Gender pay gap

Anyone who doesn't believe in the gender pay gap care to explain this?

Piece in today's Times 'Women fund managers better than men - but are paid less'

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-fund-managers-outperform-men-but-are-still-paid-less-j8w5kwdwm?shareToken=f1350b7220561947548d814ee6479ee1

I'd also like to mention the very real impact equal pay makes. My take-home is below the median wage for the UK. I am a single parent and mine is the only income coming into the house. Prior to my ten percent plus pay rise, I quite frequently found myself dipping into ever dwindling savings for those end of the month emergencies like new school shoes. Now I can actually live on my income and actually put a bit back into my savings.

That's an interesting point, EBearhug. When my equal pay case was going through, AFAIK, we were reliant on male colleagues volunteering their pay information to act as comparators. Whether this was just at the early stages, and the organisation could then be forced to disclose detailed breakdowns having established there was a case to be investigated, I don't know.

(I do know that management shafted us on the PR front. In between the claimants being shown what we thought was the final deal and the version that went to the union they slipped in some extra stuff that made it look like we'd agreed to "Rob Peter to pay Paul", creating a lot of bad feeling.)

Yeah that’s a good point. I know that while the public sector places I’ve worked in have had very strict ‘letter of the law’ type cultures, the reality in large internationals is that they do what they want, and if that clashes with employment law then they still do what they want. The union remains toothless these days.

Blackballing exists, and it’s often better to leave quietly with a payoff than to rock the boat. And I have witnessed some pretty unpleasant stuff in this vein, both financially and sexually (NDA s again...)

That doesn’t benefit workers at large but I fully see why someone would take that route out - it’s a big thing to throw your career away to make a point.

I wasn’t aware that kind of pay discussion gag was illegal - it’s still alive and well at our place.

There's something in the 2010 Equality Act abour they can't enforce such gags if you're asking for the sake of establishing equality, but I can't remember the details without looking it up.

And it makes me wonder whether there's a very widespread but massively underreported problem - underreported due to precisely this sort of gagging clause.

I think so - but who knows?

Even if you can't be forbidden from talking about salary now, we don't have a culture of doing it. Colleagues get very uncomfortable with it. I know we got the same percentage rise last payrise round, but of course, if you're already on different salaries, the one on more money gets more of a raise, so the gap widens.

Gagging clauses preventing discussion on pay are fairly common sonic - I’ve been subject to them at all the places I’ve worked in the private sector. I wasn’t aware that kind of pay discussion gag was illegal - it’s still alive and well at our place.

Public sector (academia) obviously has more pay transparency. When the NHS and uni pay spines were aligned I was working for a large UK uni.

eBear and fermat well exactly - there does need to be more transparency over pay. One country I’ve worked in everyone’s tax returns and income is publically available. You need to pay a small fee and your details are visible to the person whose pay you’ve been snooping on - the highest paid however many in the town were also published in the local newspaper
A very different culture - but the company I worked for there still forbade pay discussions. Apparently so this is so that they can ‘remain competitive.’

"forbidden to discuss pay"

Well, exactly. I believe this sort of clause in contracts is now illegal. But what goes on in practice...

I also wonder how widespread gagging clauses like the one I signed are? Because I'd like to be able to discuss the details (beyond "this happened sometime in the last five years to an unspecified but fairly large group of women") but I can't. And it makes me wonder whether there's a very widespread but massively underreported problem - underreported due to precisely this sort of gagging clause.

It was, of course, forbidden to discuss pay in that company.

Which is one of the main reasons so many employers have got away with ignoring equal pay legislation, because it can be so difficult to know what you are being paid compared with your comparators.

I have experience of pay gap for equal work.

One job, large FTSE FS firm. Team of about 20. Several women were top performers, highest volume of cases, highest satisfaction scores from the clients, lowest error rate, and two of the women were also doing some additional complex cases which the general team did not do.

Turned out they were being paid less than nearly all of the (lower performing in every way, except Friday pub-going) men by between 10-15%. One it was nearly 25%.

It was, of course, forbidden to discuss pay in that company.

