To think the way the press is reporting gender pay gap figures is completely misleading

[hmmm345]

The headline is that companies such as EasyJet and Phase Eight are paying women "on average" at least 15 percent less than men. But the way it is reported suggest that is for the same roles. No they are paying people according to the different roles they do, it's just that, on average, across most organisations women occupy lower paid roles than men.

In easyJet's case that is because many of their highest paid pilots are males.. there are female pilots but there are less for a number of reasons.. women perhaps haven't been encouraged into the insight historically, women feel the role is incomparable with having children etc.. all areas that need addressing and that's the purpose of the regulations .. to make employers think about this and look at what they can do to address it

In Phase Eight's case it's because their shops are staffed predominately by females.. unsurprising really as it's a female fashion chain, and the males are employed in head office where salaries are higher.

There needs to be much more understanding of this legislation by journalists and even MPs commenting on it! One MP has said it's immoral!

Im many cases women are not encouraged into highly paid roles from a young age such as engineering, that needs addressing by schools. In other cases women are initially very ambitious but after having children come back part time and stay on the "mummy track" and either choose not to or cannot because of their employers close mindedness, advance their careers and earn as much as their male colleagues.

The shift in thinking in the last 20 or so Years has been great for women.. many employers now embrace flexible working, shared parental leave and are committed to helping their women executives advance in their careers and seeing more female representation at board level. But it will take time to see results!

I should add that I'm an employment lawyer so I understand the legislation but I think that it needs to have been better explained by the government or called something different to stop this effect which doesn't really help businesses who genuinely want to make a change for the better ..

Working in recruitment and HR the amount of strong female candidates passed over for jobs and promotions because they happen to fall into the age bracket of late twenties to forties was shocking. Panels always make sure they have a reason but usually made up shit or bigging up the male or younger/older female,.

A lot of the problem is that women are often deterred from promotion and seeking more senior roles by a whole load of longstanding implicit discriminatory working practices like informal networking and mentoring; poor attitude to part time/flexible working,; presenteeism, poorly devised job specifications; poorly trained interview panels etc.

A lot of research in America has shown the negative consequences of implicit bias meaning white men are subconsciously perceived by all groups as leaders, more business-like, more successful etc. This is despite evidence that the highest performing companies are those with the most diverse boards www.catalyst.org/media/companies-more-women-board-directors-experience-higher-financial-performance-according-latest

The general explanation for the higher financial results of diverse leadership is drawing from a wider pool of talent and avoiding groupthink which leads to developing products like this surfboard www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40491596

I haven't looked at the raw data but Phase 8 could also have more women than men working at their head office, but still have a lower average pay due to the majority of the workforce also working in the shops.

It's possible that this article completely misrepresents their situation... or not of course.

I find it all so depressing. I am the only one out of my friends I met at college in my industry that's still in my industry. Difference, I don't have children.
They all gave up work, because it just wasn't worth them continuing to work.

And it always seems that when it comes to totting up child care it's always seen as mum earns X amount and if we take into consideration daycare it will only be a tiny amount that's left over. But why is it only offset against her salary.

But I'm sure they're happy, only I know they are not

•Women are already paid the same for the same job and this has been the case for years. Equality of opportunity exists. * But are you not the poster who said on another thread that one factor in your employment decision is around the age and marital status of the candidate (and their perceived probability of becoming pregnant or following their husband on a career move)? That's not equality of opportunity. T

@meredintofpandiculation

Just wow

From another poster in another thread:

"Would you also avoid employing women knowing that you may have to incur costs associated with maternity leave?"

"You won't like my answer to this.

Yes.

However, a large part of my job is recruiting people for ex-pat roles.

We look favourably on families who are likely to be settled and likely to renew their contracts several times. We love employing husbands and wives (mothers and fathers) together as this is beneficial for us.

Childless couples of an age where this is likely to change take a big hit in terms of employability.

Single applicants - they're looked on pretty equally regardless of sex. There's an age where people are still still single they are likely to return home to find a partner and this is younger in women than men so this is a consideration.

Employing women with a trailing spouse or one which works for another company; yes, they need to make up for this in other areas to get the job.

It all depends on the role of course. I would be foolish to ignore the likelihood of a married woman approaching 30 getting pregnant. If her job involved travel or something else that was quite incompatible with parenthood then I balance it out. I would be failing in my role if I didn't.

If you don't like my answers, blame God etc or Darwin."

Fucking depressing.

