Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 39 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2151 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Women: Like men, only cheaper

Amber Thomas
Hurray! It’s equal pay day! The day when men and women are finally paid the same… Oh, wait – no, it doesn’t mean that at all. Equal Pay Day actually refers to the day of the year when women stop earning, compared to men.


The current pay gap between men and women in the UK is 13.9%, which means that this year, Equal Pay day falls on November 10th. This is an improvement on last year (November 9th), but is progress being made quickly enough? There are 51 days left of the year – if we only improve one day a year, most people reading this are more likely to see retirement before they see wage parity!


Women are increasingly well educated, so why isn’t this translating into higher pay? In the UK, the aggregate (full and part time) gender pay gap for graduates ten years after graduation is 23% [1] Why do you think this is?


The gender pay gap also varies by occupation and ranges from 3.9% for sales (a decrease) and customer service, to 25.1% (an increase) for skilled trade occupations in April 2015 [2] (such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, welders, technicians, engineers etc. - you know, those jobs we are trying to get more women into...).


Why, when the 1970 Equal Pay Act has been around for nearly 50 years is there still such discrepancy?


The Government is bringing in mandatory pay transparency rules, which mean that all companies with more than 250 employees will be required to disclose how much they are paying in salaries and bonuses to their male and female staff. There is a further plan for a league table to be produced which will rank the worst offenders. This league table is scheduled for 2018. Come on, Businesses! You’ve got 2 years to sort out these gaps before you are named and shamed!


In the meantime, if you are being paid less than a man and wish to dispute it, you are able to bring your employer to a tribunal – if, that is, you have £1,200 for the upfront fees (brought in by the 2013 Coalition government). Unfortunately, the introduction of upfront fees is likely to deter women from seeking justice over gender wage imbalances, as (being lower paid) they are less likely to have the money to afford the case! [3]


And spare a thought for those in other countries – the worst gender gaps around the world last year were found in South Korea (where women earn 36.6% less than men), Estonia and Japan (26.6%), Israel (21.8%), and the Netherlands (20.5%). The narrowest gap was found in New Zealand, where women earned 5.6% less than men. This was followed by Belgium (5.9%), Luxembourg (6.5%), Denmark (6.8%) and Norway (7%). [4]


Should we talk to our colleagues about how much we/they earn? Many people are taught that it is perhaps impolite to discuss money, but perhaps the not-knowing is compounding the problem? Has anyone here discussed salaries with their colleagues, and if so, did you find that there was a gap? How did you approach the subject?


Aside from mandatory wage lists, are there any other policies or conversations that could be had to reduce and (hopefully) eliminate the pay differences?

Previous UK Equal pay days:
  • 2016:  10th November

  • 2015: 9th November

  • 2014: 4th November

  • 2013: 7th November

​--- --- ---



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    So the jobs men tend to do vs the sort of jobs women tend to do clearly play a big part. Lifestyle choices - women generally work less hours than men so will obviously get paid less (in the same line of work) etc. But is it more to do with preferences than gender discrimination? Some women may be expected to spend more time raising the children, some women may want to do this (my partner certainly prefers it this way). It would be interesting to see some sort of survey on this to see which is more the case.

    There was an interesting Forbes article about how the studies on the "gender pay gap" in the US misrepresented the stats by not considering these factors. I also heard somewhere that in situations where men are getting paid more per hour than women, for doing the same job, same hours, it could be because men are more likely to ask for more money than women are (where salaries are negotiable). There is still a lot of cultural pressure for men to be the higher earners in a family, so naturally they will ask for more money. I'm not sure how true this is but it seems like a feasible theory. If this is the case then my message to women would be “Ask for more money”.

    Where there are situations where men are genuinely being paid more than women for no real reason then this needs to be rectified. It just seems that there are many reasons for the gap that weren't considered in the studies. Also, men have a significantly higher rate of workplace accidents/deaths compared to women, which could be seen as another work related inequality, sometimes these things kind of balance out when other factors are considered. This goes for inequality in the past well. Women were treated unfairly in certain ways, but let’s not forget that it was only men that were drafted for war (for example). While these men are remembered, it’s not in the context of gender inequality. I’m not saying women should have been drafted as well by the way, but is selective equality true equality? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.
  • 0

    Aaron Thiele:
    So the jobs men tend to do vs the sort of jobs women tend to do clearly play a big part. Lifestyle choices - women generally work less hours than men so will obviously get paid less (in the same line of work) etc. But is it more to do with preferences than gender discrimination? Some women may be expected to spend more time raising the children, some women may want to do this (my partner certainly prefers it this way). It would be interesting to see some sort of survey on this to see which is more the case.




