Gender pay gap- real or just a result of bad negotiations?

lifeandtimes

I'm starting this thread separately from the other threads as they were for specific individuals and their pay.

I'd be of the mind set that the "gender pay gap" doesn't exists based purely on gender but more down to bad negotiations from employees and/or their agents.

An article in the indo today regarding a tv3 present who has left after 11 years blaming the gender pay gap as the reason why.

This person was happy with the figure agreed from the get go and is only having issue now as this is a hot topic.

Certainly if a woman is unhappy with their pay(which they agree to too begin with) she must discuss a pay raise with the immediate superior. The same goes for men.

I've seen people try to use a sweeping generalization that men work longer hours, are more likely to work unpaid/ over time hours, are sick less etc and I for one don't personally believe that, although I have seen it for my own eyes I've seen it stand for the male sex too.

No i believe its all down to negotiations, I can't blame anyone else if my male or female colleague get paid more than me for the same job because I agree the salary before I begin employment

Any thoughts?

PeterParker957

lifeandtimes wrote: »

I'm starting this thread separately from the other threads as they were for specific individuals and their pay.

I'd be of the mind set that the "gender pay gap" doesn't exists based purely on gender but more down to bad negotiations from employees and/or their agents.

An article in the indo today regarding a tv3 present who has left after 11 years blaming the gender pay gap as the reason why.

This person was happy with the figure agreed from the get go and is only having issue now as this is a hot topic.

Certainly if a woman is unhappy with their pay(which they agree to too begin with) she must discuss a pay raise with the immediate superior. The same goes for men.

I've seen people try to use a sweeping generalization that men work longer hours, are more likely to work unpaid/ over time hours, are sick less etc and I for one don't personally believe that, although I have seen it for my own eyes I've seen it stand for the male sex too.

No i believe its all down to negotiations, I can't blame anyone else if my male or female colleague get paid more than me for the same job because I agree the salary before I begin employment

Any thoughts?

Yes - it doesn't exist. Anywhere.

There's a "pay gap" between a single, childless woman (like me e.g.) and someone who has taken a decade out to raise children.

And so there should be.

Brian Dobson set a new Irish virtue signalling record when saying he was "baffled how Sharon ni Bheolain earns less than I do".

He has more experience and qualifications as a journalist. That's how!

lifeandtimes

PeterParker957 wrote: »

He has more experience and qualifications as a journalist. That's how!

There is the dreaded 3 little letters on lots of job postings that confirms this - Salary= DOE

Can't argue there

PeterParker957

lifeandtimes wrote: »

There is the dreaded 3 little letters on lots of job postings that confirms this - Salary= DOE

Can't argue there

Well feminists can but it involves stamping their little feet and moaning about patriarchy or some bo****ks!

Subcomandante Marcos

This article from the journal last December explains the realities of it quite well.



http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-pay-gap-ireland-statistics-facts-3133536-Dec2016/



It breaks down to this. Men are more likely to enter higher paying, often times more dangerous professions, women are more likely to be stay at home parents, part time workers or work in lower paying service industry Jobs.

This means that when you compare average wages between men and women, it looks pretty clear cut and unfair out of context.
When you compare median wage the difference is less Sark, but still exists.

Within similar roles that gap pretty much disappears when hours worked, experience, etc are taken into account but there is abnormalities in some industries.

Billy86

This is about 3-4 years old, but I remember Wibbs I think it was pointing out that while (using rough figures here, can't remember them specifically) men earn 14% more than women on average, women under 30 without kids earn 17% more than men. It's not the be-all and end-all of the discussion but shows that while there probably is plenty of residual pay gap differences in older demographics, it does not appear to be the case among younger professionals (if anything, the reverse, though that may also correlate with girls on average scoring a bit better in the LC if I recall).

It also shows that children change all of this, which brings up another thing - maternity leave, which should have long ago been replaced with parental leave. It's unfair on everyone - the mother, the father and the child - that if dad earns €28k and mom earns €55k she still has to take the six months or however long it currently is off while he gets almost no time at all. It puts more pressure on both the parents with less money, gives the child a less beneficial situation, and has a significant impact on mom's career which (assuming both parents are around the same age) seem considerably brighter than dad's.