Maybe every woman should go into an interview saying their infertile and can never have children and aren't married or have s boyfriend

Funny how men wouldn't have to do that

In my case, I wouldn't have wanted to work in a career which took me away from my DD too much. I couldn't bear having to miss parents evenings, school performances etc. I have personally improved myself since having my DD by doing a degree part time whilst working so I'm not someone who just accepts their lot and doesn't have any drive or ambition. However, my key role, and one that I consider myself best at is being a mum. And, I feel privileged that I am able to carry and give birth to a baby rather than seeing that as a negative comparison to men. I understand not everyone shares this point of view but, for me, no six-figure salary could make up for not being present for my child. Obviously, for those who want to progress further, their gender shouldn't impede them and all families work differently. However, I can see why the figures on pay gaps are as they currently are.

Well just maybe companies will look to balance the higher paid roles more to get a better salary percentage for women so I say these numbers should continue to be published as they do actually tell an important story!

I would have thought these high paid careers/jobs would be demanding in terms of hours so why have children of you are going to be at work a lot and not have too much time to spend with them at the most important time for parental-child bonding

gamechanger - and why should that apply only to women? Most children have two parents...

Having children carries an opportunity cost in terms of career advancement, and so there will continue to be a gender pay gap in the absence of a cultural shift.

Which a lot of women I know don't seem to keen on - I know an inordinate number of women who are very happy to not return to work far beyond their children starting school.

I have no earthly idea why it should be an employer's job to 'fix' this 'problem'.

I didn't actually mention anything specific to women in my post... please read... but naturally you thought I implied women since women are the ones who spend nine months pregnant shouldn't be a surprise then if they want to be the ones who take the time off to spend time with their children! Go figure
Honestly I'm a woman myself but also believe you can't have it both ways.... Anyone who takes a career break can't expect to come back to work on the same salary... you need to work your way back up to that level. I agree however that these gender pay gaps have a lot to do with women being encouraged to work towards more senior roles which may require higher qualifications

Yes, it's a cultural problem, but difficult to change the culture without the legislation in place - for example 60 years ago it wasn't easy for women to progress in some careers when it was still required for them to resign when they had children (and not so long before that, war time excepting, to resign when they got married).

There's all sorts of other things coming into play, eg research suggesting that women on average will apply for jobs when they meet almost all the requirements whereas men will apply when they meet not much more than half the requirements.

I've seen in my own area men being more ambitious at negotiating a starting salary above the minimum - and for an area where people tended at the time to stay for a long time, the effect was life-long. Starting salary on promotion was determined to give a certain percentage increase on previous salary, pension scheme was final salary. So the higher starting salary translated into higher salary on promotion and eventually into higher pension.

Up to the woman to be more assertive in negotiating starting terms? Yes - but difficult in a society that still expects women to be the peace-keepers and not to make waves.

I used to be quite optimistic that in time (and not in my life time) that we'd get there, and women would come to be treated as individuals and not as an identikit sample of "woman" with a whole lot of attributes assumed simply because of her lack of penis. But sadly in some ways things are stalling, and I'm not longer so confident.

mered isn’t there data that says women are viewed much more negatively for approaching salary negotiations the same way? Men are seen to be ambitious and focussed, women to be difficult and grasping?

Nothing is going to change until it is completely socially acceptable for men to share parental leave, go part time or sah. That is the big shift.

mered isn’t there data that says women are viewed much more negatively for approaching salary negotiations the same way? Men are seen to be ambitious and focussed, women to be difficult and grasping?

Probably - I hadn't seen that one, but it fits in with other research on how women are perceived.

Nothing is going to change until it is completely socially acceptable for men to share parental leave, go part time or sah. That is the big shift. Indeed, and why the equal pay legislation hasn't brought us equal pay, or equal valuing of what is perceived as women's work. But partly replying to all those saying "why should it be the employer's problem", well if probably shouldn't, but without a legislative framework you can't get anywhere (you can't share parental leave if only maternal leave is available), and it supports the cultural shift if employers can do their bit - not, for example, over-stressing "commitment" and measuring "commitment" in terms of being willing to attend a management meeting in the evening without prior notice (when the only reason for it running into the evening is that earlier meetings overran because of diversions into discussing the relative merits of the M1 and the M6), or working outrageously long hours with no attention given to productivity during those hours.

Nothing is going to change until it is completely socially acceptable for men to share parental leave, go part time or sah. That is the big shift.

Yes, and I suggest that there are a lot of women who aren't interested in sharing their maternity leave with their husbands. MN is very forward-thinking in this way, and probably this thread is in particular, but up and down the country I doubt you'll find broad support for this. Even if you did, you'd then have to consider whether the women who say they support this actually mean it.

If an employer wants to measure commitment in a way that's not aligned with productivity, then it stands to reason that they'd take a hit on their profit margins. Why not just let the market penalise them in this case.

I can read perfectly well gamechanger - this whole thread is about why women are not represented in higher paid senior roles.
So if you were making a comment that no parent, male or female, should be taking on a senior role while children are young, and if so, what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
Many women (myself included) manage to balance the roles of parent and senior manager perfectly well.