    Some women may want to look after their children, but so might some men. Some women might want to go back to work, but the costs of childcare are such that it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so (especially if other factors are considered, such as time and money spent commuting). The way that parental leave is set up deters and prevents some people from accessing equal choices. These decisions then stop being "lifestyle choices" and become financial ones. If employers were more flexible, for example offering people the choice of when to work their hours (eg. doing 35 hours over 3 days, rather than 5, therefore reducing the number of days childcare was required, reducing the amount of petrol/train costs too) then this might influence more people's choices regarding whether to return to work after having children. As noted further up in this chain, in the UK, MPs on a select committee made recommendations for tackling the structural causes of wage inequality, but the government rejected the recommendations (MPs said all jobs should be available to work flexibly unless an employer can demonstrate a business case against doing so. The committee also wanted a "more effective policy on shared parental leave", with fathers getting three months well-paid paternal leave. The committee also recommended a "National Pathways into Work" scheme to help women over the age of 40 back into the labour market.)


    Read more on this here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39026022



     




    There was an interesting Forbes article about how the studies on the "gender pay gap" in the US misrepresented the stats by not considering these factors. I also heard somewhere that in situations where men are getting paid more per hour than women, for doing the same job, same hours, it could be because men are more likely to ask for more money than women are (where salaries are negotiable). There is still a lot of cultural pressure for men to be the higher earners in a family, so naturally they will ask for more money. I'm not sure how true this is but it seems like a feasible theory. If this is the case then my message to women would be “Ask for more money”.

    Where there are situations where men are genuinely being paid more than women for no real reason then this needs to be rectified. It just seems that there are many reasons for the gap that weren't considered in the studies. Also, men have a significantly higher rate of workplace accidents/deaths compared to women, which could be seen as another work related inequality, sometimes these things kind of balance out when other factors are considered. This goes for inequality in the past well. Women were treated unfairly in certain ways, but let’s not forget that it was only men that were drafted for war (for example). While these men are remembered, it’s not in the context of gender inequality. I’m not saying women should have been drafted as well by the way, but is selective equality true equality? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.




     



    Even starting salaries tend to be different for men and women, so if women do ask for more money, it is an increase on what they were offered, which may still be less than the starting salary that a man is offered. If both candidates ask for more money, then there is a chance that even if the requests are granted, the woman will still be underpaid compared to her male colleague. 


    Whilst your suggestion that women should ask for more money is perhaps valid, I think that this seems a little like blaming the victim. Surely the responsibility for ensuring wage parity sits somewhere with the employer? You note that more men have workplace deaths, but nobody says: My message to men is "Be more careful". Instead, people said "we need health and safety legislation to ensure that the number of workplace accidents/deaths is reduced".  Nobody told the families of those who died at work that it was the dead person's fault for not asking for a better ladder etc., but there is a tendency to say to women - it is your fault for not asking. Just as the onus is on the employer to provide better safety equipment and implement better health and safety practices for ALL employees, I think so too should the onus be on employers to ensure equal pay for all employees. It will be interesting to see what happens when the rules start to force employers to reveal any gender pay gaps (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573)


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Amber,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond! 


    There are plenty of men that would also prefer to stay at home as well, and there's nothing wrong with that. The way things are for me and my partner mean we share all the responsibilities, including looking after the little one (which I love). But, if money wasn't an issue my partner said that she would prefer that I go out to work while she looks after the house and our daughter. We were talking about it over the weekend and she said that maybe she's old fashioned. But I think people would be surprised at how many women still have this preference, although maybe for various reasons. I think these "old fashioned" women could be reluctant to speak out because they fear they will be criticised by other women, but there are a number of studies that show that the majority of women would prefer to stay at home and look after the kids, if they could. If money wasn't as much of an issue most women wouldn't want to put their children in childcare so they could go back to work, most of them would actually want to look after their own children, and if this doesn’t change then a gender pay gap may be inevitable. I earn a bit more than my partner but she doesn’t really see it as an issue because my money isn’t “my money”, it’s for the household, and if I have more in my pension pot then it will be for both of us. And it’s not a disempowering thing for her to rely more on me financially, I rely on her for other things as well.