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

There's a "pay gap" between a single, childless woman (like me e.g.) and someone who has taken a decade out to raise children.

And so there should be.

But our societies need children - and it is only women that can give them.

Childless (selfish) women, like yourself, should be also additionally penalised (exp. by being additionally taxed) for not keeping the society going.

cantdecide

Remember, the vast majority of us are not earning 6 figure salaries and what's harmful about these stories to all of us is that Dobbo has no idea if the father who mows his lawn and the mother who scrubs his loo part time earn the same money and if those genders were reversed would the hourly pay would be any different. Somehow, I'd doubt it. In the meantime, the mower and cleaner are at each others throats over the pay gap.

I think if you're talking about anyone that is paid a six figure salary, that is negotiated behind closed doors, it's virtually impossible to know from the outside what the basis of agreement is. This is especially true for the likes of Dobbo and Tubbers and the likes of that set where it is difficult for a non industry expert to have a fair depiction of what is acceptable for top-end talent and what the organisation is getting in return for this pay. If Dobbo had left and a junior male newscaster took his place, I would fully expect Sharon to earn more and not think twice about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0JcZfFGQw

Worth a watch - he performs an experiment with his audience to determine the choices and sacrifices in the attendees to determine whether the women and men are on equal footing in the room.

Farrell initially came to prominence in the 1970s as a champion the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Although today he is generally considered "the father of the men’s movement", he advocates that “there should be neither a women’s movement blaming men, nor a men’s movement blaming women, but a gender liberation movement freeing both sexes from the rigid roles of the past toward more flexible roles for their future.”[1]

University teaching[edit]
Farrell has taught university level courses in five disciplines (psychology; women's studies; sociology; political science; gender and parenting issues). These were at the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego; the California School of Professional Psychology; in the Department of Women's Studies at San Diego State; at Brooklyn College; Georgetown University; American University, and Rutgers.[4]

Mr. CooL ICE

grogi wrote: »

But our societies need children - and it is only women that can give them.

Childless (selfish) women, like yourself, should be also additionally penalised (exp. by being additionally taxed) for not keeping the society going.

what... the... actual...

BrokenArrows

There is a pay gap but in most situations it is a justified pay gap.

The main reasons for a pay gap in my opinion are:

1. Negotiation. Men are far more likely to negotiate and negotiate strongly. Women will likely accept the first offer or just be poor negotiators.

2. Comparing Male and Females of the same age and qualifications who are in the middle of their careers Women are more likely to have taken significant time off work to have children or just a career break. So there careers could be a few years - many years behind their male counterparts.

3. Lack of drive. Most women do not have the same drive to succeed that men do. Men are raised to be judged by their pay check so are motivated by that. Society still sees it as strange for a man to be a stay at home husband to look after the kids and it would also be totally unacceptable for men to stay at home without kids and not work while the woman is out working, but the reverse is totally acceptable for women. All of this leads to more pressure and motivation for men to succeed but women always know its ok for them to do nothing so have less motivation.

4. A very very small amount of the pay gap is down to discrimination and unconscious choice that a man deserves more money.


Disregarding the law, if you have two candidates sitting in front of you one male and the other female with identical qualifications, experience and suitability for the job then most employers will pick then man. Its just a more reliable choice.

Martina1991

grogi wrote: »

But our societies need children - and it is only women that can give them.

Childless (selfish) women, like yourself, should be also additionally penalised (exp. by being additionally taxed) for not keeping the society going.

Ridiculous point. Should men be taxed if they don't put their sperm to good use?

VinLieger

Any study put forward as proving the gender pay gap exists does not correctly compare like for like jobs and likely ignores women taking time out for children oas well as the fact that men on average work far more dangerous and thus higher paid jobs than women

Geuze

There is no gender pay gap.

There is a gender earnings gap.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

But our societies need children - and it is only women that can give them.

Childless (selfish) women, like yourself, should be also additionally penalised (exp. by being additionally taxed) for not keeping the society going.

Yes we do so we should have mandatory full paid parental leave that is shared between both parents with men having to take a minimum amount.

