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

[Dis86]

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?

You would have thought so but no, hence her reprimand.

Your previous links also point out something interesting. Constant dropping of requirements.

Infact...https://www.policeuk.com/fitness_test.php

PoliceUK say it themselves!

It makes you wonder, is the job getting easier? I certainly wouldn't think so. If not, then why are the standards dropping so much?

 

[Burnsy2023]

May be better at other aspects. Not are. May be.

Indeed, I wouldn't want to put out unsubstantiated opinions that I can't backup with anything more than anecdote

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.

This is dependant on your role and where you work, but most policing in my county is not a highly physical job. Most of it is talking to people, taking statements and doing the rest of the paperwork that is required. Most officers don't run - they don't need to. Driving to jobs, getting out to sit on someone's sofa to take a statement is not physically demanding, but is the majority of present day policing. Police officers are investigators primarily.

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.

They usually are for sexual offences, but domestics are dealt with by most front line officers and are the majority of our work. Are you suggesting that women may be better at the most common job we go to?

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.

This just demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of what policing actually is and what police officers do day to day.

 

[Dis86]

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.

No, what you're missing here is worst case scenario. Not best case which is what planning and foresight are useful for. Some people cannot be talked to. Some people cannot be reasoned with. Particularly addicts who are high and people suffering mental delusions.
Come back when you've had a reasoned discussion with a guy high on meth.

And marginal advantage? What do you think makes someone the best in the world at something vs second place? Marginal advantages.

If I have to contend with someone believe me, I'd much rather have a marginal advantage!

 

[Dis86]

Indeed, I wouldn't want to put out unsubstantiated opinions that I can't backup with anything more than anecdote



This is dependant on your role and where you work, but most policing in my county is not a highly physical job. Most of it is talking to people, taking statements and doing the rest of the paperwork that is required. Most officers don't run - they don't need to. Driving to jobs, getting out to sit on someone's sofa to take a statement is not physically demanding, but is the majority of present day policing. Police officers are investigators primarily.



They usually are for sexual offences, but domestics are dealt with by most front line officers and are the majority of our work. Are you suggesting that women may be better at the most common job we go to?



This just demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of what policing actually is and what police officers do day to day.

Again, you don't plan for day to day, you plan for worst case scenario. Which is why the police were so utterly inept during the riots a few years back, they simply hadn't planned for worst case. They hadn't considered anything of that scale.
Domestic violence against women isn't the most common crime in the UK, although granted a lot of it probably goes unreported. Unless you've seen different statistics to me?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...9014/attach/html/2/ResponseT20985 10.doc.html

 

[Dave M]

The gender pay gap isn't about equal pay for equal work, that was fixed decades ago.

The pay gap is there because well paid jobs (managerial and professional) demand greater commitment to the job than family (long hours, travel).

Many more women than men work part time as they are the primary carers of children (not saying they have to be, but mostly they are), how many part time posts are there for managers, teachers and doctors? Men put up with this because it's culturally more important to us to be a good provider than a good carer, but honestly, if the work culture of long hours = success was tackled it would be good for both men and women.

It always seems crazy to me that when an experienced manager or professional hits retirement, if they want to keep working on a part time basis, with a few exceptions for partners and business owners, there only choice is to work in a diy store. That's the same situation women find themselves in during their 20s and 30s.

 

[Burnsy2023]

No, what you're missing here is worst case scenario. Not best case which is what planning and foresight are useful for. Some people cannot be talked to. Some people cannot be reasoned with. Particularly addicts who are high and people suffering mental delusions.
Come back when you've had a reasoned discussion with a guy high on meth.

I'm finding it a bit amusing to be lectured about thing that I've done for many years now. There will always be worst case scenarios that you are not required for or trained to deal with, a key skill of a police officer is being able to be dynamic and think on your feet and that doesn't necessarily mean going hands on. Some people can't be reasoned with or talked to, but they are very much a minority.

