Australia's gender pay gap

[lewisnotmiller]

Huh? Different rate of pay? Illegal in the UK.

Here too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

See my response to @debaterslayer regarding a possible reason women aren't employed in equal numbers as pilots in post #13

You can guess, and I can guess. But nothing in this measure, or published results, or the article makes our guess any more accurate than it was BEFORE the measure, published results or article.

It encourages competition between companies in my view.

Yes, it does. Competition to do what though, exactly? I work in management within a listed company that has just had their results published. What behavioural change do you think this will promote? Why?

If company A manages to value its women more comparably to men than company B guess who the brightest women are going to line up to work for?

I would hope company A. I would also argue that the brightest women are much more interested in equal pay for equal work, good promotion opportunities and development opportunities, and (a little more specifically to women, as a generalisation) flexibility in their work structures.
Anyone thinking a gross measure of salary by gender is a fair way of measuring any of that is probably failing the 'brightest women' measure.

 

[danieldemol]

Are you suggesting that there are large numbers of women applying for jobs as pilots?

I dont know

That there is discriminatory hiring practices?

I dont know

That stewards and stewardesses lack ambition?

This I doubt strongly

I honestly have no clue what you think it is the public deserves to know.

Perhaps it is not merely misogyny in hiring practices (although it may well be), I mean suppose Barbie or whoever young girls are looking up to these days flew a plane instead of just being involved with glamour it might sow the seeds of a dream to be a pilot in a young impressionable mind.

 

[danieldemol]

You can guess, and I can guess. But nothing in this measure, or published results, or the article makes our guess any more accurate than it was BEFORE the measure, published results or article.

True, but it is a useful starting point for investigation as I see it.

Yes, it does. Competition to do what though, exactly? I work in management within a listed company that has just had their results published. What behavioural change do you think this will promote? Why?

I think it will encourage them to pay women more so they don't lose their brightest to people who can.

I would hope company A. I would also argue that the brightest women are much more interested in equal pay for equal work, good promotion opportunities and development opportunities, and (a little more specifically to women, as a generalisation) flexibility in their work structures.
Anyone thinking a gross measure of salary by gender is a fair way of measuring any of that is probably failing the 'brightest women' measure.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I dont know

I dont know

This I doubt strongly

Perhaps it is not merely misogyny in hiring practices (although it may well be), I mean suppose Barbie or whoever young girls are looking up to these days flew a plane instead of just being involved with glamour it might sow the seeds of a dream to be a pilot in a young impressionable mind.

I have no problem with the idea of promoting women to be strong and independent, nor with the notion that there is still some level of sexism in some workplaces. I just have no idea how anyone sees gross measurement of wages by gender as the way to properly examine or correct this. None at all. People act like it's clear, yet no one seems able to explain it. At all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

True, but it is a useful starting point for investigation as I see it.

Fair enough. I don't see that either. The work required is bottom up. This type of top down approach is AT BEST useless, and at worst encourages harmful behaviors inadvertently. The intentions are good, I suppose.

I think it will encourage them to pay women more so they don't lose their brightest to people who can.

For the same job? Or just in general terms?
Are you sure you want to encourage workplaces to ensure their gross wages are equal for men and women? What impact does this have on a willingness to hire large quantities of women into entry level positions, thus skewing the wage scale in 'favour' of men?

 

[Unfettered]

I was reading a useful article on the gender pay gap in Australia which points out;

'The latest gender pay gap report has revealed a woman is paid, on average, $18,000 less than a man over a year.'

Source: Workers reluctant to return to the office may intensify gender pay gap, lawyers warn

It pointed out injustice in base pay rates which I strongly support being addressed, however where things appear to me to get a little more tricky is with the issue of equalising the pay of for example working mothers who can't do much overtime with men who are doing lots of overtime.

On the one hand if we were doing away with wages completely and replacing them with a universal basic income I could see the point of all pays being equalised, however if one intends to keep the wage system in place it seems to me strange to do it lopsided.

