To talk about gender pay gap?

[chopc]

My DD (12) is having a debate after Easter and she has to argue the motion "the world is biased towards men"

Discussing things with her got me interested and I just listened to a podcast about gender pay gap in Uber drivers. as per this women uber drivers earn less than men because they do less unsocial hours etc

The talk implied women want more flexible working/ less pressure etc than men

So should women get paid the same if they CHOOSE a different lifestyle

This is outside having time off for having a baby. It is difficult because some women are not able to breastfeed and are not able to pump so there will be discrimination between women if this was allowed to happen

However if an employee has a year off each time they have a baby, is it right they get paid the same as the male counterpart? This I am not so sure

I know this is in AIBU for traffic but would love to start a discussion on this topic as I think I have a lot to learn

@Grognonne have often wondered how life would have panned out have I had the higher paid career. In all honesty I would probably have resented my DH as I would have wanted to be the one at home with the kids

@chopc

Shared leave isn’t working well here because the set up is a bit rubbish and there isn’t enough leave nor is it routinely paid. Sweden for example gives over a year for a couple to share with at least 3 months to be taken by each parent otherwise it is lost. Women might still end up taking more time off than men but the disparity is much less. More importantly it becomes the norm that men are impacted by having a baby as well as women.

On the performance front. I guess it depends on the job. But I don’t think success in all jobs is dependent on simply doing the tasks repeatedly over years until you move up a rung. There are other skills we all bring from life experience which contribute to success.

Also! How long are we working for? 40-45 years? If a woman takes two full years off that is a tiny proportion of her working life yet we disproportionately impacted by that.

[quote chopc]@yellowbluefish we are just wired differently. My DH was more career driven than me whereas I wanted to take a back seat. In fact I feel privileged to have been able to so spend so much time with the children.
Luckily and purely by luck, I am in a career which is not so affected by working part time or taking prolonged time off work . I didn't appreciate this when the career was chosen- I just thought that would be what I enjoy [/quote]
The "being wired differently" wouldn't have happened in a vacuum.

Women see that they are expected to be the carers and men see that they are expected to be career minded over and over again. It's impossible for the "nurture" part of development not to have an impact - it's not all "nature"

You can't extrapolate your feelings out onto a societal level though. If you want to get really deep, you could argue that you're not actually wired differently at all, you are the product of your upbringing and society.

The sex pay gap exists whether a woman has children or not. By focusing so purely on maternity leave you are having a very blinkered discussion. However your alternative is to penalise women for continuing the human race whilst allowing and encouraging men to carry on onwards and upwards.

The family squeeze on finance often works against women:

Woman married man a bit older than her (we can discuss the reasons this happens so often, or why men do often approach younger women)

He is therefore a few years ahead in the career and pay stakes. With the added sex-based capital he has gained since birth pushing his salary ahead.

Baby arrives: maternity based service backs begin. Woman loses professional development / promotion / pension opportunities. Her networking freezes.

She may choose / be able to choose to be a SAHP.

OR childcare costs push the couple into maintaining the higher salary (his - see above) while she stays at home. The cash effect is neutral, BUT she loses professional dev, training, promotion, pension etc.

OR she goes back to work but now, and especially after maternity leave during which he has become accustomed to a partner at home so has been able to work late etc, and continue with promotion, it is now HER responsibility, it seems, to cover sick days, holidays, early pick ups etc etc. His job is now too senior : important/ he travels for work (maternity put paid to that for her) or ‘it makes more sense’ for her to lose the days pay because, hey presto, she earns less! All to the detriment of her earnings and career ladder.

It’s a mix of discrimination, sexist expectations, ingrained cultural forces against women.

@chopc
On the skills/experience gap. If women do miss out on skills vital to the roll while they are off it’s very easy for companies to offer ‘accelerated returns’ to work to make sure they are caught up.

Maybe slightly irrelevant but it has always irked me - exactly how the ‘gender’ pay gap is reported on and the way the legislation is written. Firstly, because a company over a certain size need only publish its data - not actually do anything about it, and secondly, the data does not break down far enough to show where the issues are.

The company I work for is a good example. They applaud their median pay gap for being very low - it is in single figures. However, the vast majority of their 3000 strong workforce are warehouse workers (a very low percentage of which are women) so of course the median pay gap is low!

What I’d like to see if the pay gap measured in each of the quartiles. My bet would be that the gap is much wider in upper management than it is amongst the lower quartiles.

Look at primary school teaching, an overwhelmingly female profession, and yet a disproportionate number of men in senior leadership roles.
Ooo there's a lesser spotted man he must be encouraged and promoted regardless of ability.
Couple that attitude with women being socialised to not compete or ask for things.

@Wherediditgo

You are so right. Reporting it in quartiles makes the gap absolutely stark.

All very interesting thoughts. The Netflix video gave many points of discussion.