As for planning for the worst case, you could spend your whole life planning for that and still not being equipped to deal with it. You do your best in those situations, but there just isn't the time or money available to train everyone to be UFC fighters. The Police plan for the most common situations or the ones that have the most impact, because that's where you get the most return for the money and time.

Your perception of what it's like to do the job just doesn't stack up to reality. I am not uncommon in saying that I have never actually had to hit someone with my ASP or use CS. Most officers who aren't public order trained (the majority) are similar in only having to have used their equipment rarely if at all. Remembering the right procedure, knowing the law intimately and being able to talk to people well is all much more important than strength.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Again, you don't plan for day to day, you plan for worst case scenario. Which is why the police were so utterly inept during the riots a few years back, they simply hadn't planned for worst case. They hadn't considered anything of that scale.
Domestic violence against women isn't the most common crime in the UK, although granted a lot of it probably goes unreported. Unless you've seen different statistics to me?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...9014/attach/html/2/ResponseT20985 10.doc.html

Those stats don't list DV as a NICL qualifier. Many (probably most) of the common assaults, ABH and Criminal damage will be DV related.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The gender pay gap isn't about equal pay for equal work, that was fixed decades ago.

The pay gap is there because well paid jobs (managerial and professional) demand greater commitment to the job than family (long hours, travel).

Many more women than men work part time as they are the primary carers of children (not saying they have to be, but mostly they are), how many part time posts are there for managers, teachers and doctors? Men put up with this because it's culturally more important to us to be a good provider than a good carer, but honestly, if the work culture of long hours = success was tackled it would be good for both men and women.

It always seems crazy to me that when an experienced manager or professional hits retirement, if they want to keep working on a part time basis, with a few exceptions for partners and business owners, there only choice is to work in a diy store. That's the same situation women find themselves in during their 20s and 30s.

A good point, well made.

 

[Robi]

Do surveyors work work commission at all?

No commission. As a rule of thumb, your salary is meant to be apporoximately 30% of what you bill per year. She was billing more than her counterparts.

 

[Robi]

so what was the reason given when she asked HR why she was being paid less?

When she was newly qualified, she was paid around about £3k less than the newly qualified males.

Predominately male industry. Majority of directors/partners are male etc. Speaking to HR is unfortunately not an effective option, as a female colleague followed that route; the route ended up with her being shown the door.

 

[Dis86]

Those stats don't list DV as a NICL qualifier. Many (probably most) of the common assaults, ABH and Criminal damage will be DV related.

Do you wear your vest when you're on duty?

Do you carry your baton?

I bet the answer is yes to both. And I bet you've never had your vest save you and I bet you rarely use the baton. They're there for worst case scenarios.

 

[Angilion]

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.

Which was central to my point - tendencies are not absolutes. That's why it's wrong to apply the average for millions of people to any individual - any given person might or might not be average in any given respect and might be very significantly different to average in any given respect.

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.

I wrote this:

The answer which isn't wrong and silly is to use standards relevant to the position and judge every applicant against those standards on an individual basis.

There is absolutely nothing in that statement which in any way implies using averages in any way. In fact, my entire point, repeated and explained in detail, was that averages should not be used. Standards relevant to the position. If people are applying for the same position, the standards should be the same because the position is the same. There should never, ever, under any circumstances, be standards set by averages or anything other than the position being applied for. Standards relevant to the position.

You have manufactured a contradiction in your own mind and imposed it on my position despite the fact that it's exactly the opposite of what I wrote and has nothing to do with me.

There are no contradictions in my post.

EDIT: A clarification. I would consider it acceptable to test applicants against standards relevant to the position and choose the applicant(s) who did best on those standards rather than having a fixed pass mark. But always, always, solely standards relevant to the position.

 

[Angilion]

What are you talking about? The recruitment is the same for men and women (at least in E&W).

Is it really the same or is it feminist "equality", i.e. women get preferential treatment and everyone is conditioned to believe (or at least ordered to say) that's the same?

