It's not a gender pay gap

Sky & the Spectator are hardly representing an independent view.
I agree with a few points, but most of them are skewed, not necessarily in favour of gender, but in favour of big business.
In reality it has been easier to exploit certain groups (women included).

 

What I can say is this.

In 1983 I took up a management trainee role in Yorkshire Bank. (A very good institution at the time, if anyone was a miner).

The bank had nearly 300 branches & no female managers. My intake was 97 people. There were no women as management trainees.

If any of you think we should go back to those days, God bless ya.

 

What is interesting is that it is a woman stating that the report was skewed due to incorrect comparisons and correlations. I'm fully behind equality and equal pay for women but it has to be based on like for like jobs. The reports I've read do appear to have inconsistencies in them which does undermine the whole argument.

I work for Capita which is a pretty big business with over 30,000 employees. We have women on the board, women in many senior management roles and as far as I can see we have a completely level playing field where pay is concerned. There are some blips but these are for reasons that are not based in discrimination.

 

Did you read my post that preceded yours?

I think things are a lot better. If you worked in Yorkshire Bank in 1983 you were only there to make the tea, or give the manager a blow job.

 

PS pleased about Capita & I do think there is a level playing field in a lot of jobs.

I employ mobile DJs and only 10% of my workforce are women. If any women DJs read this PM me please.

 

I was referring to the report about NHS pay gap along with countless other reports which say men are paid more than omen and then subtly mention that the comparison is for different jobs.

Facts
1. More women CHOOSE to take career breaks than men. This hampers their career progression as they lose valuable experience.
2. More women CHOOSE to work part-time hours than men.
3. More women over 50 CHOOSE to use their worth to the company to negotiate reduced or flexible hours than men do. Statistically men are more likely to use their worth to negotiate better salaries instead.

Thry are all facts which go a long way to explaining why headline grabbing 'men are paid more than women' studies are misleading and undermine the genuine cases where men ARE paid more than women for the same job and/or ARE given promotions based purely on gender.

I'd like to see a report which shows the pay and employment roles of men and women of equal age where nobody in the study has taken a career break or where both have taken equal career breaks. Only with that information can things truly be assessed because comparing apples and oranges does not serve any purpose.

I also believe that one way to remove gender pay gaps and also age discrimination (which definitely works both ways) is to ban 'salary open to negotiation' or 'salary dependent on experience' which basically means more money if you are a better negotiator rather than if you are better at the job. Force companies to state the wage up front and then it's fair.
The other thing that would need to happen is banning pay rises without strict criteria as again it means if you are a good negotiator you get more.

 

That sort of shows that these reports aren't as enlightening as they seem. If your company was investigated the headline could quite easily be that you are sexist and don't employ women. In reality I bet its simply because they haven't applied to work for you?

 

We're in complete agreement that things are a lot better than they used to be JP. I'm hardly a fossil but I still remember the days you describe. I don't think anyone could argue that the changes haven't been anything other than positive. The only fly in the ointment is that it took so long for the changes to happen.

 

All public sector pay grades are available online.
And in the nhs and no doubt similar bodies have a similar issue.
There are a core of workers post mat level/ kids have grown up stuck at the top of band four jobs who have no desire to preogress career wise and are quite happy to sit on these roles until retirement....

 

I know you are a decent bloke. My issue with the OP was he makes sensationalist posts that are backed up by nothing. I also agree sometimes people manipulate the fact that they are female / of an ethnic origin, or whatever to their own ends. Sadly that is human nature.

As you say the world is a better place than when I started work (& I'm a man!). I've very much in favour of the best candidate getting every job.
In the last 20 years the number of female MPs has grown massively. (Some of them I'm not a fan of, as you'll be aware). The sort of policies that brought about a balance in my view were necessary & should not be looked down on, but I look forward to a day when they are completely redundant.

 

I didn't see you as a socialist? I would have thought the concept of headhunting people makes your argument look a bit silly.

 

Cheers JP, you're a good guy too. I'm all for the best candidate being chosen too, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. I don't believe that inequality can be fixed by more inequality. I have a daughter just starting out in her career and the thought of her not being treated equally worries me, however I am also hopeful that those days are behind us.

Politics has helped but attitudes have also changed. There is still some areas of gender inequality, of that I have little doubt, but I would also hope much of it is down to historical reasons which can be addressed much easier than blatant discrimination.

I just worry that some of the recent high profile examples appear to be distorted comparisons that could undermine the support for the campaign. We have to be careful when reacting to cases that appear to be discriminatory on the surface but are not so when you look beneath the surface.

 

Fully agree with this.

 

I hate this myth.

The pay gap is simply a lie, and actually very lucrative to feminists who directly profit from arguing it's non-existence.