Why are the mainstream media all to often disingenuous when it comes to 'social justice' issues?

I don't see how there can be an actual pay gap in the public sector, sounds like BS. I work in the public sector and we're all on exactly the same pay scales no matter what gender or ethnicity we are. The salaries aren't negotiable. The only way you can get paid less than your colleagues is if you work reduced hours or go on long term sick...
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
I don't see how there can be an actual pay gap in the public sector, sounds like BS. I work in the public sector and we're all on exactly the same pay scales no matter what gender or ethnicity we are. The salaries aren't negotiable. The only way you can get paid less than your colleagues is if you work reduced hours or go on long term sick...
Click to expand...
Which is why "Pay Gap" is a misleading term; "Earnings Gap" would be more accurate.

It's also why, as @Caracus2k says, the reporting of it could be misinterpreted, or you could just call it misleading.

If they've increased the number of BAME recruits in recent years they will, by default, be on lower salary bands than the non-BAME staff who have been in-post for longer and as such the average pay of those BAME recruits will be lower.
 
Nasher said:
I don't see how there can be an actual pay gap in the public sector, sounds like BS. I work in the public sector and we're all on exactly the same pay scales no matter what gender or ethnicity we are. The salaries aren't negotiable. The only way you can get paid less than your colleagues is if you work reduced hours or go on long term sick...
Click to expand...

so you do not believe it is possible for managers to cherry pick who gets what job ? and of course that the manager might have a preference for the sort of people they want.

This is not necessarily about overt racism or sexism or nepotism but if you think that life is fair for all and that you do not have an advantage as a good looking male white guy over an ugly black woman with equal skills I believe you are sadly mistaken.
 
Domi said:
so you do not believe it is possible for managers to cherry pick who gets what job ? and of course that the manager might have a preference for the sort of people they want.

This is not necessarily about overt racism or sexism or nepotism but if you think that life is fair for all and that you do not have an advantage as a good looking male white guy over an ugly black woman with equal skills I believe you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...
You may be entirely right, but that's a different argument.
 
Irish_Tom said:
You may be entirely right, but that's a different argument.
Click to expand...

In what way is it a different argument?

While it is possible for people with racist , sexist , ageist etc views to influence who gets promotion or even a job in the first place we will have inequality.

I believe it is absolutely right to report on this as a subject and although the headline of the original article is not great (but still miles better than the average Daily Mail, Express, Sun or mirror headline) I do not have an issue with its general content.
To be honest in the original story I think the article allowed a very fair comeback from the police that was nearly a third of the story , would the Daily mail have done that ?

in short I massively disagree with the OP.
 
Domi said:
so you do not believe it is possible for managers to cherry pick who gets what job ? and of course that the manager might have a preference for the sort of people they want.

This is not necessarily about overt racism or sexism or nepotism but if you think that life is fair for all and that you do not have an advantage as a good looking male white guy over an ugly black woman with equal skills I believe you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

Not really. The managers don't even see any details of the person who is applying until it gets to interview stage, not even their name. Then they are interviewed by two people, one being from outside of their department.

They are scored against other applicants. If they meet all of the requirements and score higher than the others, but still get turned down. Questions will be asked.
 
Nasher said:
Not really. The managers don't actually see any details of the person who is applying until it gets to interview stage. Then they are interviewed by two people, one being from outside of their department.
Click to expand...

I also work in the public sector and know exactly how to game the system as every other manager does.
 
Well you can game any system to an extent. But you can try and make it as fair as possible.

If someone can game a system and benefit from it, they will. It's human nature. Life isn't fair and not everyone is born equal, but a bit of leverage helps :P
 
Last edited:
And you see that is what the reports discussed in the original story are about.

if the system is not right you try and tweak it until it is. Is this a big SJW type issue I do not really know but I think we all believe that promotion should go on merit.

not the colour of your skin or what lodge you drink at.
 
Domi said:
In what way is it a different argument?
Click to expand...

If someone is doing the same job, within the same pay band, and is paid less because they are BAME or female or old (or whatever) then it’s clear discrimination and should be stopped. Equally, if someone is doing the same job at the same level and is kept on a lower pay band because they are (whatever) then it’s clear discrimination and should be stopped.

These two scenarios would lead to an unequal “Pay Gap” and I believe that both of these scenarios are illegal under UK employment law (but i’m Happy to be corrected).

If someone is passed up for promotion leading to an “Earnings Gap”, it’s much harder to prove that it’s because of discrimination (even if it is).

Even with statistics that show there’s a gap, you need much harder evidence to show that there’s a statistically significant difference in the chances of BAME/female/old being passed up for promotion and the reason being discrimination. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

That’s why it’s a different argument.

Domi said:
While it is possible for people with racist , sexist , ageist etc views to influence who gets promotion or even a job in the first place we will have inequality.

in short I massively disagree with the OP.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with you, I am actually on your side with this one. But the debate can only remain productive if both sides remain as balanced and objective as possible — that’s why I called you out on your earlier post.
 