@fermatstheorem "- do you think it would help you to read an elementary logic text book? You have asserted that it is never the case that men are paid more than women for the same job"

Saying I need a logic textbook when you've misrepresented/strawmanned my opinion is HILARIOUS

Here's a reminder of what I said and my stance on equal pay for equal jobs (Literally posted this multiple times)

""When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

"According to data for 8.7m employees worldwide gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women in Britain make just 1% less than men who have the same function and level at the same employer."

Me saying that the pay gap almost disappears, and women make 1% less than men for the same jobs at the same companies DOES NOT = "asserting that it is never the case that men are paid more than women for the same job"

LOL

"Aside from the double negative they’re irrelevant "

How are they irrelevant, someone - maybe you but can't be bothered to scroll back and check brought up the BBC pay claims.

Examples of how profile/celebrity status influence pay and rightly elevate pay above others is a direct rebuttal to the BBC claims.

I'm also pretty sure I asked my questions first, so if you want to get technical about it

"As many people have told you, sex pay discrepancy exists."

I'm starting to think people can't keep up.

I've never denied the pay gap exists = that women on average earn less than men (where we disagree is the causes)

I'm denying, based on the Korn Ferry evidence, that on average when comparing like for like/equivalent jobs, the pay gap "almost disappears"

If you want to believe that women as a whole get paid less than men for the same jobs that's fine. If you find random posters anecdotes compelling evidence over the 8m workers Korn Ferry study, again fine. But I don't have to go with the anecdotes over the data, not in the absence of any "actual" evidence that could convince me otherwise.

Can anyone find a study that says women get paid less for the same jobs?

FM's - do you think it would help you to read an elementary logic text book? You have asserted that it is never the case that men are paid more than women for the same job. In the context of a statement asserting something never happens, one counter instance (and many have been supplied on this thread) is sufficient to refute the hypothesis.

Wittering on about "anecdata" just shows you have a very poor grasp of logic. Frankly, you come across as a bit dim.

@transexclusionaryMRA "I don’t think the answer that on average male athletes and actor/ presenters are bigger draws actually stands up as that in and of itself reveals a culture wide bias against women and female achievements."

Disagree almost entirely with that statement. And I really don't see how anyone can argue with the amount mens club football teams play their players or claim that womens club football teams are as lucrative.

Womens tennis is maybe the only sport which rivals the mens game for audience figures/income.

As for TV presenters, the BBC pay gap drama was a load of nonsense and just a list of mens/womens names with salaries next to them, there was no extra detail eg hours on air, number of shows worked, channels/stations appeared on etc

I don't even have to think about it to instantly recall the most nonsensical complaints

The presenter of Womens hour complaining she didn't get paid as much as some male radio presenters. You present a show called "womens hour" - the target audience is presumably 50% of the listening audience which presumably impacts audience figures, and you present that show for an hour a day, 5 days a week.

Chris Evans being the highest paid BBC person. He literally resurrected Top Gear, the BBC franchise that the BBC sell worldwide, that they sell DVDs of and other merchandise. On top of that he presents a prime time radio show and has a 25+ year career of being on top of the ratings, both on TV and radio.

Compare that with Claudia Winkleman who I believe was the highest paid female presenter. She presents Dancing with the Stars - guess what? The BBC can't sell that abroad because the USA has their own version with their own c-list celebs, nobody in America wants to see our c-listers prance around LOL.

Carrie Grace - already dealt with this one.

So why can't nobody answer the below questions?

Aside from the double negative they’re irrelevant ... and you still haven’t answered mine. If by objective, company agreed metrics, a man is performing worse than a woman what’s the justification for the man being paid more?

As many people have told you, sex pay discrepancy exists. It has multiple complex causes. Some are societal and structural. At the same time there are jobs out there where men are paid more than women. In some of those cases the objective, company agreed metrics for performance show a man doing less well than a woman and still being paid more.

This is not the main driver of the sex pay gap - you’d need a small monograph to explore all the reasons. But it exists. It’s one cause among many.

"Honestly, I recommend ignoring as the best approach."

And yet you revived the thread after it had laid dormant all day

"Head hunter data for pay is really classed as more anecdotal by pay experts than properly set up surveys we use"

So "analysed over 8 million workers in 33 different countries" is anecdotal now?

Head-hunters have target salary ranges/budgets from their clients and have to ensure their candidate salary expectations fit. I assume they're getting first hand salary information directly from their candidates which presumably is then verified before an offer is sent out.

