To think that 16% pay inequality between the sexes isn't necessarily a problem....

[Bananabread123]

.... so long as:

1. men and women are paid equivalent amounts where there is parity of responsibility, experience and competence

2. affordable childcare is available

3. men and women are equally able to take career breaks for the purpose of child rearing, and that cultural barriers inhibiting this are removed

4. there is equality of access to money and spending decisions for women in households where the man is the main breadwinner (and vice versa)

5. Barriers that prevent or dissuade women from working in high paid professions are removed.

Why do I say this?... because in my experience women, on average, tend to want to lead on child rearing, and that this is a biological tendency that exists over and above any cultural norms. Clearly it will be different for every couple, but I'm talking about norms here. Not all, but many women want to take time off after their babies. And many (not all) women embrace the flexibility of part time work when children are young. And if that being the case, they will have less experience than their male counterparts, and it follows they should expect to be paid less on average.

It is still controversial and you can still rant about it.

Well the pay gap does come down to experience for me because...

a. I've had years off.
b. I was treated like crap because I worked part time, so did not gain pro rate experience.
c. I had kids before a career.

And I know many women in the same situation. Loads of women do jobs far below their ability level because of career gaps and/or childcare.

I don't need equal pay. I need to not be deemed only suitable for precarious, crap jobs and low pay just because I have had time off in the past due to caring responsibilities.

Can I ask where people are getting figures from?

Because when pay is compared (between any groups) it is generally equalized, e.g. if group A works part time and group B full time, then the pay is pro-rata-ed to take that into account.

I don't know the latest UK figures, but when I last studied this (2015, part of an MA) the pay gap, between M/F in same industry, same job, with same qualifications and same age was a minimum of 9%. Figures from Forbes.

This is for new graduates, so nothing to do with who is doing childcare, and everything to do with inequality and prejudice.

Lack of flxi

Fat fingers!!!

All of the things mentioned don't happen though and that's why we have the gender pay gap?

We need to completely change the way we view women in the workplace as talent management as we know it doesn't work. We need to ensure flexibility is a key focus and is considered in job design and that women are helped back into workplace when taking career breaks.

Outside of highly specialised work like perhaps surgery or very fast moving work like IT security, I think it's very unlikely that taking a year or two out of a long career in the workplace suddenly makes your skills outdated and obsolete. It's the perception that is the problem, not the reality. If someone could operate a spreadsheet or Microsoft word five years ago, even if they haven't done it recently it would most likely only take them a week of being back in the workplace before they could do it to the standard that they did before. But as soon as you have so much as a few months gap in your cv, employers are happy to write you off as lacking in skills and out of touch.

Since most people within the population work in jobs that need skills that are fairly easily learned, and that you are not necessarily any more competent at after fifteen years than you are after three years, I think it is mostly nonsense to say that men have more valuable skills.

The other issue is with men's 'skills' being valued more highly. The ability to use your muscles to lift heavy things in an outdoors type job can earn you OK money, often with overtime if you fancy earning a bit more. The ability to use your lesser strength to lift a vulnerable elderly person in and out of bed and onto the toilet whilst trying to maintain their dignity will earn you minimum wage on a zero hours contract.

Also, there is the structure of jobs.

Pre children I worked in a huge, fairly prestigious company. In theory the pay scale was the same regardless of sex. Everyone started at the bottom and had to meet certain targets to get their payrise each year. But in reality what happened was that female staff had far higher standards to meet than male staff. They were expected to do a days work plus answer the phones, and when the manager had an urgent letter to send and his PA wasn't about, you can be sure that it was someone young and female who got the 'could I just have five minutes of your time' , 'could you nip to the post office, this needs to be sent recorded delivery' or 'take £10 out of petty cash and go to the sandwich shop, I've got a meeting at lunchtime' call. And you're in a no win situation. Dig your heels in and refuse to do it and you get a reputation as being difficult, which could be career suicide. Or accept all the shitty jobs and find yourself sitting at 5pm whilst your male colleague has finished his days work and you still have 5 urgent things on your desk. Then at your year end appraisal it's 'well let's talk about time management, I notice it takes you longer than it takes Pete to get through the same workload'. And bam, Pete gets a bigger payrise and the gap starts to open. These are the things that bring about pay inequality even in jobs where there is a clear payscale. Not to mention women being given extra work and being told to view it as a 'development opportunity', 'good for your cv' whereas a man might often be offered extra work but it is assumed he will be paid for it, eg by being given a temporary promotion.

I did a talk on this subject recently ( am an employment lawyer). The issue is not women being paid less to do the same job but that on average women are paid less overall for their jobs than men. The figures are calculated on an hourly rate so should remove any part time / full time issues and are taken by adding up the hourly rate all the females in a company and dividing by the number of females to get an average and doing the same for the men ..the difference between the average hourly rate for men and women is the gender pay gap.

There are a number of factors but taking time out to have kids is significant because most women come back and then do not advance as quickly as men in terms of promotion therefore their salaries fall behind. Some women choose not to push for promotion, some are overlooked because they are on the part time " mummy track". Statistics show in the 12 years after returning to work after having a child a woman's pay falls 33 percent behind a man's

I shouldn't be paid less for having a vagina.

