The Gender Pay Gap

ricardo1

Looking around our office and after finding out a couple of things it's clear men are paid better than women here.
I've come to a number of deductions after looking at the work practice and work behaviour/relationship between our employees and management.

• Men will generally work longer hours.
• Men will generally work unpaid overtime.
• Men are sick less often.
• Women generally work maximum their contracted hours.
• Women will take longer rest breaks than normal and other break periods.
• Poor work relationships are predominantly in the female side.

I'm speaking generally but the above I believe to be the status quo and the real reason men are paid better than women.

I've worked with some women who are the contrary but they eventually crack.
With women here there's either an episode "breakdown" or a career break also known as a breakdown.

Do people here agree with me?

Lemming

According to a survey carried out by an Irish women's organisation in recent times (think it was 2014), female graduates are "-17% worse off" than their male counterparts. So no, the official figures don't agree with you (where graduates are concerned anyway ... )

Manach

Perhaps part of the gap might be explained by that women were/are traditionally in care roles and would have had to subordinate a career to that. If instead the gap is accessed in a gender-neutral fashion between those who have to juggle either child or elderly parent care with those who do not have such responsibilities would a similar gap emerge. In a concrete example: the path to some career progression is where travel is a key prerequisite and here this is simply not an option where a care recipient is dependant on that worker.

cantdecide

Looked into this area of the glass ceiling for a college project. I've lost touch with all the research I conducted at the time but the conclusion I kept seeing was, in a nutshell, men earn more, but the by the time you control for all the variables, it's a few percent. On the other hand, women, by and large, avoid the majority of 'glass floor' jobs and are, generally happier and generally live lives more of their choosing than responsibilities.

I might have a look later on for a youtube lecture by someone very accomplished in the field of gender equality and he conducted an experiment by separating the room into men and women and asked a series of questions such as 'Would you live in the city you currently do if it wasn't for your career'; 'Are you working in a field you would choose to if you had won the lottery'; 'have you worked more than x amount of weeks, months, hours last year'. There was virtually always a much greater % men standing.

He went on to discuss industries and jobs where top women earn more than top men and such. The purpose was not to ridicule the idea of the glass ceiling and this individual, I think a professor, spoke about having two young daughters and how he would guide them in their chosen career choices.

smellslikeshoes

Lemming wrote: »

According to a survey carried out by an Irish women's organisation in recent times (think it was 2014), female graduates are "-17% worse off" than their male counterparts. So no, the official figures don't agree with you (where graduates are concerned anyway ... )

What was the name of this organisation? How was the study carried out? Sample size?

Lies, damned lies and Statistics etc.

Severard

Well yes, the points you stated are the reasons why women earn less than men on average. With them in mind there is nothing wrong with the fact that women earn less than men. Also since Ireland joined the E.U. in 73' we have the Equal Pay Directive by the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 so it's illegal to pay someone less because of their gender [1].

Also for the reasons that you mentioned as to why men earn more in the company that you work in are the same reasons that women have a better quality of life outside of work in comparison to men. Women simply value life more than men. Of women who own their own company only 29% state that money is the main motivation for them compared to men at 76% [2].

Lastly the whole concept of women earning less for the same work is illogical. For example if they earn less for the same work, why hire men at all?

I think most people these days acknowledge that this is fact at this stage, with the exception of a few ideologues clinging to this notion.

[1] http://www.eumatters.ie/equal-pay.html

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv0KbQT1dvc&ab_channel=CaptainNemo

Lemming

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

What was the name of this organisation? How was the study carried out? Sample size?

Lies, damned lies and Statistics etc.

I'd hve to go looking throughj the forum to find a reference, but I've been helping friends move house the last two days so cannot. be. fvcked. right now (sorry).

Suffice to say, from what I recall, it was a fairly prominent Irish organisation. The striking thing that I recall was the -17% figure as the choice of how the statistical figure was presented was spun in such a way as to carry the narrative of women as victims rather than admitting that some groups of women fare statistically better than their male counterparts in payscales (17% better in fact) when comparing apples to apples and the only difference being gender.

Wibbs

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

What was the name of this organisation? How was the study carried out? Sample size?

Lies, damned lies and Statistics etc.

It came from the National Women's council of Ireland's report . This is the relevant part;

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men. In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.

Emphasis mine. Note how they don't come out straight and say that childless women earn 17% more on average. Blink and you'd miss it kinda thing. You'll also note that they mention women do better in education than men, yet little focus is given by society to why men are failing in that area.