    But obviously we need to make sure that things are fair for the many women that do want to work. The cost of childcare etc. is a problem. It’s way too expensive! It's ironic that politicians from all sides tend to emphasise the importance of the family etc. yet we live in a society that is becoming increasingly more difficult for the average family to get by without either both parents working, or incurring extortionate child care costs.


    When I said about men asking for more money I meant at the interview stage as well. Not just pay increases, but initial pay. The theory is that men could be asking for more money from the start. If women aren't asking for as much money it kind of is up to them to start doing this, at least once they’re aware of it as an issue. If you don't ask you don't get! It's nothing to do with gender as it goes for men as well. How many employers will offer anyone more than what they are asking for? Especially in this climate. As a man I can say I've never once been offered more than I've said I was expecting, in fact it's almost always less because that's how negotiations tend to work. Your example of men not being told it's "their fault" for workplace accidents isn't entirely true. It's not as blunt as saying "well it's your fault", and I'm not suggesting that's how people should approach women with regards to asking for more money either. But putting health and safety legislation in place includes things like health and safety training, where people are told what they should/shouldn't do, and the purpose of this is so the employers can't be held liable if someone has been trained and not followed the correct guidance. It would be really insensitive to say to a grieving family "well it was their fault", which is probably why this doesn’t happen. But if they were shown what not to do and they did it anyway, then it is their fault. That's the whole point.


    I'm not saying there aren't cases where women are illegitimately being paid less. But none of the studies so far clearly indicate that women are being offered less than men purely because they are women, on a systemic level. They may be offered less in some cases but there could be a number of reasons for this. The majority of HR managers are women. I don’t know exactly how it works but I find it really hard to believe that so many companies could be illegitimately paying women less without it being picked up. I’m not saying it’s definitely not the case, so it will be interesting to see what the latest studies reveal. Hopefully they pay more attention to these other factors than the previous studies.


    My main issue with the "gender pay gap" is that there's this automatic assumption that it's all about gender discrimination, but it seems far more complicated than that. There are different approaches to equality. One can be for society to accommodate people to do things that they would otherwise not be able or expected to do, but there's also equality in terms of equally valuing the different roles we play. I think both are important, but in most of the discussions and articles I'm seeing it tends to be mostly the former that people are trying to achieve. I think that as well as women having more freedom to work if they want to, people should also value stay at home parents more than they currently do. There's always this notion that it's a lesser thing to be a "stay at home" parent, but I can say from my own experience that days with my daughter can be much harder work than days in the office! If the family is structured in a way that will adequately support the next generation of workers (whether it's the father or mother that decides to stay at home) then it's good for society as well. So it’s a far more important role than a lot of people make out.

    I know men are currently playing a more active role in parenting, myself included, and I think it’s a great thing. But a part of me also acknowledges that (in general) women are naturally inclined to play the more active role, especially in the earlier stages. So I’m not so sure that it’s a matter of women feeling forced into this role as much as it’s a matter of women naturally wanting to spend more time with their children, but needing to work instead. At least that’s what the studies indicate. Either way the government clearly needs to be more accommodating, because the way things are going seems to be having an increasingly negative impact on the family.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Apologies, I do not have time to respond to everything, but I would like to mention one thing. It is wrong to use the following sentence:
    "But a part of me also acknowledges that (in general) women are naturally inclined to play the more active role"

    YES, it is great that some women prefer to be stay at home mums - this is why we need feminism, because feminism supports all choices! It should also be funded, as they tend to work in the house for free. Some men also would like to be stay at home dads, and this is great too.

    But to say that women are NATURALLY inclined can only be wrong. If research concludes that most women do that or say that they prefer to do that, then we would have to look at society as a whole and see how women are raised, with what values, if there is any bias all their lives to push them to such choices/preference. Such a study is extremely difficult, but one cannot just conclude that they are NATURALLY inclined to do so.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Antonia,

    I don’t deny the impact of social conditioning as well, there is definitely some of that going on too, but to say my statement could "only be wrong" seems a bit dismissive of the factors beyond social conditioning.

