It would be daft of them to admit that if so.
It would be fine, legally, I would think if they just said they'd re-evaluated the market rate for the lower paid staff, even if the real intent was to narrow the pay gap.
Has anyone elses salary been affected by the gender pay gap yet?
- Thread starter Roar87
- Start date
It would be daft of them to admit that if so.
It would be fine, legally, I would think if they just said they'd re-evaluated the market rate for the lower paid staff, even if the real intent was to narrow the pay gap.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
You don't need a sex change. Just tell them you identify as a woman.
If they don't give you the same pay rise as other women it's an act of violence.
If they don't give you the same pay rise as other women it's an act of violence.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,329
- Location
- Rollergirl
Why do you have to sulk about lower paid employees getting a decent wage rise? You also got a wage rise, so I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that your salary has been affected by the "gender pay gap".
Why do we as a society absolutely hate to see someone else get ahead?
Why do we as a society absolutely hate to see someone else get ahead?
I don’t think you’ve read the OP.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,329
- Location
- Rollergirl
I've read it; the company haven't been paying their lower paid staff enough so they've now given them a 10% wage rise. Someone who isn't the lowest paid is now sulking because they haven't received a 10% rise.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,079
Not sure what sort of money OP is on, but someone on 20k getting a 10% rise and someone on 60k getting a 3% rise get pretty much the exact same rise.
Seems fair to me, the lesser paid people need it more.
Seems fair to me, the lesser paid people need it more.
Two people in the same grade of job can be paid significantly different amounts of money for a variety of factors, for example the willingness of men vs women to negotiate initial salary.
I didn't sulk, I'm happy for them. I said that in my OP. But they got a 10% payrise and I got a 2% pay rise, the primary reason being that more of them are women.
I'm closer to the first figure than the second.
We all got 2% last year and people complained.
It would be a shame if it was, but it isn't. That's just a politically useful lie. It might happen sometimes, but it is illegal and it's not worth the risk to the company.
What the "gender pay gap" people want isn't equal pay for equal work. What they want is discrimination against men. Lying about equal pay for equal work is just a means to that end.
I'll use myself and a coworker as an example. Her pay is 75% of mine and we do the same job. Super-mega-obvious sexism, right? Wrong. We're both hourly paid at the same rate and she works 75% as many hours as I do. What "gender pay gap" people want in that context is for women to be paid more per hour than men for the same work, so she gets the same pay as me for working fewer hours. In general, what they want is blanket discrimination against men in pay, promotion prospects, everything.
There is some evidence of a few percent difference in jobs with negotiated salaries, usually resulting in men being paid slightly more. That's probably due to a trend for men to ask for more money more often than women do.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,180
- Location
- South, Scotland
Sorry but it sounds like your stating a very obvious thing that applies to man vs man, man vs female or female vs female. Everyone's personality differs so some are more willing to take a chance or not, not every person is willing to take their company for as much as possible. Some people feel that a companies superiors show know the staff they want to keep and keep them sweet as possible.
Sorry I want to share this since I dont have any friends that care, so here is a bit of a unload (Sorry OP, not trying to high jack. Its kind of related)
I moved into an infrastructure team at the start April this year and I haven't stopped working my ass off since. Some of it came from trying to impress, some from knowing the companies issues and genuinely wanting to sort them as much as possible and some from the fact I get to play with new stuff and learn. Another part of me is happy that someone once talk too was willing to see me as a possibility and give me 6 months to prove myself.
I'm going to be honest, I can be my worst enemy at times. I was extremely unhappy over the last few years and was open with it to some other colleagues, I made my mouth go about wanting to try my arm at contracting around desktop support/2nd line due the shambles that was my work at the time. But over the years I moved into my first home and had my priories change to wanting to be a free spirit to wanting stability. But that open unhappiness bite me in the arse when one of those colleagues (Contractor at the time) took a pay cut and came into the company and took management of the infrastructure team.
I'm very glade that he didn't hold my past attitude against me and he told me straight that he didn't want that attitude coming with me to the team for the 6 month secondment. I was clear back in the day why I had issues but I stowed it and parked it and worked my ass off. Funny thing is that he was due to tell me what was to happen at the end of September with the secondment but it came and went, I only just got a one to one with him on 22nd of December (For clarity I was meant to have one once a month every month, I had my second one in 9 months then). I have to say I was very nervous when I asked what was going on, he basically said that he want to see me sweet and see if I came off the rails at all (Two other staff started secondments in my secondment time, one just struggles and the other went off the rails cause he wasn't hand held and didn't want to wade through the piles of ****** jobs in infrastructure that no one wants to do (For clarity, work is work that's what your paid for! If you have free time do that **** until the boss has time adjust your priorities do it)).
