nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

zedhead wrote: »

But why is it those things are down to the mothers to do? You say childless people in the same department but what you mean is childless people and fathers. Children have 2 parents in the workplace - why aren't fathers missing just as much work for these things?

I would assume that is the choice made within the family unit. There are generally better layers of support for the woman to miss work than for the man. Even today the numbers of fathers staying at home is relatively low compared to women who do so, and there isn't much support for that to change.

One of the reasons I am thinking about not having children is because of this. It is my career that will be inevitably affected and not my partners. We need to start not only allowing couples to divide maternity leave however they see fit but also actively encouraging fathers to use this. It is easier for women to ask for a shortened week to spend more time with their family - its normal for women to ask for this but strange if a man was to.

Yup. I see your point. I do. However, as a single male, who doesn't have children, I don't see why childless people should be penalized for others choosing to have children. There should naturally be support provided by the government for families... not the employers. Otherwise, why should single or childless people be required to commit more to a job than those with children? Where is the benefit to working longer hours and being available to work far more readily?

zedhead

Neutral Definite wrote: »

It's personal choice between Mothers and Fathers who is the main child carer if any.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would assume that is the choice made within the family unit. There are generally better layers of support for the woman to miss work than for the man. Even today the numbers of fathers staying at home is relatively low compared to women who do so, and there isn't much support for that to change.

The system is set up in a way that makes it easier for women to take on that role and we need to work to change attitudes. I know of people who have asked school & creches who have been. Even in the post I quoted there was no mention of men missing work to do those thing - employers are more understanding of women taking this time off because they have already decided that this person has decided to make the sacrifice when they chose to have a child. It is more difficult for men to ask for this time off and that is what needs to change. Its less of a choice for people and more of an assumption about how things work.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. I see your point. I do. However, as a single male, who doesn't have children, I don't see why childless people should be penalized for others choosing to have children. There should naturally be support provided by the government for families... not the employers. Otherwise, why should single or childless people be required to commit more to a job than those with children? Where is the benefit to working longer hours and being available to work far more readily?

How are childless people being penalised?
I am saying that if parents took time off more equally then there wouldn't be a gender pay gap for the reasons listed in this thread. All of those things would affect mothers and fathers equally.

hatrickpatrick

grahambo wrote: »

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

The population needs to decline, and urgently so. The planet cannot continue to support unchecked human population growth for much longer - as they put it in The Matrix, humans are fast becoming more of a plague or virus on this planet than a mere species.

I for one find it very relieving to know that more and more people are going child free whether by choice or circumstance. I realise that it absolutely sucks for people who really want to have a family and can't, but in all honesty looking at the bigger picture I feel that society as a whole is in desperate need of it.

Much of society's current malaise can be at least partly attributed to overpopulation. When overpopulation was tested in rodent species, their civilisations collapsed into violence and apathy, which seems to me to be happening to human civilisation in exactly the manner described in the experiment.

It absolutely astounds me that people who remain child free, especially women, are often criticised as being somehow "selfish". In reality, at least in my opinion, they're helping to postpone what currently seems like an inevitable resource crisis as the human population continues to expand.

So in short, if circumstances are preventing people from having kids, while I'm sympathetic to the disappointment and heartbreak it causes on an individual level, it's a good thing. Future generations will be glad of not having to live on a planet which simply cannot keep up with our population, resource-wise, and enable everyone to live with a high standard of living anymore. I fully believe that this time is coming far sooner than many think, so stories about falling reproduction levels among humans actually give me reason to celebrate.

bodice ripper

So the obvious solution here is compulsory paternity leave. Level playing field.

Are Am Eye

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The population needs to decline, and urgently so. The planet cannot continue to support unchecked human population growth for much longer - as they put it in The Matrix, humans are fast becoming more of a plague or virus on this planet than a mere species.

I don't think it's time yet to reach for radical, off the wall solutions like families remaining childless.

A more simple and common sense way forward would be to put large numbers of people into Hyper Sleep, aboard an Inter-Galactic Space Ship which will cruise the Cosmos on route to their Host Planet to further continue the glorious reign of Mankind in his peaceful accord with nature and the universe.

[Deleted User]

zedhead wrote: »

How are childless people being penalised?
I am saying that if parents took time off more equally then there wouldn't be a gender pay gap for the reasons listed in this thread. All of those things would affect mothers and fathers equally.

Only if you assume that the gender pay gap rests solely on gender. It doesn't. If you're going home to look after the kids, you'll be facing the same pay gap as your wife currently would be. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to commit to the job as much as a single person. Unless, of course, you're willing to hire someone to watch the children, and take care of all those little emergencies and obligations.

