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

More gender pay gap rubbish

professore

Top story on independent.ie... Male graduates paid 4k more than women... With zero explanations.

Some 93pc of education graduates were working, followed by health and welfare (87pc), ICT (82pc) and engineering (82pc);
Arts and humanities graduates had the lowest employment rate (63pc) and lowest average salaries at €24,728; they were among the highest percentages in further study (24pc);

Is there any possibility that more women study humanities than men... Fields that are not in demand in the jobs market... Or are companies and government bodies so sexist they go out of their way and risk huge fines and bad publicity to pay women less? Hmmmm...

Who is driving this narrative?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/teachers-top-the-pay-league-for-new-graduates-but-gender-pay-gap-remains-37825469.html

As an aside, these poor teachers earn more out of college than ANY OTHER TYPE OF GRADUATE!!!!! And they will be out on strike again looking for more since the nurses already got what they want. Crazy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Silentcorner

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Yeah, I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek there, but it's the logical conclusion.

I have no issue with anyone saying that

- many women choose less lucrative fields than men
- many women take career breaks to have children
- many women work fewer hours than men

As long as they can also acknowledge that many women face certain disadvantages despite not doing any of the above simply because they are women.

Sexism is a thing, and denying its existence does not change that.

The only way to eliminate all types of pay disparity is socialism...the free market economy in open democracies are not capable, on their own, of achieving equality in politics, industry and innovation.

If we don't like the choices people make when allowed to make the free choices they feel best fit their lives....then we have to remove the ability of people to make those choices however subtle or using whatever flag (diversity/equality) necessary....that is undemocratic, unequal, incredibly risky...it has the potential to undermine all the comforts and rights our current economies afford us.

You need only look at the basket case industries like media and hollywood, (and separately Gillette) as the more obvious examples of the wrecking ball that occurs when an industry embraces "equality/diversity"...not to mention the damage it will do to our birth rate and all the issues that brings...the price we all pay is not worth paying.

Ray Palmer

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Since Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeves aren't paid by the TV licence, that's not comparable.

People said women get paid the same for doing the same work. Sharon Ni Bheolain does the same work as Brian Dobson and gets paid considerably less. That's a fact.

And you're just wrong about Sheehy-Skeffington and her colleagues, as the court case proved beyond doubt.

I can readily admit that in many cases women are paid less because they work fewer hours or took a career break, or have careers in less lucrative fields to begin with.

Can you admit that in some cases women are paid less due to sexism? Or are you honestly telling me this never, ever happens?

It is irrelevant who pays the salary in showbiz value and costs are not based on gender or age but fame. Older employee often get loyalty salary pay rises. Completely comparable. Does Fiona Bruce get paid more than a less famous news reported in the BBC. It isn't about gender as many women are paid more in showbiz than males due to fame.

I will say some PEOPLE get paid more than others. Claiming it is all gender based is an issue when lumping it with less pay for less hours makes it disingenuous.

Most people don't work in colleges and Sheehy case has very little bearing on the work of most people. It was wrong but an outlier in an unusual work place.

The gender pay gap issue is an attempt to make an argument of pay discrimination. People will look back at this and cringe at the obvious attempts to corrupt logic.

Gender pay gap is not discrimination it show freedoms of choice but it is actually hard for men to get job sharing that women can get. If you want equality campaign for it don't lie about it to get preferential treatment.

Tomw86

Just on a point in here.

More experience/time worked in a role is absolutely grounds for one party to be paid more than the other - I do not agree that all roles should be paid the same regardless of experience or time spent in that role.

Tomw86

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is irrelevant who pays the salary in showbiz value and costs are not based on gender or age but fame. Older employee often get loyalty salary pay rises. Completely comparable. Does Fiona Bruce get paid more than a less famous news reported in the BBC. It isn't about gender as many women are paid more in showbiz than males due to fame.

I will say some PEOPLE get paid more than others. Claiming it is all gender based is an issue when lumping it with less pay for less hours makes it disingenuous.

Most people don't work in colleges and Sheehy case has very little bearing on the work of most people. It was wrong but an outlier in an unusual work place.

