Gender pay disparity - what is the truth?

political analyst

There has been a lot of debate about the disparity in salaries between male workers and their female colleagues recently, especially after the BBC revealed the salaries of some of its presenters.

I cannot believe that a woman who does the same job as a man - in the same organisation - and works the same number of hours and has been in the organisation for just as long would be paid less than the man.

Isn't it the case that a woman who has children might get paid less because of maternity leave and parental leave at other times and working a reduced number of days for that reason? That's not discrimination; that's biology.

minikin

Pay everyone in coins, women will think they’re getting the same amount - with their lovely little hands.

_Kaiser_

Shush now.. you can't be saying things like that!

It's a valid point though... certainly when I started working, we all were on the same wage and more money came as the result of performance reviews, promotion or additional responsibilities.
I don't understand how there can be an argument that someone who takes significant time out to start and raise a family, should still earn the same as their male and childless female colleagues when they come back.

Now, if they are prevented or excluded from the opportunity of making up for that lost time that's a very different (and wrong!) thing certainly, but that doesn't seem to be the argument that's made?

Ultimately it's about choices and despite what some might think, you can rarely "have it all". That's not unfair or discrimination.. that's the result of the choices you make.

VinLieger

The pay gap is a myth, none of the studies show like for like job comparisons and consistently misrepresent the facts by showing stats from across the board which doesn't work as statistically women simply work more lower paid jobs than men do.

Jim Bob Scratcher

If women went to work in the nip maybe they would get the same amount, something to consider ladies

Why don't more organisations hire more women if they are seen to be cheaper than males

amcalester

Aubrey Swift Arch wrote: »

Why don't more organisations hire more women if they are seen to be cheaper than males

They're fierce moany.

mikhail

VinLieger wrote: »

The pay gap is a myth, none of the studies show like for like job comparisons and consistently misrepresent the facts by showing stats from across the board which doesn't work as statistically women simply work more lower paid jobs than men do.

That factor, and maternity leave, as _Kaiser_ mentioned, seem to be the main sources of it.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't understand how there can be an argument that someone who takes significant time out to start and raise a family, should still earn the same as their male and childless female colleagues when they come back.

I take your point, but just to play devil's advocate here, should we financially penalise people who raise families? There's an argument at the moment over women in that situation who've lost out on the state pension. Surely child-rearing is valuable to society? Should we have a state subvention for it?

backspin.

Listen you are never going to get the truth here you'll need to go and ask Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Beta Ray Bill

It's this

political analyst wrote: »

Isn't it the case that a woman who has children might get paid less because of maternity leave and parental leave at other times and working a reduced number of days for that reason?

Effectively, it means if a woman wants to have children her career will suffer.

Women who are pregnant or are on maternity leave are overlooked for promotion, salary reviews, additional responsibilities, new projects and career advancements in general, because "Ah sure she's finishing up in X months, and she'll be gone for another X months."

This is even tougher on younger women as they haven't the bed rock of experience to deal with above bullsh*t. I think it's the reason alot of women in Ireland are having fewer children and doing it later in life. (Or not having them at all)

The gas thing is that people don't actually realise, that if women stop having kids the population will decline.

I think things are improving, but they fall far short of where they need to be.

kylith

political analyst wrote: »

Isn't it the case that a woman who has children might get paid less because of maternity leave and parental leave at other times and working a reduced number of days for that reason? That's not discrimination; that's biology.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't understand how there can be an argument that someone who takes significant time out to start and raise a family, should still earn the same as their male and childless female colleagues when they come back.

Well fck women then, eh? They should have thought about their earning potential before they chose to be born as the only gender that can bear offspring.

A Little Pony

It's a myth. If someone takes time off work after giving birth then of course males are going to be earning more. It is because they are working. It's not that difficult. It's basically another feminist myth.

_Kaiser_

mikhail wrote: »

I take your point, but just to play devil's advocate here, should we financially penalise people who raise families? There's an argument at the moment over women in that situation who've lost out on the state pension. Surely child-rearing is valuable to society? Should we have a state subvention for it?

Don't we already in the form of children's allowance, single parent tax credits, childcare subsidies (albeit early days in this regard), and other child-related payments and allowances depending on your circumstances. There's also the fact that you will have a job to go back to afterwards, which is pretty rare for extended absences (bar long term sick leave) in my experience.

Raising a family for a working parent is a choice. What we need to address is their ability to be able to return to work afterwards without financially crippling themselves. However, many mothers also prefer to be around as much as possible in those early years and don't return at all or go part-time.. that too is a choice (and also the result of a biological bond). Again nothing to do with discrimination or penalising people.

But the truth is that you cannot expect to be paid the same as someone who has put in more time and effort in your absence. It's not even a gender thing as childless women are surely just as entitled to feel the benefits of their (extra) work as well?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

kylith wrote: »

Well fck women then, eh? They should have thought about their earning potential before they chose to be born as the only gender that can bear offspring.

