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 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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

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.

Which is a perfectly valid choice especially considering the costs associated, penalising that choice is incredibly draconian, petty and tbh stupid, making it a more viable option and choice is the obvious solution

Hoboo

So women want equality. Why not more pay then men? That to me is a lack of ambition, which is why there is a pay gap in the first place.

*Ill grab my coat

Pac1Man

grogi wrote: »

It is exactly that - caring about yourself first.

As opposed to caring about who? An unborn child? If so your logic is nonsense.

The world's population? Also nonsense.

Aurora111

The world economic forum has recently published a report stating that it will take 217 years for women to close the gap in pay disparity.

Cant post link as I am a new user.

Aurora111

I do absolutely with Grogi's first point:

"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. "

I agree .We wouldn't have any society if women didnt give birth. So why on earth should they be penalised in any way for giving birth(contributing greatly to society).

Aurora111

Hoboo wrote: »

So women want equality. Why not more pay then men? That to me is a lack of ambition, which is why there is a pay gap in the first place

*Ill grab my coat

It is attitudes like yours that lead to the pay gap. I wouldnt want to have more while someone else has less. I wouldnt want it have it all while someone else has none.

I am able to enjoy having things and someone else having these things also.
Try to learn to think of other people.

Ficheall

grogi wrote: »

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.

Presumably the other side of that particular questionable coin is that inflicting seventy-odd years in this vale of tears on someone you will eventually claim to love, for your entertainment, to look after you in your dotage, and to help preserve your notions of "society" or "the economy" is selfish and also cruel.

wakka12

The pay gap thing is misleading. Its to do with certain strengths and weaknesses of each gender,traditional gender roles only starting to disappear, pregnancy and child minding affecting time women can work

If you think employers have one pay for men and then consciously decide to pay their female employees less simply because they're female then you're stupid

Aurora111

wakka12 wrote: »

The pay gap thing is misleading. Its to do with certain strengths and weaknesses of each gender,traditional gender roles only starting to disappear, pregnancy and child minding affecting time women can work

If you think employers have one pay for men and then consciously decide to pay their female employees less simply because they're female then you're stupid

The world economic forum, that does a study every year says there is a pay gap.

Are you saying they are wrong?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

Aurora111 wrote: »

The world economic forum, that does a study every year says there is a pay gap.

Are you saying they are wrong?

Unless you can prove they are basing that off like for like jobs then yes they are wrong, also you might be wrong and simply reading whats declared as an earnings gap to be a pay gap and they are not the same thing

Aurora111

Hmmm the world economic forum, using many highly intelligent researchers say that there is a global gender gap, and in fact (2017) situations are worsening for women in 60 countries.
Random men on the internet say there is no gender gap, using a conclusion picked out of their ass.
I know who I believe.

wakka12

Aurora111 wrote: »

The world economic forum, that does a study every year says there is a pay gap.

Are you saying they are wrong?

I said its misleading, not that it doesn't exist
And its due to many natural reasons to do with strengths and weaknesses of each gender rather than malicious sexism, as its portrayed

VinLieger

Aurora111 wrote: »

Hmmm the world economic forum, using many highly intelligent researchers say that there is a global gender gap, and in fact (2017) situations are worsening for women in 60 countries.
Random men on the internet say there is no gender gap, using a conclusion picked out of their ass.
I know who I believe.

Good for you, any luck actually investigating where their data came from or if they are using like for like jobs?

If they aren't using like for like then its simply wrong to say categorically there is a gender pay gap, that's not a debate. They can say theirs an earnings gap but again they arent the same thing and I don't think you have even grasped that yet.

CelticRambler

Is about sex or gender? I spent about ten years as a stay-at-home single parent, so that would make my gender somewhat "feminine" in the context of this discussion, but my sex hasn't changed since brith, and I'm still male.

As of this year, women make up more than half the active members of the profession I work in, and new graduates are 70% female. This is great for me: I work as a gap-filler, and my female colleagues create a huge number of gaps in their employers' rotas (sick leave, maternity leave, their children's sick leave, extra holiday just because, getting stressed and quitting, ... ) So even though I returned to the workforce with an 11-year gap in my CV I had an immediate advantage in that my female colleagues en masse had made a bad name for themselves.
"What were you doing during this time? Rearing my children. Seriously? Seriously. No projects on the side? Plenty, but absolutely nothing that improved my ability to do this job. OK, can you start in three weeks? Yep, no problem."
Rates of pay here in France are defined in a profession-specific wage agreement, but that doesn't stop my employers topping up their offer to get me to work for them rather than someone else, and whether the feminists like it or not, being a minority male makes me more employable than any of the ten-a-penny females.

Oh, and six of my last eight employers have been women.

Saruhashi

Aurora111 wrote: »

It is attitudes like yours that lead to the pay gap. I wouldnt want to have more while someone else has less. I wouldnt want it have it all while someone else has none.

I am able to enjoy having things and someone else having these things also.
Try to learn to think of other people.

I understand this but how hard would you be willing to work so that other people can have the same things you have?

In an ideal world we could all share the money and the other things equally but in reality nobody wants to work a 12 hour day and get paid the same as their colleague who works an 8 hour day in the same job.

So if a man (or childless woman) has to work 4 extra hours tonight but his female colleague can't do the extra hours because she has to go and pick up her kid and make them dinner etc then should he really accept that his employer thinks they are worth the same pay?

Or when contract negotiation time comes around the man isn't allowed to leverage all the times he stayed late or worked weekends into more money?

