To think if we all boycotted companies with a big gender pay gap we can make a change?

[BorneFeet]

I've just got new insurance and I deliberatly avoided a company that I found out had an awful gender pay gap thanks to an ill fated instagram advert over the weekend.

If we all did the same we could make a big difference right?

It might. But it also might encourage positive discrimination instead. The company I work for has recently hired a suspicious number of women into senior management roles.

In the pay gap report, they provide each year it showed that they pay the genders the same for the same roles. But that there aren't as many women in upper management so there is a gender pay gap.

The company I work for has recently hired a suspicious number of women into senior management roles

How many women is a suspicious number?

Is it suspicious because of the odds of having that many women who make good senior managers is particularly low compared to the odds of men being good?

If it's the Scottish Widow thing then did you read the replies on twitter which showed the gender pay gap is a myth?

How many women is a suspicious number?

3 in a row

Is it suspicious because of the odds of having that many women who make good senior managers is particularly low compared to the odds of men being good?

It's suspicious because when you look at the pool of applicants the hiring is not representative of the gender split that applied.

That's why I described it as suspicious though. There's nothing to say that is is positive discrimination.

Do you understand what the gender pay gap actually means???

It's NOT a situation where men doing the SAME job as a woman is paid more

It's the gap between the highest paid male and the lowest paid woman across the whole organisation and all its roles. This includes part time roles which are most often filled by women.

Therefore if it wanted to decrease its pay gap then it would need to hire more men in low income or part time roles NOT "suspiciously" hire a couple of women in senior positions

Assuming that this post isn’t a wind up, I genuinely despair at how silly and ignorant it is.

For many years, I worked part time to allow me time with the kids. DH would have loved to do the same but allowed me to instead. As a result, I clearly lowered by employers’ average female wage, as did many of my (mostly female) colleagues on similar arrangements (in each case, this was of their choosing).

Why should my employer be penalized for offering me the arrangement I want? If you boycott, employers will no longer feel able to offer part time or other flexible arrangements to working mums. I genuinely find this attitude mind blogglingly stupid.

As an aside, I have the same issue with “equal” representation in senior roles.

Before having kids, I spent years advising the boards of FTSE 100 companies. Those boards are responsible for thousands of jobs and huge sums of money. It is a stressful, manic, all consuming role. You cannot run a massive company part time. You owe it to those employees depending on you to give it 100%. As a mother, neither I nor many of my professional, educated friends would want such a role - by necessity, it does not leave time for much else. I dare say that far fewer women have the time or energy, or desire, for these roles, so why do we keep getting told that companies need 50:50 representation?

Of the women qualified for these jobs (or at least those of them I know from my days at Oxford), very few seem to want them!

How many women is a suspicious number?

Two obviously. Why do you need more than the token one? Actually, thinking about it, you might want a spare for when the other is on their time of the month and you want a brew.

3 in a row.

See, we all agree, more than two is shifty :-)

It's suspicious because when you look at the pool of applicants the hiring is not representative of the gender split that applied.

I bet no company has ever hired three male senior managers in a row.

Justanotherworkingmom, your husband "allowed" you to work part time?

And he would have loved to do the same, but somehow your desire to spend time with the children took precedence over his? I wonder why....

The reason why massive gender pay gaps persist in may organisations have to do with much more than just women "deciding" to work part time so they can take care of their families. Not grasping this is spectacularly limiting. Looking at the gender pay gaps more closely, however, gives us an opportunity to change harmful gender norms and change our workplaces for the better.

Lol at suspicious number of women. It's always the women who are suspicious. Not the nature of the recruitment process, or the workplace environment, or the structure of the job.

*It's the gap between the highest paid male and the lowest paid woman across the whole organisation and all its roles. This includes part time roles which are most often filled by women.

Therefore if it wanted to decrease its pay gap then it would need to hire more men in low income or part time roles NOT "suspiciously" hire a couple of women in senior positions*

If it wanted to fix the pay gap it would need to not offer lower paid roles to women even if they wanted them, as the lowest paid man also makes no difference to the stats. Where I work all but myself in the female workforce negotiated a full time job into reduced hours on joining (late start or early finish or both) and not always for childcare. The gap would be less if they were forced to work the full 45 hour week like the rest of us do but this would probably have meant they wouldn't have taken the job in the first place which is not supportive of people who are capable but want to only do 9-4.30 or similar and maybe don't put a primary focus on maximising income if they earn enough to be comfortable anyway.

lampygirl, fixing the pay gap is not just about trying to hire more women into senior roles and more men into junior roles. It's about changing the nature of jobs and changing the attitudes towards men and women in the workplace and at home.