@Mariearistocat missed your post before but good point

Now will go and read the various articles people have posted

Thank you all for your input. You have given me lots to think about. Have a great Sunday

@RainingBatsAndFrogs

Your post is an excellent summary of the forces at work.

OP, I think that your problem is that you’re looking at this from a very individualist point of view and need to look at it from the point of view of what is right within society.

You say that men and women are “wired differently”. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that women want to have children and nurture them? If so, yes you’re right. On balance that’s true.

But if it’s a) a basic natural instinct that women can’t deny and b) something that is useful to society, then why should we penalise women financially for this?

Think of the things that men are naturally advantaged at (physical strength for example and physical safety). They can earn a lot of money for those kind of things, from plumbers to construction workers to football stars.

So it’s hardly fair our natural biology results in women being paid less but men more.

Not sure about society expectations as I still think it's a choice if you adhere to it or not. And whom you chose to have kids with and what balance you have.

I research, teach and write about this for a living. I can tell you unequivocally that societal expectations and stereotypes are a huge influence. We don't make choices in a vacuum.

I honestly think society needs to pick a lane.

Is having a child nesscessary or not?
You can't say it's a choice and therefore we won't pay women or value the work that goes into birthing and raising children (because it is very much hard work), but then turn round and complain that women aren't having enough children to sustain the population /economy etc...

I think we need start valuing the work that goes into raising children and start treating it with the respect it deserves. The pandemic should have taught us that childcare and raising children are every bit as much an economic issue than jobs and industry.

A good idea I heard is mandatory paternity leave that is the same as women. In other words men MUST take it. That means male employees are every bit as much a 'liabilty' to employers as women. It also I think would benefit children and their fathers as they get that opportunity to bond. Speaking from personal experience, my husband stayed home with our eldest when he was 8 months till 18 months old and they both got so much out of it and it has lasted even now that ds is 6. Unfortunately my dh didn't have the same opportunity with our second ds but is wfh currently with our dd. She and dh are also getting a lot from it.

It would take a cultural and societal shift for sure.

@Wherediditgo

Maybe slightly irrelevant but it has always irked me - exactly how the ‘gender’ pay gap is reported on and the way the legislation is written. Firstly, because a company over a certain size need only publish its data - not actually do anything about it, and secondly, the data does not break down far enough to show where the issues are.

The company I work for is a good example. They applaud their median pay gap for being very low - it is in single figures. However, the vast majority of their 3000 strong workforce are warehouse workers (a very low percentage of which are women) so of course the median pay gap is low!

What I’d like to see if the pay gap measured in each of the quartiles. My bet would be that the gap is much wider in upper management than it is amongst the lower quartiles.

The current regulations do require employers to do an analysis by quartiles.

I still can't get my head around how two people graduate at the same time and start work. Both get married and have three kids. The
Woman takes 3 sets of maternity leave. The man continues. We are now in year 8 if employment. You are saying that the woman should be paid the same as the man- they will be doing the same job. However salary and performance in that field is based on performance and results. This won't be equal. So how can the salary expect to be?

Let's look at it another way. If a couple decide to have a child and it's a joint decision obviously it's the woman that has to get pregnant and give birth - is it fair that the woman's career is disadvantaged because of biology?

For example, I'm a university academic and in academia promotion is often directly linked to the amount to write, research and publish. This disadvantages women who go on maternity leave and more recently women with children as they have taken on the bulk of childcare and homeschooling during the last year. In fact, women's publications pretty much came to a halt last year where as men's more than doubled.
There is a lot of work being done in universities to ensure women aren't disadvantaged when it comes to promotions and it's the right thing to do.

If a rule was brought in that maternity/ paternity leave can be shared - do you think it will even things out?

We now have shared parental leave. Unfortunately it's not used widely and I believe it is , in the main, due to societal expectations around the role of men and women at home and in the workplace.

[quote CycleWoman]@chopc

@TheJerkStore - so women able to take multiple amounts of maternity leave. The man doing the same job continues to work - you think they should both be paid the same?

Yes they should be paid the same. you are comparing apples and pears here.

Rather looking at an unrelated man and woman look at a man and woman in a relationship who choose to have children together. Man can (should he wish) can become a parent with little to no impact on his career. The woman in that relationship is unlikely to be able to do that due to taking a break (yes some woman may want to return to work after two weeks but many women want/need time to recover from birth and be with their babies). So we need to ensure that women don’t bear the professional and financial cost of being the person having the babies.[/quote]
Most women are not in jobs that are actually affected by this. I’m talking service type jobs. This would only affect professional women who chose to take a long maternity leave.

I think companies should pay people what they are worth and be objective about it. There are women who keep up their skills during leave and come back just as talented, and their pay should reflect that. Although I suspect a lot come back kind of checked out.

