Gender Pay Gap Fearmongering On The Bbc

[Bloo Loo]

Therein lies what should be an obvious solution. If he plays hardball, just walk away from recruiting him. Unless he really is worth more than the others.

indeed, there is either a pay for the job, or the job is open to negotiation...if there is a pay scale, then putting someone at a higher rate can be justified due to experience. If a current employee complains, then it is up to the employer to demonstrate why the other person is up the pay scale...

[porca misèria]

If you can't see the problem with a historically oppressed class of people earning less money than their oppressors then I don't think I can explain it to you.

Oh dear.

[porca misèria]

How exactly do you measure 'oppression', and is there some sort of formula for how certain demographics should be rewarded based on their historical oppression?

So for example in America, do african americans get more money than women? What about native americans? How do we fix all this historical oppression fairly using money?

On a serious note, we strive to ensure they have ample opportunities in our times. That might sometimes mean proactive measures, for example in education.

[porca misèria]

This time - are you a bloke or a burd ?

She's made that clear in this thread.

And to be fair, I think she's pushing against HPC orthodoxy (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do) rather than mindlessly following the BBC line.

[ccc]

She's made that clear in this thread.

And to be fair, I think she's pushing against HPC orthodoxy (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do) rather than mindlessly following the BBC line.

Heretic !!

[pig]

Most company structures are pyramids. It's inevitable that people get promoted for reasons other than competence - there is only so much room on the next tier. Rightly or wrongly it's locally relatively easy to rationalise - especially when you look at some of the comments on here ! - but globally much less so.

[sPinwheel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35862925

MPs want to end Motherhood Penalty. First I ever heard of it. Are they suggesting women in part time work should be paid more?

[porca misèria]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35862925

MPs want to end Motherhood Penalty. First I ever heard of it. Are they suggesting women in part time work should be paid more?

I think they want men to have wombs.

I feel deprived by my lack of one.

[Errol]

The unintended consequences of all this idiocy will be that employers will be desperate to not hire women. Men will go to the top of the list. Easier to deal with. Fewer complications and no pregnancies.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Errol

[ccc]

The unintended consequences of all this idiocy will be that employers will be desperate to not hire women. Men will go to the top of the list. Easier to deal with. Fewer complications and no pregnancies.

Yep - already happening. Far easier to just not emply someone and if asked say it was down to their experience/interview or whatever - than go through the HR hoops being created within companies to ensure everything is 'Equal'.

[ccc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35862925

MPs want to end Motherhood Penalty. First I ever heard of it. Are they suggesting women in part time work should be paid more?

Women in part time work already get paid more.

[goldbug9999]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35559439

Now, if someone wrote the headline "Men write better code".... would that be sexist?

Interesting article, although its dangerous to draw conclusions from open source projects because IME the prime motivator for OS contribution is to demonstrate how clever you are to your peers, a trait that is very probably less prevalent in women.

[ccc]

You have to look very hard into the details to find this out - but its in there.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults

"For part-time employees separately, women are paid more on average, resulting in a “negative” gender pay gap. Although the trend is more volatile than for full-time employees, there is evidence that the gap has widened in the long-term. It has remained relatively stable in recent years, although it increased from 5.5% in April 2014 to 6.5% in April 2015."

So for part time work its actualy getting WORSE for men. And they also describe this as a 'negative' gender pay gap ?! What the ******. Its a gender pay gap full stop.

This ******** really is getting tiresome.

[ccc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35862925

MPs want to end Motherhood Penalty. First I ever heard of it. Are they suggesting women in part time work should be paid more?

"It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as women's disproportionate responsibility for childcare and low part-time wages."

As can be seen from my link to the ONS report above - the above in the BBC report is simply a lie.

[malk]

"It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as women's disproportionate responsibility for childcare and low part-time wages."

As can be seen from my link to the ONS report above - the above in the BBC report is simply a lie.

Did you read the ONS report you linked to? It states:

Part-time workers – both men and women – earn less, on average, per hour than their full-time counterparts. A much higher proportion of women work part-time, 41%, compared with men, at 11% (source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2 (April to June) 2015). This means that the gap for all employees, full-time and part-time together, is higher than for full-time employees alone.

The punctutation from the BBC article isn't great and leads to some ambiguity but I'd argue it is stating "It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as "It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as (women's disproportionate responsibility for childcare) and (low part-time wages)." rather than "It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as women's (disproportionate responsibility for childcare) and (low part-time wages.)".

If so it is entirely consistent with the ONS report as per the quote I provided.

