To think Justine Roberts should not have written this in the FT

[FreeWorker]

Justine writes a comment column in the Recruitment section of the Financial Times section which most MNetters will not have seen as it is behind a paywall.

In her most recent article of yesterday she writes on the gender pay gap and I was astonished to read the following sentences:

"As far as I have seen, then, the gender pay gap has very little to do with discriminatory practices or policies against women."

"The second big problem is that women just do not seem to care as much as men do about salaries and promotion."

One commentator under the FT article called Ezra sums up how I feel.

"Some valid observations - but to say that the gender pay gap has nothing to do with discrimination is frankly delusional."

For those who want to see the full article you may be able to read it via the following link if you search for it via Google and answer a few online questions:

For the rest of the year your pay will be zero

The Financial Times is an extremely influential newspaper in business and Government circles and Justine is also extremely influential as an opinion former because of MN.

AIBU to think that the views Justine has expressed in this article do not reflect the daily experience of women at work? AIBU to think it also contradicts the thousands of posts about unfair treatment at work by women on MN that show discrimination is rampant and that women DO care about salary and promotion?

I have name changed for this post but am a long time male poster on MN and have had male bosses throughout my career who openly and routinely made discriminatory comments in meetings when no women were around to hear them. They knowingly paid women less and passed them over for promotion. I worked in an industry where virtually no women make it to senior positions.

The gender pay gap is always about discrimination in my experience.

You aren't listening Deo, women do ask for more and when they do they get an Oliver Twist, "please may I have some more sir?" like experience and learn to not do it again.

Enough, with the feminist bootstrapping. (If you just try a little harder dear, you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!)

www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/28/new_york_times_publishes_a_salary_negotiation_guide_for_women_where_is_the.html

Yes, women make choices. But, they make those choices in a context of bias. Perhaps the choices would be different if the context was different. No?

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-ambition-myth-debunking-a-common-excuse-for-the-gender-wage-gap/265744/

One more study of what happens when women negotiate:

Babcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?

I tell my graduate students that by not negotiating their job at the beginning of their career, they're leaving anywhere between $1 million and $1.5 million on the table in lost earnings over their lifetime.

"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."

www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate

SettlinginNicely
You aren't listening Deo, women do ask for more

Your npr link, which discusses Babcock's work, says:

Research shows men are four times more likely than women to ask for a salary raise

My list is a good one above. Ask for more pay. Leave if you aren't given it or get rival job offers. Market your brand - show off about how good you are, don't expect people to notice it. If necessary set up your own company as then no one can discriminate against you. Never go part time. Aim to spread risk within the family in terms of income sources. Enjoy it - work you love is good fun and it no hardship to do long hours. Lean in. There is nothing special about me that I can charge a client £360 an hour. I just know my worth. Other women can do what I do and work full time and have a large family. It's really good. We need more examples of this.

However I have never said there is no discrimination at work. I do think if you can ensure you lean in and don't go part time and don't put up with sexism at home life can be easier however.

I think it comes down to this fascile:

You either believe:

Women are less interested in pay and promotion therefore they get less pay and promotion.

Or

Women are less interested in pay and promotion because pay and promotion is much more difficult for them to achieve given the inherent bias in the system therefore being rational creatures, they give up fighting a loosing a battle and choose to focus their lives on something else. Generally family and children, since this is not only allowed to them but positively encouraged.

lean in
channeling Sheryl Sandberg there DeoGratis

I read that book when it came out, cant remember it too well but I think I found it a bit patronizing and a bit 'disney'

I don't need anyone to convince me that if I do exceptionally good work, I will do well either in a company or working for myself. But not everyone wants to, let alone can, be exceptional. So when I'm doing average work, be it because I really am not that bright , because I'm a bit lazy or because there are other factors, I still would like to be paid as much and promoted as often as an average man.

Quite, settlinginnicely.