I've seen people write (and apparently believe) that requiring a standard for men far above the standard required for women is the same standard because of average biological differences. They were doing exactly what Dis86 referred to - using averages, e.g. requiring a woman to be able to run 100m x% faster than average for a woman is the same standard as requiring a man to be able to run 100m x% faster than average for a man. It's a lie, obviously, but it's a politically useful lie. In the real world, if the time taken to run 100m is a relevant standard for the position (which it would be for the police, since they may well have to chase someone sometimes) then what matters is the time taken. Someone running from the police isn't going to run slower if the copper chasing them is a woman just because the average sprinting speed for women is lower than the average sprinting speed for men.

 

[StriderX]

Should probably be noted that the fact a PC is woman might aggravate most suspects into being far more violent.

Maybe it's just the media but a lot of recent police shootings (pc getting shot) have been female.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
This just demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of what policing actually is and what police officers do day to day.

Reams of bloody paperwork?

It's been quite a while since I knew any of the police well so maybe things have changed, but I recall them grumbling about the amount of paperwork.



Some while ago, I locked myself out of a flat I was living in. The door was partially glazed, so I decided that I'd take the glass out so I could gain entry and then refit the glass. It was a lot more work than I expected, so I was there for a while trying to take the glass out and being careful to do no damage.

The lease was in someone else's name but they were living with someone else and letting me live there. The point in this case is that there was no official record of me living there. Not even bills in my name.

So I'm there breaking into the flat when I sensed someone approaching from behind me, from the street. Someone had called the police and reported someone breaking into a flat, so they sent an officer round to investigate. He found that, yes, there was a person in the process of breaking into a flat.

So he watched, assessed the situation, then approached, spoke to me and assessed my responses. No drama. Then a neighbour came out, greeted him by name and told him I'd been living there for a few months. So he reported back and left. Incident reported, attended, investigated, closed. No drama.

I'm glad I live in a country where that's how policing is done.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I don't know that there was a report. Maybe he was just passing and saw me.

 

[Angilion]

The gender pay gap isn't about equal pay for equal work, that was fixed decades ago.

The pay gap is there because well paid jobs (managerial and professional) demand greater commitment to the job than family (long hours, travel).

Many more women than men work part time as they are the primary carers of children (not saying they have to be, but mostly they are), how many part time posts are there for managers, teachers and doctors? Men put up with this because it's culturally more important to us to be a good provider than a good carer, but honestly, if the work culture of long hours = success was tackled it would be good for both men and women.

It always seems crazy to me that when an experienced manager or professional hits retirement, if they want to keep working on a part time basis, with a few exceptions for partners and business owners, there only choice is to work in a diy store. That's the same situation women find themselves in during their 20s and 30s.

I agree, but I think you've understated the problem somewhat.

It's not just about working full time or part time. It's also about how many hours constitute "full time" because that varies wildly. For whatever reason (I think it's purely cultural, but it's impossible to seperate nature and nurture for certain until after the nurture has changed, if it does) more men than women are willing to commit more of their life to their job. People who are willing to work 50+ hours a week every week and spend 15+ hours commuting and and travel whenever and wherever they're told to for as long as they're told to (e.g. "we need you to transfer to another location for 6 months")...those people are far more likely to get promoted than people who work 35 hours a week.

It's worth noting that in studies created to fiddle the figures to make the biggest possible "gender gap" define "full time" as low as they like since it's not a formally defined term. If you count 24 hours per week as full time, you "find" a much bigger gender gap because people working 24 hours a week usually get paid much less than people working 40 or 50 hours a week.

Equal pay for equal work was fixed decades ago, but the current "gap" is almost always deliberately misrepresented as being proof of women being universally paid less than men for the same work because that's an extremely useful lie for people who have devoted their lives to promoting antimale sexism.

 

[Angilion]

Those stats don't list DV as a NICL qualifier. Many (probably most) of the common assaults, ABH and Criminal damage will be DV related.

So...most of the victims of domestic violence are men?