Does a penis have some magical power to do the exact same job better.

Well educated women often have to take lower paid jobs to work part time, because of a macho corporate culture that says well-paid jobs can't possibly be done part time or in a job share.

That is what causes a lot of the pay gap, is sexism and is a situation which is undesirable for both sexes.

The pay gap is sexist. It shouldn't exist.

No excuses, which is what you have given there.

The pay gap is sexist. It shouldn't exist. No excuses, which is what you have given there.

This is a lazy response imo, with no attempt to engage with my arguments.

'Pay equality' (as in women and men nationally should be paid on average the same rate of pay) is an unrealistic, and unreasonable, goal.

'Pay fairness' should be the goal as defined in the bullets in my op. (And I accept these may need refining or adding to).

Why is the distinction important? Because the unrealistic and unreasonable demand for pay equality gives ammunition to those who don't support 'pay fairness'.

Once again I stress that a woman and man with the same levels of competence and experience should be paid equally.... but to deny biology and it's role is to deny reality.

Well educated women often have to take lower paid jobs to work part time, because of a macho corporate culture that says well-paid jobs can't possibly be done part time or in a job share.

Totally agree, and tackling this is a key part of delivering pay fairness.

So people don't agree with you and they're "sneering" and the reason Trump got it. Why do you need such validation!? Child bearing is biologically a woman's area of expertise(!), child rearing falls to men and women!!!! Why should women be disadvantaged from a pay perspective. We should look to change the norm which is outdated and unfair

Personally I think the bigger issue is one that the pay gap happens highlights. It shows discrimination in the work place based on gender. And that's not just discrimination against females but against males in female dominated industries. People are offered salary, opportunities and merit in some case based on their sex rather than there skill.

I'm lucky that I work in a female dominated industry, am paid well and am the breadwinner in my relationship with a partner who respects my desire for both family and career but many women are not so lucky.

None of your points apply to me. I had no plan to have children, have had no children and now never will. However my whole career, got paid less than those wih penises. When i started my own business, everyone i hired was on the same hourly rate as i put myself on. Which is how it should be.

How dare you tell women they are worth less than men.

Point 4 is a problem, it only applies to households with a male in them. While it is right that a higher earning male partner allows full and equal access to their wage, that is of no help to the single female who is paid less purly due to her sex and has no male partner to balance out the discrepancy. Nor does it apply to a lesbian couple who both earning less than male counter parts.
While I agree somewhat that your other point would make a good start in the road to pay equality I am not sure that on their own they are enough.

So people don't agree with you and they're "sneering" and the reason Trump got it.

I was accused of being like Donald Trump for my views, and yes I was angered by that so responded accordingly.

As for child rearing, mothers and fathers should have an equal opportunity to rear children, it's just that in my experience, a very many women happily take on the lead role, and that's fine, and tends to be largely a product of their biology. I accept that some don't want to take that lead role, with the father doing this. This is also fine, though on average, i believe mothers are more likely to want to take that lead role, and as a society we should accept that without trying to push an exact equivalence that isn't wanted.

How dare you tell women they are worth less than men

I haven't!

But if a woman chooses (and I stress chooses) to take a number of years out of her career and then return part-time, then it is only reasonable that they should expect a lower hourly rate than an equally competent man. The same would be true in reverse.

Not sure I agree that women biologically feel the urge to take on child rearing. I certainly don't!! Don't you think you're getting "biology" confused with "what society expects and they feel guilty if they don't"?! And what about women who don't have kids? Or same sex couples? Your views are outdated and sexist.

That whole argument ignores that many, many women will never have children, or won't for many years. So regardless of parenting and the whole discussion of children, the gender pay gap is a massive issue.

It also ignores that much of the time women are not encouraged up the ranks as easily as men are, so find it harder to get promotions and more money, regardless of breaks for children.

delusions

Yes I agree there is an issue with single mothers, but I'm not sure how this is a pay fairness issue. It's an issue of ensuring maintenance is paid from any absent father, affordable childcare is available, and adequate state and community support is provided.

Why should they expect a lower hourly rate? The hourly rate is for each hour worked, it is nothing to do with whether or not they have had time off. Provided they can do the job they should be paid the same.

But if a woman chooses (and I stress chooses) to take a number of years out of her career and then return part-time, then it is only reasonable that they should expect a lower hourly rate than an equally competent man. The same would be true in reverse.

No, if they are equally competent, even if they are twins and followed the same career path, they are still equally competent and the pay should be equal. Thats the point of the equal word.

It is rare that men and women in the same field ever have the exact same skills, experiences etc, which is why roles generally have a range of payscales, bit when all the women are on the lowest and all the men are on the highest, it means that sexism is in play. If they are doing the job they are employed to do, where each sits on the pay scale should not be solely down to their sex.

Op have you got a cock?

If you have, you should pipe down and stop telling women what they need

If you haven't, you should be ashamed of your views

I echo another poster, how dare you tell women they are worth less.