Take a pinch of fact, sprinkle with some hyperbole, kneed until knee jerk is clearly visible. Bake in oven for 5-10 seconds. Your "WTF cake" is now ready to eat, enjoy

I work 5 days a week, my colleague (who happens to be a recent mother), works only 3 days a week. We do the exact same job, yet you think it's fair for me to get paid the same as my colleague? That's crazy talk.

irelandrover

kylith wrote: »

Well fck women then, eh? They should have thought about their earning potential before they chose to be born as the only gender that can bear offspring.

Or the solution is to give men and women the same rights after the birth of a child. THere is no point hiring a man instead of a woman if they both can take 4 months off.

kylith

It's also not as simple as 'women take time off to raise next generation, therefore earn less'. Men are more likely to get the job and be offered more money in experiments submitting the same CV with different names.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

kylith

irelandrover wrote: »

Or the solution is to give men and women the same rights after the birth of a child. THere is no point hiring a man instead of a woman if they both can take 4 months off.

Good point. Paternity leave is a good thing.

Outlaw Pete

Love when in an effort to highlight the so called 'gender pay gap' those doing so actually go a long way to debunking it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_m5AlsQqcs

Good recent article on the reasons for the gender wage gap:

Why do women still earn a lot less than men?

In the OECD, a group of rich and middle-income countries, median wages for women working full time are 85% of those for men. Why do women still earn so much less? Contrary to popular belief, it is not because employers pay women less than men for doing the same jobs. According to data from 25 countries, gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women earn 98% of the wages of men who are in the same roles at the same employers.

Women, however, outnumber men in lower-tier jobs, such as secretarial and administrative roles, whereas men predominate in senior positions. And women cluster in occupations and industries that pay lower salaries overall.

Primary-school teachers in the OECD, for example, earn nearly 20% less than the average for university graduates. In the European Union nearly 70% of working women are in occupations where at least 60% of employees are female. In America, the four jobs done by the biggest numbers of women—teacher, nurse, secretary and health aide—are all at least 80% female.

The main reason why women are less likely than men to reach higher-level positions is that they are their children’s primary carers.

In eight countries polled by The Economist and YouGov earlier this year, 44-75% of women with children living at home said they had scaled back at work after becoming mothers—by working fewer hours or by switching to a less demanding job, such as one requiring less travel or overtime. Only 13-37% of fathers said they had done so, and more than half of those men said their partner had also scaled back.

This pattern means that men get a better shot at a pay rise or a promotion than their female colleagues, and are less likely to be in jobs for which they are overqualified. A recent study estimated that in America women’s future wages fall, on average, by 4% per child, and by 10% per child in the case of the highest-earning, most skilled white women. In Britain, a mother’s wages fall by 2% for each year she is out of the workforce, and by twice as much if she has good school-leaving qualifications.

Women’s lower salaries mean that they often fall into poverty when they divorce or are widowed. Lack of financial independence prevents some from leaving abusive partners. Policies and workplace norms that make it easier for men to split parental duties equally with their partners can tip the scale. Parents, for their part, need to instil in their children the idea that they can be anything—and not only if they are girls. Gender equality will remain elusive until boys are as excited as girls about becoming teachers, nurses and full-time parents.

o1s1n

grahambo wrote: »

It's this



Effectively, it means if a woman wants to have children her career will suffer.

Women who are pregnant or are on maternity leave are overlooked for promotion, salary reviews, additional responsibilities, new projects and career advancements in general, because "Ah sure she's finishing up in X months, and she'll be gone for another X months."

This is even tougher on younger women as they haven't the bed rock of experience to deal with above bullsh*t. I think it's the reason alot of women in Ireland are having fewer children and doing it later in life. (Or not having them at all)

The gas thing is that people don't actually realise, that if women stop having kids the population will decline.

I think things are improving, but they fall far short of where they need to be.

How can an employer give a female employee a promotion/greater responsibilities etc if she's not going to be in the office?

Those who are there working should be the ones to reap the benefits of their work. I know it can seem incredibly unfair to 'penalize' women for having children, but when it comes down to it, it's their choice to start a family.

I think this is really being looked at from the wrong angle. It's not a work issue, but an issue with how we look at maternity/paternity leave. We need to allow more opportunity for fathers to take the same amount of time off for paternity leave or some form of mixed leave where both parents have an opportunity to share the responsibility.

_Kaiser_

kylith wrote: »

Well fck women then, eh? They should have thought about their earning potential before they chose to be born as the only gender that can bear offspring.

No-one said that to be fair, however it's a fact that if pay and reward is based on effort (as it should be) then if you aren't physically there to put in that effort, you can't honestly expect to get the same rewards.

As long as there are no barriers to you returning later and catching up then there's no issue.

And yes, having a family is indeed a choice - and one with a lot of responsibility, life changes and long-term/life-long consequences. It's not for everyone (for a variety of reasons), and it'd be no harm if (some) people thought a bit more about it before starting down that road IMO.

Beta Ray Bill

o1s1n wrote: »

How can an employer give a female employee a promotion/greater responsibilities etc if she's not going to be in the office?