Henry9

Wibbs wrote: »

You'll also note that they mention women do better in education than men, yet little focus is given by society to why men are failing in that area.

That's why this moronic concept never dies out, it's far too useful.

Every year there's a day or two of coverage about boys underperforming in secondary education, and about 60% of 3rd level places being taken up by girls. The usual rebuttal is that this isn't a problem because 'men still earn more'.

It's willfully dishonest, and anyone who writes these claims is either ignorant or a liar.

TheChizler

I think these studies rarely compare similar roles, the predominately male upper management salaries skew the figures, while a male and female in the same role would generally earn the same.

smellslikeshoes

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

What was the name of this organisation? How was the study carried out? Sample size?

Lies, damned lies and Statistics etc.

didn't see u jumping down lemmings post upthread for similar info.....any particular reason why uncorroborated claims one way are more acceptable to you than uncorroborated claims another way? behave.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

You'll also note that they mention women do better in education than men, yet little focus is given by society to why men are failing in that area.

Indeed and my e-mail to the minister for equality on exactly that issue remains unanswered 1 year on from sending it despite repeated follow ups.

Pat Mustard

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Indeed and my e-mail to the minister for equality on exactly that issue remains unanswered 1 year on from sending it despite repeated follow ups.

If you find a helpful TD, this could be raised as a Dáil question, which would be more difficult for the Minister to ignore.

The J Stands for Jay

Lemming wrote: »

According to a survey carried out by an Irish women's organisation in recent times (think it was 2014), female graduates are "-17% worse off" than their male counterparts. So no, the official figures don't agree with you (where graduates are concerned anyway ... )

So, minus 17% worse off? They earn 17% more?

Stheno

Wibbs wrote: »

It came from the National Women's council of Ireland's report . This is the relevant part;

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men. In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.

Emphasis mine. Note how they don't come out straight and say that childless women earn 17% more on average. Blink and you'd miss it kinda thing. You'll also note that they mention women do better in education than men, yet little focus is given by society to why men are failing in that area.

Ah thank you oh wise one I read the OP and immediately thought of that study.

As a woman working in IT, at a fairly senior level, I have to say I've never encountered a gender pay gap, I have faced sexism in the industry, but have never to my knowledge earned less than my male colleagues. I know at the moment I earn the same or more than them for reasons that will remain undisclosed.

However, I have a male colleague. He has three kids under five and due to family pressure is not free to travel due to his family obligations. He's currently stuck in a role he hates, at a salary level less than mine as he is not as free as I am.

The study above went into more detail, and found that as women got older they earned less. This is easily attributed to maternity leave, as women take time out due to having children. I work in IT, taking a year out would be fairly massive, doing that a few times would be a catastrophe.

That imo is what's wrong here with this pay gap, I've never had children and have slowly and steadily advanced over the years, with no constraints in terms of home life commitments, not being able to travel etc, but that imo is very unusual for a woman, and what constrains a lot of women.

McGaggs wrote: »

So, minus 17% worse off? They earn 17% more?

No -17% in that at a certain age they earn that much more.

Sleepy

Stheno wrote: »

Ah thank you oh wise one I read the OP and immediately thought of that study.

As a woman working in IT, at a fairly senior level, I have to say I've never encountered a gender pay gap, I have faced sexism in the industry, but have never to my knowledge earned less than my male colleagues. I know at the moment I earn the same or more than them for reasons that will remain undisclosed.

However, I have a male colleague. He has three kids under five and due to family pressure is not free to travel due to his family obligations. He's currently stuck in a role he hates, at a salary level less than mine as he is not as free as I am.

The study above went into more detail, and found that as women got older they earned less. This is easily attributed to maternity leave, as women take time out due to having children. I work in IT, taking a year out would be fairly massive, doing that a few times would be a catastrophe.

That imo is what's wrong here with this pay gap, I've never had children and have slowly and steadily advanced over the years, with no constraints in terms of home life commitments, not being able to travel etc, but that imo is very unusual for a woman, and what constrains a lot of women.

This is something important to teach our young women IMO and I'll be certainly talking to my daughter about it when she's a teenager. If any man or woman wants a high earning career and to have children too they need to have a partner who's prepared to take a step back in their career.

Even with great childcare facilities, someone needs to be able to call in sick when one of the kids has the flu, only one parent can be away for business at a time etc.

A lot of the women I know don't seem to quite get this: they still want the high achieving alpha male but then feel hard done by when they're the one who ends up putting their career to one side to be the primary care-giver. Their mothers generation of feminists lied to them: you can't have it all.

