equal pay

Women under 30 do outearn men, but the male in a couple is I think 3 years older on average so that has an impact.

I think pay transparency can only be a good thing. I think all companies should have to publish this data - or HMRC should make it publically available . The taboo about revealing your pay is very damaging imo.

not all her results/ it was a group success!

Oh yes. I was talking about something I had done - and it had been mostly me - and the response I got was, "well, it wasn't just you," followed by a list of other people's minor inputs. I agree that I couldn't have done it without them, but I coordinated it all and did the bulk of the work, and it really felt like I wasn't allowed to take the credit for much of it at all.

I got some nice insight to pay transparency when a male colleague, who was my maternity cover for the 16 weeks I was out but stayed after I came back, got made redundant and in somewhat of a snit he dropped in my ear all the details of his paygrade/ salary and the exit redundancy negotiations. Needless to say he was better paid/ one grade higher than me for the same job. We had pretty similar quals- Masters level/ it's professional work and pretty similar length of experience (actually I had a couple of years more experience than him as I did my MSc while working and didn't take so long on the first degree either). I know his full CV as I helped interview him before I went out on maternity! I have longer in the company and more general respect around the business in my area.
The wiggle room is always in the grey area of what exactly constitutes one persons project success. You can take someone whose projects all fail, who falls out with customer and all that can be swept away with excuses such as blaming the bad bits on other people or departments or minimising that it was such a difficult customer, no-one could have possibly done it right... Same with success- not all her results/ it was a group success! It's fairly well proven that women don't get the plaudits for their fair contributions in group scenarios. AND LO! You have what to management looks like real differentials in performance/ experience/ success between men and women. They can with a straight face state they are all for meritocracy and treating people fairly and so on. I'm currently in the process of getting my grade/ salary terms reassessed so we'll see how that goes.

Yes
www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/10/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-women-dont-ask-for-a-raise

I wonder if Melinda gave him an immediate bollocking.

Microsoft's CEO said women should rely on karma instead of negotiatIng payrises.

FFS, seriously? I despair.

There have been a number of articles which show that women who negotiate may well be seen negatively, whereas men who do the same thing are seen as go-getting, which is positive.

It was only about 18 months ago that Microsoft's CEO said women should rely on karma instead of negotiatIng payrises. (That would be Microsoft who are currently in the news for having had "sex schoolgirls" to promote their stand at a gaming show.)

www.themuse.com/advice/looking-for-a-raise-the-cards-may-be-stacked-against-women

That is exactly the case treacle - women do not get the same pay rises men do.

The study of 184 managers, published in the journal Organization Science, showed that when the participants faced a scenario in which they would have to explain raises they were awarding—in other words, prepare to negotiate—they were likely to give men raises two-and-a-half times as large as the raises for female workers of equal skills and experience. This was even before any negotiations would have occurred.

I've never worked in a job with payscales, but I think that transparency is the only way to go. There is a huge taboo about it (I know married couples who don't know what the other earns), but I think it's one that needs to be broken.

You know how it's said that men are often paid more because they ask for it, or demand it?

I would love to know what the statistics would be like if it were possible to record instances where people ask for payrises against instances when they actually achieve the payrise. I have a depressing feeling that it would probably show that women are more likely to be turned down if they do ask for more. Because women wanting anything more than the crumbs are so often viewed as too demanding, too hard work, too full of themselves. And also because you just know that if word got out that Ms X had negotiated a payrise, then Mr Y and Mr Z would be knocking on the boss's door next week assuming that he was entitled to one too.

generally women go PT/stop work because their salary is lower than their husband's already when they start a family

Also, until recently, women were entitled to months of paid maternity leave - men got a fortnight of paternity. For most of my friends who have had children, the choice was almost entirely economic, rather than who would be better suited to take a career break at that point. Even if they'd wanted the man to stay home, it wouldn'the work financially.

not always with a great deal of transparency as to the work that they do

Yes - I worked from home one day last week (because I'd heard the traffic news and knew I had no chance of getting to the office before a 9am call started,) and my manager did comment that he knew he could trust me, not like some of the others. Not entirely sure that's fair or true, but it's his perception, and I don't feel like arguing against one in my favour; I think a lot of pay discrepancies arise because of perceptions rather than there being any effort to review things more objectively, so it's sort of relevant. I just look similarly productive in the office because I waste as much time on MN in either location...

Come back OP!

I think pay transparency within companies is a huge issue. I think the publishing next year will be very interesting.

I work for a company (in a "normal" non-CEO type role!) where pay is completely opaque.

Because of this opacity, I have asked to see the payscales and been told no.

And yes, generally women go PT/stop work because their salary is lower than their husband's already when they start a family, so it's not the ML that causes it. IMO it's partly men being able to negotiate (because they're expected to negotiate, whereas women are expected to be grateful for crumbs). And men starting further up the scale. And men being more confident, even when it doesn't actually correlate to ability to do the job. And having a family seems to lower women's salary and raise the men's.

Although I did hear that graduate women under 30 now out-earn graduate men under 30, don't know if that's true but I hope it is and that it lasts beyond 30.

