Equal pay

You think that is right? THAT is the fault in your argument.

This is illegal. It happens, but how much of the gender pay disparity does it account for? Probably not an awful lot. A lot more will be accounted for by the different choices that men and women make about the jobs and lives. That's my point. So I don't understand why so many feminists and left-wing commentators are worried about the gender disparity in average wages.

Because Wage Disparity is the SINGLE BIGGEST SYMPTOM and evidence of discrimination within the workplace, and within society as a whole. *Why* are women forced into the pink collar ghetto? Societal sexism. Why are certain (perceived as feminine) roles less rewarded monetarily? Societal sexism. You can measure symptoms like pay disparity in a way that you often can't measure something as nebulous as "societal sexism".

People should be free to make their own choices as to what to do with their lives

Yeah, they SHOULD be. But they are often not. See above.

essentially because men and women statistically have differing goals and interests

Yes, but is this because of some innate biological difference between men and women, or is this because men and women are conditioned by society? Chicken and egg, you cannot ever separate them. When people start talking about this, I automatically become suspicious.

Unless you can actually drag up any evidence for this, I don't see why it should carry any more weight than my saying: "Because Wage Disparity is the SINGLE BIGGEST SYMPTOM and evidence of men and women making differing choices about their work and lives."

"Yes, but is this because of some innate biological difference between men and women, or is this because men and women are conditioned by society?"

I don't really care if it's innate or not, I suspect ultimately not. But that's beside the point. Men and women do tend to have differing goals and interests, these are going to reflect on the lifestyle choices, and I don't see why a) it's wrong that men and women have differing goals, or b) why that shouldn't be reflected in their remuneration.

A few years ago I was on a panel brought together by the Fawcett Society which had me, one FS person and THERESA fucking MAY. We were talking about just these sorts of issues to about 500 sixth-form girls. Both my argument and footwear kicked the future Tory chairman squarely in the arse. She kind of thought her work was done because in her line of work, there was equal pay. 'Well, how NICE for you, you're all right, Jacqueline!' was the first part of my response (I had to wait for 500 girls to stop laughing). I pointed out that the free market, aka 80 per cent of boy money land, was not the same as the Houses of Parliament and that she should instead be livid because only Government sectors appeared to follow the law.

In part-time work the current disparity between male and female wages is 41 per cent.

I *know* that there is sexism in many of the workplaces that I've worked in. I can't put many of these things into quantifiable terms that The Guardian or someone else has measured. I've seen incompetent men in positions of power above me (or other equally competant female colleagues), I've experienced casual commentry, etc. etc. etc. You can't measure it in a quantifiable way, you can't enact legislation that can control people's attitudes. But you CAN measure and legislate and control things like wage disparity.

Hence why the focus on it, as the most visible and ALTERABLE symptom of sexism.

Differing lifestyle choices and also 'differing goals' is a euphemism for 'differing costs' or 'having babies'.

the point isn't just to focus on individuals making cost/benefit analyseswithin a present structure, it is about whether the social structure/provision in which we make those choices, based on past history/values, is one which is as just/moral as we can make it or more a hangover from past stuff which happens to suit certain ways of living and certain ideologies of power/stability

no?

Why do you assume that women work less hours? I'm really not following your logic here, you seem to be making sexist assumptions at every term.

Well, that's the interesting point, Snowy Mann, I'll think about it. My first response is, why shouldn't it be the fact? Why shouldn't men and women want to work different numbers of hours?

1) Sources, please. I mistrust any sorts of assertions without some kind of backup.
2) WHY do they work fewer hours? Is it perhaps because they are facing crunches on their time because they have inadequate access to childcare, or that the homecaring arrangements are not being shared equally by these male workers you claim are working longer hours?
3) Does fewer hours always = less work?
4) As Suzy quoted upthread, wage disparity grows even worse in part-time employment. Why?

this is bringing skill/productivity into the equation, which is a whole 'nother can of worms

(ie my minute is better than your hour bcz [insert dubious rationalisation here])

*i'm actually paid in effect per page, as a freelancer: i work considerably fewer hours than many of my colleagues but i don't think i work "less hard" or "less productively"**

