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

PeterParker957

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ok i may have exaggerated when i said that its always ok, but you cant deny there is a vast different in the perception of a woman who doesnt work and a man who doesnt work.

When i was talking about reliability i was considering the business impact of things like maternity leave.
If an employer hires a woman there is a risk that they will need to fund their maternity leave (which can mostly be claimed back from the government usually). However there is far more lost when someone takes maternity leave. The business loses the persons experience, and are legally unable to permanently replace them, hiring temporary staff is costly and it is time consuming to train new staff to do the job. There is also a risk that the woman on maternity leave will decide at the end that they dont want to return to work.

Try being a working woman who didn't want, has never wanted and never will want kids.

Apparently we're selfish pariahs!

VinLieger

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Try being a working woman who didn't want, has never wanted and never will want kids.

Apparently we're selfish pariahs!

Killin the species so ye are

PeterParker957

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You seen the new UK Army recruiting advert ?? "I am big enough for the army!", tiny little thing in fatigues. Great for diversity eh ??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Incidentally the minimum height for recruits is 148cm or 4ft 10 in old money.

Good luck against a sabre wielding ISIS warlord in Mosul there Kylie!

PeterParker957

VinLieger wrote: »

Killin the species so ye are

Well, I wanted to do it with spiders but sure aim high!

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

Killin the species so ye are

We have been outsourcing that - but then wake up surprised with the ethnic tension in the streets...

PeterParker957

grogi wrote: »

We have been outsourcing that - but then wake up surprised with the ethnic tension in the streets...

Oh lovely, my lack of a maternal instinct and career priority has led to the rise of ISIS in Europe.

Joy.

VinLieger

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh lovely, my lack of a maternal instinct and career priority has led to the rise of ISIS in Europe.

Joy.

Betraying the sisterhood every way you turn

PeterParker957

VinLieger wrote: »

Betraying the sisterhood every way you turn

I also thought the all female version of Ghostbusters was s***e and if you make me watch Bridesmaids I will sell out my country in a heartbeat.

:D:D:D:D

professore

Again this one shows there are intrinsic differences in preferences between males and females IN GENERAL. It doesn't mean they aren't equal, just different. Just the same way as I am equal but different to Usain Bolt.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

grogi

grogi wrote:

At one year old they don't care. So get them all of them, not only girlish or boyish toys. Every time you interact with the baby ask yourself - would you do exactly the same if the baby was opposite sex? If you can honestly answer that yes, you are not discriminating.

Or, ya know, enjoy your time with your baby and accept that men and women are naturally inclined to be different (not lesser or better) due to their sex.

meeeeh

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Try being a working woman who didn't want, has never wanted and never will want kids.

Apparently we're selfish pariahs!

No you are not but not having kids doesn't make you any better employee either. Not poping as sprog is not an achievement to be revarded by itself with higher pay.

PeterParker957

meeeeh wrote: »

No you are not but not having kids doesn't make you any better employee either. Not poping as sprog is not an achievement to be revarded by itself with higher pay.

Just that pesky six months where I do the work of two while she eats for two eh ?

meeeeh

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Just that pesky six months where I do the work of two while she eats for two eh ?

If you are able to do the work for two then you are obviously slacking the rest of the time.

PeterParker957

meeeeh wrote: »

If you are able to do the work for two then you are obviously slacking the rest of the time.

Wow. Just wow!

No, it's called getting in an hour earlier, working through lunches, not leaving till 8pm the night before a big exam, working a Saturday ......

How actually dare you!

meeeeh

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Wow. Just wow!

No, it's called getting in an hour earlier, working through lunches, not leaving till 8pm the night before a big exam, working a Saturday ......

How actually dare you!

Which would be what my partner does without claiming he works for two or looking for a medal.

The fact is people miss work for various reasons that doesn't make them better or worse employees. One of our best employees does not do overtime at all. But he also does the same amount of stuff in 3 days than previous one did in five and It's done better. I know who is paid more.

PeterParker957

meeeeh wrote: »

Which would be what my partner does without claiming he works for two or looking for a medal.

The fact is people miss work for various reasons that doesn't make them better or worse employees. One of our best employees does not do overtime at all. But he also does the same amount of stuff in 3 days than previous one did in five and It's done better. I know who is paid more.

I'm not looking for a medal.

I'm asking that I not be penalised by having someone do less work than me, over a shorter time period but be given the same level of pay and benefits.