The issue isn't that women take time out for children its that men don't.

Also calling someone selfish for not having children is also ignorant and moronic as fvck.

Ulysses Gaze

grogi wrote: »

But our societies need children - and it is only women that can give them.

Childless (selfish) women, like yourself, should be also additionally penalised (exp. by being additionally taxed) for not keeping the society going.

TheDavester

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

This article from the journal last December explains the realities of it quite well.



http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-pay-gap-ireland-statistics-facts-3133536-Dec2016/



It breaks down to this. Men are more likely to enter higher paying, often times more dangerous professions, women are more likely to be stay at home parents, part time workers or work in lower paying service industry Jobs.

This means that when you compare average wages between men and women, it looks pretty clear cut and unfair out of context.
When you compare median wage the difference is less Sark, but still exists.

Within similar roles that gap pretty much disappears when hours worked, experience, etc are taken into account but there is abnormalities in some industries.

I'm surprised the Journal came out with that as they've a anti man stance, looking to take sjw route and go the lazy route of "women are being screwed"

professore

Billy86 wrote: »

This is about 3-4 years old, but I remember Wibbs I think it was pointing out that while (using rough figures here, can't remember them specifically) men earn 14% more than women on average, women under 30 without kids earn 17% more than men.

Reported dishonestly in Journal.ie as -17% less than men. Can't find the reference but that's how they reported it.

cloudatlas

Then social coercion comes into play, men earn more as they don't take time out from their careers the women stay at home and wait at the school gates we are told that this is not societal pressure or because my mam did it and her gran did it.. we are told that the women 'choose' this, nothing to do with societal norms and how women are brought up, from the present of the toy pram and the kitchen to the societal pressure to have kids etc., but then not many men choose this and why is that?

This has been discussed to death in other threads...

lifeandtimes

The gap is also "evident" between males of high earning jobs.

Look at Alexis Sanchez of arsenal he earns 11.5 million a year while Mesut Ozil earns 7.3 million.

Both very talented but neither moaning about a pay gap.

The reason Brian Dobson gets paid more than Sharon is similar to the above, Sanchez is worth more to the club than Ozil. Other station should pry him awsy with a decent offer and if a new counterpart came in he would earn far less than Sharon.

The pay gap is non existent in lower paying jobs, I know of people working in call centres and it's the same across the board for everyone

seamus

BrokenArrows wrote: »

4. A very very small amount of the pay gap is down to discrimination and unconscious choice that a man deserves more money.


Disregarding the law, if you have two candidates sitting in front of you one male and the other female with identical qualifications, experience and suitability for the job then most employers will pick then man. Its just a more reliable choice.

LOL.

These two declarations don't match up.

The whole pay gap thing is the subject of much debate, largely IMO down to the fact that when the figures are reported on, the methodology is rarely included.

So when you report "women are paid 10% less than men", without any contextual information, then it's really easy for me (or anyone) to fill in that contextual information with justifiable reasons why it may be true - women work less, women are less experienced after taking time off, etc etc.

Come to me and tell me that, "On an hourly basis, women are paid 10% less than men for exactly the same work", then it's much harder to explain that away as being down to reasonable factors.

I'm 50:50 on the whole "better negotiators/more experienced" thing. I don't think it's right that employers should pay one man more money than another because he's a better negotiator. There's a level of exploitation there; hire meek employees and treat them like dirt. Score! It's a system that invariably favours the cocksure and arrogant rather than rewarding the talented. And that's not the kind of economy that does well in the long run.

In terms of being more experienced, that's a bit pointless if they're doing the same work. Someone who's been working a cash register for 10 years is not automatically a more valuable employee than someone who's been doing it for five. They're both about as good as you can get at a simple job. Years of experience should never automatically yield higher pay.

---

I like Gueze's differentiation of "earnings gaps" rather than "pay gap". This better reflects the nuance of the matter - that women on average earn less per year than men.