The gender pay gap issue is an attempt to make an argument of pay discrimination. People will look back at this and cringe at the obvious attempts to corrupt logic.

Gender pay gap is not discrimination it show freedoms of choice but it is actually hard for men to get job sharing that women can get. If you want equality campaign for it don't lie about it to get preferential treatment.

EXACTLY! I actually think Maternity benefit is massively sexist, why not offer it to men also, or if the government is paying be able to transfer it to the male partner.

In jobs that will pay women for 6 months, they will only offer men 2 weeks....hardly fair.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

aloneforever99 wrote: »

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

It all depends on experience. A teacher with 25 years' experience will earn nearly twice as much as a newly hired teacher, even if they're both doing the same job.

In our example, you're comparing the salary of 48-year-old Ní Bheoláin to that of a 59-year-old with significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. Of course they're not going to be the same.

Ri_Nollaig

aloneforever99 wrote: »

See this is it.

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

Then you point out a case where that's very clearly not the case, and people go into explanation mode as to why the pay gap - that didn't exist a minute ago - exists and is actually justified.

No, I think you failed to understand what was just explained. A "pay gap" exists here but has nothing to do with gender.

He had more experience then her, simple as. If a male news anchor was hired tomorrow, with 11 years less experience, would you be expecting them to be on the same wage as her? Honest question!

aloneforever99

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote: »

In our example, you're comparing the salary of 48-year-old Ní Bheoláin to that of a 59-year-old with significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. Of course they're not going to be the same.

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

Wanderer2010

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote: »

Dobson is 11 years older than Ní Bheoláin. He has significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. So he earns a higher salary. No surprises there.

She's still pulling in a very comfortable six-figure salary for reading the news on TV.

And to add, shes not even a great news reader. Stammering over her words and generally having the charisma of cardboard. She was brought in years ago for eye candy reasons.

doolox

The only one that is remotely talented and capable is Miriam O'Callaghan.
Sharon Ni Beoilan has a bad delivery and an unpleasant voice, always sounds strained or someone choking on something.
Keelan Shanley sounds too casual all the time no sense of urgency in her news reports.
Bring back Anne Doyle, Thelma Mansfield and definitely get rid of the former US correspondent Cathy Perry. She is my least favourite TV worker but at least held her composure in the presence of Donald Trump and his unscripted remarks when she was in the White House. I do not like her voice one little bit; too scratchy, whiny and shrill. She needs to take notes from Keelan Shanley in this regard in order to keep her voice in the lower registers where possible.

A similar phenomenon existed with Margaret Tatcher in the 80's when she was trained to lower her voice modulation when doing media and other public speaking engagements in order to avoid shrillness and convey better authority.
Her speaking voice, when not angry, improved over time as her experience and confidence grew.Also honourable mentions should be made of the two O'Seoige sisters who were good in the "Pleasant Voice to Listen to" stakes......

aloneforever99

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

And to add, shes not even a great news reader. Stammering over her words and generally having the charisma of cardboard. She was brought in years ago for eye candy reasons.

Definitely no sexism there.

Wanderer2010

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Definitely no sexism there.

Meaning? Of course women are chosen on looks in the entertainment industry. Even the most hardened snow flake can see that.

Silentcorner

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

No, it is illegal to pay someone less for doing the same job...but it is not illegal to pay someone who performs better in a job more than someone who doesn't...

aloneforever99

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

No, I think you failed to understand what was just explained. A "pay gap" exists here but has nothing to do with gender.

He had more experience then her, simple as. If a male news anchor was hired tomorrow, with 11 years less experience, would you be expecting them to be on the same wage as her? Honest question!

I expect someone with five years to be paid more than someone with one year, and I'd expect someone with 10 years to be paid more than someone with 5 years.

When two people have 20+ years experience and they are doing the same job and performing at the same level, I'd expect them to be paid roughly the same. And if there was a disparity I'd expect it to be in the 5-10% range, not at the level that was found there.