**ilx-time not factored in

a form of conservative/reactionary ideology seems therefore to be the underlying drive, but dressed up as 'we've-got-to-be-competitive'/'live-in-the-real-world'/'culture-red-in-tooth-and-claw' efficiency,
or even, as here, a limited form of in-system 'justice'

(i mean, i think there is a clarity and kind of truth in the observation, but it is a kind of individual-responsibility over-focus which reminds me of treating all crime as nothing more than ppls choice-of-badness, as if behaviour were not also (but not ALWAYS)contingent

sorry this is scrappy - have to get back to work haha

I don't see why at all, given that parenting = unpaid labour.

From The Economist: "women on average put in far fewer hours at their paid jobs than men, so their weekly or annual pay lags even further behind men’s than their hourly pay." In the same article, it says women are responsible for 82 percent of part time jobs in the UK.

"2) WHY do they work fewer hours? Is it perhaps because they are facing crunches on their time because they have inadequate access to childcare, or that the homecaring arrangements are not being shared equally by these male workers you claim are working longer hours?"

Yeah, no doubt they are sometimes reasons. But also there may be plenty of women with children who simply don't want to put in long hours at work, they'd rather spend more time with their children and are quite happy for their partner to put in the long hours to provide income for the household. It's difficult to quantify these things.

"4) As Suzy quoted upthread, wage disparity grows even worse in part-time employment. Why?"

I don't know, but since the labour market is highly gender segregated, it may be that the 12 percent of part-time jobs that men perform are of a very different type, at a different time in the career cycle, and therefore difficult to directly compare. I don't think, per se, it proves anything.

I accept Snowy Mann's point that not only is there discrimination in the workplace to contend with, but also the very structure of society which pushes men and women into different roles in society. But I would submit that the gender roles we gravitate to at least in plural, first world societies, have constraints and advantages that probably balance out in the long run (I'd say that for the middle and higher economic groups anyway, maybe not for lower economic groups). In any case, I still hold that looking at average wages is not a very good indicator as to whether one gender is being discriminated against.

What I disagree with so strenuously is your constant use of words like "choose" and "are happy to" and "want/don't want" which put words in the mouths of women.

Just because *you* made a "lifestyle choice" to work fewer hours for less pay. It's not lifestyle choice in the case of many women, it's hard economic reality, social and societal pressure, and a host of other things that just DO NOT EQUATE with your cushy little options.

Your argument is essentially circular because of this. You say "Wage disparity is not a good indication of gender equality because X, Y and Z..." when in reality, X, Y and Z are yet more evidence of the fundamental sexism inherant in society.

Now I have SQL queries to write.

Well, see my earlier one, but this is assuming one hell of a lot, basically that it is the mother's burden to support the child, and that this division of labour is 'natural', and therefore unpaid.

kate, yes we're all constrained by our circumstances, we all end up doing things we don't want to do. But surely the words "choose" and "are happy to" and "want/don't want" at least play some part in the way women organise their lives, or are women simply dictated to all the way down the line?

The fact that you just think of so many of these things as perfectly natural, rather than questioning how they come about, is evidence of how engrained this sexism is.

Instead we should be looking at hourly pay comparisons, equal work for equal pay comparisons and in a more pointed job sector look at the position of women in the workplace. Oddly pay parity is possibly one of the easiest ways of paying lip service to equality (the public sector has it down pat after all) without necessarily looking at the bigger picture of what equality in the workplace refers to. Rather than trying to give potentially spurious and hypothetical reasons why and agreeably pretty useuless statistic is the way it is, lets look at another statistic which may show the same thing but also be durable to these criticisms.

Kate

And along similar lines, why are certain (perceived as masculine) roles less rewarded with respect? Societal sexism.

For example, fathers have far fewer rights than mothers regarding their children.

You say that as if the facts that women have different associated costs and that they might have babies shouldn't be considered.

Why not?

-- Snowy Mann (rdmansto...), October 17th, 2003.

Just a point, that 'we' includes men and women.