I think IT can be more flexible yes. And I think that's partly down to the nature of the work, which enables it to be more flexible. I also work in IT and the only part time people in our department are women though. We do have a lot of men working from home a day or more a week (not always with a great deal of transparency as to the work that they do but that's another issue). And most of the men with young children have wives/partners who are SAHM.

I was thinking of even more male dominated areas in my head .

Male dominated industries tend to be less flexible.

Do you think so? I work in IT, and I'd say it's pretty flexible (I am aware it's not the same for all employers.)

Some of this is because of the international nature of my company - to some extent we can follow the sun in terms of offering support. Also, it means precedents are set by more enlightened countries - if any of my UK male peers intend to take equal parental leave, it's probably going to be easier, not just because of the recentish law change, but because one of our Scandinavian colleagues had a year off on paternity leave. Also, all those in our department who are part-time are men (mostly Dutch). But most of the fathers we have will come in late or leave early when they need to do the school run or trip to the doctor, or work from home because one of the children is ill.

But - I still don't know about pay. I suspect, from comments my manager made earlier in the year, that I'm not on the same level as my male peers. But I don't KNOW. And I am almost ready to ask one of my colleagues for reasons of equality fact finding, what is his salary. But I keep chickening out. There is a social taboo against it.

I know from glassdoor, payscale.com and so on, not to mention jobs I've applied for, that I'm paid okay as far as industry averages go for my experience, location and skill set. However, none of that is worth a fig, if I am paid less than my peers in the company which currently employs me. It's not okay to pay me at the industry average, if all my peers are paid at the industry average +10%. And that's what I don't know. For all I know, I could be paid more than the rest of them (though as mentioned above, previous comments suggest I'm not.)

I think more transparency will definitely help. I'm not sure how far the new law will help (my employers will be affected, as we have more than 250.) I'm not sure of the detail it will go into though, and what that detail is will depend on whether it wll make a difference or not.

I do think secrecy in the workplace regarding salaries increases inequality, because openness makes it obvious who's doing what for how much and removes the need to investigate these data.
It may well be that we have been trained not to ask so for so much (or reality has shown that we rarely get what we want compared to men in a male environment) and to say yes to more work without proper compensation. Places with clear salary scales and career progression seem to be less unequal.
So, it is likely that it's both a personal and institutional issue.
I think feminism should be fought for at institutional and personal level. I don't think we should simply say it shouldn't be my responsibility, because (like voting, for example) each one of us together can make a difference. Demand at institutional level and act in our private and work lives.

On another issue, mothers do lose out by taking maternity leave, so it would probably help if men were also expected to take similar parental leave (with a minimum of 3 months, or, better, a minimum similar to what the mother took).

Transparency also wouldn't solve the problem where female dominated professions are paid less.

Sorry I'm not being very positive . Transparency will start to help build a picture (I wonder why they've chosen 250 employees as the cut off).

I would also say that the OP is correct that if we wait for individuals to raise issues on their own it will take forever for this to be turned around. As she said the onus shouldn't be on her to ensure she's paid fairly. She's already experienced inequality where a pay rise was denied because of the timing of her maternity leave so I'm guessing crappymummy is probably not far off the mark with thinking that she's being paid less. But this thread was never about whether she, as an individual is paid the same as her colleague.

On the subject of transparency, yes that would be a step forward but it would possibly leave it more at women's feet to sort out their own situations and fight for their own individual corners. Because we live in a patriarchy I doubt men are just going to turn round and go "Gosh you are right, here's some more money". They are more likely to do what Djokovic has done and go 'waaah we deserve it more because of x, y, z". X, y and z being a movable set of criteria that are always just out of women's reach.

Not being able to live comfortably on one wage is not helping. Both my DH and I could go part time each (making one full time salary) but this is not enough to to cover our living expenses. Therefore someone has to take the hit can you guess who that was???

Even without going pt I think many women do relax with their career effort. I know I'd rather spend time with my child and take him myself to activities.

But the pay gap is at the same level of work, so are men more valued or so they value themselves more and demand more?

I like your link too lweji I also agree with this :-

could it be an effect of child bearing and rearing, with more women working PT and thus attracting lower salaries because they may not be on a "career path", or an historical effect

It's pretty hard to get a professional part time job, I think there is an assumption that if someone's goes part time they are putting their career on hold.

I'm pretty sure pay gap widens the most at around 30 years of age. I think the average age of childbirth is now 31 in the uk.

Sorry first post was to Lweji, second to Shackle

Possibly because of age differences too? Mind you I found myself part time and I was the higher earner because my work was more flexible .

Male dominated industries tend to be less flexible.

Yes I did know a bit about her. But I thought that piece really shows that she gets it (trying to say that in a no patronising way and probably failing dismally!) More than I realised, anyway!

Here's some more about other structural inequalities in women's pay. How when an industry becomes female dominated the pay goes down: www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I find it interesting when people talk about taking maternity leave then going part time as reasons why women over 40 are paid less. In my experience women go part time as their partners are ALREADY the higher earners (I know this isn't always true but where I live Cotswold area it is predominately so). That leads to them then taking a career break which takes them even further behind in pay.

Just my museings as you were