Those who are there working should be the ones to reap the benefits of their work. I know it can seem incredibly unfair to 'penalize' women for having children, but when it comes down to it, it's their choice to start a family.

I think this is really being looked at from the wrong angle. It's not a work issue, but an issue with how we look at maternity/paternity leave. We need to allow more opportunity for fathers to take the same amount of time off for paternity leave or some form of mixed leave where both parents have an opportunity to share the responsibility.

All fair points

If I was an employer I would find it hard to justify promoting someone who's going to be out of the office for the next 3 to 6 months.

The thing is though it's not equal because the responsibility of having children falls on the woman. (Men can't have kids)

My mate is in Sweden and I think he's taking paternity leave for a few months. He wants to be with his kids and wants to facilitate his wife going back to work but he knows for sure that his career is going to suffer as a result of it.

He said even though men and women get loads of maternity/paternity leave in Sweden, the men have to be forced to take it, where as women are just expected to.

So just increasing the amount of time Fathers can take off wont actually solve the problem as there is an expectation in Ireland and indeed across the world that: "Women look after the kids". Which ultimately is wrong.

Pac1Man

kylith wrote: »

Well fck women then, eh? They should have thought about their earning potential before they chose to be born as the only gender that can bear offspring.

... before they chose to have kids.

Being a woman doesn't affect their earning potential. Having children and being away from the workplace does.

Not all women have children. Those who don't have the same earning potential as their male counterparts.

kylith

Pac1Man wrote: »

... before they chose to have kids.

Being a woman doesn't affect their earning potential. Having children and being away from the workplace does.

Not all women have children. Those who don't have the same earning potential as their male counterparts.

Untrue. See the link in post #16. When given identical CVs, one with a female name one with a male name, the male name was deemed more experienced and hireable, and would be offered in the region of $4,000 more p/a.

suicide_circus

https://www.hrzone.com/lead/culture/why-do-women-take-more-sick-leave-than-men-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

Women also take more sick days than men. Now some of this can certainly be accounted for by women having to stay home to mind sick children. It probably also partially accounts for men's shorter life expectancy (not looking after themselves)

cfuserkildare

kylith wrote: »

It's also not as simple as 'women take time off to raise next generation, therefore earn less'. Men are more likely to get the job and be offered more money in experiments submitting the same CV with different names.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

But we do not live in America!!!

noaddedsugar

Pac1Man wrote: »

... before they chose to have kids.

Being a woman doesn't affect their earning potential. Having children and being away from the workplace does.

Not all women have children. Those who don't have the same earning potential as their male counterparts.

But men have children at the same rate that women do? It takes two to make a baby? Surely we should be addressing why the majority of the responsibility for said child falls on the mother. If we share that responsibility equally between the two sexes then women wouldn't have to take as much time out and feel like they have to go part time so they can manage the responsibilities of both work, home and child rearing that seems to escape a lot of men.

Pac1Man

noaddedsugar wrote: »

But men have children at the same rate that women do? It takes two to make a baby? Surely we should be addressing why the majority of the responsibility for said child falls on the mother. If we share that responsibility equally between the two sexes then women wouldn't have to take as much time out and feel like they have to go part time so they can manage the responsibilities of both work, home and child rearing that seems to escape a lot of men.

Go sort that out then.

As it stands though, the person with the most experience quite rightly gets paid more.

I wonder how many women would give half of their maternity leave away?

suicide_circus

Biology is unequal unfortunately

Kamu

kylith wrote: »

It's also not as simple as 'women take time off to raise next generation, therefore earn less'. Men are more likely to get the job and be offered more money in experiments submitting the same CV with different names.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

I believe you also have to take into consideration that there is an expectation for a man to negotiate their salary with a possible new employer, whether that be successful or not.
This expectation due to the fact that men do negotiate much more than women and succeed.
I can't say for certain, but I believe for women, they feel lucky for being offered the job and don't wan't to perceive to be ungrateful and jeopardize their chance at the job by negotiating.

Obviously that is not right, but if men are willing and succeeding in negotiating, while women are not, that is not a fault on a man or the company.

Pac1Man

This is my favourite bit from that study. She makes the revelation that women were equally prejudiced towards women as men were. Don't worry though, she has a reason for that:

"What this suggests is that the biases likely did not arise from overt misogyny but were rather a manifestation of subtler prejudices internalized from societal stereotypes. "


It's certainly not a scientific study anyway...

I'm pretty sure I saw a report suggesting that childless women were earning more than childless men. I'll look for it later.

And regarding maternity leave, that's 4 months paid leave with the option of another 2 months unpaid leave per pregnancy. If that employee decides to take the full 6 months as is her right and decides to have four children, she'll be missing from work for 2 years from maternity leave alone.

That's without even considering the time taken away from work for meetings, emergencies, and other activities related to her children, that requires her to miss a day or portions of the day. Childless people in the same department won't have those distractions or excuses to miss work, and therefore should be paid in a respectable manner.