- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,177
It is a real thing but in the opposite direction. Often women are paid more than men!
Poll: Is the 'gender pay gap' a real thing?
- Thread starter kissenger
- Start date
I think it has been pretty clear cut in recent years with results from studies.
On average during the 16-30 bracket women get paid more. Could be due to a lot of women going into office jobs at a young age (PA/admin) and getting paid a fairly decent wage. Meanwhile a lot of men new to the job market go into labouring. That could just be one example.
After 30 it swings the other way and men get paid more. One obvious factor is obviously starting a family. Others could include a lot of women go into retail in their later years if they do not go back to their previous career (if they even go back at all!)
But like others have already pointed out, I am yet to see a decent study that compare like for like. Drills down into specific jobs, levels etc.
To be fair, at least in my sector (insurance), salaries are all over the shop. Two people can be underwriters, but can be on very, very different salaries. Talking 80k and 300k+.
Again it comes down to circumstances, even within the same company. Was the company desperate to hire? Might mean they paid an inflated price. Does the person possibly bring with him an account? Will mean a higher premium.
Then some people are just better at the whole salary dance thing during the recruitment process.
TL;DR: Gender pay gap is a myth.
On average during the 16-30 bracket women get paid more. Could be due to a lot of women going into office jobs at a young age (PA/admin) and getting paid a fairly decent wage. Meanwhile a lot of men new to the job market go into labouring. That could just be one example.
After 30 it swings the other way and men get paid more. One obvious factor is obviously starting a family. Others could include a lot of women go into retail in their later years if they do not go back to their previous career (if they even go back at all!)
But like others have already pointed out, I am yet to see a decent study that compare like for like. Drills down into specific jobs, levels etc.
To be fair, at least in my sector (insurance), salaries are all over the shop. Two people can be underwriters, but can be on very, very different salaries. Talking 80k and 300k+.
Again it comes down to circumstances, even within the same company. Was the company desperate to hire? Might mean they paid an inflated price. Does the person possibly bring with him an account? Will mean a higher premium.
Then some people are just better at the whole salary dance thing during the recruitment process.
TL;DR: Gender pay gap is a myth.
My other half is a Chartered Surveyor - the gender pay gap is very real. She's an extremely experienced, dedicated and driven individual, who bills more than her male counterparts. The majority of the males in the same role, if not all, are paid considerably more than her. This is stupid when you take into account that she has the same qualifications, same (if not more) experience and operates in an identical role where overtime is not a factor. She also bills more than them in a year.
So yeah, the gap definitely does exist in that industry.
So yeah, the gap definitely does exist in that industry.
Do surveyors work work commission at all?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Does your wife get paid less than her male counterparts who have the same role/qualifications/customers at the same employer?
If so, she can go to HR, as it is not hard to prove. If they do not work for the same employers, then her pay compared to someone else's is irrelevant
Last edited:
so what was the reason given when she asked HR why she was being paid less?
Because you start by opening with an example of a woman who is clearly an exception to the rule. 6.1 is far above the average male height (with associated build) let alone that for a woman.
You then go on to discuss how judging people against averages is wrong.
Following this you then say everyone should use standards. These standards are often built upon an average with a positive or negative skew applied.
So you present someone above average as an example, say averages are bad and then that we should use standard values.
I come from a family of police officers (both male and female) and can give you real world experience of why in the vast vast majority of cases a male officer is superior to a female officer.
I can also provide information how on 2 occasions a WPC nearly cost my step-father his life where had she been replaced with a PC it is very likely the situations would have been very different.
Put it this way, if men and women are truly equal and only one entity then why are the recruitment standards different for them?
If men were to drop to the standards required of women then I think we can all agree we'd see a rise in both the number of officer injuries and criminals who escape. If women had to rise to the fitness levels for men then we'd see far fewer women in the police forces.
i'd genuinely like to hear the stories, i'm very bored
I've mentioned the first on here before. Guy with mental issues with a knife outside a cinema waiting for people to leave. Dad tackled him, took him to the ground but was struggling to hold him and disarm him. WPC who was with him ran away to 'call for backup' after she tried and couldn't hold the guys arm down. Dad received a commendation for that one and a lot of cuts. She received a reprimand.
Other one involved another addict who stabbed him with a dirty needle. He was cuffed and the WPC was holding him whilst my dad was checking him for sharps. WPC couldn't keep hold and the guy pulled one out of his pocket and got my dad as he tried to restrain him again.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
What are you talking about? The recruitment is the same for men and women (at least in E&W).
Not in Scotland it ain't! Nor most other forces within Europe. Think the states are though.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I'll make an assumption that your step dad retired a while ago. Using anecdotes from the past isn't really that helpful here. This isn't an argument against women - there are both physically strong men and women, but an argument for better personal safety training for officers. You don't need to be strong to pin down someone much larger than you, you just need good technique.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Well policing is rather different north of the border, but my point stands that the majority of police officers in the UK have the same requirements regardless of gender.
Your point also ignores the fact that women may be better at other aspects of policing. Being a police officer isn't all about blue light runs and fighting with people, indeed that's a minority of the work.
first results from a quick google ( cant be bothered digging for the actual guidelines) but it does look like the army the tests are easier/cut down for women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-181623/Police-fitness-tests-downgraded-women.html
this article is just frankly bizarre though?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Police-fitness-test-biased-against-women.html
!? its discriminatory and unfair to actually test stamina?
And where technique isn't followed strength can make up for it.
Put it this way, who is more likely to win in a foot chase a man, or a woman?
Who is more likely to be able to hold on to a suspect in order to put a proper restraint technique in to practice? Someone stronger or someone weaker?
the first story just wtf?
surely in that situation ok, fine you find yourself too weak to hold the guys arms rather than run away you ****ing boot the **** out of his shoulders/elbow/hands or something?
May be better at other aspects. Not are. May be.
Policing is a highly physical job, hence the fitness tests and entry requirements. The simple fact is men, on average, are more physically capable than women. This is why all physical sports are separated in to male and female classes.
Yes, a female rape victim or victim of domestic abuse is probably going to be more comfortable when dealt with by a female officer but in those cases specially trained officers could be deployed.
It logically makes sense for front-line policing to be carried out by the most suitable candidates for the job which, as mentioned, due to the likely physical needs are more likely to be males.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
That's a rather sloppy plan B.
Perhaps it'd be the person who has the foresight to stay in the car drive around the block and then chase when the odds are more in their favour. Foot chases are pretty rare as well tbh and when they do, most officers won't catch a 16 yr old with all the equipment we wear regardless of gender. It's a moot point.
Someone stronger may have a marginal advantage, but it is marginal. This is all missing the point though. If you're a good communicator, you're less likely to ever have to go hands on. When you work with lots of officers you see that some are better at talking to people, getting a rapport and calming them down than others. If you're good at the former, any marginal advantage you had from strength is a bit pointless.