Hedgelayer

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Meaning? Of course women are chosen on looks in the entertainment industry. Even the most hardened snow flake can see that.

Never...

Women chosen for their looks and not brains.

That would be very unprofessional.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

Salary can be a function of qualifications, experience, job performance, the industry, the geographical region, and numerous other factors.

It's not especially easy to isolate gender as an explanatory factor. It's simplistic to say "Woman A makes less than Man B ... therefore SEXISM!"

The #1 reason why women earn less than men is that many women take time out of the workforce in their late 20s and 30s to have and raise children, and thus have significantly less work experience than their male peers once they reach their 40s.

uptherebels

aloneforever99 wrote: »

See this is it.

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

Then you point out a case where that's very clearly not the case, and people go into explanation mode as to why the pay gap - that didn't exist a minute ago - exists and is actually justified.

The actual problem is that the examples that people use to show the existence of a gender pay gap hardly ever compare like with like.

You can't take a position where the pay is determined by a number of criteria and use it as an example of different pay for different genders for the same job, when the pay isn't determined by the job.

Ray Palmer

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Definitely no sexism there.

You would need to be crazy to not acknowledge her being good looking didn't improve her opportunity to present the news.
I think she if very professional and good at her job but looks were an influence. She could have probably got more work from RTE as a presenter but seems she is happy to be in the news.

uptherebels

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I expect someone with five years to be paid more than someone with one year, and I'd expect someone with 10 years to be paid more than someone with 5 years.

When two people have 20+ years experience and they are doing the same job and performing at the same level, I'd expect them to be paid roughly the same. And if there was a disparity I'd expect it to be in the 5-10% range, not at the level that was found there.

Except you leave out that alot of positions that require 20+ years experience would have a significant level of negotiation in salary, bonuses etc based on performance/reaching targets etc. So I would expect a much larger disparity in packages

Ri_Nollaig

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

You paraphrased it there
what was said was:

It is illegal to pay men and women in the same job doing equal work different rates of pay.

He was her senior in the role. So its not equal. This should not be a surprise and answer me this, would you have cared if the genders were reversed?

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I expect someone with five years to be paid
more than someone with one year, and I'd expect someone with 10 years to be paid more than someone with 5 years.

When two people have 20+ years experience and they are doing the same job and performing at the same level, I'd expect them to be paid roughly the same. And if there was a disparity I'd expect it to be in the 5-10% range, not at the level that was found there.

Doesn't matter what you expect the range difference to be, RTE decided what to pay them. Different industries have different rules, RTE's board which is exactly 50:50 by the way, would have decided this.

Not to mention, these more celebrity cases are clearly extreme examples, and you know this!

Amirani

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

I assume you believe that a football player playing in the Conference in England is doing the same work as a player playing in the Premier League?

Just because 2 people have the same occupation, doing similar activities, does not mean they're doing "the same work".

On the RTÉ example; Dobson was clearly the most established and renowned newsreader. He handled far more of the major headline stories and interviews.

Mad_maxx

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The gender pay gap is real, it just doesn't mean what most people think. There is a gap in what women get paid compared to men. The problem is it is because they work less hours and lower paying work. Equal pay for equal work is not an issue.

Same as there is a gap between what most Moldovans in Ireland earn and what most germans in Ireland earn

However, a Moldovan consultant will not get paid less than his German counterpart here

mvl

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote: »

The #1 reason why women earn less than men is that many women take time out of the workforce in their late 20s and 30s to have and raise children, and thus have significantly less work experience than their male peers once they reach their 40s.

