Irish women earn 17% less than Irish men

44leto · 02-03-2012 12:39PM

A study suggests that women in Ireland earn on average 17% less than men and only half of all working women earn more than €50,000 a year.

Women in Ireland earn 17% less than men and only half of all working women earn more than €50,000 a year.

An European Commission study suggests that Irish women in their 20s earn about 90% of what their male colleagues do.

The study suggests that Irish women in the 35-44 age group only earn 71.5% and this falls even further for women in their 50s and 60s.

The commission study says that there are a number of reasons for this gender pay gap, including discrimination against women, undervaluing of women's skills and the low number of women in senior and leadership positions.

It also notes that women are the primary care givers in Irish society and this takes away from their ability to earn as much as men.

The survey found that women in Ireland are more likely than men to work in low paid and precarious work.

The National Women's Council has said it is vital that the Government acts to improve the position of women in society and in the workplace.

National Women's Council Chief Executive Orla O'Connor said: "The gap between women's and men's earning needs to be reduced.

"As the Government persists with its austerity measures, it is vital that actions to improve the position of women in our society are not sidelined."

The stats are bollox in that they are incomplete, its classic correlation making for causation. On average women do earn less then men in the WORKFORCE, but why. Is the woman sitting across from you in your office doing the same job earning less, I sincerely doubt that as that is disgusting and very illegal. So I ask which sex leaves the workforce earliest and not get the pay rides and promotions in time. On average that would be women, so naturally overall and on average they receive less income.

I know women do face discrimination in the workforce. I will be dangerously honest here and brace myself for a backlash. If I was an employer I would do my damnest not to hire women, not because I believe them to be less capable, they clearly are not, but because I see them as more problematic in the long term. At some stage they may get pregnant and have that time off and may give up work, so all my investment in that person would be wasted.

To be frank that attitude is absolutely wrong but I know it exists. So society and the law needs to protect women from it.

irelandrover · 02-03-2012 12:40PM

jaja321 wrote: »

I would. If I had the chance to split parental leave with my partner then I would do it. My career is important to me as is having children. Both equally important. I'd like to have the same opportunity that men have to pursue a satisfying career and have a family. Plus, it would give male partners the chance to spend time with their kids when their young, also important imo.

Is there a minimum amount of time that women have to take off after giving birth. Is there something in law stating that you cannot work for 3 months after the birth?

Stiffler2 · 02-03-2012 12:42PM

I think men get paid more because men have bigger muscles and can lift heavier objects.

constitutionus · 02-03-2012 12:46PM

if you work less you get paid less.

jesus and someone got paid to figure this out ?

jaja321 · 02-03-2012 12:52PM

irelandrover wrote: »

Is there a minimum amount of time that women have to take off after giving birth. Is there something in law stating that you cannot work for 3 months after the birth?

I think Irish law states that you must take at least 2 weeks before the end of the week of the baby’s expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. The main point is though that it should be about choice and paid parental leave would offer this choice.. to both women and men.

dark crystal · 02-03-2012 12:56PM

summerskin wrote: »

Of course it will be more difficult for a woman to climb the ladder. If she works for a company for 5 years but takes 2 years off for maternity, she should have less chance of promotion than a man of equal ability who has worked for the whole 5 years.

So the men who actually had a 50% stake in making the baby should automatically get a promotion over the women who gave birth to the babies they both created

I understand having children may cause some inconvenience to an employer, but just because a woman happens to have the biological components needed to have a baby, doesn't mean they are any less entitled to promotion than the man who helped create that baby. Promotion should be based on performance and skill, not gender.

It's a fact of life that employees of both genders will continue to have families, but it's unfair to hold the view that only the women should be punished for doing so.

irelandrover · 02-03-2012 12:58PM

dark crystal wrote: »

So the men who actually had a 50% stake in making the baby should automatically get a promotion over the women who gave birth to the babies they both created

I understand having children may cause some inconvenience to an employer, but just because a woman happens to have the biological components needed to have a baby, doesn't mean they are any less entitled to promotion than the man who helped create that baby. Promotion should be based on performance and skill, not gender.

It's a fact of life that all employees will continue to have families, but it's unfair to hold the view that only the women should be punished for doing so.

Yes it does, if both people are equally good and one has worked the previous 2 years and another only worked 18 months out of the two years, who should get the promotion. It makes absolutely no differenece to the company why that person missed 6 months.

