Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ccc

"people Who Work Less Get Paid Less"

Recommended Posts

The above is my alternative headline for the BBC this morning. Or they could of course have gone with the following.

"Women who have kids earn less than women who do not"

But no - of course not - we have to compare it to men.

"Mothers pay lags far behind men"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178

Further down the article it is mentioned once - in brackets - that women that don't have kids also earn more. It also mentions that women - in the 20 years following their first child - work on average 4 YEARS less than men.

Why the ****** should they end up earning the same ?!

The actual study itself is quite interesting and has some good points. But the BBC just can't help themselves from taking the standard "Poor wee wummin getting ******ed over again" angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...having children is a choice, what this is more about is trying hard to increase household incomes...was one full time wage, then one and a half full time wages....now two full time wages just to stand still......I say send the kids out to work. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem...I get your point. BUT are you insinuating that caring for children isn't work, or merely that it isn't paid work and therefore of no value?

I myself didn't have a problem with childbirth as I planned my family very young - my son was born when I was 21. I didn't start my career until I was 29; even so, within 10 years I was a national leader in my field and remunerated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lady they had on explaining it on the local radio was actually entirely reasonable despite the "shock horror" headlines:

i) Senior management teams tend to look for people with qualities similar to themselves, as these are mostly comprised of men there will be a bias toward male qualities - residual if unconscious discrimination

ii) Women are less likely to apply for high paid jobs that are perceived as difficult or highly pressured - personal choice

iii) Women with children often do not want to come back to a hard job with long hours - personal choice

So there will always be a gender pay cap whilst those choices are made.

Point (i) remains as a valid point of discrimination but it must be happening in other industries as the senior people in my co and the ones I deal with are about 50:50 men women below the CEO level, CEOs are majority men but ? 70:30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regional hospitsl came out with loads of diversity stats BME women mdn earnings.

It then went onto state its looking recruit more BME who make up 9% of hospital worforce compared to 4% in the region. Surely they should be sackung BME workers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The having it all mums either have a supporting other half who looks after the children, a switch of roles...or they bump them off to boarding school and or childminders.......their choice.....once the time has gone it has gone, never get it back again.....there will always be the rest of your life to work if working is your thing.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem...I get your point. BUT are you insinuating that caring for children isn't work, or merely that it isn't paid work and therefore of no value?

I myself didn't have a problem with childbirth as I planned my family very young - my son was born when I was 21. I didn't start my career until I was 29; even so, within 10 years I was a national leader in my field and remunerated accordingly.

Of course it is work. The point is expecting companies to 'top up' the pay for this time off or part time work is nuts. Would you think that were fair if it was your own company ?

As Frank has pointed out - the reasons behind the 'pay gap' are pretty well known and documented. However the likes of the BBC have this continual headline grabbing plan of just shouting out that women get hard done by - when the detail behind it is far from clear cut.

And yet again - they fail to mention the one thing I always bring up when discussing this - for part time work women on average get paid MORE than men.

Now considering this story has a lot to do with part time work, you think they maybe would have mentioned this.

Anyway - just another BBC rant :)

I don't pay for a licence so shouldn't be as bothered - I can't help it though. Its honestly as if they are actively trying to wind folk up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regional hospitsl came out with loads of diversity stats BME women mdn earnings.

It then went onto state its looking recruit more BME who make up 9% of hospital worforce compared to 4% in the region. Surely they should be sackung BME workers?

Seems very strange. But yes your logic would appear to indicate that.

Its like English football - we never hear the end of how there are less BEM managers in the English leagues than there 'should' be based on population. Whilst NEVER hearing that when it comes to players in the game BEM are massively over represented compared to the population.

CAKE - IT - EAT - AND - HAVE - YOUR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women just like to feel collectively victimised as that fits in nicely with their aren't men all barstewards men hating mantra.

The fact is that equality already exists in the workplace between the sexes and there is no glass ceiling for a female work drone if she indeed wants to be the next CEO just don't have children or expect to look after them as you can't do both.

My wife is on a comfortable six figure salary, now in charge of a medium sized company with a turnover in excess of $200million per annum. Out of the thirty people that applied for this role (the ones that made it past paper sift) she was the only female that applied but got the job on merit alone and not to meet some silly gender equality framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get paid to do work for someone else...they used to call it "hiring", which led to the phrase "hiring and firing".

You dont get paid to have kids per se, you dont get paid to do vaccuuming or doing the gardening.

Hence, if you have 4 years off, you dont get paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem...I get your point. BUT are you insinuating that caring for children isn't work, or merely that it isn't paid work and therefore of no value?

I myself didn't have a problem with childbirth as I planned my family very young - my son was born when I was 21. I didn't start my career until I was 29; even so, within 10 years I was a national leader in my field and remunerated accordingly.

+1

I'm looking after my 12 month old son (while wife works) and its a full time job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hospital produced stats on average male and female earnings. They dont look too bad until you look at the wage distrubution. The place has loads of low paid cleaners and clerical workers. A more cynical person would think thses are made up jobs to keep the averages down.

They should be stopped from using averages andmove to bandsor averages on job function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a tie in to tax credits.

Having kids knocks out one of a couples earningsfor 10 years.