    In mammals female care of offspring is the most common. We are more closely related to chimpanzees than any other mammal, and female chimps are also the primary carers of their young. Biology determines that males and females have different gender roles because of their different attributes.


    Obviously males have an important role to play as well, and I'm not saying it's impossible for a man to parent a child on their own. It's just that women are generally and naturally better equipped than men. Women produce milk, they are generally more nurturing, have more empathy, compassion, patience etc. these are all great qualities to have. Men have these qualities too (except for the milk bit), just generally not to the same extent. 


    I understand why many women today disagree with this as a social perspective, but it seems unreasonable to claim that other women wanting to spend more time at home with their children is purely the result of social conditioning. I find it hard to believe that had we not evolved into more conscious beings, that the female of our species wouldn't still be the primary carers of our offspring. This is the case for most mammals, but maybe it's a part of our evolution as a species for men to become more involved. I think it's a good thing anyway. It has definitely made me appreciate my mother more than I already did.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Aaron,


    you must have misunderstood me, as I never meant to say that "women wanting to spend more time at home with their children is purely the result of social conditioning". I am in fact making the point that we should not use words such as "purely" or "naturally" except if the speaker is a world expert in the subject and has substantial scientific and peer reviewed data to support such claims. Unfortuanately, I do not personally consider the situation with chimpansees to be a strong support of such a claim and I am sure that even bioligists themselves are still debating such matters.
  • 0
    I expect the difference here applies between the different understandings around biology and gender which is itself a very long and complex discussion, and that doesn't even begin to cover the binary nature of male/female or masculine/feminine.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Kathryn Bain:

    I expect the difference here applies between the different understandings around biology and gender which is itself a very long and complex discussion, and that doesn't even begin to cover the binary nature of male/female or masculine/feminine.



    and let us not forget that the human species is also considered non-binary by many.
  • 0

    Aaron Thiele:
    I think these "old fashioned" women could be reluctant to speak out because they fear they will be criticised by other women, but there are a number of studies that show that the majority of women would prefer to stay at home and look after the kids, if they could. If money wasn't as much of an issue most women wouldn't want to put their children in childcare so they could go back to work, most of them would actually want to look after their own children, and if this doesn’t change then a gender pay gap may be inevitable.

     




    I think that it is true that many women want to look after their children themselves, if they could. That said, it would be interesting to see the studies themselves, and what the options offered in the survey were. For example, if the choice is "go back to work full time" Vs. "stay at home and not have to pay commuting or childcare costs", or "go back to work full time, but work remotely so that you can see your child every day" or "go back to work full time in a place that has free on-site creche facilities", then it would be interesting to see the answers. A friend of mine works for Microsoft, and they have on-site childcare facilities and many parents (male and female) can pick up their child every day for lunch and eat together in special child-friendly areas of the staff canteens. The parents know that if their meetings run over by 10 minutes then they aren't going to get stuck in traffic and be an hour late picking up their child from a childminder. They can also pop down any time throughout the day (particularly useful if a mother is still nursing her child), and the working parents know that Microsoft also has an on-site doctor etc. and they will never be more than a 5 minutes sprint down the corridor if any emergency situations arise.

    Compare this to someone who is having to commute 2 hours each way from the suburbs into London, and rely on 2 tubes and an overground train to get them home, facing endless travel chaos, cancellations and strikes, overpriced ticket fares, 2 hours of standing up exhausted each way on over-packed commuter trains etc.. I'm sure that there would be differences in respondent's answers (from men and women) depending upon each situation and the facilities and options offered by employers. Although not every job lends itself to remote working options, for those that do, I think that remote working would enable more women to return to work sooner than they currently do. Similarly, if employers that needed a physical presence gave the option of working the same number of hours over fewer days, then I think more people (men and women) would take this up too (eg. working 12 hours a day for 3 days, rather than 8 hours a day for 5 days) as this would reduce commuting costs, childcare arrangements etc.

    If more employers were set up to accommodate working parents in the way that Microsoft is, then I think that the number of women returning after maternity leave would probably increase. I also think that the length of time that a woman takes as a career break so that she can stay at home with the children would decrease. Also, it would be interesting to know if the studies asked men and women the same questions. If they are only asking women, then there will always be a finding that generalises to say "Women want X" rather than "Employees want X". Most of my male friends who have become fathers say that they would like more time with their children, however money doesn't tend to be invested in research that asks this question of men as childcare is still (predominantly) seen as a "women's issue".