Any system like this would cause a massive reduction in productivity. Probably to the point where the people running the company would revert back to paying people in relation to how much they are actually working.

If I am going to be working more then, yes, I want to be paid more.

_Kaiser_

Aurora111 wrote: »

I do absolutely with Grogi's first point:

"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. "

I agree .We wouldn't have any society if women didnt give birth. So why on earth should they be penalised in any way for giving birth(contributing greatly to society).

As I said in the other recent thread on this...

If the woman is restricted/excluded from opportunities for advancement or extra pay when she comes back to work then yes, that's definitely unfair.

However, claiming unfairness because Joe or Mary (who hasn't any kids) started with her and now earn more than her is nonsense. Joe and Mary were working away while she wasn't physically there - that's all there is to it.

In terms of their contribution to society.. unless things have changed recently, it takes a man to help with that too. Plus - leaving aside the cases of deadbeat fathers who absolutely should be pursued - the father often finds himself with enormous pressure and responsibility to provide a stable living and financial environment (and this applies too in the case of single dads where maintenance is rightly paid).

The main argument here seems to be railing against basic evolution and biology - that it's "not fair" that only women can bear children... not sure what you can do there?

Saruhashi

Aurora111 wrote: »

I do absolutely with Grogi's first point:

"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. "

I agree .We wouldn't have any society if women didnt give birth. So why on earth should they be penalised in any way for giving birth(contributing greatly to society).

Right but people who earn more pay more taxes.

So when people take time off from work they aren't contributing financially to society. How many taxpayer funded initiatives will their offspring take advantage of? Education, healthcare, emergency services etc.

What would you propose? That we just pay everyone a flat daily salary regardless of how much they work or how much experience they acquire?

suicide_circus

We should all fight for equality of opportunity.
Fighting for equality of outcome is quite a different matter.

Hoboo

Aurora111 wrote: »

It is attitudes like yours that lead to the pay gap. I wouldnt want to have more while someone else has less. I wouldnt want it have it all while someone else has none.

I am able to enjoy having things and someone else having these things also.
Try to learn to think of other people.

Eh, ok pet.

PeterParker957

Saruhashi wrote: »

So if a man (or childless woman) has to work 4 extra hours tonight but his female colleague can't do the extra hours because she has to go and pick up her kid and make them dinner etc then should he really accept that his employer thinks they are worth the same pay?

Or when contract negotiation time comes around the man isn't allowed to leverage all the times he stayed late or worked weekends into more money?

Any system like this would cause a massive reduction in productivity. Probably to the point where the people running the company would revert back to paying people in relation to how much they are actually working.

If I am going to be working more then, yes, I want to be paid more.

Tiny tiny addition but otherwise agree 10,000%.

I may be slightly bitter that a few years ago I was prevented from going to an aunt's funeral based on the fact that my colleague had her three year old's "poetry recital" to attend.

Oh and when there was a policy in a different job of having cover from 7am - I and one of the men did it all between us as "well, you can be here any time - you don't have kids".

Damn straight we should get paid more for working more!!!!

Aurora111

Hoboo wrote: »

Eh, ok pet.

Don't ever call me pet. Who do you think you are?

Aurora111

VinLieger wrote: »

Good for you, any luck actually investigating where their data came from or if they are using like for like jobs?

If they aren't using like for like then its simply wrong to say categorically there is a gender pay gap, that's not a debate. They can say theirs an earnings gap but again they arent the same thing and I don't think you have even grasped that yet.

They actually use the trrm 'gender gap'.
Pay is only one thing that they have recorded there is a disparity between the genders.
Access to politics is another one( as well represented in our country, with the lovely male majority for the last 100 years). But wait, I'm sure it's just that women don't want to get into politics!

mrkiscool2

Aurora111 wrote: »

They actually use the trrm 'gender gap'.
Pay is only one thing that they have recorded there is a disparity between the genders.
Access to politics is another one( as well represented in our country, with the lovely male majority for the last 100 years). But wait, I'm sure it's just that women don't want to get into politics!

Well, you're not going to like this, but it's true.

PeterParker957

Aurora111 wrote: »

They actually use the trrm 'gender gap'.
Pay is only one thing that they have recorded there is a disparity between the genders.
Access to politics is another one( as well represented in our country, with the lovely male majority for the last 100 years). But wait, I'm sure it's just that women don't want to get into politics!

Men aren't the enemy, just FYI.

Hoboo

Aurora111 wrote: »

Don't ever call me pet. Who do you think you are?

Too easy.

Aurora111

Hoboo wrote: »

Too easy.

Easy in showing your post to be sh#t I agree. It wasn't the most educated post was it?

Aurora111

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Men aren't the enemy, just FYI.

Sorry, who exactly is oppressing women? Which gender has committed every single one of the sexual abuse stories against women and men that have arisen in the media in the last month: men.
Men committed hundreds -thousands of sexual abuses.
They need to change.

PeterParker957

Aurora111 wrote: »

Sorry, who exactly is oppressing women? Which gender has committed every single one of the sexual abuse stories against women and men that have arisen in the media in the last month: men.
Men committed hundreds -thousands of sexual abuses.
They need to change.

Hi Una, love your work. Not.

Hoboo

Aurora111 wrote: »

Easy in showing your post to be sh#t I agree. It wasn't the most educated post was it?

The original post was tongue in cheek pet, completely lost on your man hating psyche. You're on here a day and already making friends. You're great craic.

Are you Sinead Desmond, former presenter on TV3 by any chance?