TCs encourage both to drop out of work for 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem...I get your point. BUT are you insinuating that caring for children isn't work, or merely that it isn't paid work and therefore of no value?

I myself didn't have a problem with childbirth as I planned my family very young - my son was born when I was 21. I didn't start my career until I was 29; even so, within 10 years I was a national leader in my field and remunerated accordingly.

I dream of owning a field

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've worked in a variety of industries for a lot of very well known companies for the last 25 years and I've never seen the barest hint of discrimination against women when it comes to promotions. Women got promoted if they were up to it, just like everyone else. Of course there were usually a lot more men around at all levels but thats just because IT/tech attracts more blokes.

If a women doesnt get promoted the its down to lack of talent/ability/motivation but of course they always like to blame someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO sex discrimination by sex has entirely disappeared in big professional companies where most of us seem to work.

I question whether this is also the case in smaller local companies. I know family owned firms where family members get the jobs (one where the son or brother insisted on being FD despite not being an accountant, that unsurprisingly went bust) and others where jobs go to drinking mates.

The former excludes everyone but the latter certainly acts as a discriminator against women as spending several hours down the pub drinking beer to excess and rambling on about football and women is not going to be many women's idea of an enjoyable evening.

I don't however see that there is anything to be done about either, in the latter a teetotal man would be equally shut out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO sex discrimination by sex has entirely disappeared in big professional companies where most of us seem to work.

I question whether this is also the case in smaller local companies. I know family owned firms where family members get the jobs (one where the son or brother insisted on being FD despite not being an accountant, that unsurprisingly went bust) and others where jobs go to drinking mates.

The former excludes everyone but the latter certainly acts as a discriminator against women as spending several hours down the pub drinking beer to excess and rambling on about football and women is not going to be many women's idea of an enjoyable evening.

I don't however see that there is anything to be done about either, in the latter a teetotal man would be equally shut out.

True.

Ive worked for small and big companies, all private, all specialist (which might have a bearing on recruitment policy).

Hand on heart, I can swear Ive never discriminated. Less down to my own discipline on bias and more down to the fact when we'd thinned out the interview choices there were 1) Very few people 2) One always stuck and beat the other others in the interviews.

This contrasts very differently to Northern local councils where it s more nepotism than discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big problem with SJWs like the Beeb encouraging the rigging of the labour market for 'diversity' and equal ops etc. is that it increases costs a lot. Far eastern countries without such legislation will benefit and kill us commercially, and we will simply end up skinter. With fewer jobs for BME's, wimmin, evil white blokes, oldsters, youngsters, LGBTs and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big problem with SJWs like the Beeb encouraging the rigging of the labour market for 'diversity' and equal ops etc. is that it increases costs a lot. Far eastern countries without such legislation will benefit and kill us commercially, and we will simply end up skinter. With fewer jobs for BME's, wimmin, evil white blokes, oldsters, youngsters, LGBTs and all.

BBC is hardly diverse is it?

All London based middleclass whingers.

If its so keen on promoting Mulsims and supressed wimmin like Nadia bakeacake why dont they move lock stock to bradford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC is hardly diverse is it?

All London based middleclass whingers.

If its so keen on promoting Mulsims and supressed wimmin like Nadia bakeacake why dont they move lock stock to bradford?

Their Olympics coverage was rather female focused when it came to presenters and all. Most women are just not hugely interested in Sports. So the chances of having a group of pundits and presenters - sitting talking about sport due to their experience and knowledge of it - and most of them being female - is slim to none !!

Same with anything of the opposite as well.

Yet with the womens' football show - the few times I have turned over an its been on - 100% female pundits and presenters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a strong element of merit there. The lead woman anchor was very good and it is a real skill to be able to fill up time without anybody realising you're doing it, Claire Balding's good at this.

I however find must male sports presenters on the telly (you get much better ones on the radio for some reason) either smug, pompous or (like the black presenter on it) amateurish.

Edit: the last male sports presenters I thought were excellent were David Coleman and Frank Bough.

Lineker is smug, Hansen is pompous, Chile's continually made annoying unfunny quips, Inverdale is just dull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a strong element of merit there. The lead woman anchor was very good and it is a real skill to be able to fill up time without anybody realising you're doing it, Claire Balding's good at this.

I however find must male sports presenters on the telly (you get much better ones on the radio for some reason) either smug, pompous or (like the black presenter on it) amateurish.

I found that Indian - as in Indian-indian, not British Indian, who used to do sport terrible.

'And Newcastle kick off. Hes aiming for the wicket. But is that LBW by the goal keeper'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is work. The point is expecting companies to 'top up' the pay for this time off or part time work is nuts. Would you think that were fair if it was your own company ?

No I don't think companies should top up by paying for this time off. Nor do I think the taxpayers should. When people want to start a family, they should do so self funded, not being reliant on the State to keep them in the style in which they wish to become accustomed. I'm all for a large dose of personal responsibility in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't think companies should top up by paying for this time off. Nor do I think the taxpayers should. When people want to start a family, they should do so self funded, not being reliant on the State to keep them in the style in which they wish to become accustomed. I'm all for a large dose of personal responsibility in this country.

Amen. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.