It may be possible if you're from a wealthy background or have an extremely high earning capacity or partner that affords you the luxury of having a "hobby career" or to delegate your parenting to a full-time nanny but I've never quite understood the latter myself: why have kids if you barely see them?

keane2097

It would seem like giving men proper paternity leave rights would mitigate that particular issue a bit. Especially if the paternity leave was obligatory as it is in some countries.

Sleepy

It'd be a step in the right direction though, to be honest, I'm not sure how having mandatory minimums would suit all couples... e.g. a family where one partner is a stay-at-home parent might struggle with the loss of income caused by this unless employers are required to pay full salary during this period of leave etc.

Honestly, I think the harder change will be the cultural one. As much as many claim it's what they want, I know very few women who would actually find a modern man who'd be happier being the primary care-giver sexually attractive. Perhaps it'll be different with the next generation, the pop-stars that younger teenagers swoon over certainly seem less masculine than those of the past (though that's probably been said by every generation of men since the second world war!).

keane2097

Sleepy wrote: »

It'd be a step in the right direction though, to be honest, I'm not sure how having mandatory minimums would suit all couples... e.g. a family where one partner is a stay-at-home parent might struggle with the loss of income caused by this unless employers are required to pay full salary during this period of leave etc.

Honestly, I think the harder change will be the cultural one. As much as many claim it's what they want, I know very few women who would actually find a modern man who'd be happier being the primary care-giver sexually attractive. Perhaps it'll be different with the next generation, the pop-stars that younger teenagers swoon over certainly seem less masculine than those of the past (though that's probably been said by every generation of men since the second world war!).

That would be the idea, yes.

Potatoeman

They could bring in gender quotas for part time jobs. Which is the practicle solution. It's bad for the individual woman that wants to work part time but a far more realistic solution. Why would companies pay women more if they can just cut back on part time jobs available to them?

I guess the gender studies graduate that started this campaign doesn't really give a toss about individual women.

Sleepy

keane2097 wrote: »

That would be the idea, yes.

Well, given that there's currently no entitlement to be paid during maternity leave in Ireland, that would probably be the best way to pursue such a change. Far easier to get the feminists on board with something to do with equality when it also happens to work in favour of women.

tritium

Sleepy wrote: »

Well, given that there's currently no entitlement to be paid during maternity leave in Ireland, that would probably be the best way to pursue such a change. Far easier to get the feminists on board with something to do with equality when it also happens to work in favour of women.

Wasn't their a bill being pushed through to establish a legal right to (limited) paternity leave? I thought it was due to be in place around about now. Any word on where that's at?

Stheno

keane2097 wrote: »

That would be the idea, yes.

Never going to happen, employers don't currently have to pay maternity leave

Potatoeman wrote: »

They could bring in gender quotas for part time jobs. Which is the practicle solution. It's bad for the individual woman that wants to work part time but a far more realistic solution. Why would companies pay women more if they can just cut back on part time jobs available to them?

I guess the gender studies graduate that started this campaign doesn't really give a toss about individual women.

Why are you focussing on part time jobs?

tritium wrote: »

Wasn't their a bill being pushed through to establish a legal right to (limited) paternity leave? I thought it was due to be in place around about now. Any word on where that's at?

No Labour have pledged to introduce two weeks paternity leave

http://www.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/paid-paternity-leave-will-it-spell-good-news-for-irish-fathers-31034724.html

Are you thinking of parental leave?

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/proposed-year-of-paid-parental-leave-is-baby-step-in-right-direction-1.2168951

Potatoeman

Stheno wrote: »

Why are you focussing on part time jobs?

]

The pay gap is based on take home pay which means women working more part time jobs and men working more overtime skews the figures.

ricardo1

Stheno wrote: »

The study above went into more detail, and found that as women got older they earned less. This is easily attributed to maternity leave, as women take time out due to having children. I work in IT, taking a year out would be fairly massive, doing that a few times would be a catastrophe.

That imo is what's wrong here with this pay gap, I've never had children and have slowly and steadily advanced over the years, with no constraints in terms of home life commitments, not being able to travel etc, but that imo is very unusual for a woman, and what constrains a lot of women.

This may be the case in your situation as is the situation in my workplace but any statistical overview I find shows women have a much lower % of senior/corporate office or board member positions. Fortune 500 state that % being circa 16-18%.

