Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,890
That's very presumptuous of you.
Another bizarre "equality" case
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
That's very presumptuous of you.
Associate
Who's Loretta?
Men date across and down socially, women date across and up. There's almost no women dating men who earn substantially less than them, that's just a fact. I'm not saying your wife is simply with you because you earn a good wage, but success is a large part of what women attractive. Men are mostly interested in looks. Look at who female celebrities are married to or dating, they aren't with some waiter they met at a party
So just answer this in summary.
Are we paying equal pay for equal performance, or are we paying equal pay and expecting less performance from women because they bear children?
It’s not about performance is it? This isn’t my opinion it’s well documented and understood/believed to the point where there are programs and legislation in place to address it.
There’s a mixture of reasons, men being the primary decision makers valuing men more, men making hiring decisions and seeing women who may get pregnant as flighty or uncommitted. Then women who take time off to have children having less “experience” than men and finally women being the primary care givers for children with a work setup that’s tilted in favour of reinforcing that by making it difficult to impossible for men to take paid leave to look after kids/sharing maternity/paternity leave etc etc.
You’re not going to boil it down into a sentence and it’s absolutely not as lolworthy as a brain surgeon being paid the same as a cleaner regardless of their sex. Similarly the idea of a 3rd division footballer being paid the same as a premier league footballer just underlines how people either wilfully or perhaps stupidly don’t understand equality.. They’re doing the same job to vastly different levels of skill therefor the system is fair, plus it’s got nothing to do with sexism. Imagine a world where black players would routinely paid less than white ones simply because they were black, that’s what we’re talking about. Bias that you can’t do anything about.
I mean another way to look at it is if we’re going to pay women less because they have the front to continue the race (and do something men are physically incapable of doing and I suspect wouldn’t do even if they could) aren’t we just perpetually reinforcing the fact they need a man to “provide” for them or they should just accept that if they use their dirty bits to continue the race that has financial impacts and no consideration should be made for how disruptive that can be for your career?
There’s no simple answers and a thread in GD here isn’t going to answer it, but as I said right at the start this is like catnip and some of the responses have been great, exactly what I expected.
You appear to have just contradicted yourself tho. You start by saying that that's not what we're doing - that in actual fact we're discriminating because men are in charge, and men prefer men, and women have just as much experience - then you throw this in there, which suggests otherwise?
And you finish by saying that GD couldn't possibly have a reasonable discussion about it, so it's best left to lefties/feminists (one presumes) to decide what's fair or not.
I wasn't the one who started bringing up cleaners and brain surgeons, footballers in different leagues moving to China. You could see from my initial input I may well be stirring the pot a bit but only because there's a fairly tedious response to this sort of thing here.
You may well say my type of response is also tedious.
I just don't really get why people get so wound up about it, like I've said I would say it's just a demonstrable fact that bias and sexism and whatnot exists and I don't know why some (let's be honest on here... Men, likely white men) feel so threatened by it all.
You don't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and cases like this will make employers more cognisant of something they perhaps wouldn't have been, and that's good for all of us.
I guess unless someone feels threatened by it?
Context is everything and I see sexism pretty much every day at work, my OH does a similar job to be, I'd say better than I do and gets paid less for a lot of reasons, it's assumed the type of person she is or what she wants to do with her life and immediate future... That's insane in this day and age.. we've definitely 100% got room to improve.
You may well say my type of response is also tedious.
I just don't really get why people get so wound up about it, like I've said I would say it's just a demonstrable fact that bias and sexism and whatnot exists and I don't know why some (let's be honest on here... Men, likely white men) feel so threatened by it all.
You don't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and cases like this will make employers more cognisant of something they perhaps wouldn't have been, and that's good for all of us.
I guess unless someone feels threatened by it?
Context is everything and I see sexism pretty much every day at work, my OH does a similar job to be, I'd say better than I do and gets paid less for a lot of reasons, it's assumed the type of person she is or what she wants to do with her life and immediate future... That's insane in this day and age.. we've definitely 100% got room to improve.
But what of this specific case? Where the unknown (virtually) presenter was paid the same as her male predecessor?
For all we know her predecessor might have tried to increase his pay and been rebuked. Samira won at tribunal on sex discrimination grounds.
Clearly if she was being paid the same as her male predecessor this is just gaming the system...?
And as has been said by multiple lawyers, this now opens the BBC up (and others) to thousands of claims, perhaps many on similarly dubious grounds.
Yes, dubious grounds. Which isn't to say there aren't genuine claims, but very much not all claims will be genuine.
For all we know her predecessor might have tried to increase his pay and been rebuked. Samira won at tribunal on sex discrimination grounds.
Clearly if she was being paid the same as her male predecessor this is just gaming the system...?
And as has been said by multiple lawyers, this now opens the BBC up (and others) to thousands of claims, perhaps many on similarly dubious grounds.
Yes, dubious grounds. Which isn't to say there aren't genuine claims, but very much not all claims will be genuine.
"Equality" is a myth anyway.
It is an Alice in Wonderland word (A word means whatever I want it to mean said Humpty Dumpy)
Which is more equal, paying two people the same rate by the day, or paying them piecework?
There was a long standing tradition of not only paying Women less than men, but also single Men less than married Men.
The reason because working women tended to be single so their need, like those of single Men, were considered to be less than those of married Men with families to support.
Of course, now we have the idea that everybody should be payed equally. but what actually happens is that single people (Both sexes) are now taxed more to give benefits to the married ones/ones with children. (Of course the married couples allowance is essentially gone, but other benefits apply to people whose "Needs" are considered to be greater for whatever reason)
The mechanism is different but the effect is the same.
It is an Alice in Wonderland word (A word means whatever I want it to mean said Humpty Dumpy)
Which is more equal, paying two people the same rate by the day, or paying them piecework?
There was a long standing tradition of not only paying Women less than men, but also single Men less than married Men.
The reason because working women tended to be single so their need, like those of single Men, were considered to be less than those of married Men with families to support.
Of course, now we have the idea that everybody should be payed equally. but what actually happens is that single people (Both sexes) are now taxed more to give benefits to the married ones/ones with children. (Of course the married couples allowance is essentially gone, but other benefits apply to people whose "Needs" are considered to be greater for whatever reason)
The mechanism is different but the effect is the same.
Yeah I get that, I was pretty clear straight out of the gates that I had no idea on the voracity of this specific case... that doesn't mean the whole thing is stupid as some seem to be suggesting.. because it's not.
Very uneducated attitude towards how businesses work such as insurance and reputation.
I suspect the honest-to-goodness, actual legal position is no, because he's a man. Therefore no discrimination could have taken place.
It's a strange world.
The back-dating of Samira's pay also means that on the first day Samira took over as the new presenter, on the same pay as her predecessor, she didn't get an immediate 700% pay-rise because of sexual discrimination.
Whereas he didn't get a pay-rise because... erm, who cares? He's a man.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,162
LOL you right wingers are funny old people.
Yes its exactly the same scenario.
Dammit I hadn't considered whether rofflay off ocuk had heard of her or whether any of that had anything to do with the wider discussion or whether there could have been any sexism based reason as to why a male presenter might have had more opportunities that lead to him becoming famous in the first place and that enforcing equal pay might redress that balance.
I'm stumped now lol.
As are you daily mail readers...
"Right wing", a made up term that you don't even understand its origin.