£300,000 discrimination against women - Page 3

humndislocation · 28th October 2006, 02:19 PM

I'm sorry if you took offence, the xtoohot4ux post was just a joke intended to lighten the mood, and wasn't intended as a troll, or to trivialise the discussion.

Also, I apologise if my other posts in this thread were taken to be part of the backlash. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing that women are discriminated against in terms of pay. I was mainly commenting that I've seen a lot of articles in the past that have claimed that women were discriminated against because women are more likely to go into fields such as nursing which pay less, which I don't think is an example of discrimination.

Hecate · 28th October 2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I'm sorry if you took offence, my post wasn't intended to trivialise the discussion.

If you had perhaps used a wink emoticon instead of the really angry one, then I wouldn't have taken it like that. Apology accepted.

Hecate · 28th October 2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I was mainly commenting that I've seen a lot of articles in the past that have claimed that women were discriminated against because women are more likely to go into fields such as nursing which pay less, which I don't think is an example of discrimination.

Yes I'd agree that this isn't a form of discrimination per se, merely an example of people whether male or female not being paid enough for an extremely vital job. I think that with what nurses have to deal with and the vital service they do, they should be paid better :-)

humndislocation · 28th October 2006, 02:32 PM

Sorry, I tend to use the that emoticon as a tounge in cheek thing because I find the concept of expressing sincere anger through emoticons like

hilarious. Also, it's the closest thing we have to this emoticon, which is even better

Anyway, back to the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Yes I'd agree that this isn't a form of discrimination per se, merely an example of people whether male or female not being paid enough for an extremely vital job. I think that with what nurses have to deal with and the vital service they do, they should be paid better :-)

Yeah, I think nurses should be paid more, because of what they have to go through in their job, and also the unbelievable amount of shit they get from the general public just for doing their job.

Unfortunately I don't think it's really feasible to do so unless we either ditch the NHS, or raises taxes a lot, which would never happen.

Hecate · 28th October 2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Sorry, I tend to use the that emoticon as a tounge in cheek thing because I find the concept of expressing sincere anger through emoticons like

hilarious. Also, it's the closest thing we have to this emoticon, which is even better

Anyway, back to the discussion.

Yeah, I think nurses should be paid more, because of what they have to go through in their job, and also the unbelievable amount of shit they get from the general public just for doing their job.

Unfortunately I don't think it's really feasible to do so unless we either ditch the NHS, or raises taxes a lot, which would never happen.

....or pay the managers less, and tighten up misuse of funds.

Hecate · 28th October 2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Sorry, I tend to use the that emoticon as a tounge in cheek thing because I find the concept of expressing sincere anger through emoticons like

hilarious. Also, it's the closest thing we have to this emoticon, which is even better

It's a good 'un!

graham enzk · 28th October 2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

That's one of the points of this EOC report, that employers have to be careful in going with the blanket assumption that longer service does actually equate to better performance in the job.

but then you get down to individual pay negotiations which is even more hidden process and open to discrimination more than: you start at the band minimum and each year you advance 1 point up the pay scale until you hit the band maximum which will take X amount of years. that's the way it's done in the council, that's the way it's done in the DWP that's how it's done in HMRC and that's how it's done in Inland Revenue.
the fairest way would be to have a set wage for a job.
to be honest i've never worked anywhere where there has been a pay discrepancy between sexes and i've not known anyone that has.
where has this £300,000 been plucked from? i'll earn not much over that in my entire working life going by my current wage so i would say that that's not based on your average person, and the original article says the discrepancy is 17%, now my maths ain't great but if the working life is about 40 years (5 more for men though!) that's a difference of £7500 per year. that would make the average wage about £45k a year.
but it's not.
it's apparently £26k a year. which is double what i earn, i've only ever known middle managers to be on that.
therefore i think the article is based on high up private business salaries.
which are individually negotiated.
what's 5 extra years at £45k anyway? £225000, nearly there already.

i really just can't see discrimination in pay as a whole against women.
yes in may happen in certain cases, but not in general.

Rotting Remains · 29th October 2006, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham enzk

it's apparently £26k a year. which is double what i earn, i've only ever known middle managers to be on that.
therefore i think the article is based on high up private business salaries.
which are individually negotiated.
what's 5 extra years at £45k anyway? £225000, nearly there already.

i really just can't see discrimination in pay as a whole against women.
yes in may happen in certain cases, but not in general.

i just calculated that i earn 14,040 a year so thats pretty shite for me i guess if thats the "average wage" but ive never known anyone who gets paid less for being female, i do however know quite a few people (all male) who get paid differently doing the exact same job. but thats not the point i spose.
ill need to try and get my old job back as a top secret scottish government intelligence gathering field agent....
i also know people that get somthing silly like 50p more an hour coz they work a few extra hours each week without fail.
but i also cant see the discrimination as a whole against women, however, the most common cases i would deem plausable are sexist/ ignorant managers, etc. trying to pull a sly one, technicalities like women working less hours in certain cases, and so on.