That is effectively paying me less.

meeeeh

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'm not looking for a medal.

I'm asking that I not be penalised by having someone do less work than me, over a shorter time period but be given the same level of pay and benefits.

That is effectively paying me less.

Again maybe they are better at their job or as good in shorter time. Or they might be beyter at negotiating ther pay raise or whatever. You claim there is no gender gap so if you coworker is on the same money as you then there are obviously some other reasons.

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'm not looking for a medal.

I'm asking that I not be penalised by having someone do less work than me, over a shorter time period but be given the same level of pay and benefits.

That is effectively paying me less.

You're fighting a losing battle. Women in employment who have children are going to be given benefits above childless women or men. It's the way things have gone. It started with their jobs being guaranteed, (which was reasonable), but it didn't stop there and those benefits will continue to expand. It's not about fairness...It's not about equality. It's about "entitlement".

Wanderer2010

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Wow. Just wow!

No, it's called getting in an hour earlier, working through lunches, not leaving till 8pm the night before a big exam, working a Saturday ......

How actually dare you!

If you come to work an hour, work through lunch, stay late and some Saturdays then you are a mug, male or female, and your company is laughing at you.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The physical competency test also differs.

This is where this type of thing becomes dangerous. Not only the life of the recruit but lives of others get put at risk.

You can't ignore physical differences between m&w in the likes of the military or Fire Departments. It's incredibly irresponsible behaviour.

Wanderer2010

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

If you come to work an hour, work through lunch, stay late and some Saturdays then you are a mug, male or female, and your company is laughing at you.

That really depends on your industry and the way promotions are determined. To get to mid-upper management in many companies requires that you spend more time in the office beyond your normal work hours.

It really comes down to your ambition. I initially didn't have much ambition, worked my standard hours, and got the basic promotions for normal work behavior. Later I became ambitious in a consulting firm, put in a hefty amount of work, got noticed, and entered upper management. When the Partners are working 60+ hours a week themselves, they expect the same from anyone else who wants to join them at the top.

When all your work peers are as skilled or educated as you... you have to show your dedication to the firm as being the deciding factor for serious promotions and salary raises. That usually translates into working more.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fighting a losing battle. Women in employment who have children are going to be given benefits above childless women or men. It's the way things have gone. It started with their jobs being guaranteed, (which was reasonable), but it didn't stop there and those benefits will continue to expand. It's not about fairness...It's not about equality. It's about "entitlement".

You're not wrong there.

I love being told that I"m actually crap at my job, don't work hard and deserve f**k all. Whereas da mommiez do it all.

HashtagFeminismMeHoop

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

That really depends on your industry and the way promotions are determined. To get to mid-upper management in many companies requires that you spend more time in the office beyond your normal work hours.

It really comes down to your ambition. I initially didn't have much ambition, worked my standard hours, and got the basic promotions for normal work behavior. Later I became ambitious in a consulting firm, put in a hefty amount of work, got noticed, and entered upper management. When the Partners are working 60+ hours a week themselves, they expect the same from anyone else who wants to join them at the top.

When all your work peers are as skilled or educated as you... you have to show your dedication to the firm as being the deciding factor for serious promotions and salary raises. That usually translates into working more.

My view always has been that if someone needs to work 60 hours a week at their current level to do their job than either

(1) They are not good enough to do their job and certainly couldn't handle the next level
(2) Cannot delegate to others or work in teams and therefore not suitable for a senior management role
(3) Haven't the resilience or mettle to request that their workload be made more appropriate and therefore not suitable for a senior management role.

PeterParker957

blanch152 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

That really depends on your industry and the way promotions are determined. To get to mid-upper management in many companies requires that you spend more time in the office beyond your normal work hours.

It really comes down to your ambition. I initially didn't have much ambition, worked my standard hours, and got the basic promotions for normal work behavior. Later I became ambitious in a consulting firm, put in a hefty amount of work, got noticed, and entered upper management. When the Partners are working 60+ hours a week themselves, they expect the same from anyone else who wants to join them at the top.

When all your work peers are as skilled or educated as you... you have to show your dedication to the firm as being the deciding factor for serious promotions and salary raises. That usually translates into working more.

My view always has been that if someone needs to work 60 hours a week at their current level to do their job than either

(1) They are not good enough to do their job and certainly couldn't handle the next level
(2) Cannot delegate to others or work in teams and therefore not suitable for a senior management role
(3) Haven't the resilience or mettle to request that their workload be made more appropriate and therefore not suitable for a senior management role.