Like secretaries, cabin crew, nurses and primary school teachers have more respect than CEOs, pilots, doctors and college professors? Is it only in child rearing that the male role is not as respected? Or other traditional working class male jobs like mechanics, refuse collecting, IT call center support.

haha yes but the child is the employer

You're right that I can't think of many others where males have less respect though. Except male nurses get less respect and men in other 'female' jobs.

Also unemployed men get less respect than unemployed women, and there are a lot of ppl in that category.

Surely there are as many female doctors as male, at least in my experience. (medical doctors I assume yr talking abt. I'm a Doctor, but that's of Maths which is a bit rubbish isn't it?).

i think it is a shame that males in the tradtional female jobs get critized for different reasons by both women and men. see 'manny' episode of friends.

there are plenty of female mecial doctors, yes, but even in the profession there are certain specialities/fields which are male dominated, just as there are among science PhDs such as maths and physics. matriculation rates for phds in general may be nearly equal, but the professions that people go into with these degress tend to also be more male dominated or female dominated.

Women be shoppin'

Yes, I take your point that traditionally female-dominated occupations are less well paid than male-dominated occupations, although I think that's breaking down somewhat now. Traditional male working-class occupations have been decimated over the past couple of decades and long-term male unemployment skyrocketed in the lower economic groups. But it is hard to make direct comparisons between fields as disparate as nursing and construction work. In any case, what are you going to do? Should private-sector wage grades all be dictated through legislation? I doubt that this would be feasible. And although this is one reason for wage disparity, statistics show that wage disparity is not so great between men and women before they have children, or between men and childless women. So that seems to be more of the crux of the matter. When parents decide to have children, women often opt out, or partially opt out of the work force and average female wages suffer. Yes, you can argue that women are forced out of the workforce, and some women clearly feel that way, and there is clearly some truth to that assertion. But I'd like to see the results of a poll of mothers with young children as to how many would really like to be in full-time work if there were adequate childcare provisions, and how many would prefer to be in part-time work or not working.

I don't particularly see how my attitudes are perpetuating the patriarchy, Scott, as I am very much in favour of both men and women being able to choose what's right for them and being in a position to make an independent choice. I'm very much in favour of the state and private sector offering better childcare provisions. I simply doubt that this would, in itself, suddenly dramatically change work ratios, and I think the same divvying up of tasks in child support would operate, albeit to a lesser and more flexible degree.

Yeah, sure. There's symbiosis going on. In a household, many things need to be done. Child needs to be looked after, housework needs to be done, mortgage and shopping bills need to be paid.

-- marianna (mariann...), October 17th, 2003

It may be the only role - and I'll admit I can't think of any others -but it's a very important role, don't you think?
Some people believe the only point of life is to procreate!

BTW I think male porn stars are less 'respected' in terms of fans and what they're paid. That's really scraping the barrel though.

You're the one that prefers to see women as victims of society...

Huh? You talkin to me? Do I?

X-post: No, phew.

Mersault - everyone's a victim of society.

"Victim" is like "chooses" and "happy" etc. a very subjective term.

I don't think you understand the subject that you are discussing at all, and it's obvious that you've had no personal experience of it.

Sure it is, and doesn't society recognize that more now, in the sense that a lot more men now want to spend more time with their children (and as a bonus can now empathize with women who want to have family and career)? The role of father and mother have rapidly evolved just over the past 10 years!

I feel for the male porn stars! I mean - Oops!

What Kate said, 'victim' I meant as shorthand for a very very complicated relationship. Anyway, it's Friday afternoon, but I'll just reiterate -- your view of the world is male-centric, ie the 'male' world of work is for you the norm, the rest is seen as a fetter on it.

//*******************************************
//I don't really agree with that BTW
//

i was going to say in response to Enrique earlier, regarding his 'unpaid labour' point above - isn't that only true (like 'wages for housework' stuff) to the extent that certain activities in 'the domestic sphere' can be seen as being about the production of goods/services to support the present/future work-structures, eg raising a child as providing useful-worker-and-future-taxpayer as mentioned above, or cooking/cleaning as providing support for the 'breadwinners' to have more time/energy/health/wellbeing to go out and work with ?

i think there is a dimension of truth here cos the spheres do overlap and interrelate - but it is not the only filter through which ppl see it: that way of viewing it could move us towards the notion that for maximum economic efficiency more ppl should keep working full-time and sub-contract their family/domestic work out, thereby creating more economic activity through not only keeping their own full-time jobs but also by employing ...guess what...a lesser-paid housecleaner/childminder who, of course, would almost certainly be female...

