BBC Womens pay gap
Discussion
JagLover said:
Looks like the gender pay gap reporting is complete to April 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50220175
Few snapshots
The pay gap for all workers fell from 17.8% in 2018 to 17.3% in 2019, and continues to decline, the ONS said.
the gender pay gap for full-time workers rose to 8.9% - up from 8.6% the previous year.
The pay gap for full time employees under the age of forty is practically zero. The charity complains it will take decades to gain complete equality, but other than forcing everyone over forty to immediately retire I am not entirely sure how they plan to make things move any faster.
Charity tries to justify its existence. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50220175
Few snapshots
The pay gap for all workers fell from 17.8% in 2018 to 17.3% in 2019, and continues to decline, the ONS said.
the gender pay gap for full-time workers rose to 8.9% - up from 8.6% the previous year.
The pay gap for full time employees under the age of forty is practically zero. The charity complains it will take decades to gain complete equality, but other than forcing everyone over forty to immediately retire I am not entirely sure how they plan to make things move any faster.
This just in!
Water still wet.
JagLover said:
Few snapshots
The pay gap for full time employees under the age of forty is practically zero. The charity complains it will take decades to gain complete equality, but other than forcing everyone over forty to immediately retire I am not entirely sure how they plan to make things move any faster.
Edited by Cotty on Thursday 31st October 09:15
Mothersruin said:
...or women approaching forty to ignore their biological clock, stop having babies and keep grafting at their career ensuring they keep parity with their male counterparts.
I you will more than likely find that if or when they do they do just as well if not better than their male counterparts. Not-The-Messiah said:
Mothersruin said:
...or women approaching forty to ignore their biological clock, stop having babies and keep grafting at their career ensuring they keep parity with their male counterparts.
I you will more than likely find that if or when they do they do just as well if not better than their male counterparts. Not my point.
So I am very careful not to engage in this discussion at work, as I am the only bloke on a management team of 5.
But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
I don't want some sort of handmaidens tale scenario going on (it just looks so depressing) and yes, I can probably work out which way mumsnet is.
No doubt.
Not my point.
But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
I don't want some sort of handmaidens tale scenario going on (it just looks so depressing) and yes, I can probably work out which way mumsnet is.
Mothersruin said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Mothersruin said:
...or women approaching forty to ignore their biological clock, stop having babies and keep grafting at their career ensuring they keep parity with their male counterparts.
I you will more than likely find that if or when they do they do just as well if not better than their male counterparts. Not my point.
Ian Geary said:
So I am very careful not to engage in this discussion at work, as I am the only bloke on a management team of 5.
But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
I don't want some sort of handmaidens tale scenario going on (it just looks so depressing) and yes, I can probably work out which way mumsnet is.
No doubt.
Not my point.
Depends if you want commercial concerns to keep absorbing other people's life choices, and the staff therein to be happy with it.But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
I don't want some sort of handmaidens tale scenario going on (it just looks so depressing) and yes, I can probably work out which way mumsnet is.
Mothersruin said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Mothersruin said:
...or women approaching forty to ignore their biological clock, stop having babies and keep grafting at their career ensuring they keep parity with their male counterparts.
I you will more than likely find that if or when they do they do just as well if not better than their male counterparts. Not my point.
The question would be that if having time off to have a child doesnt effect your career or pay at all is it fair on those that don't have the time off? (Let's not be picky about the fact maternity leave isnt "time off")
Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
(Let's also not get into the fact that there may already be 5 male managers and they wouldn't mind evening up the ratio.)
Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
(Let's also not get into the fact that there may already be 5 male managers and they wouldn't mind evening up the ratio.)
Ian Geary said:
So I am very careful not to engage in this discussion at work, as I am the only bloke on a management team of 5.
But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
Educated, professional, women having children is of course good for the country. The question you seem to be asking is should the employer be subsidising it by paying women with less work experience (due to career breaks and part time hours), and who are probably less willing or able to work unpaid overtime, the same?. But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
Given that the value to this is actually going to society as a whole it should be the government making it a more viable financial proposition.
JagLover said:
Ian Geary said:
So I am very careful not to engage in this discussion at work, as I am the only bloke on a management team of 5.
But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
Educated, professional, women having children is of course good for the country. The question you seem to be asking is should the employer be subsidising it by paying women with less work experience (due to career breaks and part time hours), and who are probably less willing or able to work unpaid overtime, the same?. But the 2 paid more are both women without kids, and the 2 paid less have kids.
But all of them are damn good at their jobs. Given the human race does actually want to continue, is it right that women have to accept a lower pay because of doing a thing that only they can do?
Can't women be good at a job and be mums without losing out financially?
Given that the value to this is actually going to society as a whole it should be the government making it a more viable financial proposition.
Regardless if it's a man or woman time away from work may impact your career/pay prospects, as does needing to fit work in around child care etc.
Just because more women choose to be the carer it doesn't make it sexist.
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 31st October 08:58
98elise said:
Why assume it's just women that have time off to bring up kids?
Because in the vast majority of cases that is the case?But do not get me wrong I fully support shared parental leave and think it is discriminatory the way that many companies (including where I work) have a fixed policy for maternity leave and then say for any fathers taking shared parental leave it would be discretionary.
Zoobeef said:
The question would be that if having time off to have a child doesnt effect your career or pay at all is it fair on those that don't have the time off? (Let's not be picky about the fact maternity leave isnt "time off")
Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
(Let's also not get into the fact that there may already be 5 male managers and they wouldn't mind evening up the ratio.)
I might need a woosh parrot here but surely if the person whos been there for the whole year absolutely should have an advantage ?? They have chosen to be comitted to their career while as the other have maybe chosen family over their career.Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
(Let's also not get into the fact that there may already be 5 male managers and they wouldn't mind evening up the ratio.)
Maternity leave is time off by the way.
It's time off work where you still receive some income for doing zero work at your place of employment.
I think it's absolutely reasonable to be paid more if you are more commited to your career.
If you want the flexibility then you need to accept compromises surely ?
While i don't agree with paying child bearing women less (if that even happens?) i don't think anyone will want to have the conversation from a business standpoint that "you're going off for 6 months to a year , in 9 months , and now we have to look to hire a temp to replace you so you are going on a slightly reduced salary".
Zoobeef said:
Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
Because they are the one in the office grafting and picking up the shortfall for the person not in the office. They should be rewarded for putting in the extra effort.I don't believe there is a job in the world where a person gets rewarded for not working. Excluding politicians.
xjay1337 said:
Zoobeef said:
The question would be that if having time off to have a child doesnt effect your career or pay at all is it fair on those that don't have the time off? (Let's not be picky about the fact maternity leave isnt "time off")
Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
(Let's also not get into the fact that there may already be 5 male managers and they wouldn't mind evening up the ratio.)
I might need a woosh parrot here but surely if the person whos been there for the whole year absolutely should have an advantage ?? They have chosen to be comitted to their career while as the other have maybe chosen family over their career.Imagine your colleague disappears for 6 months to a year, comes back and theres a promotion available. Why should the person that's been there for the whole year have a slight advantage.
(Let's also not get into the fact that there may already be 5 male managers and they wouldn't mind evening up the ratio.)
Maternity leave is time off by the way.
It's time off work where you still receive some income for doing zero work at your place of employment.
I think it's absolutely reasonable to be paid more if you are more commited to your career.
If you want the flexibility then you need to accept compromises surely ?
While i don't agree with paying child bearing women less (if that even happens?) i don't think anyone will want to have the conversation from a business standpoint that "you're going off for 6 months to a year , in 9 months , and now we have to look to hire a temp to replace you so you are going on a slightly reduced salary".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff