Poll: Is the 'gender pay gap' a real thing?

[Tosno]

If you mind then complain to hr for equal treatment

Complaining to women about women not pulling their weight

 

[Tefal]

You tell me would it be wrong then to fire the women for her less productivity, as any similar man doing less work would be. If a women is let go immediately in this sort of instance it is a problem because she is a women and firing her because of not enough output would be sexist. Do you think that is reasonable? Maybe the employer just wants someone to do a minimum of 500 bricks and the women can't do it.

Well it is a trick question because there are no female brick layers.

But it is still a good example because it uses individual units of work. I could have easily said x number of widgets at a factory.

The point is that feminists want it both ways. They want pay to be based on individual merit and gender must be ignored (which is reasonable), and they want it to be based hypocritically on gender (ie women want to be paid more solely because men are paid more) not individual merit. Can't have it both ways.

If women are to be paid more only because they are a woman and not based on individual merit, then men should be compensated as a group for doing more work.

They would be discaplined a cording to the companies performance rules.

It wouldn't be sexist it would just be for not performing in their role.

We have men and women in our factory, if you don't make your hours a manager had a word if it happens regularly you start on the disciplinary procedure if it doesn't improve and you got through all the stages and there isn't an underlying problem then it's out the door.
Gender doesn't come into it

 

[Spook187]

Of course they should be paid the same if they do the same roles, easy jobs like IT or pottering about office jobs

 

[anything I don't mind]

They would be discaplined a cording to the companies performance rules.

It wouldn't be sexist it would just be for not performing in their role.

We have men and women in our factory, if you don't make your hours a manager had a word if it happens regularly you start on the disciplinary procedure if it doesn't improve and you got through all the stages and there isn't an underlying problem then it's out the door.
Gender doesn't come into it

I am not talking about making your hours, i am talking about productivity. It would be considered gender discrimination to fire a women who does her hours but due to physical or technical or pragmatic reasons does not perform her duties as well as her male counter parts in terms of productivity statistics. You can't fire a women because she performs less than her male counter parts legally speaking.

 

[darkgen]

? What is that quote meant to mean?

Anything and nothing, some would imagine.

It was a whimsical pervade to [TW]Fox's predetermined biological role-play, in vein to another poster

 

[Vulcan]

Source to studies please.

http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:163964&dswid=3767

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

The above show that girls with CAH (too much male hormones) play with masculine toys.


http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

Male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while female infants show a stronger interest in the face.

 

[Tefal]

I am not talking about making your hours, i am talking about productivity. It would be considered gender discrimination to fire a women who does her hours but due to physical or technical or pragmatic reasons does not perform her duties as well as her male counter parts in terms of productivity statistics. You can't fire a women because she performs less than her male counter parts legally speaking.

So am I in our factory each job has a set time for doing it it's our productivity measure ie "number of bricks" (say fitting each part gets you half an hour you need to fit enough to = 80% the number of hours you're paid for)

And yes you can fire any member of staff for not meeting production standards their gender isn't a factor.

 

[Tefal]

Anything and nothing, some would imagine.

It was a whimsical pervade to [TW]Fox's predetermined biological role-play, in vein to another poster

Really it sounded like you were saying only humans fight

 

[dowie]

i don't mind, but people were mentioning that women don't do less in jobs, i know that women do do less at my place, and mentioned it. It was brought up at a meeting previously and people just said it wasn't worth the hassle to change it.

there is only a very loose relationship between pay and what you actually do in most places

the big things that affect pay are stuff like the scarcity of your skill set at the time you joined, your previous salary, how hard you negotiate etc..

it is perfectly possible for two people doing the same job to be on very different salaries and for that to have very little to do with performance - maybe if the lower paid guy works harder he'll get a bigger % rise as a result of his better performance review - the higher paid guy is still going to get some rise though and the lower paid guy isn't necessarily going to catch him up, they'll just pay him enough so he feels happy

you get real rises through job hopping and promotions - hopefully the lower paid guy eventually gets promoted if he is really good and gets a big bump eventually

if you're not currently employed then you have a weaker position from which to negotiate - if you're female then supposedly you're less likely to negotiate anyway

if you've taken time off to have kids then you want to re-enter the workforce then you're not in as strong a position to negotiate pay compared with someone already in employment going for a new job

I'd expect a woman with 10 years experience interrupted by two gaps due to having children to be paid less on average than a person whether male or female with 10 year uninterrupted experience and the usual job hopping with an average time spent in each role

while there might well be some sexist hiring managers out there I don't think there is any sort of conspiracy against women - so long as they're having kids they're going to be at an inherent disadvantage anyway

 

[darkgen]

Really it sounded like you were saying only humans fight

Then I'm glad clarity was sought.