Or were brought up with a work ethic.

Wanderer2010

Deleted User wrote: »

That really depends on your industry and the way promotions are determined. To get to mid-upper management in many companies requires that you spend more time in the office beyond your normal work hours.

It really comes down to your ambition. I initially didn't have much ambition, worked my standard hours, and got the basic promotions for normal work behavior. Later I became ambitious in a consulting firm, put in a hefty amount of work, got noticed, and entered upper management. When the Partners are working 60+ hours a week themselves, they expect the same from anyone else who wants to join them at the top.

When all your work peers are as skilled or educated as you... you have to show your dedication to the firm as being the deciding factor for serious promotions and salary raises. That usually translates into working more.

I know people have differing levels of ambition and that's fine, every company needs the worker bees and the ambitious people, but there is a misconception about "rising to the top" that a lot of people miss. You want to become a supervisor, so you spend long hours at the office and weekends and studying in your spare time etc. Eventually you get a promotion and a new office and phone and title. Do you think your work stops there?

No. You are still expected to do the same hours, you cant be seen to just head home at clocking out time, because everyone else in your position has to keep up with the workload. Same with being a partner, a senior manager etc. The work never stops and it becomes your life, making it a mugs game. If your whole life is your job then you are happy out but if you had it in mind that after your job promotion, you can settle into a happy 9-5 existence with plenty of time for family, that's a dream.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That really depends on your industry and the way promotions are determined. To get to mid-upper management in many companies requires that you spend more time in the office beyond your normal work hours.

It really comes down to your ambition. I initially didn't have much ambition, worked my standard hours, and got the basic promotions for normal work behavior. Later I became ambitious in a consulting firm, put in a hefty amount of work, got noticed, and entered upper management. When the Partners are working 60+ hours a week themselves, they expect the same from anyone else who wants to join them at the top.

When all your work peers are as skilled or educated as you... you have to show your dedication to the firm as being the deciding factor for serious promotions and salary raises. That usually translates into working more.

And I sleep with the boss and do the wages so I pay myself whatever. It saves me hell of a lot this work thing agro. I would recommend.

I live with workaholic who put in seriously long hours a and would probably invent work if he had to mind kids for a few afternoons. But I also don't get this cult of long hours. Majority of people are not 50% more productive working 60 hours instead of 40. Unless people are enjoying what are they doing so much they want to live in the office they need some off time. There is nothing worse than dying and ending with a gravestone inscription 'he/she was a dedicated employee' because there is nothing else to tell about them.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

My view always has been that if someone needs to work 60 hours a week at their current level to do their job than either

(1) They are not good enough to do their job and certainly couldn't handle the next level
(2) Cannot delegate to others or work in teams and therefore not suitable for a senior management role
(3) Haven't the resilience or mettle to request that their workload be made more appropriate and therefore not suitable for a senior management role.

Do you work in the private sector? Ever worked at managerial levels?

Wanderer2010

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

No. You are still expected to do the same hours, you cant be seen to just head home at clocking out time, because everyone else in your position has to keep up with the workload. Same with being a partner, a senior manager etc. The work never stops and it becomes your life, making it a mugs game. If your whole life is your job then you are happy out but if you had it in mind that after your job promotion, you can settle into a happy 9-5 existence with plenty of time for family, that's a dream.

Oh. I totally agree with you. I eventually went for top management and then Partner in a consultancy group... did the incredibly long hours and in the end, I gave it all up because it wasn't for me. One day sitting in a meeting, seeing the jaded looks on my colleagues (the majority of which had health problems, and/or marriage issues), I realized that neither the money or the other benefits were worth it. Many of my friends are still in that kind of system, and they're 'happy' with the stress, and risks involved, but it's not my thing anymore.

Since then I've changed my career a number of times, and now I'm a freelancer on the internet. Far better lifestyle.

BUT. There are financial/social benefits for those working like that. I didn't like the costs involved, but I know many who don't see the costs as being too negative and wouldn't want a normal job making an average salary. It's a system with benefits and negatives. Just like many other jobs.

PeterParker957

I love my job btw. I been the area for 16 years (working 30 nearly all told) and i work hard. I get paid well. Not enough for the Maldives every year bit enough for a few beers at weekend when bills are paid.

Just bugs me when I'm told I either slack off or by working hard I will forever remain a grunt.