The reason being is because it seems to me that the whole point of wages is to encourage workers to work longer hours. So if you have a woman working base hours getting paid as much as a man working lots of overtime where is the encouragement for career women for example to work just as many hours as their male counterparts?

Your thoughts?

Absent evidence to suggest otherwise (on a case-by-case basis), equal-pay interests are fueled by greed, not an interest in equitableness.

 

[danieldemol]

I have no problem with the idea of promoting women to be strong and independent, nor with the notion that there is still some level of sexism in some workplaces. I just have no idea how anyone sees gross measurement of wages by gender as the way to properly examine or correct this. None at all. People act like it's clear, yet no one seems able to explain it. At all.

So if a company manages to promote more of its women to high paying roles whilst giving them flexibility I suppose you feel it will make no difference to closing the gender pay gap? I guess people aren't explaining how paying women more will close the pay gap because to us it seems self explanatory to the point of being axiomatic.

 

[danieldemol]

What impact does this have on a willingness to hire large quantities of women into entry level positions, thus skewing the wage scale in 'favour' of men?

I'll start here, if an entry level woman is payed equal to an entry level man I dont see why there would be an impact.

I think this will encourage more women to be promoted to senior levels. Perhaps we should start with someone from a company with a smaller gender pay gap and ask them how they did it and what impacts it had on the entry level workforce if any.

Personally I wouldn't be able to help you there, but I see it as a valid question to ask in follow up research.

 

[danieldemol]

Absent evidence to suggest otherwise (on a case-by-case basis), equal-pay interests are fueled by greed, not an interest in equitableness.

Sounds as though you are saying women who want equal pay are just greedy as opposed to seeking equity, and that we should prove you wrong. I believe it doesn't work that way. It is on you to support your claim as I see it.

 

[Unfettered]

Sounds as though you are saying women who want equal pay are just greedy as opposed to seeking equity, and that we should prove you wrong. I believe it doesn't work that way. It is on you to support your claim as I see it.

I guess we need to get specific, then. On what basis does a person found his or her (you choose the sex) claim to equal pay as that of another?

 

[danieldemol]

I guess we need to get specific, then. On what basis does a person found his or her (you choose the sex) claim to equal pay as that of another?

On the basis of equal work in my view, but they should be given equal opportunity to do the work where possible as I see it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Comparable jobs, numbers of hours worked, etcetera. I don't have the onus to prove the negative. Those that posit that gender is the causal factor have the onus.

In this case, the onus is on you. @danieldemol has provided data showing a gender pay gap. If you are claiming there are other factors, you have to provide those factors (which you just did). Otherwise, it looks like:

"There's a gender pay gap."
"No, there are other factors than gender involved."
"Nope, no other factors."
"Prove it."
"Nope, can't prove a negative."

In order to fully discuss the issue, the other factors need to be disclosed, otherwise there's nothing to debate.

 

[Unfettered]

On the basis of equal work in my view, but they should be given equal opportunity to do the work where possible as I see it.

If I understand correctly what you're saying, the conversation might look like this between employee and employer: "Employer, I do the same work as X but he/she gets paid more than I do. I want equal pay." Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'll start here, if an entry level woman is payed equal to an entry level man I dont see why there would be an impact.

I think this will encourage more women to be promoted to senior levels. Perhaps we should start with someone from a company with a smaller gender pay gap and ask them how they did it and what impacts it had on the entry level workforce if any.

Personally I wouldn't be able to help you there, but I see it as a valid question to ask in follow up research.

So...
Imagine I have a company with 100 staff.
10 of those staff are managers, and 60 are base workers, and 30 are entry level.

Managers make $200k, regardless of gender.
Base workers make $100k, regardless of gender.
Entry Level make $50k, regardless of gender.