 

[anything I don't mind]

So am I in our factory each job has a set time for doing it it's our productivity measure ie "number of bricks" (say fitting each part gets you half an hour you need to fit enough to = 80% the number of hours you're paid for)

And yes you can fire any member of staff for not meeting production standards their gender isn't a factor.

That sounds like a good way to get around this problem of productivity gender politics. People moaning about not getting paid the same as men are not advocating for a system based on merit like that.

 

[elmarko]

The issue with the gender pay gap is far more complex than a simple average. For one, we can't look at a high level figure & derive any meaning from it at all - first it needs to be split by tenure in a role, the pay for the role & performance.

I'd split the whole subject in a few ways.

1. Existing laws being broken.
Women being paid less for the same job, in the same company with the same productivity - due to sexist decisions made by those higher up.

This is very straightforward & should be addressed right away.

2. Encouragement for both men & women to not be put off certain professions by gender stereotypes.
This again, it's not highly controversial - pre-existing biases & pressures to avoid or go into certain professions should be broken down & people encouraged to work in whatever field they can excel at.

3. The perceived value of certain professions.
I would say, that nursing, carers, cleaners & other at times difficult & often demanding roles do deserve higher pay - there is I'd say a level of historic bias resulting in these jobs being perceived as 'women's jobs' & therefore less worthy of higher remuneration.

By addressing this alone, we are likely to see a closing of the gap to some degree.

4. Separating those who take time out to have a child, from those who want to work part time.
I do believe society should be accommodating to women who take time off to have children regarding career progression, I'd also extend this to men who adopt or anybody who is the primary care giver for a child (it could be offered to the man or women - this should be a choice made by the family).

On the other hand, we can't include this to extend to people who simply now wish to go part time - while they should be given the opportunity in existing roles to go part time (productivity isn't harmed much) - we can't expect progression to follow the same route of these individuals to have the same level of advancement. At a very basic level, in many companies some roles can't function on a part time basis & this alone is likely to result in a gender pay gap - but this is a justifiable difference.

Ham fisting a quota of people into senior positions I don't feel is the right way about it - it undermines merit in some cases & harbours resentment. The crux of the matter is a singular figure means nothing & we have to look far closer at the matter to understand the depth, scale & direction of the imbalance to avoid us falling into a series of amalgamation paradoxes.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Sorry, as an extension to that statement, I know that it does but I was under the impression it requires other things that weren't see as an option in the past.

It doesn't. Polls are a toggle option for usergroups the same as posting and viewing etc. In fact you can even limit it to specific forums etc.

Vbulletin is pretty flexible.

 

[dowie]

1. Existing laws being broken.
Women being paid less for the same job, in the same company with the same productivity - due to sexist decisions made by those higher up.

This is very straightforward & should be addressed right away.

that isn't always straightforward - you could maybe show it is likely happening in a large organisation where you've got a large sample and can demonstrate there is a significant difference

but with a smaller sample you'd expect people, whether male or female, to earn rather different amounts in some fields - if someone who happens to be female earns less than someone who happens to be male in the same role despite having the same level of experience and similar productivity that in itself isn't evidence of sexual discrimination - that situation can happen in spite of gender

 

[Burnsy2023]

This isn't about pay point but....

For example if I was a riot cop and an aggressive mob are approaching me, I wouldn't feel safe with a woman at my side.

My point is that you don't know what you're talking about. I can think of a few example just off the top of my head where I wouldn't just feel safe with a woman beside me but actively relieved. One of our Public Order trainer is female, she could probably put 95% of people on their arse with ease.

Ok you tell me, is it fair for say a female brick layer to put up 250 bricks within a shift and a male brick layer to put up 700 bricks in a shift but they get the same pay because muh equality?

This is a counter question to the op. Should women be paid the same regardless of their productivity just because they are a woman? If it does matter then gender is irrelevant and people should be paid based on their productivity/merit/value to the employer.

How is it fair on the police man or fire man that always has to do the heavy lifting or work the worst shifts?

Most people, regardless of gender, are not paid completely based on performance but time that they're working. Where it is solely performance based, this should be equal regardless of gender.

The fitness test is lower for females, therefore they do less prolonged foot chases, foot patrol, use of force for long periods of time, apprehension of fighting/struggling suspects, moving/pushing objects. Science!

