2/29/2012 7:49pm, #141
access to overtime. Right.
Also the balance of 16.7% of the gender pay gap is unexplainable and can therefore only be attributed to discrimination. Despite not taking into account other pearls of their own data such as, on average, men having over three years more industry experience than their female counterparts and having an average tenure of over 1.5 years longer. Nor any appreciable account of paid maternity leave which is a benefit available only to women.
Mind you I only learnt statistics from one of Australia's leading economic institutions, what would I know compared to public servant desk jockey whose job, like you say, is dependant on the results.
Is there a gender pay disparity? Absolutely. Is it as wide as commonly reported? Nope.
Last edited by cualltaigh; 2/29/2012 8:03pm at . Reason: lies, damn lies and statistics!Dum spiro, spero.
Tada gan iarracht.
2/29/2012 7:52pm, #142
HH: From the link you gave me, I'll quote the first part that came out:
"Data from the Average Weekly Earnings Survey show that
between 1990 and 2009, the gender wage gap remained within a narrow range of between
15 and 17 per cent. Indeed over the last four years the gap has steadily increased within
this range from a low of 15.1 per cent in February 2005 to 17.0 per cent in February 2009"
I mean are you fucking serious? You do realise this takes into considersation EVERYONES wage. So if Joe Black living in high rise Sydney takes in 6 billion dollars this year, THAT counts.
And after all that ... it's 17%.
Does it also take into consideration that usually the primary care giver when 2 people start a family is the wife / woman ? Even though in Australia we have amazing maternity leave, I can say from first hand experience that my wife at the moment is taking in 50% less than what she did at her work (where she gets paid exactly the same as the other males).
This is 2012 mate, having worked consistently for a while now in IT I've never come across first hand a job where a woman was treated differently or paid less because she was a woman.
Which is what Battlefields is trying to tell you. Is there a wage gap? Yes, the reasons for it are probably too varied for any of us to truly understand.
Maybe in America things aren't like that, but I can't comment since neither I or Battlefields work / live there.
2/29/2012 8:03pm, #143
What I do know is that there are lots of male founders and CEOs of SMEs who have had female employees they valued immensely and who brought a lot to their business who they lost to pregnancy.
My dad runs an SME and over the last decade he's lost several women who he would have liked to make up to partner level, to pregnancy. They get pregnant, never come back and he loses a great employee and a very valuable business asset and so has to promote the lesser qualified man because he's still an employee.
Everyone who runs a business knows this and I find it difficult to believe that, again self-interest, does come into play and they look at a female employee as a much riskier investment than a male employee.
If I as an SME owner sink £100,000 of skill, training and experience into this female employee, will I get a return on my investment over the next ten years or will I only get 3 years ROI before she has a child and never comes back? In contrast I have a less able male employee who I can be much more certain I will get 10 years ROI out of and they won't get pregnant and leave?
Most SME heads do the calculation come to the obvious and inevitable conclusion that women are the riskier asset class and go forward accordingly. Its certainly an issue, but not something I can see anything being done about until we either spread childbrith across both genders or somehow institute some kind of draconian contract whereby women promise not to get pregnant for X period of time in return for better employment benefits.
2/29/2012 8:10pm, #144
2/29/2012 8:11pm, #145
2/29/2012 8:14pm, #146
2/29/2012 8:17pm, #147
2/29/2012 8:19pm, #148
2/29/2012 8:20pm, #149
2/29/2012 8:24pm, #150