By all means do explain why their 8m strong study is "anecdotal" because right now: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchins

When actually the only evidence posted so far for women being paid less than men for the same jobs is anecdotal.

Just chipping in to say that within the last five years (being deliberately vague due to non disclosure agreement) I and a group of colleagues (many tens, again being vague) had to take our then employer to court for equal pay - we won and the correction in pay was in excess of ten percent. It's the second big equal pay case my union had taken on in the last decade and won.

Back when I was in the university sector, the government's own pay audit found a systematic pay gap at every level - ie women lecturer A paid less than men lecturer A, women lecturer B paid less than men lecturer B and so on through senior lecturer, reader and up to professor. (So not just that the number of male professors was higher, though that of course was true.)

For something that supposedly never happens, it seems to happen a hell of a lot.

"Now it's having the spotlight shone on it, the excuses are crumbling.

But no-one here is talking about "talent".

So why can't nobody answer the below questions? Funny that nobody has even attempted

Did Munroe Bergdorf get paid the same as Cheryl for their loreal campaign?

Can Munroe charge/ask more for her time now she has a bigger profile

Is it fair that the Victoria's Secret Angels get paid more for their annual show than the non angels?

If Jane sells 10 TVs a week at Currys, is never late and Bob only sells 5 TVs and is hungover every Sunday then is Jane entitled to ask for a raise at the end of the year?

What about if Bob sorts his performance out and does just as well as Jane, then Jane gets an offer of a 20% pay rise to go work for a competitor. Are Currys entitled to match that offer and put Jane further ahead if Bob for doing the same job?

Kate Moss said she didn't get out of bed for less than £10k. Could those companies that hired her of got someone for cheaper/less to do the same job? But they wanted Kate Moss - why?

Correctly determining pay for "talent" is supposedly more nebulous than for jobs, but it is mostly based on agent negotiations and pushover buyers. Now it's having the spotlight shone on it, the excuses are crumbling.

But no-one here is talking about "talent".

When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears. This was based on data for 8.7m employees worldwide, gathered by the international Head-Hunters Korn Ferry.

Firstly, Korn Ferry own the Hay Group, a company that runs salary surveys. The data they have put out in the brochures and press releases the Economist quoted is from the Hay Group salary surveys, which is within the brand Korn Ferry. I know this because I work with Hay Group on salary surveys and equal pay and gender pay gap projects.

Head hunter data for pay is really classed as more anecdotal by pay experts than properly set up surveys we use. We don't use head hunter data much.

And as I explained last night splitting the data by function is a job specialism difference but is not an automatic equal pay defence.

Secondly, last night fmsfms had no idea what I was getting at (I quote) but is now repeating what I said as a self reporting expert with a level of certainty that really is not warranted.

Which is quite amusing (not).

Honestly, I recommend ignoring as the best approach.

And as a final word (or many) to fmsfms from me on this subject.

Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy Logical fallacy
Logical fallacy Logical fallacy
Logical fallacy

Indeed sorry mate Bowlofbabelfish is exhibiting the more rational and reasoned position here. Go back and re-read your exchanges you might learn something.

"You asked if anyone had seen this happen."

That was someone else

You asked if anyone had seen this happen.

I responded with yes, I had seen this happen.

You requested anecdote

I provided anecdote

and am now being accused of anecdata.🤦🏻‍♀️

For the final time: the causes of the sex pay gap are multiple and complex. Many causes are social and structural. One cause among many others is indeed same job different pay. I provided the answer to your ‘has anyone actually seen this happen’ question. With yes. I have.

Then you start banging on about anecdata, when you asked for anecdata.

Man denies x ever happens ever anywhere in any known universe
Woman says actually she has seen it happen
Man asks for an example
Woman gives example
Woman told she’s a shoddy thinker for providing acedotal example

Do you accept their ‘almost’ or not? Nobody is saying same job differential pay is the number one driver of men being paid more than women. They’re saying it happens and they’ve seen it. You are denying that.

You remind me of one specific other poster on here - same style.

The fact that there is even legal redress and avenues to pursue is additional labour that must be performed to correct the problem. People don’t just make complaints to employment tribunals press a button and everything magically gets made better. It reveals we are on a course of correction not in fact that the problem is corrected.