Settling in. You are correct. It may make perfectly rational economic sense for a woman who has observed that due to sexism she is unlikely to progress at work to go part time, take on more family responsibilities and allow her husband to get promoted instead.

I have just gone back full time after years of a 4 day week. I am going to give it my best shot over the next few years to try to get some career progression either at my current company or elsewhere. However if I am not able to it makes sense for me to try to drop my hours again. At least in that way I can enjoy more time with my family.

It reminds me of a book I read about poor people in the developing world and how their choices which on the surface seemed harmful were actually perfectly rational given their situation.

Liked your post too Depth

This was the link

www.amazon.com/Poor-Economics-Radical-Rethinking-Poverty/dp/1610390938/ref=zg_bs_2585_11#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1446911014080

Anyway it makes the point that the decisions of the poor are rarely irrational.

Has anything similar been written about women?

I'd love to read something that started from the premise that women have good reasons for their choices and behaviour rather than that we are all a bit daft and could do with some helpful tips to improve ourselves.

Only read up to page three, but if you have a work culture which designs jobs that require 50-60 hours a week; and a society which defines sex roles in many subtle and not so subtle ways - and the very practical reality that babies are carried, born and possibly fed by one sex, then it is hardly starting from a level playing field. In some ways, it is surprising that inequality is not more; any 'equality' is still pretty much built on women doing/organising more than your average man and sleeping less, getting less free time and having less autonomy (because professional life is determined by when the school bell rings or the childcare finishes - or that you want to make sure your child is okay with the home/care balance you have; my second struggled with childcare, I got through by doing a lot when he was asleep - his father, same profession, carried on his normal working hours; we separated, but then you really are on your own)

Work/life balance generally means balancing professional AND domestic/childcare responsibilities, for which flexible or part-time work is beneficial and lower pay/slower career progression is a cost. It often is a choice, but against no job and no money? Not much of one.

Agree settlingin.

Also agree that evidence/should be presented since one's interpretation could differ based on "believing" there is plenty of evidence, and providing plenty of evidence to demonstrate. In the same way lots of people "believe" there is evidence that the moon landing is fake for example.

Believe - you have been discriminated against, and absolutely should not be behind your peers. Look up the Alabaster ruling regarding pay during Stat Mat Leave for starters. Taking maternity leave should not cause detriment to your salary or promotion prospects.

Depth, I agree with that which is why since 1970 we have had an Equal Pay Act and why even in recent years we have had lots of cases for thousands and thousands of workers brought by lawyers (yes, we do God's work as lawyers as much as anyone) to protect women whose jobs were paid less but were comparable eg cleaner similar to dust bin man but the dustmen got bonuses. Mnay many local authority workers have been moved up to parity with each other as a result. There remains a lot of work to be done and I am sure JR agrees that that is so.

Anyone interested in press articles JR is interviewed in today's Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11980694/Mumsnets-Justine-Roberts-The-police-said-what-the-hoaxers-did-was-a-victimless-crime.html

I'd like another crack at it too Toast. I'm older now with more perspective.

*SettlingInNicely - I completely agree with you.

As one woman I know rather well puts it. Women do persistently ask for a pay rise get told no and then they get told they are being demanding and aggressive or told they need to do 'x' or 'y' and maybe next year and then they get selected in a redundancy round and lose their job and then they are trying to negotiate from the position of having no job at all.

Women learn by bitter experience that being pushy about pay rises and promotion is likely at best to get a negative response and they rationally will always pull their punches.

Meanwhile an exactly identical man (except for the fact he has a penis) will get put forward by his boss (who will always be a man) for his future potential. He does'nt even have to negotiate.

DeoGratis you seem to be so sure of yourself in telling other women what to do. Well, I was privy a few years ago now to the total pay and bonus of men and woman at senior levels in the City. The disparity was huge. The women had no idea they were being paid far less than men.

By the way, your £360/hr is far less than I charge ad I work part time from home. That £360/hr is what my provincial solicitor (a woman) charges to deal with my family law issues.