I get that, but the point is the women where i work want to work reduced hours for various reasons not limited to home/childcare, there are a few men who do the school run etc but they all negotiated late start late finish or vice versa early because they value the wage. Most of these were negotiated on joining from initial full time fixed hours. I don't think its necessarily a workplace view. My DP(male) works a shorter day than I do because he works to live a lot more than I do and I live to work a bit more. My workplace offers the same wage bands for the same job and is clearly open to various flexible options around hours and I don't think you can say fairer than that.

@PissedOffProf

What about those of us who don’t want to “change the attitudes towards men and women... at home”? I’m quite happy being primary caregiver to my kids, as I suspect are many others. What if we don’t want to be told that this isn’t acceptable and that our employers shouldn’t be colluding in affording other likeminded women part time working options?

I'd imagine the NHS has a horrendous gender pay gap - most nurses and HCAs are female, ditto midwives. The only relatively low paid majority male roles are porters and maintenance and they are fewer in number than the nurses.

The increasing feminisation of medical training doesn't yet offset the fact that the majority of senior (ie 50+) consultants are male - and more female doctors are part time!

Sometimes the gender pay gap is at least partially historic in origin and will hopefully reduce over time as the predominantly male cohort reach retirement.

Justanotherworkingmom, if you are ok with perpetuating economic dependence of women all all its consequences, it's rather sad. It's also rather sad that you don't seem to care about men's rights to be fully involved in the lives of their families and the rights of children to have fathers that are more than financial providers.

I find the predominantly of men in senior positions deeply suspicious. One might almost think there was something going on.

predominance

I swear I checked my post the millisecond before I sent it.

@randomsabreuse

I agree that the NHS is a good example. Even at doctor level, most of the woman I know are GPs (or in more hospital fields with more predictable hours, such as dermatology), most of the men hospital consultants. Hence, the men, on average, earn more.

Again, I think this is mainly lifestyle related. The consultants I know do still work very long hours and end up being called in at antisocial hours with minimal or no notice. Most women I know don’t want this (admittedly, I suspect the men don’t either, but they end up taking the hit!).

@PissedOffProf

I think everyone should be able to make their own decisions.

If you want to work longer hours in a more demanding, better paying job, that’s great.

What I am saying is that this is a personal choice. Many choose otherwise and that is a major driver of the pay gap. Provided men and women are paid the same rates for the same work, that’s okay. It is not for anyone else to tell women that they have to work harder or push themselves for more demanding roles.

I think you'll find there are many women up for challenging roles who arent given the opportunity to undertake them.

In which case, if they are the most qualified for those roles, that’s wrong and needs to be addressed.

A lot has changed in recent years but, right now, in the City, so much is being done to promote women that it has probably made it easier for a woman to get there than a man. My last employer was absolutely desperate for any good women to apply for partnership, given how few wanted it!

Great idea - I'd love to boycott the BBC, but the antiquated licence means I can't avoid it and can't hurt them in the pocket.

Its tricky. we have quite a big gender pay gap (19%), but I know - because I got it audited - that there is no pay gap between gender within roles. BUT the part time flexible admin roles are all filled by women, which pulls the median down considerably. We offer flexible and reduced hours to anyone who wants them but so far we only have one man who has taken us up on this. My senior team is 50 - 50 and we have 3 people - including me who do reduced hours. If we continue our current family friendly policies, we will never close this gap unless men also start to reduce their hours

When I started in accountancy nearly 40 years, most partners and managers were men. The women were usually in administration, payroll, book-keeping or tax return preparation. Men dominated the "exciting areas" of tax planning, audit, technology, management accounting, forecasting, etc. There were two of us who were managers but it was made clear we'd hit our "glass ceiling" and wouldn't be making partner any time soon!

I met an old work colleague a few weeks ago and was absolutely delighted that one of my old firms now has mostly female partners and managers, with a much broader mix of sexes in the individual departments.

Just shows how far we've come.