In any case, the maternity leave is still a major factor. Having four pregnancies in 4 years means missing work for two years of that time if she takes the full 6 months. 2 years... out of work while others are working to pick up the work she is not doing... since the employer is still required to hold her job for her, and not hire a replacement, which means that others already in the company will likely have to pick up the slack. Unless you're expecting an employer to pay two employees to do one job...? Won't happen often. They'll pass the workload on to others, and those others should receive some extra benefits for doing it.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup. I see your point. I do. However, as a single male, who doesn't have children, I don't see why childless people should be penalized for others choosing to have children. There should naturally be support provided by the government for families... not the employers. Otherwise, why should single or childless people be required to commit more to a job than those with children? Where is the benefit to working longer hours and being available to work far more readily?

No they shouldn't be penalised for that. However since the whole health/pensions systems works only with the constant influx of fresh workforce being childless isn't exactly benefiting society in the long run. It's all about balance, people have kids for selfish reasons but if they bring up kids into functioning employable adults they are actually more productive than people who don't have children.

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I objected noting women who chose not to have children or couldn't have children.

Which occurred at the end of a sentence where the phrase many women (and by implication, not all) was specified.

Whatever pedantic axe you have to grind, I suggest finding other posts to launch off.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless you're expecting an employer to pay two employees to do one job...? Won't happen often. They'll pass the workload on to others, and those others should receive some extra benefits for doing it.

Why would you expect that? Employers in Ireland don't have to pay maternity leave. They can if they want to but they don't have to. At least get the basics right.

[Deleted User]

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The population needs to decline, and urgently so. The planet cannot continue to support unchecked human population growth for much longer - as they put it in The Matrix, humans are fast becoming more of a plague or virus on this planet than a mere species.

Population growth in Asia and Africa needs to decline because they can't support it, and invariably it means they will come to Europe/America. Europe is still capable of supporting far more than it currently does. For now. Immigration will likely change that.

No. Costs in the Western world need to be reduced. Living costs and the costs inherent in having children and raising of those children. Frankly, it is ridiculous the costs required for education, medicine, etc. Surely, all our technological advances should reduce the costs of living, but instead, costs are rising, and the overall quality of products is slowly decreasing.

I'm totally for people raising larger families like they did 60-100 years ago. I can think of very few families near me with more than 3 children... whereas my parents often mention family history referring to families with 6-8 children. The issue is the cost of living which means that people need to work more, and can't afford to have as many children (if they wanted them).

I'm against this Gender wage gap because it's unfair to single or childless families. I'm not against supporting families in other ways though, even if it meant higher taxation.

[Deleted User]

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would you expect that? Employers in Ireland don't have to pay maternity leave. They can if they want to but they don't have to. At least get the basics right.

Right you are. I hadn't realized that. Dependent on the employment contract.

Good to know. Thanks! Perhaps time to rethink it all.

[Deleted User]

andekwarhola wrote: »

Which occurred at the end of a sentence where the phrase many women (and by implication, not all) was specified.

Whatever pedantic axe you have to grind, I suggest finding other posts to launch off.

Wow. Nah.. I won't lower myself to your level.

[Deleted User]

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.

There's also the other side where pay drops as more women enter a field

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html

the_pen_turner

meeeeh wrote: »

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Have you any evidence to show this pay gap. I hadn't seen any fact put forward that show the true picture. I want like for like facts not overall generalisation s

It's a report EU do. I suggest you write to Juncker & Co. and tell them to stop publishing nonsense. Anyway it's a worldwide research conspiracy against men.

OK
Show me in their report or some other where 2 people with the same experience, same personality and drive etc entering 2 companies that are the same with the same need for the employee. Now show me an example of a provable pay difference

If you or anyon else could do that then these threads would end on page one when your point would be proven but they done

the_pen_turner

meeeeh wrote: »

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Have you any evidence to show this pay gap. I hadn't seen any fact put forward that show the true picture. I want like for like facts not overall generalisation s

It's a report EU do. I suggest you write to Juncker & Co. and tell them to stop publishing nonsense. Anyway it's a worldwide research conspiracy against men.

the_pen_turner

meeeeh wrote: »

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Have you any evidence to show this pay gap. I hadn't seen any fact put forward that show the true picture. I want like for like facts not overall generalisation s

It's a report EU do. I suggest you write to Juncker & Co. and tell them to stop publishing nonsense. Anyway it's a worldwide research conspiracy against men.

zedhead

Deleted User wrote: »

Only if you assume that the gender pay gap rests solely on gender. It doesn't. If you're going home to look after the kids, you'll be facing the same pay gap as your wife currently would be. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to commit to the job as much as a single person. Unless, of course, you're willing to hire someone to watch the children, and take care of all those little emergencies and obligations.