     




     But none of the studies so far clearly indicate that women are being offered less than men purely because they are women, on a systemic level. 




    I disagree. Studies have shown that women are offered less money. There is also evidence to say that (lower) pay offered also relates to ethnicity. See : http://www.512tech.com/technology/tech-companies-offer-lower-salaries-women-data-shows/J8ZKIgaSYJXUaYhJZ6MhRK/.

     




    I think that as well as women having more freedom to work if they want to, people should also value stay at home parents more than they currently do.

     




    I completely agree. It is a valid choice and one that is incredibly rewarding to millions of people all over the world, regardless of original profession. More support should be in place for people who want to stay at home with their child(ren), however it is often financial reasons that prevent people from being able to do so. In the 1980s (when my parents had me), and for previous generations, the average mortgage for a family home was calculated based on ~3 times one person's salary, with the assumption that the dad would work and the mum would take care of the household. Today, the average mortgage for a house is closer to ~4-5 times the combined income of a couple. So although many people would love to stay at home, this option is prohibitively expensive. I agree with your point that it is often a case of needing to work rather than wanting to work. That said, the situation is different if you are in a happy couple compared to being a single parent. An increasing number of relationships/marriages break down, and in most cases (in the UK at least), children stay with their mother. Although it is still the minority, there are an increasing number of fathers do not see their children regularly and some do not pay anything towards child support. Even when authorities take money directly from the wage packet of a father for child support, this is often not enough to cover rent/mortgage payments, council tax, utilities, food, clothes, childcare, transport and all the other costs associated with life for the child (let alone providing any helpful buffer for the "hands-on" parent who also has to survive whilst taking care of them). In these instances it is even more important that wage parity is achieved, so that women can build up a bigger cushion of reserves prior to having children and that extra pressure is not exerted on women's (already smaller) finances once the children arrive.


    It is also important to remember that whilst maternity packages are in place, they usually come to an end within a year, when a child still needs plenty of looking after. If you have been off work for a year looking after and bonding with your child, then at the end of that period (and before), the chances are that a pay packet is not your main concern, and your own income and opportunities are likely to take a backseat to the welfare of your child. A person's choice isn't a right or wrong thing here, but the decision a woman makes at this stage does have a big impact on her work experience, her career progression, her salary increases, any bonuses, her pension pot and various other factors in a way that a man who is a father does not tend to worry about. When women are starting with less money than men, then the wage gap is exacerbated even further by these factors for women who are mothers. A couple can make a joint decision for the woman to stay at home with the children, but that doesn't mean that they will have joint consequences further down the line. Whilst it is great that you see any extra money as "household" money, if a relationship breaks down, then typically, a man will still have this extra household money in his account, in his pension pot, in his pocket. This isn't necessarily the case for the stay-at-home partner who has put her (or his) finances and career on hold to look after the children. 


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Antonia Tzemanaki:
    Hi Aaron,


    you must have misunderstood me, as I never meant to say that "women wanting to spend more time at home with their children is purely the result of social conditioning". I am in fact making the point that we should not use words such as "purely" or "naturally" except if the speaker is a world expert in the subject and has substantial scientific and peer reviewed data to support such claims. Unfortuanately, I do not personally consider the situation with chimpansees to be a strong support of such a claim and I am sure that even bioligists themselves are still debating such matters.




    Sorry, I must have misunderstood. It's just that when you said "But to say that women are NATURALLY inclined can only be wrong", and then went on to list things that would need to be studied, none of which were relating to natural factors, I was under the impression that you were completely dismissing that possibility. This is why I said "purely".
    I think I couldn't say that what I've said is a "fact" unless I was an expert, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm just saying it's a possibility, and not an unlikely one. I actually mentioned the need for further research in my previous comments, if people want a conclusion that is more than an unscientific assumption.


    I know I'm no expert but it just doesn't seem unreasonable to take all of the factors I mentioned and assume that it could possibly be more to do with natural factors than social conditioning. Of course I'm not suggesting that I'm definitely right.

Community Rules & Guidelines