The lawyers I work with (all men) are billing in £1000 + per hour. I am not a lawyer but spend a lot of time around them so I know the score.

Don't be so sure you are not being discriminated against yourself. I am willing to play the odds and bet you are.

SettlinginNicely
I think it comes down to this fascile:

You either believe:

Women are less interested in pay and promotion therefore they get less pay and promotion.

Or

Women are less interested in pay and promotion because pay and promotion is much more difficult for them to achieve given the inherent bias in the system therefore being rational creatures, they give up fighting a loosing a battle and choose to focus their lives on something else. Generally family and children, since this is not only allowed to them but positively encouraged.

I think there's more to it.

In terms of those who want to work part-time and also spend time looking after children, where a partner also earns an income but works full-time, then pay might not (have to) be a primary focus for the part-timer. At least, not in the same way that it might be for an individual or a single income family.

I'm not sure I've come across your second option much - choosing to focus on family and children as some sort of consolation rather than an active primary choice. Many women seek part-time work to fit around family commitments - a much higher percentage of working women work part-time compared to men - and their first objective might be to find work which offers suitable hours/days of work and flexibility, rather than salary and career prospects.

I think there are likely to be different issues at play with regards to women in full-time and part-time roles, and with the latter, pay issues and career opportunities may well be limited because roles are part-time, rather than occupied by women, and part-time workers are generally viewed differently. I think businesses not properly supporting and valuing part-time workers is likely to be a big part of the problem.

" Many women seek part-time work to fit around family commitments - a much higher percentage of working women work part-time compared to men - and their first objective might be to find work which offers suitable hours/days of work and flexibility, rather than salary and career prospects. "

And of course, the solution to that, is to ensure that ALL paid work should offer suitable hours/ days of work and flexibility AND salary and career prospects. Most women don't want flexibility rather than salary and career prospects, they want both. As do many men. And if men did as much domestic work and childcare as women do, capitalism would have restructured its workplace by now, and if women had not been systematically excluded from shaping the workplace, it would not have been shaped in the way it has been.

There really are very few professions where there is genuinely no choice but to structure them in a way that systematically disadvantages people with caring responsibilities. The reason so many are still structured in that way, is down to the choices of the mainly men who have the power to change the structures, not down to the choices of the women's who have to try and function within structures they didn't create and have no power to change.

fascicle I'm trying to say that yes it's complex, but when women choose to focus on home rather than work, it is in the context of the same full time work being less rewarding for them than it is for men. If their work prospects were better, the decision might go differently. It's an easy to decision to put your family first when work is most certainly not a source of fulfilment.

I don't claim this is the only reason, but I think overlooking it feeds into the narrative that women just don't care about no domestic stuff.

Non domestic, that is

What Romi said about designing jobs where it is expected that the employee puts in 50-60 hour weeks. It's crazy. That's what needs to change. It's the system at fault. We don't want to make it easier for women to be part of a flawed system: we need to change the system to make life easier for everyone.

And what AskBasil said.

Yes, so if most women married men who earned half what they did then in taking family decisions about whose career comes second the men would be the ones making career sacrifice. I do think individual female choices to marry up have a major impact. Men want the one with the big breasts and blonde hair never mind her pay packet and women want the rich good provider even if he has a paunt, however much it sticks in my throat to write it. I want that to change of course.

(Free, I work for myself. Yes some lawyers(male and female) are on £1m to £2m a year (I earn less than £1m) but I am pretty well paid per hour at £360 compared with those who have to pay rents and the rest out of their hourly rates. There are some QCs who charge a lot more than I do per hour but on the whole I have done pretty well compared to most men because I am good at asking for more pay, refusing low paid work and know my own value. As I work entirely alone there is no influence to reduce my pay.I am bidding against others, men and women, for the same work so discrimination cannot really operate as it's a fairly open market at this level.)