Gender pay gap

[FlyTipper]

The world divides into two: those who believe a gender pay gap exists, and those who don't.

Those who don't say women are doing different jobs. They are working part-time, prioritising home/family, do not want the high level responsibility and work load associated with high profile jobs. Thus women choose lower paid jobs because they prefer the conditions.

Those who believe it exists say two people presenting the same show or headlining the same film should be paid the same but clearly are not.

My position: women do different work and this largely explains the observed pay gap. But where the world is set up for men to succeed, women have to pick up the 'crumbs' they can. SO the pay gap doesn't truly exist, but that isn't because of women's choice.

As befits my character, I like to have my views tested. DO you agree?

@moimichme

What's your point?

I would suggest that a manual labour job on a construction site is far more physically demanding and dangerous, hence the similarities in pay, and hence why supermarket warehouse workers rightly get paid more than male/female checkout staff

Why have you brought supermarket warehouse workers and checkout staff into the discussion? That's not what the PP was referring to.

I think you have trashed this thread fmsfms, I doubt anyone else will want to discuss anything with you.

moimichme

That's a great point. The profit margins in housebuilding are greater than those in childcare, the constraint with pay is always the amount of money that flows that way.

Assisnated, the example quoted is incorrect anyway.

@Assassinatedbeauty

As should be obvious from the person I tagged in my reply, I was not replying to @picassospaintbrush.

Why is it so hard for you to understand/interpret my posts correctly?

Oh my, don't be a total fool. @Picassospaintbrush hadn't even posted when I replied to you! How could I have possibly thought you were replying to someone who hadn't even posted yet?! Look at the sequence of posts and the timestamps...

Well your last one makes no sense at all.

And also because you are exceedingly tedious and pompous.

@Assassinatedbeauty "That's not what the PP was referring to."

How else am I meant to interpret that comment?

Regardless I can't be bothered with another afternoon/evening of having to repeat myself and explain my posts over and over again

Or answering obvious questions like "Why have you brought supermarket warehouse workers and checkout staff into the discussion?" which came directly after a post comparing nursery workers and construction workers

Different jobs with different levels of physical activity and danger

Surely this was obvious, goodbye!

PP - previous poster. Who is clearly moimichme, from the sequence and timestamps of posts...

Well, in the supermarket case, I believe one of the arguments was that more strength/skill/training was needed for the warehouse jobs, which justified the pay difference. But the tribunal found that the two roles' value to the company was similar, and so they should pay the warehouse and shop-floor staff the same. www.ibblaw.co.uk/insights/blog/equal-pay-case-could-lead-surge-workplace-discrimination-claims

It just seems backwards, to me, that a traditionally 'female'/caring profession should require so much higher educational qualifications vs. a similarly paid, traditionally male career...it seems to reflect that society, yet again, values 'hard work' if it is usually done by men, whereas women have to meet a higher standard for the same wages.

@PicassosPaintbrush

Says the person that can’t refute my claims or address them so finds it easier to attack me personally.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

@moimichme

The supermarket case has yet to go to a tribunal, therefore no decision has been reached.

Can you honestly not see why a job that has to be done outside in all/most weather conditions, involves heavy physical activity, heights and is fairly dangerous by comparison to other jobs, might be paid more than a job that is mostly done inside, doesn’t require heavy physical activity (but of course is not stuck at a desk) and is not physically dangerous at all?

Regardless I can't be bothered with another afternoon/evening of having to repeat myself and explain my posts over and over again

Well that's great, you did say that yesterday however, and then immediately came back again to bore us some more though, so can you please stick to it this time.

moimichme

I think much of this is going to break down over the next few years as companies realise that expensive court action isn't getting them the wins, and the defenses they are relying on aren't working.

@Picassospaintbrush I hope you're right -- I know a final decision hasn't been made for ASDA and the other cases, but the workers have passed several legal hurdles already. Fingers crossed it'll succeed.

Sorry if I'm derailing, but personally, I don't agree that a nursery worker's job is inherently far easier than working in construction. They're different jobs, and working with children is less physically dangerous, yes, but you need a lot of energy in both, and it seems unfair that nursery workers are paid much the same, with so much more education, training and knowledge required. Plus, as you work up the career ladder, the earnings potential for working in nurseries hardly budges, even with far more responsibility (unless you take time out to get a degree and switch to secondary teaching, where more men work). Almost like it's not really seen as work, because we all know it's so easy for women to look after a room full of very young children and help them develop their potential...

You are compeltey right moimichme.