Not in E&W they're not. It's the same standard for both male and female officers.

 

[elmarko]

that isn't always straightforward - you could maybe show it is likely happening in a large organisation where you've got a large sample and can demonstrate there is a significant difference

but with a smaller sample you'd expect people, whether male or female, to earn rather different amounts in some fields - if someone who happens to be female earns less than someone who happens to be male in the same role despite having the same level of experience and similar productivity that in itself isn't evidence of sexual discrimination - that situation can happen in spite of gender

Obviously for one off events, but if it's systemic across a company against a wider trend then it would be a cause to examine further to determine if there is anything amiss.

 

[anything I don't mind]

The issue with the gender pay gap is far more complex than a simple average. For one, we can't look at a high level figure & derive any meaning from it at all - first it needs to be split by tenure in a role, the pay for the role & performance.

I'd split the whole subject in a few ways.

1. Existing laws being broken.
Women being paid less for the same job, in the same company with the same productivity - due to sexist decisions made by those higher up.

This is very straightforward & should be addressed right away.

2. Encouragement for both men & women to not be put off certain professions by gender stereotypes.
This again, it's not highly controversial - pre-existing biases & pressures to avoid or go into certain professions should be broken down & people encouraged to work in whatever field they can excel at.

3. The perceived value of certain professions.
I would say, that nursing, carers, cleaners & other at times difficult & often demanding roles do deserve higher pay - there is I'd say a level of historic bias resulting in these jobs being perceived as 'women's jobs' & therefore less worthy of higher remuneration.

By addressing this alone, we are likely to see a closing of the gap to some degree.

4. Separating those who take time out to have a child, from those who want to work part time.
I do believe society should be accommodating to women who take time off to have children regarding career progression, I'd also extend this to men who adopt or anybody who is the primary care giver for a child (it could be offered to the man or women - this should be a choice made by the family).

On the other hand, we can't include this to extend to people who simply now wish to go part time - while they should be given the opportunity in existing roles to go part time (productivity isn't harmed much) - we can't expect progression to follow the same route of these individuals to have the same level of advancement. At a very basic level, in many companies some roles can't function on a part time basis & this alone is likely to result in a gender pay gap - but this is a justifiable difference.

Ham fisting a quota of people into senior positions I don't feel is the right way about it - it undermines merit in some cases & harbours resentment. The crux of the matter is a singular figure means nothing & we have to look far closer at the matter to understand the depth, scale & direction of the imbalance to avoid us falling into a series of amalgamation paradoxes.

Being paid was never about doing the same job as some one. It has always been about individual productivity. If you do more work you can ask for more money, many men are underpaid as well. In different industries there are many men that are paid as equally as low as women relative to other men and women who are paid more for doing the same work.

There are many female dominated industries, why don't we see men being promoted in to female dominated industries, when they obviously face the same social pressures against becoming a nurse or nanny or preschool teacher. This idea that women need to be pushed in to male dominated industries because equality is extremely gynocentric and inequality.

Men are also a part of the family and struggle working and bringing up children, especially since women have started working and expecting men to play a much greater part in the upbringing of the children and doing house work and the rest. Women should not be complaining that they can get many months full pay while bringing up the children, that is a good thing and if men could get that as well that would be equality. As for the argument that women productivity can be less than men because they are a women and bringing up children or is not as physically as able. Sure it is nice for an employer to take that in to consideration but I don't think that an employer should be forced to accept a lower level of productivity because of person's personal circumstances.

 

[ultralaser]

I've personally never seen gender equality in pay at any workplace I've been at. In general there the claims where unfounded and in several cases the women in question had many years off raising children (and losing skills / market awareness in this period) compared with their male rivals.

 

[George Hincapie]

Where is the 'I couldn't care less' voting option?

I've got mine.

 

[balky12]

I really don't see why the liberals insist on 50/50 across the board. I get the ideology behind it. But it's simply that.

There are male dominated industries, there are female dominated industries. Salary is a funny thing and it's not even totally equal between people of same sexes. Far too many variables.

Nothing is stopping anyone getting into careers. i.e Females into engineering or males becoming beauticians. It's peoples interests. Why do you need more males to be interested in beauty? Why do you need more females to be interested in engineering?

There is no need for everything to be 50/50. Only reason I can see is so it looks good on some tick boxing exercise that serves no purpose.

EDIT: my point is what are the benefits of forcing the 50/50? What is there to gain? I mean we are equal right? So it makes no difference the ratio. How will these industries benefit from hiring more of either sex?