I do wonder if some here are willfully misreading the statistics or just misreading them. The point about socialisation has already been raised and, surely, this is the issue rather than the raw data pointing to how there is no gender pay gap for the same work. I've seen no compelling argument here for women, naturally, chose lower paid professions. I have seen someone refer the the "maternity perk" as if taking the time to raise a child is a) some jolly and of no benefit to society. Wow.

What I would be interested to see is some analysis into why men are paid less for part time work than women. For one it would be interesting to see if the gap disappeared if it was for the same work? I'd certainly chuckle if that was true and some used it as an argument against the apparent pay gap for full time work whilst lamenting the negative gap for part time work. Oh, and for the use of negative, it does kind of make sense doesn't it? If you're talking about a gender pay gap in one direction and don't use the negative modifer when the direction changes it would get pretty confusing no?

[ccc]

Whilst the text may be technically correct to a point - its massively misleading - inferring clearly that women also suffer when it comes to part time work.

In terms of why ? Probably simply due to the fact many women choose to work part time and most men don't. So it's jobs they actually want and are qualified for - rather than the men who are just trying to earn anything ?

As for analysis ? You must be having a laugh - men get paid more and its not fair and it all has to be evened up or else it's sexist.

The equality bunch are not interested in analysis - because it may well show that there is no point in their jobs existing.

[SimonSays]

if you're talking about a gender pay gap in one direction and don't use the negative modifer when the direction changes it would get pretty confusing no?

No. thats what gap means. I wouldn't pay you the same either.

[sPinwheel]

Negative house price inflation....

Negative growth...

Negative inverse reverse parking....

Edited March 22, 2016 by sPinwheel

[ccc]

Negative house price inflation....

Negative growth...

Negative inverse reverse parking....

Exactly - its spin. And not something the ONS should be doing.

Clearly get pressure to say 'the right thing'.

[Frugal Git]

Male, part time worker here. Initially, when I switched to part time there was no pay 'cut' other than the obvious pro rating to my new hours.

Over the longer term, there's definitely a gap between what I would be earning as a full time worker now for the same job. The employer perceives me as having absolutely no leverage to get a rise (eventually something I'll prove wrong, but they lose me), as a similar job with the same hours would be very difficult to get. I don't think there's a gender bias in it.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Frugal Git

[winkie]

....could be that one reason why women sometimes get paid less, is because their time to them is worth more that what someone is prepared to pay them.

[pig]

Did you read the ONS report you linked to? It states:

Part-time workers – both men and women – earn less, on average, per hour than their full-time counterparts. A much higher proportion of women work part-time, 41%, compared with men, at 11% (source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2 (April to June) 2015). This means that the gap for all employees, full-time and part-time together, is higher than for full-time employees alone.

The punctutation from the BBC article isn't great and leads to some ambiguity but I'd argue it is stating "It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as "It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as (women's disproportionate responsibility for childcare) and (low part-time wages)." rather than "It said policies were needed to tackle barriers such as women's (disproportionate responsibility for childcare) and (low part-time wages.)".

If so it is entirely consistent with the ONS report as per the quote I provided.

I do wonder if some here are willfully misreading the statistics or just misreading them. The point about socialisation has already been raised and, surely, this is the issue rather than the raw data pointing to how there is no gender pay gap for the same work. I've seen no compelling argument here for women, naturally, chose lower paid professions. I have seen someone refer the the "maternity perk" as if taking the time to raise a child is a) some jolly and of no benefit to society. Wow.

What I would be interested to see is some analysis into why men are paid less for part time work than women. For one it would be interesting to see if the gap disappeared if it was for the same work? I'd certainly chuckle if that was true and some used it as an argument against the apparent pay gap for full time work whilst lamenting the negative gap for part time work. Oh, and for the use of negative, it does kind of make sense doesn't it? If you're talking about a gender pay gap in one direction and don't use the negative modifer when the direction changes it would get pretty confusing no?

One thing I've noticed is women getting subtle or not so subtle shabby treatment when they come back from maternity leave.

The assumption is they are not properly part of the work team (part-time and/or don't work late), they're more interested in their child than the job (you have less leverage over somebody who knows theres more to life than the job) or that they might have another kid so why bother investing any time or effort in them.

Obviously depends how crappy the work culture and management is, but anyway its a problem that I can't see registering directly in stats.

[SimonSays]

One thing I've noticed is women getting subtle or not so subtle shabby treatment when they come back from maternity leave.

