Government says firms should positively discriminate in favour of women

[TheDullWitch]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4217376.ece

Not sure how this works. So shortlist for a job gets down to two and now a firm is allowed to say "RIght, all things being equal we'll have the woman." But they don t HAVE to say it. THey just can. But surely they could anyway before and no one would ever know.

And also women in part time jobs are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in full time jobs. Yes, duh, because they re doing usually low skill things which fit around their children.

That's a bit of a generalisation TheDullWitch. I work part time and am not doing anything different than I was before dd when I was full time.

However, I don't agree with positive discrimination at all. The successful candidate should be the best person for the job.

I personally wouldn't like to get a job purely on the basis that I am a woman. However, I am massively in favour in finding out what everyone else earns. I once had to threaten to take an old employer to court because I found out that a MAN on a lower scale was getting paid £3000 more a year . I only found this out because he left his pay slip lying arounnd.

Women are crap at asking for decent money, men are much more brazen. So their starting salary is lower (assuming there is no rigid grade system) and that increases incrementally over a lifetime.

Pinkjenny - i didn t mean all women do low-grade part time jobs, just that this explains the statistic.

I definitely disagree with positive discrimination and tbh find it a bit insulting. Although I think in reality it does already happen in the kind of scenario TDW describes in her OP.

I do get frustrated with the statistics that come out periodically about pay differentials. Unless they are direct, meaningful comparisons they are not that useful or informative.

I think the point is, regarding employment, - when you read the statement - it says that with all things being equal - i.e. the man and woman have the same experience, qualifications etc ... if the woman gets the job the man has no cause to lodge a claim of unfairness...

Pretty unworkable in real life and just the usual froth from the labour govt...

I think this is a bad idea. How unfair!

Women don't have top jobs, it strikes me, because they don't want them, aren t prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to get them. They don t define themselves as much by their careers.

at our school there are about 8 men maybe
and THREE of the management are men( team of 5)
then a few small maths teachers

its a girls'school
bad bad bad

but do you know what
i am too tired to get animated about it

But I mainly see sexism in employment falling into 2 main camps:-

a) at the skilled end of the amrket whether both genders get equal access to the well-paid jobs (that were traditionally male only eg law, finance)

b) at the less-skilled end of the market ensuring that jobs requiring similar levels of skill and commitment get similar pay. It is in this area that I still see most discrepancy as jobs such as carers, childcare workers are typically less-well paid than maintence work or driving for example. The mere fact that a job is equallp open to both genders does not itself address a history of discrimination which allows traditional male and female roles to be rewarded differently.

I don't see that this idea helps at all tbh.

and i dont KNWO about hte labour market.
i am a poofy teacher
all they get irate about is if osmoene once shouted at them and hwo has nicked modern languages biscuits

I agree with the outlined proposals. I think they might be successful at addressing some of the entrenched discrimination in the UK labour market.

I certainly have felt and continue to feel discriminated against in the labour market. However, I would not wish to secure a position based on my sex. I would want to secure a position based on my capability and competence to fulfil the role.

Positive discrimination is currently illegal and should remain so.

I absolutely believe in people getting to where they are on merit alone and find this to be a totally abhorrent idea.

Utter offensive nonsense from this government as usual.

PinkJenny - in what way did you feel discriminated against?

I actually agree with positive discrimination in some cases. In Norway, where companies were asked to make 40% of their company directors women, and absolutely none did, they have just been forced to do so. There will certainly be problems in the short term but long term it will change the culture to actually make companies develop women too so that they can fufil these roles.
Just look at Finland and Norway's policies on equality/women with children working etc and you'll see its created an utterly different culture to ours. Our culture needs a big kick to stop making it so hard for women to have kids as well as have any other kind of life as well under the age of 40 or so.

I have returned from maternity leave and am looking for a part time role (which apparently, is non-existent in my field). The mere fact that I am looking for part time immediately stigmatises me, as what follows are usually questions like this:

Why do you want part time?
How old is your dd?
Have you just got the one?

Now, as an HR bod, I know I should not answer any of these questions, but I always do . They go off thinking, 'her dd is very young, she'll always be off', 'oh, just the one, she'll be pregnant soon', blah blah blah, 'let's recruit a man eh'!

Actually thedullwitch I am doing a very responsible and skilled job and working part-time. Anyone who tells me I deserve less pah per hour than my male colleagues will get a smack in the teeth!

Or even 'pay'. The 'pah' was because it makes me cross.

PinkLenny, your posts seem contradictory to me. Surely the point of this legislation is to ensure that you are able to 'secure a position based on my capability and competence to fulfil the role', without potential employers using crappy excuses based around your gender? (This is not specifically WRT positive discrimination, but more to do with the other provisions that aim to force companies to publish statistics regarding the gender balance of their workforce and pay scales.)

Agree with Bimblin - I was thinking about the Norway case too. That's been quite successful as far as I'm aware.

My boss from my last job (lovely old duffer) wrote this on my reference:

XXXXXXX juggles her work and family commitments extremely well.

I don't agree that I am contradicting myself at all.

My situation is more around a frustration about a stigma attached to working mothers, which I am experiencing currently, and to which dh would not be exposed to. Part time or no part time, I wouldn't want to be treated more favourably because I am a woman, just equally, and I do not believe that sex should have any bearing on a recruitment decision (unless there is an objective justification).

Maybe I'm not expressing myself very well, its been a long day!

But no-one is going to be obliged to employ women as a result of these proposals; there are no quotas (which are the crux of true positive discrimination).

All that's being proposed is that if two candidates are equally qualified, an employer can use the sex as a 'tie-breaker', if s/he wants to - entirely voluntary.

And I do think that expecting entrenched discrimination to magically disappear of its own accord is pie-in-the-sky. It's not going to happen. The only way working women will be treated more fairly is for government to introduce things like this. These proposals are really very mild.