In any case, the maternity leave is still a major factor. Having four pregnancies in 4 years means missing work for two years of that time if she takes the full 6 months. 2 years... out of work while others are working to pick up the work she is not doing... since the employer is still required to hold her job for her, and not hire a replacement, which means that others already in the company will likely have to pick up the slack. Unless you're expecting an employer to pay two employees to do one job...? Won't happen often. They'll pass the workload on to others, and those others should receive some extra benefits for doing it.

But thats my point. That currently the maternity leave situation skews it so that women are the ones penalised for having children. If maternity leave was limited to medical leave required to recover from child birth only and then the rest was reclassed as 'parental leave' and was divided between both parents (or could be divided as the couple chose themselves) then it wouldn't be a gender pay gap - it would be down to a family choice that penalised both people making the choice equally.

Also employers have to hold the job but they can hire a temp to cover the role in the interim which many do. It is not a requirement for an employer to pay maternity leave and most don't.

[Deleted User]

zedhead wrote: »

But thats my point. That currently the maternity leave situation skews it so that women are the ones penalised for having children. If maternity leave was limited to medical leave required to recover from child birth only and then the rest was reclassed as 'parental leave' and was divided between both parents (or could be divided as the couple chose themselves) then it wouldn't be a gender pay gap - it would be down to a family choice that penalised both people making the choice equally.

agreed.

Also employers have to hold the job but they can hire a temp to cover the role in the interim which many do. It is not a requirement for an employer to pay maternity leave and most don't.

Yup. Been pointed out to me that I was incorrect about the pay. Rechecking my thoughts on the whole thing, and will repost again tomorrow.

professore

Why is no one stating the obvious that on average women love babies and men tolerate them? Why force equal maternity/paternity leave if people don't want it?

Allocate a block of leave and let each couple divide it up as they see fit

And if you are really worried about having children are going to affect your "career" (which in most cases is a job to make someone else rich who doesn't give two ****s about you) then you probably shouldn't have any

zedhead

professore wrote: »

Why is no one stating the obvious that on average women love babies and men tolerate them? Why force equal maternity/paternity leave if people don't want it?

Allocate a block of leave and let each couple divide it up as they see fit

And if you are really worried about having children are going to affect your "career" (which in most cases is a job to make someone else rich who doesn't give two ****s about you) then you probably shouldn't have any

The first part of that is a huge generalisation. I don't know any men who just 'tolerate' their own children and if that is they case then they shouldn't be having them. Because that's what we are talking about here, people making choices about their own family and their own children - not about how they feel about babies in general.

The allocating based on the couples preference was something I suggested.

And yes if I decide my career is more important, I won't be having children. It will be a choice I make when the time comes. Are you as patronising to everyone who prioritises their career over other aspects of their life? If that's all you think a career is then why would any one ever be ambitious? What is the point of anyone placing importance on that, can you not think of anything else that would make a successful career worthwhile and rewarding in lots of ways.

pickarooney

professore wrote: »

Why is no one stating the obvious that on average women love babies and men tolerate them? Why force equal maternity/paternity leave if people don't want it?

Allocate a block of leave and let each couple divide it up as they see fit

And if you are really worried about having children are going to affect your "career" (which in most cases is a job to make someone else rich who doesn't give two ****s about you) then you probably shouldn't have any

Because your projected misopedia in no way represents the feelings of the average man?

blanch152

Neutral Definite wrote: »

It's personal choice between Mothers and Fathers who is the main child carer if any.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would assume that is the choice made within the family unit. There are generally better layers of support for the woman to miss work than for the man. Even today the numbers of fathers staying at home is relatively low compared to women who do so, and there isn't much support for that to change.

Who said it was a personal choice?

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread.

People are taking the basic position that women earn less than men because they choose to stay at home. However, there is no proof of this causation.

In fact, the opposite could well be argued i.e. that more women choose to stay at home because men are better paid in the workforce and it therefore makes sense for the man to work. The only way to correct this is to ensure that women are equally paid as men so that couples have a free choice.

Here is an excellent article that debunks many of the myths:

http://time.com/money/4285843/gender-pay-gap-excuses-wrong/

Annasopra

TheDavester wrote: »

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

Because there is a cost to the organisations; assessing maternity risk, possibly having the woman going out on health and safety leave, recruiting for maternity leave contracts, paying maternity leave, paying parental leave

purpleisafruit

My company pays 60% of salary to women on maternity leave, it doesn't top up paternity leave. If the reverse was true, there would be uproar.

tritium

kylith wrote: »

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.