The assumption is they are not properly part of the work team

You assume thats their assumption?

they're more interested in their child than the job

Reasonable conclusion?

they might have another kid so why bother investing any time or effort in them.

Reasonable conclusion?

Obviously depends how crappy the work culture and management is, but anyway its a problem that I can't see registering directly in stats.

A problem for who? Managing based on reasonable assumptions isn't so terrible is it?

Im pretty sure some posters in this thread are just winding people up. Such nonsense.

Send to off topic I think!

[pig]

You assume thats their assumption?

Reasonable conclusion?

Reasonable conclusion?

A problem for who? Managing based on reasonable assumptions isn't so terrible is it?

Im pretty sure some posters in this thread are just winding people up. Such nonsense.

Send to off topic I think!

Er no.

I've heard and seen with my own eyes both sides of the story - just to be clear, no 'assumptions' from me here.

The idea that somebody might have a life outside of their job some often find difficult to understand. But needless to say it applies to men as well.

It can lead to enormous unrecognised frustration, wasted talent and often simply buttresses p1ss poor management. The better companies - more often than not individual managers - properly organise and plan their work, manage and distribute it based on ability and managed availability i.e. generally prefer to deal in 'facts' of the work rather than d1ck around with 'assumptions'.

[malk]

Whilst the text may be technically correct to a point - its massively misleading - inferring clearly that women also suffer when it comes to part time work.

In terms of why ? Probably simply due to the fact many women choose to work part time and most men don't. So it's jobs they actually want and are qualified for - rather than the men who are just trying to earn anything ?

As for analysis ? You must be having a laugh - men get paid more and its not fair and it all has to be evened up or else it's sexist.

The equality bunch are not interested in analysis - because it may well show that there is no point in their jobs existing.

Women do suffer when it comes to part time work because all part time workers suffer. It's really poorly worded in general but to infer that it is also attempting to hide the plight of male part time workers is, I'd posit, a stretch. I'd agree with your suggestion that it is because (generally) women are looking for part time work more than men but if that's the case it implies that there is no underlying structural inequality. If a similar case can be made for the difference for full time workers then the issue is pretty much closed. I haven't seen that here yet.

That said, one such case that could be made is looking at age groups. My guess is that the full time data is skewed by the old blokes earning a lot. The changes already made may have gone some/all of the way to redressing the gap. I suspect there's still quite a way to go but equally the headline data may be misleading (massive pay hikes to top end salaries in the past twenty or so years won't help how the headline data looks).

Ad hominem at the ephemeral "equality bunch" is irrelevant.

No. thats what gap means. I wouldn't pay you the same either.

Thanks for your contribution. You should recommend that they change the text to state that the gender pay gap for full time workers is ten percent and the gender pay gap for part time workers is ten percent. Gap means gap so everyone will know what that means and no one will mistake that for one it's positive for men and the other negative for men.

Negative house price inflation....

Negative growth...

Negative inverse reverse parking....

Negative house price inflation is house price deflation.

Negative growth in, say GDP, is a decline in GDP.

Negative gender pay gap is, well, what? A positive gender pay gap towards women? Sure you can keep determining the direction of gap between men and women but the examples are hardly equivalent.

Christ, I'm arguing semantics a lot!

Male, part time worker here. Initially, when I switched to part time there was no pay 'cut' other than the obvious pro rating to my new hours.

Over the longer term, there's definitely a gap between what I would be earning as a full time worker now for the same job. The employer perceives me as having absolutely no leverage to get a rise (eventually something I'll prove wrong, but they lose me), as a similar job with the same hours would be very difficult to get. I don't think there's a gender bias in it.

My wife and I are both looking to move to part time soon. It isn't a problem in her line of work but for me it will make it virtually impossible to maintain my current level if I change jobs. Part time workers are disadvantaged in general.

One thing I've noticed is women getting subtle or not so subtle shabby treatment when they come back from maternity leave.

The assumption is they are not properly part of the work team (part-time and/or don't work late), they're more interested in their child than the job (you have less leverage over somebody who knows theres more to life than the job) or that they might have another kid so why bother investing any time or effort in them.

Obviously depends how crappy the work culture and management is, but anyway its a problem that I can't see registering directly in stats.

This is manifestly the case as exemplified by what Simon says! Essentially this argument is that the world of work is absolutely removed and has no interdependencies outside that world so that if a woman is disadvantaged in her career by choosing to have children then that is her own choice therefore an acceptable reason for pay differentials down the line. If we accept that propagation of the species is a good thing then this doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.