Is having children or the prospects to have children the only explanation why a higher % of women never achieve seniority in management to the level men do therefore earning less?

Maguined

ricardo1 wrote: »

This may be the case in your situation as is the situation in my workplace but any statistical overview I find shows women have a much lower % of senior/corporate office or board member positions. Forbes state that % being circa 16-18%.

Is having children or the prospects to have children the only explanation why a higher % of women never achieve seniority in management to the level men do therefore earning less?

Men are far more more likely to negotiate with their employees. Companies will try and get away with paying their employees what they can in order to maximise profits. If more men than women try to negotiate higher wages they are more likely to get it which would contribute to the wage gap.

I presume this would also contribute towards promotions as well. I don't think any stufy specifically mentioned it but I would imagine if you had two employees of equal skill and one has been aggressively negotiating for wages and the other has not when it comes to promotions the aggressvie negotiater would likely get it over the person who just accepts what is given.

ALiasEX

Some employers will raise someones wages to try to keep them. I would guess that happens more often with men.

smash

ALiasEX wrote: »

Some employers will raise someones wages to try to keep them. I would guess that happens more often with men.

I would guess it happens more often with valued staff members disregarding their gender.

H3llR4iser

McGaggs wrote: »

So, minus 17% worse off? They earn 17% more?

Exactly - "childless" women earn around 17% more than "childless" men. Very sneaky and dishonest way of putting it in the statistic, using a negative value, and goes to show how easy it is to distort data.

Stheno wrote: »

Why are you focussing on part time jobs?

I guess the assumption is that a number of women moves to a part-time job, or generally less hours once they become parents. I am in no way sure if such scenario is prevalent or not - but it is plausible: what I can say is that I have witnessed many of the women I worked with over the years (in the very same field as you), actually going exactly that way - from 40 hours/week before pregnancy, they negotiated down to 30-something hours/week once they had a child. Obviously, most companies will realign the salary to the new work schedule.

And then there is the problem of time constraints; As the bulk of the raising/attending children process still somehow falls on the mothers, they'll be the ones to need more time off / special arrangements. The whole thing is actually a bit of a minefield - it's unfair that somebody would be passed up, say, for a promotions because she needs to take time off to attend her offspring; It would be more or less equally unfair if she got the promotion ahead of somebody else because of that.

One last thing - be careful what you wish for when we talk about "paternity leave" and having the same arrangements for men as women currently can avail of. It can lead to a very unpleasant situation, opposite to what the idea is - rest assured that employers will look into ways for dads to be paid less, rather than for mothers to be paid more...

Sierra 117

H3llR4iser wrote: »

rest assured that employers will look into ways for dads to be paid less, rather than for mothers to be paid more...

Yep. Just look at Reddit. Women can't negotiate higher salaries as well as men so what does Reddit do? Put a system in place to help women become better negotiators?

Nah, they just abolished salary negotiation instead thereby punishing everyone.

Sleepy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

it's unfair that somebody would be passed up, say, for a promotions because she needs to take time off to attend her offspring

Why?

I'd see it as being utterly unfair to give someone who takes time off to attend their offspring a promotion above someone who doesn't all other things being equal and, as such, an entirely fair factor to take into consideration when hiring / promoting employees. Obviously, it shouldn't be the only factor, for instance someone taking time off to mind their kids who's more productive than their colleagues could still be the best candidate for the promotion but it's certainly a valid criteria to weigh into the decision imo.

H3llR4iser

That is exactly the controversy - people with kids see it as unfair, they go the "it's not a fault I have kids!"; People without kids see the situation equally unfair when a special consideration is given to the former (and it happens, believe me), going the "having kids is not a merit..." way. They both have a point.

Also, in an ideal world timing wouldn't be a valid judgement criteria taken alone - if somebody can do in 4 hours what everyone else does in 8, and spends the remaining 4 in the toilette, I would see them as exactly on par; However in my experience, most managers of people put a little too much attention on timekeeping - work your arse off, accomplish things that the others in the same office don't even know where to begin with, then ask to come in or leave one hour late/early once a month (because you have something to do, not just 'cause you like it!) and see what happens :mad:

NachoBusiness

I guess is about votes but David Cameron has recently announced a crackdown on companies paying women less than they pay men and has called for full disclosure from them with regards to what they pay each gender, thereby at least implying skulduggery, if not exactly coming out and declaring it's existence.

Discussed in the following clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf5_mHh51t0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bu4CRiw9mg

keane2097

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Yep. Just look at Reddit. Women can't negotiate higher salaries as well as men so what does Reddit do? Put a system in place to help women become better negotiators?