This is fairly heavily offset by the irish data where women under 35 earn 17% more than equivalent men

[Deleted User]

bodice ripper wrote: »

So the obvious solution here is compulsory paternity leave. Level playing field.

No. The obvious solution is to rate employees on the number of hours they have put into their career.

the_pen_turner

blanch152 wrote: »

Who said it was a personal choice?

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread.

People are taking the basic position that women earn less than men because they choose to stay at home. However, there is no proof of this causation.

In fact, the opposite could well be argued i.e. that more women choose to stay at home because men are better paid in the workforce and it therefore makes sense for the man to work. The only way to correct this is to ensure that women are equally paid as men so that couples have a free choice.

Here is an excellent article that debunks many of the myths:

http://time.com/money/4285843/gender-pay-gap-excuses-wrong/

is there any actual facts or evidence in that article.
I only read the first one of the 6. that one is a load of rubbish. no evidence and just plain generalisations and made up rubbish. saying women work harder and longer than men because they do household work in the evenings. it portrays that the men come home and disappear for the evening. when In reality men have just as much to do at home. like cutting the grass, lighting fires, cleaning chimneys, going to the bog, cutting timber, cleaning gutters,, spraying weeds etc etc.
mens work is never ending too.

tritium

andekwarhola wrote: »

Obviously, baldly shouting sexism is inaccurate because if it were just that, surely women wouldn't progress in the workplace at all. Our company has a number of female directors for example. My overall manager is a woman as well.

That said, it's wrong to simply point out the bald fact that many women's careers do stall or end because of children. It's hardly their fault that they're the gender that bears children and that parental leave often isn't equally available.

Completely agree with this. I think though that the solution is actually to make paternity leave longer and compulsory rather than pretending maternity leave can be ignored. If 4 months compulsory paternity leave were in place the arguement on maternity leave would pretty much disappear. Wont hold my breath though

Beta Ray Bill

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The population needs to decline, and urgently so. The planet cannot continue to support unchecked human population growth for much longer.

I agree with you on this.
In fairness though this isn't to much of an issue in developed/educated/first world countries.

Countries like, China, India, Brazil having populations spiraling out of control.

The only real way to stop this crazy growth is a world war (no one wants that)

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So in short, if circumstances are preventing people from having kids, while I'm sympathetic to the disappointment and heartbreak it causes on an individual level, it's a good thing. Future generations will be glad of not having to live on a planet which simply cannot keep up with our population, resource-wise, and enable everyone to live with a high standard of living anymore. I fully believe that this time is coming far sooner than many think, so stories about falling reproduction levels among humans actually give me reason to celebrate.

Not really, you need to look at the people having children

Example:
Couples: Mary/John, Kate/Steve, Jane/Mark and Sarah/Ray want to have kids

Mary/John, Kate/Steve and Jane/Mark are educated and work.
Because they work, they may only have between 1 and 2 (possibly 3) kids

Sarah/Ray are not well educated, do not work and are on welfare.
Because they don't work they and are uneducated it is likely they will have at least 4 kids

There is nothing that can be done to stop Sarah and Ray having more kids
There is something we can do to encourage Mary/John, Kate/Steve and Jane/Mark to have more kids

So for "the future" what is better for out society:
1) All couples having kids
2) Just the lay abouts having kids

We need "the right" people having kids. Not Sarah and Ray, who will likely instill values of living off the state on their kids.
IE: have loads of kids and get free house, free money, free everything. Then their kids will do the same.

This is the reason we are in the mess we are in, in this country. Wrong people having kids and living off the state.
There isn't enough tax being collected to house these people, and they cant tax people anymore as we are taxed to the hilt in this country.
And there people who have found themselves homeless (and really shouldn't be) because of the load on the system

The only way to fix this issue is to either:
A: Stop giving away stuff to people like Sarah/Ray. (not going to happen, Shinners will just end up getting in)
B: Encourage Mary/John, Kate/Steve, Jane/Mark to have kids so that their kids can bare some of the tax burden for future generations

I know the above sounds absolutely awful and I probably come across as a terrible See You Next Tuesday, but that's just the way it is in this country in my eyes

Backstreet Moyes

Surely the effects of a pregnancy on a women also needs to be taken into account.

Carrying a child for 9 months is exhausting.

Then you have C sections where you cannot do housework for 6-8 weeks nevermind working 40 hours a week.

Post natal depression is another off the top of my head.