If women were only losing out in proportion to the time they spent on maternity that would be one thing

But my salary and pension isn't just 7 months behind my male peers

And many women with no children get hit.. lower pay rise , lower chance of promotion

The current regulations do require employers to do an analysis by quartiles

My understanding is (at least when I looked in to it last year) that they need only tell you what percentage of women vs men there are in each quartile, and not what the actual gap is for each quartile.
So you could see, for example, a company with relatively few women sitting in that higher pay bracket... but for the ones that ARE in that pay bracket, the figures don’t show us how far behind in terms of salary there are from their male counterparts.

Let's look at it another way. If a couple decide to have a child and it's a joint decision obviously it's the woman that has to get pregnant and give birth - is it fair that the woman's career is disadvantaged because of biology?

If she produces less and is not as successful as others at the workplace, then why should anything else be considered? Why should hiring companies consider anything but actual results?

For example, I'm a university academic and in academia promotion is often directly linked to the amount to write, research and publish. This disadvantages women who go on maternity leave and more recently women with children as they have taken on the bulk of childcare and homeschooling during the last year. In fact, women's publications pretty much came to a halt last year where as men's more than doubled

Tough. It’s a pandemic.

There is a lot of work being done in universities to ensure women aren't disadvantaged when it comes to promotions and it's the right thing to do

It’s not the right thing if you promote someone with less qualifications.

I’m just not sympathetic to this argument. It seems like you want lower standards just for equity’s sake. Tell me that’s not the case?

I know it’s difficult, but imo we need to fix the pipeline not lower standards (eg perhaps less maternity leave but more actual flexibility in hours, free daycare from very early ages, encourage family-friendly work policies that target fathers)

And many women with no children get hit.. lower pay rise , lower chance of promotion

Where’s the source on this? I’d like to see it as I typically hear the opposite ( not saying you’re wrong, genuinely interested)

Another thing to consider for the sex pay gap
hbr.org/2018/06/research-women-ask-for-raises-as-often-as-men-but-are-less-likely-to-get-them

UsedUp

Do you really think it is acceptable that female careers have been more heavily impacted by additional caring responsibilities during the pandemic than male? Why are women expected to pick up the slack?

(My DC are teenagers and I can WFH so this isn’t about me but about the general principle - I am also the higher earner).

On the performance front. I guess it depends on the job. But I don’t think success in all jobs is dependent on simply doing the tasks repeatedly over years until you move up a rung. There are other skills we all bring from life experience which contribute to success

There’s definitely something to be said about delinking performance from ‘years on the job’. We should be able to assess performance independently of this.

But I also know companies like to reward longevity, so it has to be a bit of balance here.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

UsedUp

Do you really think it is acceptable that female careers have been more heavily impacted by additional caring responsibilities during the pandemic than male? Why are women expected to pick up the slack?

(My DC are teenagers and I can WFH so this isn’t about me but about the general principle - I am also the higher earner).

Each family looked at their finances and particular circumstances and acted accordingly. What else can be done?

And lots of people have lost jobs and businesses through no fault of their own, so sorry to say that this is just another drop in the bucket of the human misery caused by the pandemic.

Let's look at it another way. If a couple decide to have a child and it's a joint decision obviously it's the woman that has to get pregnant and give birth - is it fair that the woman's career is disadvantaged because of biology?

If she produces less and is not as successful as others at the workplace, then why should anything else be considered? Why should hiring companies consider anything but actual results?

We're talking about people in their current workplaces so hiring companies have nothing to do with it.
We're also not talking about women not performing as well in the workplace. It's about making sure women are not disadvantaged for being, you know....a women. Ensuring women are not disadvantaged due to pregnancy and maternity leave is one way to do this.

For example, I'm a university academic and in academia promotion is often directly linked to the amount to write, research and publish. This disadvantages women who go on maternity leave and more recently women with children as they have taken on the bulk of childcare and homeschooling during the last year. In fact, women's publications pretty much came to a halt last year where as men's more than doubled

Tough. It’s a pandemic.

Do you think it it's fair that women have been disproportionately disadvantaged due to the pandemic?

There is a lot of work being done in universities to ensure women aren't disadvantaged when it comes to promotions and it's the right thing to do

It’s not the right thing if you promote someone with less qualifications.

I didn't say this is what was happening. This isn't what is happening at all.

I’m just not sympathetic to this argument. It seems like you want lower standards just for equity’s sake. Tell me that’s not the case?

You're right. That's not the case. There is no lowering of standards.
It's about making sure women are not disadvantaged due to structural inequalities.

I know it’s difficult, but imo we need to fix the pipeline not lower standards (eg perhaps less maternity leave but more actual flexibility in hours, free daycare from very early ages, encourage family-friendly work policies that target fathers)

Again, there is no lowering of standards. Where did I say this? But yes we need to look at structural issues as they currently disadvantage women.