RealR · 29th October 2006, 07:26 PM

Average pay eh? I'm sorry but its impossible to give genuine feedback on an "average" because there are so many ways of calculating an average you can completely bend the results! Using stats I could probably find a way of stating how gerbils are paid more than women (okay daft example). There are lies, damned lies and statistics

.

With regards to the topic, I really do doubt there is substantial differences in pay. As mentioned most careers have pay based on time with the company and/or related to results produced.

Saying that, I will admit it does seem a lot of the VERY rich people, top execs and over paid sporting stars, are often male and I imagine they could quite nicely skew the data.

Hecate · 29th October 2006, 11:43 PM

Im gonna see if I can find more details on how they calculated this and post it up if I have any joy, but not tonight as a hangover is creeping in :-)

Rotting Remains · 30th October 2006, 07:35 PM

when you get that horrible hangover feeling, just think of a bacon roll when the butter mixes into the tomato sauce in a swirly gunky creamy podgie greasey fatty mess.

Hecate · 2nd November 2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotting Remains

when you get that horrible hangover feeling, just think of a bacon roll when the butter mixes into the tomato sauce in a swirly gunky creamy podgie greasey fatty mess.

hahaha don't forget adding in an ashtray load of stubbs and ash for full effect.

On a serious note, the statistics used for this report were a compilation of the results from the Labour Force Survey from 2001 to 2005 in Britain.
http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/lfs/
The report itself is incredibly detailed, but does raise issues that have been mentioned already in this thread, and many others including ethnic variations.
The main points I can find relating to other people's posts, are the issues of types of jobs women do, for instance that the majority of public sector workers are women, and women dominate the cleaning, cooking and caring industries, as well as those who are "economically inactive" such as carers at home.
It does beg many questions such as why in society are these vital roles so undervalued? Why should a woman who chooses or needs to stay at home caring for children or elderly relatives be so discriminated against financially?
Where are we as a society without our offices and workplaces being kept clean and disease-free, without our food being cooked well and a good diet, without our children/elderly/disadvantaged/disabled being cared for?
Why are these roles so financially discriminated against versus a marketing executive coming up with a new logo or slogan to sell a product?
Without these typically female roles being performed properly we as a society surely falls apart, so why not value them better?
Perhaps if people in such roles did feel better valued and less likely to be living in poverty, our society would improve in general?

28th October 2006, 02:19 PM	#31 (permalink)
humndislocation Hardcore is serious guys Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dundee Posts: 6,009 Band: Blasphemous Necrorapist	I'm sorry if you took offence, the xtoohot4ux post was just a joke intended to lighten the mood, and wasn't intended as a troll, or to trivialise the discussion. Also, I apologise if my other posts in this thread were taken to be part of the backlash. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing that women are discriminated against in terms of pay. I was mainly commenting that I've seen a lot of articles in the past that have claimed that women were discriminated against because women are more likely to go into fields such as nursing which pay less, which I don't think is an example of discrimination. Last edited by humndislocation : 28th October 2006 at 02:23 PM.

30th October 2006, 07:35 PM	#41 (permalink)
Rotting Remains Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 2,011	when you get that horrible hangover feeling, just think of a bacon roll when the butter mixes into the tomato sauce in a swirly gunky creamy podgie greasey fatty mess. __________________ We Are All Prostitutes !!

29th October 2006, 07:26 PM	#39 (permalink)
RealR Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Dundee Posts: 4,140 Band: They are make believe	Average pay eh? I'm sorry but its impossible to give genuine feedback on an "average" because there are so many ways of calculating an average you can completely bend the results! Using stats I could probably find a way of stating how gerbils are paid more than women (okay daft example). There are lies, damned lies and statistics . With regards to the topic, I really do doubt there is substantial differences in pay. As mentioned most careers have pay based on time with the company and/or related to results produced. Saying that, I will admit it does seem a lot of the VERY rich people, top execs and over paid sporting stars, are often male and I imagine they could quite nicely skew the data.

29th October 2006, 11:43 PM	#40 (permalink)
Hecate Don Kate (UGS Mafia) Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: somewhere Posts: 2,477 Band: Vulsellum	Im gonna see if I can find more details on how they calculated this and post it up if I have any joy, but not tonight as a hangover is creeping in :-)