(if you start interpreting 'off-line' activities as being about repair/support to ppl as labour-units in work/economic structures in this way, as it seems possible to do, then it can be difficult to figure out just what 'personal life' means anymore...)

Wicked !

Mersault: "This is illegal."

Wha hu? I can't see how it could be. Everywhere I've ever worked has paid depending on experience. No-one investigates "experience" much though. Where I work now, which used to be a different company, paid the women who did the same job that I did WAY, WAY less than me, and they had about the same experience. Now, if it had been brought up and a lawsuit filed they probably would have settled, but I'm almost positive that it isn't "illegal" to pay people doing the same job different wages. (I'm not saying it's right either, I generally don't think it is).

A unauthorised list of monthly salaries in my department circulated recently. A quick scan didn't seem pick up any obvious gender bias, but that the very few people who had joined in the last two years were on higher salaries than those already in the same or similar job.

New Equal Pay Bill trailed in the UK

"From today to the end of the year, women are effectively working for free."

Seems noteworthy.

Effectively

h8 when ppl use words and numbers correctly to point out something true

sorry, crabbit cause ill. What I mean is that the pay gap is a fact and the intent and methodology behind equal pay day are both completely transparent and reasonable so I'm not sure what the point of sniping is?

I preferred u first time <3

So when I became a federal supervisor I was like this is awesome, I will be able to hire women at salaries that are exactly the same as equally qualified men! And it turns out that's only really the case for people who are just entering the workforce out of college. Once women have been working for a few years, they pretty much inevitably accrue some inequality in their compensation, so when they take a mid-to-senior level position with the government, they end up accepting lower starting salaries than their male counterparts. So basically despite best intentions and policies meant to enforce equal pay, the private sector infects the government with inequality, and what's worse is that it does it from the top down.

Basically this - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/04/14/the-worst-question-you-could-ask-women-in-a-job-interview/ :

If companies relied less on what people made in their past jobs, and more on the actual market value of the job being filled, they’d be less likely to perpetuate the gap between men's and women's salaries. After all, when employers base someone's new salary off of their former salary elsewhere, they just compound any past biases or negotiation disadvantages.

Think about it this way. Unequal salaries can be “self-perpetuating,” said Molly Anderson, founder of the consulting firm Exponential Talent. Employees who negotiate a higher salary early in their career — or are awarded one due to some kind of unconscious bias — benefit for years as they get promoted or take on new jobs.

Except that's not supposed to happen in the government, right? Oh:

Yet, OPM did not shy away from highlighting some entrenched and frustrating realities for women in government. It found, for example, that agencies use special authorities to set higher starting salaries when hiring men than when hiring women.

That's from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-workforce-is-closing-the-gender-pay-gap-but-reforms-still-needed-report-says/2014/04/13/59281484-c1b2-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html which also contains this nugget of crap:

Stephanie Jaros, a social scientist for the Department of Homeland Security, wasn’t debating Friday whether a pay gap exists, but she said she has not had to confront one in the federal ranks. She credits the government’s structured pay system and the fact that its salary rates are public information.

“Part of the reason for the pay gap in the private sector is that salaries are not transparent,” she said. “Transparency allows communication, so people would know about disparity much quicker in the federal government.”

That's blatantly untrue. Most people find out about each others' pay grades via rumor mill or happy hour conversation (when lubricated enough to start talking GS levels). And nobody's supposed to blab about their step in grade - which at the upper levels of pay in the DC area, the step in grade can mean a difference of nearly $40,000 a year. So the idea that people "would know about disparity much quicker" is absolute nonsense.

UK question: do staff have a legal right to see pay scales (distinct from individual's actual pay) for their organisation?