I thought that only girls did stats.
In my case, I only noticed the girls
A good example would be a sales company where wage is commission so highly variable.
You have a manger and two employees, one of each sex.
There is one good area and one average area.
The manger is male and gives the good are to the other male because he likes him and has a beer with him on Fridays. Its also been busy so the manger hasnât been able to coach both to the same quality, the male in the good area has been doing well in sales so comes off as having potential so the manager spends more time coaching him.
As its sales its commission based at the end of the year the bloke has made $90k and the female $60k.
Nothing illegal has happened, is it unfair, yep I would say it is, but it is a lot of work to unwind. Itâs not as simple as pay everyone equal.
3 Likes
Ok, so maybe I should have said that the employment of women in maths fields was less than the employment of men�
Either way, the point stands that, for whatever reason, there were encouraged men jobs and women 30 - 50 years ago for no apparent physiological reasons
1 Like
Perhaps it would be beneficial to the cause to detail these things - the type of jobs/employment and the type of circumstances, instead of lumping everything together as MSM is want to do. Even statements like âemployees working side-by-sideâ is not detailed, as Wim pointed out above. I hate having to run everything through my greatly cynical media-filter.
We know that men die in the workplace more than women, we know that more men are seriously injured on the job than women. Does this automatically mean employers are more concerned with female worker safety? Do we need quotas to ensure more women are hurt on the job?
Have I told everyone Iâm not flying British airways at the end of the year
I hear they still fly to South Africa
1 Like
The whole thing is leftwing driven nonsense.
1 Like
Amazing addition to the discussion.
Yes, more women should be hurt on the job.
That would be better than taking a deeper look.
1 Like
If you are trying to find ways to derail the discussion, maybe just ask yourself what it is you are feeling that makes you need to protect the status quo?
3 Likes
Fascinated by the âconversationâ here.
The facts are that women get paid 20+% less, and have retirement savings 40% less than men.
Itâs incredible that women arenât rioting in the street over this.
2 Likes
Itâs a difficult discussion for me to get into.
Mrs Wim earns three times as much as me.
More than.
Funny you should mention that more men die on the job. I learnt today that BHP actually found that having more women in their teams lead to better safety outcomes.
2 Likes
Nearly the same here.
And I run a company staffed entirely by women.
You complete ba$tard
Facts are they also work less. Is there a suggestion that women deserve to be paid more per hour than men to make up for difference in hours & years they do? Is this ultimately some socialist ideal that every workplace should simply divvy up all available wages evenly to every staff member regardless of any other factor?
If women genuinely feel they are getting paid less because of gender I am more than open to listening to the specifics & supporting action being taken to rectify but when a 5 year study says female Nurses get paid less than male nurses for the same work but canât provide a single example of this happening then i have to assume its meaningless bulltish.
That may be some facts, but it isnât the whole story
Youâre getting angry at a summary article on buzzfeed.
Look up the report here https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/five-years-wgea-data-shows-employer-action-has-delivered-results
2 Likes
That doesnât surprise me at all. I believe men are more likely to take risks, more likely to ignore safety procedures & more likely to not ask for help when they need it. I employ more women than men, I think they have advantages that suit my business needs. They also on average are paid higher than the male employees but that is because they have been with the company longer & have greater responsibility. The idea of paying based on gender makes no logical sense to me - its a business practice Iâve never encountered & so I donât believe it really exists in any meaningful way.
I know about the legal world and to a lesser extent the accounting world.
There are approximately equal numbers of men and women qualifying to practise law. In the big city legal firms approximately equal numbers are taken on as junior solicitors. No more than half of the juniors progress to senior associate level, which happens (if at all) around late 20s. I donât know the exact numbers but my impression is that numbers are still approximately even. Itâs after that that discrepancies become apparent, because there are far more male partners than men. My explanation, based on observation but no scientific investigation, is that when couples have children, which is commonly late 20s/early 30s, usually (not always) a choice is made as to which parent will be the primary earner and which will be the primary caregiver, and usually itâs the male who becomes the earner and the female who becomes the caregiver. Thus the male progresses to partner and the female doesnât.
Thatâs not universal. There are far more female partners than there used to be, and there are couples who both continue in full time work and both succeed. (I know one such couple where the woman was dictating letters to her secretary in the labour ward. And I know a female QC who has been extremely successful in full time practice, as has her lawyer husband, while they have raised five children together â with the help of nannies, housekeepers, etc.)
1 Like
Well it certainly helps to have the means to do that.
3 Likes