The gender pay gap stuff is brand new this year for a lot of organisations and it's causing a flip in attitudes.

The stuff spouted by fmsfms is just going to wither on the vine as it looks rank.

@moimichme "but you need a lot of energy in both"

There is zero way that nursery work requires is anywhere near as physically taxing as working on a building site for 8 hours a day, jesus

@Picassospaintbrush "The stuff spouted by fmsfms is just going to wither on the vine as it looks rank."

Unfortunately for you, science and scientific studies are not going away any time soon.

Don't you think if all those studies I posted were mumbo-jumbo then at least one of you would have been able to post a study discrediting them?

All you've done is attack me personally, which shows that you can't win by attacking my arguments.

Job done.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3250762-Jordan-Peters?msgid=77908991#77908991

@Picassospaintbrush

You might want to stay away from that thread, Jordan Peterson is turning the women there onto the same arguments I made in this thread (he is where I got all my studies and links)

Withering and dying indeed

Who can be bothered. This is a feminist board not a mansplaining board.

The thing we like about JP is his refusal to use pronouns and telling young men to get their arse into gear.

Let's just agree to disagree, fms.

This article by Kleven et al. (2018) confirms that while the pay gap has decreased over the years, having a child has a much more negative effect on the earnings of mothers vs. fathers -- accounting for around 20% of the gap, for a number of reasons (with PDF link at the top of page):

scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=llNgiToAAAAJ&hl=en#d=gs_md_cita-d&p=&u=%2Fcitations%3Fview_op%3Dview_citation%26hl%3Den%26user%3DllNgiToAAAAJ%26citation_for_view%3DllNgiToAAAAJ%3AP5F9QuxV20EC%26tzom%3D-60

How odd to argue that physically taxing jobs are worth more after all these years of justifying low pay for "unskilled" physical jobs because they do not require the educational levels of higher paid positions.

Too bad they do not pay based on the value to society. Then the rubbish collectors would be paid well and the CEOs very little.

Why is it so hard for you to understand/interpret my posts correctly?
I am guessing it is because of the way you disregard what a person said, training vs no training, and address a different aspect, physical effort. It is on the list of logical fallacies too.

(The number of hours worked, industry, occupation, promotion to manager, and other factors are included in the analysis.)

An ex colleague sent me a screenshot of their ‘look at our pay gap’ email from their company. The line ‘this is not an excercise to look at a comparison of men and women doing the same job as this is not relevant’ was actually included in it.

I mean if you’re actually denying that you pay women and men in the same role then you’re not on a good footing...

It’s also not as simple as saying women don’t do comparable jobs. You have to ask WHY they don’t.

And a lot of the reason is society’s expectations of how women and men are facilitated in the workplace. This is an absolutely brilliant thread that explores these issues.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3082251-Men-whose-lives-are-facilitated-by-women-how-did-this-happen

It debunks the idea that women don’t want to, or aren’t suited. It’s basically that the structural discrimination results in lower numbers of women progressing through to higher levels.

Yes there is a gender pay gap. I’ve seen it first hand. And I’ve successfully had my salary increased when I’ve challenged it too. Men doing the same job, with lower qualifications, less experience and lower appraisal ratings and lower ‘skill’ sets were paid more. Badicallybdoing the same job, but not as well as me and one other woman. We both got a raise, but only after we fought for it.

fmsfms is talking out of his manly crack.

The UK government analysis recently published shows even after childbearing the biggest percentage is "unexplained".

Really what is comes down to is we have been able to get away with it for decades. We are at a bit of a tipping point where firms are just giving up trying to blag their way out of it and act on it instead, although it's not an instant fix.

I was at a conference on this last week and the number of major names there was huge.

This is what I do for a living so if fffffsss comes back waving his willy around mansplaining again, he is getting a biscuit.

“I am guessing it is because of the way you disregard what a person said, training vs no training, and address a different aspect, physical effort. It is on the list of logical fallacies too.”

oh really, which fallacy is that then? And I never ignored it, I actually pointed out that there a lot more differences between the two jobs: indoors, danger, physical exertion etc. The notion that there’s no training for construction jobs is also false, it’s not an unskilled trade by any stretch of the imagination

Nobody ever asked me for training when I did babysitting as a teenager. I’m not sure of the exact qualifications needed to work in a nursery, obviously there’s background checks etc.

The reality is that if companies could hire construction workers for less then they would. Whatever the going rate for construction workers is what is necessary to hire enough of them, same for nursery workers