I've listened to a program that discussed the similar issue with gender.
it's possible to be unconsciously biased against females even by other females, the same could be true for other types of people as well.
if you've always seen old white dudes in power you're more likely to promote/vote accept them and be willing to pay them more.
discrimination isn't always overt, but will be just as harmful to society.
 
weringo said:
OP you have provided two links to the Guardian whose viewpoint / political leanings are well known, similarly you could find hundreds of DM articles with similar nonsense written from the other side's perspective. Not saying you don't have a point regarding the media as a whole but I don't think the Guardian is the best example to evidence this.
Click to expand...

The guardian used to be and presents itself as a rather more serious paper then the likes of the daily mail. I'm quite happy to accept that some of the output of the DM and mail is total garbage
 
Domi said:
In what way is it a different argument?

While it is possible for people with racist , sexist , ageist etc views to influence who gets promotion or even a job in the first place we will have inequality.

I believe it is absolutely right to report on this as a subject and although the headline of the original article is not great (but still miles better than the average Daily Mail, Express, Sun or mirror headline) I do not have an issue with its general content.
To be honest in the original story I think the article allowed a very fair comeback from the police that was nearly a third of the story , would the Daily mail have done that ?

in short I massively disagree with the OP.
Click to expand...

They picked out the police on the headline despite the article showing they were not even the most stark example....

They should have also explained, in the article, that increasing the rate of BAME recruitment causes the supposed racial pay (earnings) gap to widen. If the police had failed to drastically increase recruitment of BAME candidates they would have been moaning about that.

I don't believe the writers at the Guardian are ignorant of these facts... They are deliberately omitting them

Look at the quote on the top of their comment/opionon page... They are a total joke.
 
Again let me just say I absolutely disagree with the entirety of that post but I cannot be bothered to argue against what is clearly a very blinkered point of view.
 
Unfortunately its not just the 'progressive' outlets like the Guardian that have swallowed the Kool Aid even papers like the Times cant help themselves (partially paywalled)

Male MPs earn 10.4% more on average than their female counterparts despite identical basic salaries, exposing the way the gender pay gap in British society runs right to the heart of government.
Click to expand...

So what is a major source of this disparity?

'taking outside earnings and ministerial salaries into account'
Click to expand...

What the actual **** ?

So we have moved on from comparing apparently 'equal' jobs and ignoring pesky facts like men working on average longer hours and more overtime and now are going to include in the figures people who have multiple (paid) jobs.....

So Jane goes into HR on a Monday morning....I am being systematically oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of my gender and being underpaid!

HR person - How so?

Jane - Well John is paid more money then me annually

HR person - But you are in exactly the same salaried jobs on exactly the same pay?

Jane - yes ... but John has a second job he works when not here and this means he is paid more then me

HR Person - Well have you thought about taking on a second job or made enquires to obtain one?

Jane - Well no it doesn't really fit in with my choices on work/life balance. As a woman I shouldn't have to make these choices between being a full time career person, a full time parent and my heavy addiction to reality TV. Society should just pay me the same as a man because I'm a woman!

What's funny is we live in a society whereby a lot of people think its a good idea to ban women using their beauty/ sexual attractiveness as the main selling point in a (male customer dominated) field of work on the shaky premise that such work 'objectifies' women and means that women are somehow put of from applying for more (well paid) traditionally 'male' jobs. (but apparently 'feminists' dressing in next to nothing and acting in a sexually provocative manner doesn't have the same effect) ....

and meanwhile we have a mass of the mainstream media churning out an almost constant stream of misleading garbage about how there is a circa 15-20% gender 'pay' gap suggesting that this can solely/mainly be explained via gender discrimination!
 
Last edited:
That doesn't even take into account the situation which (seems to) arise when men and women live together and have shared finances.

All my colleagues/friends very much give the impression of having accepted a situation where the wife controls the finances and decides what can and can't be bought. The husband has to ask nicely to get something he wants. Meanwhile they are often moaning how the wife has gone shopping and come home with an (expensive) this, that or the other.

This feminism gig is engineering a society where men (seem to be) in thrall to the women in their lives.

Focusing so narrowly on earnings potential is probably ignoring the wider social context, where women are increasingly in control not only of their own destinies, but of the destinies of the men they "control".
 
We're all hung up on these pay gaps, but has anyone ever given thought to the pay gap between all 30+ genders that appeared out of the wood work in the last 5 years?

No? Social Justice needs more work and we wont stop until you're thought policed.
 
Domi said:
Again let me just say I absolutely disagree with the entirety of that post but I cannot be bothered to argue against what is clearly a very blinkered point of view.
Click to expand...
You can say it, but "you're wrong and I can't be bothered to explain why" isn't a useful thing to say.

On the topic at hand, it's not exactly a stretch to say the Guardian have gone full SJW. As the OP points out, they must know that this "gap" is caused by the recruitment effort, so the article is just pointless race-baiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom