£300,000 discrimination against women

[graham enzk]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

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?

well that's not women being discriminated against on pay. men in those situations are paid the same.
why are those jobs discriminated against? they don't make money and anyone can do them. in an advertising company if their marketing executive that makes their new logos leaves they don't make money and they have to get someone of the same caliber or they can lose accounts. if one of the cleaners leave they could get the next person that walks past the office to do it.
as for carers that get carers allowance, that's a state benefit, not a wage, we can't afford to fund people to not work. secondly the person they care for will be getting DLA or AA which is to help towards the cost of caring/paying for carers.
and the poor underpaid nurses...
"The average salary for a nurse is going up today from £27,000 to over £28,400 and that is to recruit more nurses into the NHS," he added. " from HERE
fucking skint i'm sure you'll agree.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Keerin

is that not basic communism 101, everyone paid the same whatever job they do etc.? correct me if im wrong, that was a question, not a statement!

I watched the yes men last night and there was a lady who said something which is completely relevant here.

"If you are a big company, you can have anything you want, but if your not, you can't, it's that simple really"

In this case, if your not in what is socially deemed an important, or powerful job, your cannot get paid well, or as well as you probably deserve.

With nurses/carers etc, they are poorly paid because those above them have control of the pay, and your gonna pay your mates more than your subordinates eh... same as government if i understand correctly...

I think it atrocious how nurses are treated, but the pay cannot be raised because there is no money there to do so. A complete overhaul is needed and we need people like Hewitt et al to come clean about what they can and cannot achieve while they are in charge.

but thats not the thread subject eh...

I agree with what you say, but don't call me a bloody commie!
I didn't advocate everyone getting the same pay regardless of the job they do.
wow for posting in this thread I've been called a feminist and a commie, no wonder women find it hard to have their perceived value increased in society!
On a serious note, you make some excellent points, and I think what you said about what is socially deemed important is worthy of repeating again.
A complete overhaul is definitely needed.

And Bryan, you make the decent point that not everyone can make a good marketing executive, but again not everyone can make a good mother or carer, and the attributes required to do it effectively should still be recognised by our society and respected.
Employers are always told to show value to their workers in order to get the best from them, and the same should go for society in general.

It's perhaps worthy of a separate thread, how valued carers are in our society and the effects this can have on the social dynamics which make us a healthy and productive society. It is related but different from the issue of pay differences in professionals.

Perhaps if cleaners were paid and valued better, there wouldn't be so much MRSA in our hospitals.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by graham enzk

well that's not women being discriminated against on pay. men in those situations are paid the same.

yes but the majority of people doing those jobs are women.

Originally Posted by graham enzk

and anyone can do them..

I think you'll find that's totally incorrect. It's only when you get people doing a job swap say from an executive position to a caring/cleaning role, that they actually realise how difficult and demanding those jobs can be. Not everyone can work day in day out caring for the elderly in a residential setting, particularly if they have say alzheimers or challenging behaviour. Not everyone could stomach cleaning up wards, theatres and clinical waste day in day out for the rest of their lives.
If we had like Kieran said, a complete overhaul of the system, then we could make a step in the right direction to showing more value to the people who perform these vital roles in our society.

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Perhaps if cleaners were paid and valued better, there wouldn't be so much MRSA in our hospitals.

Na, completely wrong. If we didn't go to the doctors for every single ailment and didnt use antibiotics too much then we wouldn't have so much MRSA in our hospitals.

You know what the "new superbug" is? C-dif, or sickness and diarehha. It mostly affects old people with COPD because their immune systems are weaker and because of this, they will (sometimes) die.

Also, a lot of the managers, directors etc wouldnt be seen dead pushing the morgue trolley would they? (pun intended).

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Keerin

Na, completely wrong. If we didn't go to the doctors for every single ailment and didnt use antibiotics too much then we wouldn't have so much MRSA in our hospitals.

No, both points contribute to MRSA, the overuse of antibiotics and standards of hygiene.
Our hospitals are dirty. Fact.
Dirt and poor hygiene contribute to the spread of diseases. Fact.
Value the people who do these jobs better and they will perform better. Fact.

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

No, both points contribute to MRSA, the overuse of antibiotics and standards of hygiene.
Our hospitals are dirty. Fact.
Dirt and poor hygiene contribute to the spread of diseases. Fact.
Value the people who do these jobs better and they will perform better. Fact.

Sorry, I think i went overboard with the completly wrong statement.

I meant that MRSA would not exist if it were not for the overuse of antibiotics. Fair enough, maybe it wouldnt have spread as much if the cleraners done their jobs. A lot of the time, the nurses have to do the cleaners jobs as well though. The cleaners arent given enough hours to clean everything properly. Am I right in thinking they are recruited from a private company?

The NHS wasn't very serious about getting rid of MRSA etc anyway. I mean, the guidelines they put in places were stupid. If you were to believe the guidelines put in place to "halt" MRSA, you would believe that MRSA is only spread through nurses, and even then only on their bodies or arms. What about visitors? what about doctors (who dont have to wash between visiting patients)?

[graham enzk]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

yes but the majority of people doing those jobs are women.

so what?! this is not pay discrimination against women.

I think you'll find that's totally incorrect. It's only when you get people doing a job swap say from an executive position to a caring/cleaning role, that they actually realise how difficult and demanding those jobs can be. Not everyone can work day in day out caring for the elderly in a residential setting, particularly if they have say alzheimers or challenging behaviour. Not everyone could stomach cleaning up wards, theatres and clinical waste day in day out for the rest of their lives.

this is not incorrect. when people do a job swap like you say, both parties involved in the swap will struggle with the new role as it is something they are not used to doing regardless of the jobs involved, take a manager and swap him with someone who works in a busy bar, they will find it more physically demanding. swap a manager with a ballet dancer and they will struggle. however a cleaner in an office is not a demanding job, really. a cleaner that cleans up biological waste gets special training and more pay though.
people in nursing homes are looked after by staff trained in the job and are actually paid an ok wage to do so. also nursing home staff are different to residential care home staff due to the level of care they supply.
people claiming carers allowance do not need any skill whatsoever.
BUT THERE IS STILL NOT PAY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AS MEN IN THESE JOBS GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE WOMEN!

[Rebelius]

if women get paid less because they're women, that's unfair discrimination against women. if women get paid less because they're doing a job which deserves less pay, then they have no right to complain.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by graham enzk

so what?! this is not pay discrimination against women.




this is not incorrect. when people do a job swap like you say, both parties involved in the swap will struggle with the new role as it is something they are not used to doing regardless of the jobs involved, take a manager and swap him with someone who works in a busy bar, they will find it more physically demanding. swap a manager with a ballet dancer and they will struggle. however a cleaner in an office is not a demanding job, really. a cleaner that cleans up biological waste gets special training and more pay though.
people in nursing homes are looked after by staff trained in the job and are actually paid an ok wage to do so. also nursing home staff are different to residential care home staff due to the level of care they supply.
people claiming carers allowance do not need any skill whatsoever.
BUT THERE IS STILL NOT PAY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AS MEN IN THESE JOBS GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE WOMEN!

Ach well, you obviously didn't read the report by the EOC, nor take its findings, which I am merely passing on to the good people of ugs, very seriously.
But that's ok because luckily no-one is listening to you when it comes to policy-making, unless of course you feel strongly enough to make a stand with your views and take it up with them.
I look forward to seeing what the EOC will be doing with the information from this report, given that they hold a great deal of power in this country :-)

[graham enzk]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

I look forward to seeing what the EOC will be doing with the information from this report, given that they hold a great deal of power in this country :-)

as they are consultants, i suspect they will get paid a lot of money and no-one will notice anything different because there is no actual discrimination to address.

Ach well, you obviously didn't read the report by the EOC, nor take its findings, which I am merely passing on to the good people of ugs, very seriously.
But that's ok because luckily no-one is listening to you when it comes to policy-making, unless of course you feel strongly enough to make a stand with your views and take it up with them.

nice cop out.

no i don't take their report seriously because it sounds like a crock of shit. the whole £300k discrepancy in a lifetime not correlating to the average wage figure, no-one having actually experienced anywhere where it happens, no-one can actually think of an example of a job where women are paid less than men.
and what policies do you think they can make anyway? increase women's wages by 17% to close the mythical gender pay gap?
how about make employers in female dominated industries increase the salaries they pay to all their staff?
anyway they can't actually make policy, i'm sure that's down to the government, they can only put forward recomendations and findings.
however, did they actually propose any solutions or recomendations to the percieved problem or are they reporting findings to justify their own existence? as a lot of government consulting commisions seem to do.

maybe if they investigated if there was particular reasons why women are less likely to work in areas with higher pay, (i.e. is the schooling and general cultural upbringing giving women a more passive approach the jobs they aim for or is the desire to marry and have kids giving leading to less incentive to build a career as they already plan on stopping work for kids anyway or the reliance on the husband to be the main earner so they can concentrate on domestic affairs and raising the kids and on the flip of that why men are less likely to be the one that stays at home) and if there is a way or even if there is a need to address it, i might take it more seriously, however garbage claims like the £300k discrepancy is the sort of thing i expect from a tabloid newspaper. sensationalism! look at this! shock! this justifies our pay does it not?!

next week's report from them: (possibly)
vegetarians discriminated against in the meat industry! there is a greater percentage difference in the amount of vegetarians and vegans working in the meat industry compared to other proffesions.