So it all came down to him telling me that he will be keeping me on as a permanent infrastructure team member, just needs to do the internal processes to make it so after the new year, its a massive weight off my chest. Mind you it all boils down though to what your temperament is and how far your willing to go out of a limb with management in the end. I could have tried to push it more and sooner, but I just dug in on what needed done in the job and worked my arse off. I don't think there is always one way of skinning that cat, you just need to take the path that makes you happy and gets you where you want to go.
Next year I've got SCCM and management training booked and I'm now moving on to MBAM, SCCM and getting our other structure up for Win 10 LTSB setup ready to replace the WDS/MDT deployment setup for Win 7E I build from scratch. Fast, long, intense and brain draining this 9 months!!
No, that's not it at all.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,180
- Location
- South, Scotland
Again if Person A and Person B are paid the same for the same effort and one does it in 75% of the time it takes the other person.. well its the only way I can see that a person is being paid more per hour since it was for the lack of a better analogy: better work effort per hour. But I'm not one to consider it outside of that context, but I have yet to see anyone who advocates equal pay come up with the way you have stated it.
Dont get me wrong, its not to say that no one believes that. Hell we have all types in the world after all. But I can say that I have never came across anyone like that about equal pay in real life.
If a person advocates that women be paid the same as men for working fewer hours in the same job, that person is advocating that women to be paid more per hour than men. Hours worked is by far the biggest factor in the "gender pay gap", both directly and indirectly through a higher chance of promotion, so that is exactly what is being promoted as being "equal pay".
It's already illegal, socially unacceptable and extremely rare if not non-existent to pay women less than men for the same work. So nobody, nobody who talks about "gender pay gap" is talking about that. They lie about it if it's politically useful at the time and they think they can get away with it, but it's not what they're talking about. What they're talking about is discrimination against men in wages and opportunities because that's the only thing that would get the results they are calling for. None of them are advocating equal pay for equal work - that already exists.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,079
Of course it's equal pay for equal work. Nobody wants women earning more than men per hour for the same job, as that is called discrimination, not equality.
You've just come up with lots of waffle with no stastics to back up what you've said
Of course women in general have to take time off work to have babies, and yes they often want to come back part time or do 4 days instead of 5, but they suffer pay cuts when doing that.
That explains a small amount of the pay gap, but equally there are companies with women doing the exact same job/hours as men and get paid substantially less.
You've just come up with lots of waffle with no stastics to back up what you've said
Of course women in general have to take time off work to have babies, and yes they often want to come back part time or do 4 days instead of 5, but they suffer pay cuts when doing that.
That explains a small amount of the pay gap, but equally there are companies with women doing the exact same job/hours as men and get paid substantially less.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,928
- Location
- Oxon
We’ve just had a pay review at work, partly due to the recent gender pay reporting requirements, and I, a male, have apparently been identified as being underpaid funnily enough.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,079
Don't tell Angilion, that doesn't fit the narrative.
That's amusing considering that your position is entirely faith-based. Your simplistic ideology tells you something is true, so you believe it.
I would explain that an individual being deemed to be underpaid for their job doesn't say anything about millions of people, but that would be pointless. You're a feminist, so you either don't understand or have rejected the entire concept of "a person" in favour of belief in biological group identity.
The idea that people are advocating for something that has already existed for decades at least is obviously nonsense. It's just a front.
Which is what feminists want. Biological group identity and advocacy ideologies don't act in favour of equality. It's the opposite of what they're for. They might lie about it sometimes though, since that's useful.
And you have just come up with an irrational statement of faith with no statistics to back up what you've said.
Even the EU commission on the gender pay gap disagrees with you. Even the Fawcett society, which is an lobbying group for "equal" pay disagrees with you.
It explains almost all of it, either directly or indirectly due to working longer hours being a factor in promotion.
That might happen occasionally, but it's already illegal and socially unacceptable and has been for 50 years so it makes no sense to claim "equal" pay people are advocating for it to be illegal and socially unacceptable. Because it's already both. This is not a complex idea.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,252
- Location
- RG8 9
Not where I work. There is a good mix and I know they are all paid the same. My boss is female, she reports to a male, who then reports to a female, who then reports to the CEO, who is a male. Other operating countries within the group have female CEO's as well and some of them are quite young with children (40's). This is a multi-billion pound Company though.