If 50% of each position are male, and 50% female (simplistically), I don't have a gender pay gap. Correct?
If I sack all of my male entry level positions, and instead have 30 females in entry positions, males now make more money on average than females. By sacking the entire male entry level workforce, I would be judged (via this gross/macro measure) to have a problem because I am favouring men.

This is (of course) a very simplistic example. But for any organisation where the bulk of the workforce is paid more than the HR department, but the HR department is heavily skewed female (not uncommon) this type of effect can be at play. For any organisation which has historically had an overload of male upper management, this effect will be at play. Whilst hiring more female upper managers is one way of addressing the gender pay disparity, reducing female hires for lower paid positions also works.

To be clear, here, my railing is against the measure, not the need to address unfair workplace practices.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In this case, the onus is on you. @danieldemol has provided data showing a gender pay gap. If you are claiming there are other factors, you have to provide those factors (which you just did). Otherwise, it looks like:

"There's a gender pay gap."
"No, there are other factors than gender involved."
"Nope, no other factors."
"Prove it."
"Nope, can't prove a negative."

In order to fully discuss the issue, the other factors need to be disclosed, otherwise there's nothing to debate.

I'm still unsure what people think the gender pay gap means, though.
It is literally just saying that at Company X, men earn more than women on average. People are then jumping to 'This is demonstrative of sexist workplaces'.
Really? How?
Are there sexist workplaces? Sure are. But a gross measure which doesn't even consider the type of jobs being done, but simply puts everyone in one of two buckets and averages their wages? Yew.
We have issues against transgender people in the workplace, right? Why isn't this measure done in relation to them? How about racism?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The idea that wage differences between the sexes are caused by sexism is a total myth. It's because men and women tend to choose different careers and these different careers pay differently. That's all. There's not as many female construction workers, plumbers, electricians, linemen, welders, etc. Skilled workers like that make a lot of money, for example. Sex or gender discrimination in the workplace is illegal in most of the developed world. It certainly is in the US.

 

[danieldemol]

If I understand correctly what you're saying, the conversation might look like this between employee and employer: "Employer, I do the same work as X but he/she gets paid more than I do. I want equal pay." Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?

It could look like that, although it could also look like "Employer, I do the same work as X and want equal promotional opportunity".

 

[danieldemol]

So...
Imagine I have a company with 100 staff.
10 of those staff are managers, and 60 are base workers, and 30 are entry level.

Managers make $200k, regardless of gender.
Base workers make $100k, regardless of gender.
Entry Level make $50k, regardless of gender.

If 50% of each position are male, and 50% female (simplistically), I don't have a gender pay gap. Correct?
If I sack all of my male entry level positions, and instead have 30 females in entry positions, males now make more money on average than females. By sacking the entire male entry level workforce, I would be judged (via this gross/macro measure) to have a problem because I am favouring men.

This is (of course) a very simplistic example. But for any organisation where the bulk of the workforce is paid more than the HR department, but the HR department is heavily skewed female (not uncommon) this type of effect can be at play. For any organisation which has historically had an overload of male upper management, this effect will be at play. Whilst hiring more female upper managers is one way of addressing the gender pay disparity, reducing female hires for lower paid positions also works.

To be clear, here, my railing is against the measure, not the need to address unfair workplace practices.

Ok, so how would you go about getting more women into management without losing entry level positions? Could it be done by measuring the gender gap at different levels or by calling for ratios of male to female managers to be published instead? Feel free to brainstorm with me if you have any ideas about how to address the problem.

 

[danieldemol]

The idea that wage differences between the sexes are caused by sexism is a total myth. It's because men and women tend to choose different careers and these different careers pay differently. That's all. There's not as many female construction workers, plumbers, electricians, linemen, welders, etc. Skilled workers like that make a lot of money, for example. Sex or gender discrimination in the workplace is illegal in most of the developed world. It certainly is in the US.

Why don't women choose skilled positions though, can you address the pilot vs stewardess example without sexism entering the picture?

And does something automatically stop because it is made illegal?