Nah, they just abolished salary negotiation instead thereby punishing everyone.

That applies to everyone.

A lot of big companies don't do salary negotiations. TBH it seems like the right approach.

Lemming

TBH, a lot of big companies don't do salary negotiations not because they're all tumblr-feminist-friendly, but because they just don't give a sh*t about their staff. To state the obvious, "not the right approach" all things considered towards preventing high staff turnover and lower productivity because your employees in turn don't give a sh1t or b) because your staff are having to constantly re-learn the proverbial manual as people leave and take accrued business knowledge with them.

H3llR4iser

keane2097 wrote: »

That applies to everyone.

A lot of big companies don't do salary negotiations. TBH it seems like the right approach.

It's the right approach only if you want to have to constantly hire and train new people - blocking all salary negotiations means that staff, especially the more senior one, will find better offers and leave.

It's something that's happening right now in many IT companies around Ireland - most of the people hired in the 2009-2014 period, who accepted low(ish) salaries because the market was stale, are moving around as the market upturns.

As I posted somewhere else, I was flatly denied a rather modest raise in August - and when I say "flatly", I mean no reason given other than "we don't to that", also implying more or less directly that it won't be likely to happen in the future.

I'm not the first one in the office to experience this, as a result we are bleeding people left, right and centre. About 10-15 people left since the beginning of the year, some of them quite senior (project leaders, managers et all) and another one handed his notice in today. This just form the business unit I work in.

Getting work done is becoming increasingly difficult - the few remaining ones are getting twice or thrice the workload, and the (very few, actually) new hires need a couple of months before being completely up to speed.

ALiasEX

ALiasEX wrote: »

Some employers will raise someones wages to try to keep them. I would guess that happens more often with men.

Or maybe men are more likely to accept them. (because money is more of a factor for men when choosing a job)

Sleepy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

That is exactly the controversy - people with kids see it as unfair, they go the "it's not a fault I have kids!"; People without kids see the situation equally unfair when a special consideration is given to the former (and it happens, believe me), going the "having kids is not a merit..." way. They both have a point.

For what it's worth, I have two kids and my wife is a stay-at-home mother / part-time childminder. The reality is that having kids isn't a merit, it's a personal decision and one which, for most of us, restricts our professional lives. Demanding equal treatment to those who don't have the restrictions of parenthood is farcical imo (unless you're prepared to put your career ahead of your kids? ).

Also, in an ideal world timing wouldn't be a valid judgement criteria taken alone - if somebody can do in 4 hours what everyone else does in 8, and spends the remaining 4 in the toilette, I would see them as exactly on par; However in my experience, most managers of people put a little too much attention on timekeeping - work your arse off, accomplish things that the others in the same office don't even know where to begin with, then ask to come in or leave one hour late/early once a month (because you have something to do, not just 'cause you like it!) and see what happens :mad:

I'd agree on this point which is why I explicitly pointed out the potential for the employee working lower hours to be the more productive.

Good managers don't tend to be so focused on this once you're not contracted to be available to clients between certain hours (e.g. the usual 9 - 5.30). I work fairly long hours but if I need to come in an hour or two late on a given morning, I do. No one has ever tried to "bring it to my attention" because they know that, on balance, the extra hours I do more than cover such (rare) occasions.

Cold War Kid

ricardo1 wrote: »

With women here there's either an episode "breakdown" or a career break also known as a breakdown.

That's a new one to me.

But yes, the reason women earn less on average is clearly due to having children. I don't get why the studies leave this rather significant factor out (well I do, actually - it would cancel out the whole "Women get paid less" argument). Also, numerous women work part-time hours/job-share when they return to work, and take parental leave.

ShowMeTheCash

Just to add my two bit's on this.

Warren Farrell talks about this in some detail and although he is a guy he was a member of NOW National Organization for Women and is an avid woman’s campaigner and I think he talks sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

I think the pay gap in the US/UK/Ireland varies from occupation but the number 80c to the euro was bantered about. Or 77cent to the euro I guess it can depend on the statistic you look at.

I think the first thing to remember is people or not the same, people keep using this term "equal" but for something to be equal everyone would need to be the same, do the same things make the same choices.

So firstly is there a pay gap.... Yes
But can that pay gap be explained? I think most of it can.

I think people need to take the emotions out of this.
People often say "Do men work harder" the word harder is an idiotic term simply used to goad people it really means nothing.
What we really need to look at is what hours, days, weeks and years do men put into paid employment vrs women.

