Government U Turn on forced disclosure of the gender pay gap

[LadyBlaBlah]

dismayed indeed

The government ( in fact a woman ) has announced that we don't need companies to address the gender pay gap.

Just as a reminder of what apparently is not a problem:

Women working full-time earn 82 per cent of the average wage of men working full-time, whilst women working part-time earn only 61 per cent of the male full-time wage. (conservative estimates)

[colditz]

the Tories do not like women unless they are in bed or in the kitchen, or dancing topless in a 'Gentlemen's Bar'.

The sooner people accept this, the less shocked you are going to be.

IMHO, the best plan of action is to sit tight and vote the fuckers out in our droves at the next election.

[colditz]

Allowing, that is, that they don't take away our right to vote - something that doesn't seem so ridiculous these days.

[Sakura]

lol colditz
I hate them

[BeenBeta]

I am disgusted at thid decision too. Pay should be equal. End of.

However, dont pin it on the Tories. The last Labour administration diucked this very issue of pay disclosure as well.

Moreover, my MIL is involved in an equal pay dispute in her local autority where the unions knew women were being paid less than men in equivalent jobs. So much for LABOUR protecting the rights of low paid and women workers.

[Sakura]

well it was the Tories who targeted women for cuts, and it was the Tories who are going to put the gap between men and women's income back 20 years, so I think I'll blame...the Tories

[Sakura]

I even heard on the grapevine that they're going to start giving benefits to the man only, because he's the "head of the household" when the family allowance was given to mothers precisely because men weren't spending it on the family, but on beer instead

[JessinAvalon]

I agree with Colditz. I'm really not sure what to do about all of the awful decisions that the Tories are making. One of the feminist groups I'm involved with is refusing to engage with the council's consultation on the cuts because members want to take the stance that they don't agree with any cuts at all.

My view is, as someone who works for the public sector, the cuts are happening. We need to deal with it. Hopefully soon all those morons who voted them in will realise that life isn't that rosy under the Tories and that a lot of people are getting shafted and will vote them out at the next available opportunity.

I wish Spitting Image was still around. I work with 2 Tory boys who are spouting the Tory rhetoric and others are falling for it. At least Spitting Image might have counteracted the Daily Mail effect.

[JessinAvalon]

Btw, when I say 'deal with the cuts' I mean that we can either refuse to be involved with the local Council's consultation or at least try to influence the process in some way so that we can try to protect some of those services which support women.

And then vote the Tories out!

[ISNT]

That can't be right about benefits going to the male head of the household. I mean it literally can't be true, what about other make-ups of family etc.

Not surprised in the slightest about removing the pay data obligation.

[Sakura]

dunno, there was a thread on here. If you've got a male head of household you might be "looked upon favourably" in tax terms, perhaps?

[HerBeatitude]

How can the concept of head of household even exist nowadays?

Surely it could be challenged in law?

[MummyBerryJuice]

WTF?!?! Head of household?!? what is this 2010 going on 1950?

What will they do next? Revoke a woman's right to fil for divorce? Decriminalise DV (as it is a family matter)?!?!

I am , , !

[ISNT]

well there is the married couple's allowance. and some tory said that with child ben for higher earners "the man would have to tick a box on his tax return to say whether his wife received child ben or not" which was quite telling.

They couldn't make a male-head-of-household law though, I'm sure.

[RibenaBerry]

Depressing isn't it.

Mind you, as someone who works in employment law, I am also still fuming with the labour government for not reforming equal pay law when they had the chance. A more straightforward regime similar to other discrimination claims would have enabled many more women to face bringing a claim. The current system is byzantine, takes (quite literally) years and is not fit for purpose. They needed to simplify and allow claims to affect whole workforces, not just the woman bringing the claim, but they ducked the issue totally.

So I'm peed off with the lot of them on this issue.

[ISNT]

That's interesting ribena and correct I'm sure.

Bottom line is there is not much appetite for helping women in any of the parties. Someone mentioned unions earlier and they are just as bad. No idea why the assumption is they should look after women - as with all powerful institutions they were set up by men to help men and that still applies much of the time.

[RibenaBerry]

Unions have an appalling record on equal pay. Indeed, some of the most depressing recent equal pay cases have been related to sex discrimination which was effectively institutionalised by pay bargains with unions (you know the kind of thing, bonuses for just some types of jobs, pay equalisation between jobs in local authorities that 'red circles' people for so long that it just contuines the discrimination).

I am always that people think that unions protect women in that area.

[iTigress]

heeelllppp !

/ hijack