BrokenArrows

cloudatlas wrote: »

Then social coercion comes into play, men earn more as they don't take time out from their careers the women stay at home and wait at the school gates we are told that this is not societal pressure or because my mam did it and her gran did it.. we are told that the women 'choose' this, nothing to do with societal norms and how women are brought up, from the present of the toy pram and the kitchen to the societal pressure to have kids etc., but then not many men choose this and why is that?

This has been discussed to death in other threads...

Yes its a lot to do with societal norms but you cant reverse it. Women will always have to have the child and take time off work for that reason.

And it will always be strange for men to stay at home while the wife is out working regardless of whether she makes more money or not.

PeterParker957

lifeandtimes wrote: »

The gap is also "evident" between males of high earning jobs.

Loom at Alexis Sanchez of arsenal he earns 11.5 million a year while Mesut Ozil earns 7.3 million.

Both very talented but neither moaning about a pay gap.

The reason Brian Dobson gets paid more than Sharon is similar to the above, Sanchez is worth more to the club than Ozil. Other station should pry him awsy with a decent offer and if a new counterpart came in he would earn far less than Sharon.

The pay gap is non existent in lower paying jobs, I know of people working in call centres and it's the same across the board for everyone

Seven men in my office, three women. I earn more than four of the men and am in the middle of the women!

dan1895

lifeandtimes wrote: »

The gap is also "evident" between males of high earning jobs.

Loom at Alexis Sanchez of arsenal he earns 11.5 million a year while Mesut Ozil earns 7.3 million.

Both very talented but neither moaning about a pay gap.

The reason Brian Dobson gets paid more than Sharon is similar to the above, Sanchez is worth more to the club than Ozil. Other station should pry him awsy with a decent offer and if a new counterpart came in he would earn far less than Sharon.

The pay gap is non existent in lower paying jobs, I know of people working in call centres and it's the same across the board for everyone

Never thought I'd see the RTE newsroom compared to Arsenal's attacking midfielders but there you go.

challengemaster

lifeandtimes

seamus wrote: »

There's a level of exploitation there; hire meek employees and treat them like dirt. Score!

Why on earth would someone want to employee meek people, as a recruiter you want the best of the best to do the job and confidence helps in a lot of areas

razorblunt

lifeandtimes wrote: »

There is the dreaded 3 little letters on lots of job postings that confirms this - Salary= DOE

Can't argue there

Doe? A deer, a female deer?

Sounds horrible skewed towards mná na hÉireann.

lifeandtimes

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Seven men in my office, three women. I earn more than four of the men and am in the middle of the women!

Better start kicking up a fuss about equality and the equivalent to feminism (meninism?)

PeterParker957

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Better start kicking up a fuss about equality and the equivalent to feminism (meninism?)

Nah. I earn a decent living. I believe in equality - not mindless feminism for the sake of it!

seamus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Why on earth would someone want to employee meek people, as a recruiter you want the best of the best to do the job and confidence helps in a lot of areas

Some areas. If you just want someone to STFU and do their job, then a meek person is what you want. Personal confidence (as in, being confident in yourself) and social confidence (as in, being confident in talking to others) are two entirely separate competencies.

A meek worker can be a high performer, but one who who will nod and smile during a salary review.

If you're hiring sales people, then you may want someone who's a complete moron but can talk up a storm.

The number of jobs in which social confidence is important, is a lot smaller than you think.

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes we do so we should have mandatory full paid parental leave that is shared between both parents with men having to take a minimum amount.

Absolutely agree

The issue isn't that women take time out for children its that men don't.

If a woman is already earning less, it is only rational for the less earning person to take time off.

We need a systemic way to balance the time women are out of work because they have children. Then grow, give birth and then rise the children and they might be slightly less experienced because of that etc - but they should not be penalised in any way. From social point of view those women contribute more than men or childless women, yet they earn less. That is unfair.

Also calling someone selfish for not having children is also ignorant and moronic as fvck.

It might be a generalisation, apologies for that. But it is only very few people that don't have children because they cannot have them. Majority choose not to, because they don't want the additional hassle. Because they want to keep their standard of living, they want to have their time off and salary. It is exactly that - caring about yourself first.

grogi

challengemaster wrote: »

And now, how probable it is for a woman will be promoted over equally capable man? If there is no bias, it should be 50%.