Stiffler2 · 02-03-2012 01:00PM

dark crystal wrote: »

So the men who actually had a 50% stake in making the baby should automatically get a promotion over the women who gave birth to the babies they both created

I understand having children may cause some inconvenience to an employer, but just because a woman happens to have the biological components needed to have a baby, doesn't mean they are any less entitled to promotion than the man who helped create that baby. Promotion should be based on performance and skill, not gender.

It's a fact of life that employees of both genders will continue to have families, but it's unfair to hold the view that only the women should be punished for doing so.

Unfortuntate - maybe - but you were born with the vadge at the end of the day.

As other people have said if you work for 5 yrs and take 2 yrs off for maternity which the man is not entitled to take then and as have you said above which I have highlighted tyour performance would have slipped during this time.

It's a fact of life. One you'll just have to get over. When a man and woman split up it's always the woman who gets total control over the child. Something us men have to deal with.

Life is tough, my heart bleeds for you.

Guy:Incognito · 02-03-2012 01:03PM

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Ive seen it 3 times in the last 4/5 years with my team.

Do you play a professional womans sport?

Getoffmytrain · 02-03-2012 01:03PM

Men work longer and more unsociable hours than women in full time jobs.
These studies often include part-time workers, of which a majority are women.
The pay gap is a myth if you measure pay per hour worked.

At the same time, CEOs, TDs and senior management are far more likely to be men, even in areas where women are in the majority.

smash · 02-03-2012 01:03PM

dark crystal wrote: »

So the men who actually had a 50% stake in making the baby should automatically get a promotion over the women who gave birth to the babies they both created

I understand having children may cause some inconvenience to an employer, but just because a woman happens to have the biological components needed to have a baby, doesn't mean they are any less entitled to promotion than the man who helped create that baby. Promotion should be based on performance and skill, not gender.

If someone is off work for a year then obviously the have nothing to base any performance on during that period. :rolleyes:

dark crystal · 02-03-2012 01:07PM

irelandrover wrote: »

Yes it does, if both people are equally good and one has worked the previous 2 years and another only worked 18 months out of the two years, who should get the promotion. It makes absolutely no differenece to the company why that person missed 6 months.

In that case, the only alternative is for women to put off having children altogether if they want to get promoted. Men, of course can continue to have children without it affecting them at all, but women in the same job must forgo having families if they wish to get ahead.

Would it not be fairer to have equal parental leave, as opposed to just maternity leave...this way, women would be less discriminated against in the event of starting a family.

smash · 02-03-2012 01:14PM

dark crystal wrote: »

In that case, the only alternative is for women to put off having children altogether if they want to get promoted. Men, of course can continue to have children without it affecting them at all, but women in the same job must forgo having families if they wish to get ahead.

This is not true at all. Women do not need to take extended maternity leave. They can also concentrate on career progression before having a baby which is the case these days. That's why you see women waiting until their 30's to have children.

dark crystal wrote: »

Would it not be fairer to have equal parental leave, as opposed to just maternity leave...this way, women would be less discriminated against in the event of starting a family.

Yes it would. Women's rights groups should campaign for this instead of saying there's a gender divide and pay inequality.

Stiffler2 · 02-03-2012 01:15PM

dark crystal wrote: »

In that case, the only alternative is for women to put off having children altogether if they want to get promoted. Men, of course can continue to have children without it affecting them at all, but women in the same job must forgo having families if they wish to get ahead.

Would it not be fairer to have equal parental leave, as opposed to just maternity leave...this way, women would be less discriminated against in the event of starting a family.

Exactly - I think you're getting it now, basically they're 2 types of women :

Career Women - chose not to have kids to further their career
Housewives - worked for a period of time ,had kids, quit work or went back part time / not really ar$ed.

opinion guy · 02-03-2012 01:15PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

It's a fact of life. One you'll just have to get over. When a man and woman split up it's always the woman who gets total control over the child. Something us men have to deal with.

Life is tough, my heart bleeds for you.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The law governing both areas needs changing

smash · 02-03-2012 01:16PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Exactly - I think you're getting it now, basically they're 2 types of women :

Career Women - chose not to have kids to further their career
Housewives - worked for a period of time ,had kids, quit work or went back part time / not really ar$ed.

You sound like an arse.

dark crystal · 02-03-2012 01:16PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Unfortuntate - maybe - but you were born with the vadge at the end of the day.

