness.

Bloody Nipples

eoferrall wrote: »

You keep saying that for every man who earns $1 a woman earns 88c for the same job, this is untrue as you have to take into account the wide range of jobs that feed into this statistic. In my office for example, there is no difference in male and female pay grades, only you performance rating impacts your wage and everyones is originally the same.

BUT if you take into account EVERYONE who works in the building, cleaners receptionists etc then the AVERAGE female wage drops as I can guarantee you a cleaner earns less than the average professional in the office. and to be honest in every job I have had the cleaning staff is considerably weighted towards the female gender. Thus you need to look at sectors and jobs to compare. not just some stupid average across all areas. as that 12% is VERY meaningless. it proves nothing one way or the other.

Eh except it is true? The debate isn't that women earn on average less than men because there are more women working in menial/part-time work, this is very true. I sincerely hope you don't think I'm so imbecilic to miss such an obvious fact. The difference is that on average women earn 88c for every $1 earned by men when doing the same job.


I took my facts from NZ's National Equal Opportunities Network (NEON), a partnership between the Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Trust, which says:

While every New Zealander is currently concerned about job security and the economic recession, women are suffering a double whammy effect because of the pay equity problem. For every $1 earned by men in New Zealand today, women earn just 88 cents. Many Māori and Pacific women have poorer economic outcomes.

and:

Pay and employment equity reviews conducted recently in 39 Government departments and 21 District Health Boards showed there was still significant gender-based pay inequality with women earning on average between 3% and 35% less than men. Women’s starting salaries were also lower than men’s for similar jobs.

and more specifically:

The pay investigation of education support workers who work with special needs children in schools shows they are paid $7.57 less per hour than Corrections Officers, a job that’s been evaluated as a similar size, at the lower end of their pay scale. At the upper end of their pay scale the difference is $4.07.

and:

Female special education support workers were also paid a $1 less average hourly rate than their male counterparts, even though the women had on average longer service, says the EEO Commissioner.

Still meaningless, untrue and proving nothing?

eoferrall

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Eh except it is true? The debate isn't that women earn on average less than men because there are more women working in menial/part-time work, this is very true. I sincerely hope you don't think I'm so imbecilic to miss such an obvious fact. The difference is that on average women earn 88c for every $1 earned by men when doing the same job.

if the debate wasn't on the average, why is the average being discussed and quoted everywhere?

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

I took my facts from NZ's National Equal Opportunities Network (NEON), a partnership between the Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Trust, which says:

While every New Zealander is currently concerned about job security and the economic recession, women are suffering a double whammy effect because of the pay equity problem. For every $1 earned by men in New Zealand today, women earn just 88 cents. Many Māori and Pacific women have poorer economic outcomes.


and:
Pay and employment equity reviews conducted recently in 39 Government departments and 21 District Health Boards showed there was still significant gender-based pay inequality with women earning on average between 3% and 35% less than men. Women’s starting salaries were also lower than men’s for similar jobs.

and more specifically:
The pay investigation of education support workers who work with special needs children in schools shows they are paid $7.57 less per hour than Corrections Officers, a job that’s been evaluated as a similar size, at the lower end of their pay scale. At the upper end of their pay scale the difference is $4.07.

and:
Female special education support workers were also paid a $1 less average hourly rate than their male counterparts, even though the women had on average longer service, says the EEO Commissioner.

Still meaningless, untrue and proving nothing?

yes i was talking about the average, so quoting it and saying it over and over is meaningless and adds nothing to a discussion. I'm not calling you imbecilic, everyone seemed to be doing it, yours just happened to be the post i quoted!

The above is quiet interesting, but i am wondering why they can not compare jobs the same and not jobs "that are of a similar size". or are they saying there are NO male education support workers in NZ? to be honest this would concern me just as much as pay inequality. I have read many of these surveys (did labour economics as a module in college) and that point always stuck out. so rare are the same jobs compared, always similar jobs. Why do they not pick a common job like lawyer etc that sex should have no baring on imo? my lecturer never satisfied me that question!

but a $7 an hour differential in government departments would be very concerning to me if I was in NZ and should be addressed or reasoning provided. looks to me like legacy systems like in Ireland the women in Gov work having to quit when married.

Bloody Nipples

eoferrall wrote: »

if the debate wasn't on the average, why is the average being discussed and quoted everywhere?

Apologies if I'm all *RAGE*, this thread just really pissed me off the thread began by Alisdair Thompson justifying the fact that there was a gender pay inequity of 12% by blaming some women's "monthly illnesses". This pay inequity of 12% is where the $1 to 88c thing came from there was never any dispute on the fact that women's total wages as a gender is less than men's. So women's average wage is really totally irrelevant to a discussion that began about inequities in the levels of pay for equal work done.

eoferrall wrote: »

The above is quiet interesting, but i am wondering why they can not compare jobs the same and not jobs "that are of a similar size". or are they saying there are NO male education support workers in NZ? to be honest this would concern me just as much as pay inequality. I have read many of these surveys (did labour economics as a module in college) and that point always stuck out. so rare are the same jobs compared, always similar jobs. Why do they not pick a common job like lawyer etc that sex should have no baring on imo? my lecturer never satisfied me that question!

If you look again at my previous comment I did say

Female special education support workers were also paid a $1 less average hourly rate than their male counterparts, even though the women had on average longer service, says the EEO Commissioner.

which is a reference to inequalities in pay of special education support workers by gender.

eoferrall

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Apologies if I'm all *RAGE*, this thread just really pissed me off the thread began by Alisdair Thompson justifying the fact that there was a gender pay inequity of 12% by blaming some women's "monthly illnesses". This pay inequity of 12% is where the $1 to 88c thing came from there was never any dispute on the fact that women's total wages as a gender is less than men's. So women's average wage is really totally irrelevant to a discussion that began about inequities in the levels of pay for equal work done.

No worries!:D

But yeah to say that type of comment as in the OP is just plain dumb (whether you believe it or not!) but I don't see that as a reasoning, the maternity leave etc is a much bigger reason.

I know in my work people who take time out (whether for babies or traveling etc) later in their careers (ie not after just traveling) tend to get left behind a bit more, which unfortunately impacts the women at the higher levels. for example the managers in work in my dept are ALL women, but partners are nearly all men.

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

If you look again at my previous comment I did say which is a reference to inequalities in pay of special education support workers by gender.

Yeah I noticed that about the longer hours and $1 less pay, not sure how that is rationalised. It's a wonder in this day and age things like this are not evened out more. or more concrete "reasons" are not produced. like car insurance... at least they try and justify (don't wish to discuss insurance!)

I know when I was in school and working in a bar, one of the girls was looking at my pay slip (without permission) and realised I was earning more than her per hour for the same job. she went balistic and walked straight into the bosses office. he calmly told her to gtfo and that I was on a permenant contract with a set wage she was not, she could get O/T i got the same wage no matter the hours worked.

Basically all I am saying is this whole area is a minefield and differences can on the surface appear to be there, but reasons exist sometimes... very difficult area to ascertain true inequality in pay unfortunately I think.

to be honest, NZ is sounding like somewhere I wouldn't be keen on working!;) no wonder they produce beast after beast in rugby - its the only way out haha!

cocoa

here's an idea...

If people do less work, for whatever reasons: period, maternity leave, hungover, moody, whatever... then pay those people less, do not make wild assumptions about the group those people belong to.

Actually, better still, encourage everyone to take time off for medical reasons if they need to (stitch in time and all that) and if you think someone is abusing it, punish the person, not the group.

Is this so difficult?