I would add here if ppl don't ask, they won't get - but this doesn't have something to do with gender.

the_pen_turner

total rubbish.

if a company offers 2 jobs for the same role and 2 workers aply for it but have come through diferent career paths to get there. even if they have the same experience 100% across the board but one happened to work for an employer that paid slighly better.
then one applicant could be on 50k and the other 45k. no gender or other bias involved just luck.
the employer is offering 50k to both . the first person isnt enthusiastic but the second is so the second person accepts the job and the 5k 'raise' . the first person is going to negosiate and want more money or they will stay where they are so gets 55k.
where is the bias there. there isnt any

if this happens a few times on the career path then the diference can add up fast. it only came down to negotiation

Ray Palmer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

However, a Moldovan consultant will not get paid less than his German counterpart here

Actually they probably will get paid less here as when they negotiate their pay they probably won't know the local market.
I work as a contractor and my boss accidentally sent out daily rates paid to all the contractors. My Indian colleagues were very annoyed to see I was paid 50% more than them. The thing was it wasn't because of race but because I negotiated my rate on joining with a built in increase on renewals.
One women claimed it was sexism because we started at the same time and had similar experience. The thing is I asked for more money or I wouldn't take the job she accepted what they initially offered and no increase later. I had been contracting longer so knew what to do.
Eventually they asked me to take a cut as it bothered others. As the information was not meant to be sent around I said just tell people I got a pay cut.
The women took a pay cut and the Indian people got a rate rise. When I met her a few years later I laughed how I never took a pay cut and I hoped she didn't either. She did and earned about €100 less a day than me for a year. She was really mad but it wasn't sexism it was poor negotiation skills.

doolox

Much as I have a certain regard for Mick Wallace or the Healy Reas, I do not foresee the day that they would be picked for a front-facing job such as TV presenter or such like.

Physical appearance counts nearly as much in men and how they are chosen for a particular job just as much as it is applied to women.

A shambling, awkward looking man with badly formed physical features will be rejected just as quickly and ruthlessly as is often reputed to happen to women.

Height also gives tall men an advantage in being chosen for leadership roles over their shorter and less athletically built colleagues.

Badly groomed or neglectful looking men will be rejected in favour of their neater and more sharply dressed peers.

It can no longer be claimed that women got a good promotion just on appearances alone. In most cases a good appearance is worked on and cultivated. In most modern cases, any physical defects can be rectified if the person wishes it so and is prepared to work hard at it and organise their lives to that end. This shows good organisational skills and a tidy, well organised mind behind all the glamour and demonstrates ambition, focus and drive in a person. It also demonstrates high self esteem and sound mental health when such beautifications and aesthetic improvements are done tastefully and with restraint, think Meghan Markel rather than Lady Gaga.

While different criteria apply to men the same basic body minding rules apply. Exercise, good and neat dress and grooming, healthy diet and habits to promote good complexion and healthy body size and weight. Much the same effort in terms of time apply to both genders.

thebaz

I agree everyone regardless of gender/age/race should be paid equally for doing the same job to the same quality - what I object to is the PC crusade driven by the Indo management - Dennis O'Brien no less, a pillar of modern virtue.

the_pen_turner

thebaz wrote: »

I agree everyone regardless of gender/age/race should be paid equally for doing the same job to the same quality - what I object to is the PC crusade driven by the Indo management - Dennis O'Brien no less, a pillar of modern virtue.

there are very few here disagreeing with that.
the only ones you see are sayig there is a pay gap based on gender. they want men and women paid the same even when the experience and skill is different

thebaz

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the only ones you see are sayig there is a pay gap based on gender. they want men and women paid the same even when the experience and skill is different

Thats my point - just another example of lazy PC jouralism from the Indo - O'Brien fought a war to wrest control, and it has turned it into a complete rag , yet trying to portray how hip / liberal and right on they are . Does anyone actually buy the indo as in pay for it ?

mvl

Ray Palmer wrote: »

She did and earned about €100 less a day than me for a year. She was really mad but it wasn't sexism it was poor negotiation skills.

yeah, that's exactly what I was suggesting above. there are plenty of industry examples like this.
question though: aren't these stats only including grads from institutions funded by HEA ? e.g. excluding the foreign grads? that might explain teachers being top of the pay league

storker

thebaz wrote: »

Thats my point - just another example of lazy PC jouralism from the Indo - O'Brien fought a war to wrest control, and it has turned it into a complete rag , yet trying to portray how hip / liberal and right on they are . Does anyone actually buy the indo as in pay for it ?

I read some of it online but I never buy it. I read some IT stuff too until the paywall demands to be fed.