Studies have shown men generally work longer hours than women

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

Warren Farrell talks about this, saying that women generally made decisions to make them happier, work less, spend more time with family and friends, take longer holiday time etc.....
Men are generally unhappier and more work centred.

The next thing he talks about is motivational influences.
When people have children generally two things happen.

Usually the mother takes time off but also generally the mother will make her work life or career fit around her family life opting usually to spend more time at home with her children.

The opposite usually happens with the father, increase financial burden with a new individual to care for and perhaps a partner who leaves the work space usually forces him into working longer hours.

I keep hearing feminist say "women should not be punished for having children" this is not a punishment it's a practicality.

A new study shows that women are earning more than men up until the age of 30

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/11832042/Women-earn-more-than-men-in-their-20s-until-the-pay-gap-hits-at-age-30.html

Now some people are saying this is due to positive discrimination.
I think a number of years ago UK companies FTSE 250 were told they need to increase the % of women in the board room.

When looking at engineering roles which are predominantly male (There are reasons for that also) you will find that female engineers will make more early on than their males counterparts.

Reason being as there are less females companies are under pressure to ensure they try and employee an equal number of females albeit there are less of them, this demand will usually mean companies will compete more for female staff.


Looking at some of the stats I understand that stats can lie or be bent to try and support a point and Warren Farrell talks about this in his book, you need to compare apples with apples and the stats are sometimes comparing apples and oranges.


Personally I think the feminst drive only looks at the numbers men and women should earn the same, I think that would be only be true if the time spent in paid employment is the same, I think feminst need to stop using the emotional "Do you think men work harder....." Harder is a relative term and only used to rile people up!

fits

Im just going to leave this here.

bobbysands81

The gender pay gap is only a private sector issue and it's about time the private sector sorted it.

silverharp

fits wrote: »

Im just going to leave this here.

cool story bro! , Ive worked in multinationals for over 2 decades and have never come across any of that

Potatoeman

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The gender pay gap is only a private sector issue and it's about time the private sector sorted it.

Can't imagine why a capitalist system isn't socialist?

It's very easy to fix but women may not like the result. Gender quota's in part time jobs and overtime would be a good start. Not good for individual women though.

fits

silverharp wrote: »

cool story bro! , Ive worked in multinationals for over 2 decades and have never come across any of that

you just assumed I was male.

silverharp

fits wrote: »

you just assumed I was male.

didnt think about it in fairness but in "the Gentlemen's Club" and a generic username , why ought I not? I am critical of the video though, it's a nonsense based on what ive seen during my work career.

fits

silverharp wrote: »

didnt think about it in fairness but in "the Gentlemen's Club" and a generic username , why ought I not? I am critical of the video though, it's a nonsense based on what ive seen during my work career.

Anyone who thinks they dont have some level of unconscious bias going on is lying to themselves in my opinion. Male and female. I just assumed a new manager was male the other day and had to check myself. (turned out they werent)

ITs also not a nonsense based on my work experience.

OneOfThem

fits wrote: »

Im just going to leave this here.

Sames!

SNIP

This is a fun thread.

tritium

fits wrote: »

Im just going to leave this here.

Of course one of the problems with large organisations producing nice colourful PR fluff like that is it actually does feck all to address these biases. Partially because it implies these biases are one way (largely because we've been subconsciously biased to believe this by various prominent groups). Take the first one for example -I agree an assumption that a woman with kids would want part time hours is unfair. Is it more unfair than the assumption that a father shouldn't? Or indeed the more current assumption that a woman shouldnt be penalised for that even if it means a colleague who takes up the slack doesn't get any career benefit?

Equally I look at the gets so emotional clip and frankly it looks like a variation of a performance conversation I'd have with a team supervisor about many of my team regardless of gender. Its just dumb to pigeonhole it as some sort of sexist mantra.

Which is surprising from bright people like McKinsey hire

So I'll assume it has more to do with nice PR than actually giving a **** about identifying the detail of a real problem...

fits

OneOfThem wrote: »

Sames!

SNIP

This is a fun thread.

I thought self promotion wasnt allowed on boards.

bee06

fits wrote: »

Im just going to leave this here.

After over 10 years of working in multinationals I've never come across anything like that either. I had to laugh at the maths relates one as well. I'm in a data analysis role and no one has ever doubted the quality of my work because I'm a woman. 10 out of the 13 senior managers and directors are women in my current job as well.