As other people have said if you work for 5 yrs and take 2 yrs off for maternity which the man is not entitled to take then and as have you said above which I have highlighted tyour performance would have slipped during this time.

It's a fact of life. One you'll just have to get over. When a man and woman split up it's always the woman who gets total control over the child. Something us men have to deal with.

Life is tough, my heart bleeds for you.

There's no need to feel sorry for me - Luckily, I manage to work around my children and my partners job and have no burning desire to get promoted in my crappy job. But thanks for the mature reply all the same...

Also, I don't agree with the lack of fathers rights in this country either, so don't try and beat me with that stick.

Life may be tough, but that doesn't mean there aren't areas that can't be improved on to make things better for everyone.

opinion guy · 02-03-2012 01:16PM

smash wrote: »

You sound like an arse.

I was going to say something along those lines but then I saw his username and was like...oh its Stiffler.....that explains it

jaja321 · 02-03-2012 01:18PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Exactly - I think you're getting it now, basically they're 2 types of women :

Career Women - chose not to have kids to further their career
Housewives - worked for a period of time ,had kids, quit work or went back part time / not really ar$ed.

You've forgotten a third 'type': those women who want a career and want to have children

KeithAFC · 02-03-2012 01:19PM

This type of inequality is disgusting. This needs to be addressed and looked at and give women more basic human and civil rights.

irelandrover · 02-03-2012 01:20PM

dark crystal wrote: »

In that case, the only alternative is for women to put off having children altogether if they want to get promoted. Men, of course can continue to have children without it affecting them at all, but women in the same job must forgo having families if they wish to get ahead.

Would it not be fairer to have equal parental leave, as opposed to just maternity leave...this way, women would be less discriminated against in the event of starting a family.

Of course it would be fairer to have joint parental leave. I don't think many men will complain about this.

However, if women take the absolute minimum amount of maternity leave possible then highly likely their career does not suffer as they are only off for 6 weeks (figure taken from elsewhere on the thread).

How many women only take the minimum amount of maternity leave?

smash · 02-03-2012 01:20PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

This type of inequality is disgusting. This needs to be addressed and looked at and give women more basic human and civil rights.

What exactly are you referring to here? Maternity leave or a difference in salary?

dark crystal · 02-03-2012 01:21PM

jaja321 wrote: »

You've forgotten a third type: those women who want a career and want to have children

But we were born with a 'vadge', so not allowed to have both, apparantly.

jaja321 · 02-03-2012 01:23PM

irelandrover wrote: »

Of course it would be fairer to have joint parental leave. I don't think many men will complain about this.

However, if women take the absolute minimum amount of maternity leave possible then highly likely their career does not suffer as they are only off for 6 weeks (figure taken from elsewhere on the thread).

How many women only take the minimum amount of maternity leave?

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

jaja321 · 02-03-2012 01:23PM

dark crystal wrote: »

But we were born with a 'vadge', so not allowed to have both, apparantly.

irelandrover · 02-03-2012 01:29PM

jaja321 wrote: »

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

I disagree with a 50/50 split. the time should be available to the couple to use however they want. if the man wants to use it all then he should be allowed.

that wasnt my question. how many women use the maximum amount of maternity leave instead of the minimum and then complain that having children holds back there career.

My guess would be a lot based on the amount of women i see that take the maximum amount of leave possible.

stupidusername · 02-03-2012 01:30PM

This isn't something to discuss. Only if you compare the actual rate of pay for a man and woman doing the same job can you figure out if there's a difference based on gender. It's not about gender otherwise!

Oh and Stiffler,there's another type,women who don't want children and aren't doing it for a career.

hardCopy · 02-03-2012 01:32PM

jaja321 wrote: »

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

I think that's the key. I think if it was an optional split between both parents some men wouldn't take it due to work or social pressures.

If it was 50:50 then employers would have less reason to hire a man over a woman.

The way it works now it makes financial sense to employ a man ahead of a woman when all else is equal because the woman is more than likely to take maternity at some point. Maternity leave is a massive problem for companies to cover, particularly small companies.

CreepingDeath · 02-03-2012 01:37PM

I think women should be given the option of working 20% longer for the same pay.

smash · 02-03-2012 01:37PM

Like tax credits, the time should be split at the couples dicretion.

Irish women earn 17% less than Irish men

Comments