Irish women earn 17% less than Irish men

irelandrover

dark crystal wrote: »

In that case, the only alternative is for women to put off having children altogether if they want to get promoted. Men, of course can continue to have children without it affecting them at all, but women in the same job must forgo having families if they wish to get ahead.

Would it not be fairer to have equal parental leave, as opposed to just maternity leave...this way, women would be less discriminated against in the event of starting a family.

Of course it would be fairer to have joint parental leave. I don't think many men will complain about this.

However, if women take the absolute minimum amount of maternity leave possible then highly likely their career does not suffer as they are only off for 6 weeks (figure taken from elsewhere on the thread).

How many women only take the minimum amount of maternity leave?

smash

KeithAFC wrote: »

This type of inequality is disgusting. This needs to be addressed and looked at and give women more basic human and civil rights.

What exactly are you referring to here? Maternity leave or a difference in salary?

dark crystal

jaja321 wrote: »

You've forgotten a third type: those women who want a career and want to have children

But we were born with a 'vadge', so not allowed to have both, apparantly.

jaja321

irelandrover wrote: »

Of course it would be fairer to have joint parental leave. I don't think many men will complain about this.

However, if women take the absolute minimum amount of maternity leave possible then highly likely their career does not suffer as they are only off for 6 weeks (figure taken from elsewhere on the thread).

How many women only take the minimum amount of maternity leave?

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

jaja321

dark crystal wrote: »

But we were born with a 'vadge', so not allowed to have both, apparantly.

irelandrover

jaja321 wrote: »

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

I disagree with a 50/50 split. the time should be available to the couple to use however they want. if the man wants to use it all then he should be allowed.

that wasnt my question. how many women use the maximum amount of maternity leave instead of the minimum and then complain that having children holds back there career.

My guess would be a lot based on the amount of women i see that take the maximum amount of leave possible.

stupidusername

This isn't something to discuss. Only if you compare the actual rate of pay for a man and woman doing the same job can you figure out if there's a difference based on gender. It's not about gender otherwise!

Oh and Stiffler,there's another type,women who don't want children and aren't doing it for a career.

hardCopy

jaja321 wrote: »

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

I think that's the key. I think if it was an optional split between both parents some men wouldn't take it due to work or social pressures.

If it was 50:50 then employers would have less reason to hire a man over a woman.

The way it works now it makes financial sense to employ a man ahead of a woman when all else is equal because the woman is more than likely to take maternity at some point. Maternity leave is a massive problem for companies to cover, particularly small companies.

CreepingDeath

I think women should be given the option of working 20% longer for the same pay.

smash

Like tax credits, the time should be split at the couples dicretion.

jaja321

irelandrover wrote: »

I disagree with a 50/50 split. the time should be available to the couple to use however they want. if the man wants to use it all then he should be allowed.

that wasnt my question. how many women use the maximum amount of maternity leave instead of the minimum and then complain that having children holds back there career.

My guess would be a lot based on the amount of women i see that take the maximum amount of leave possible.

I fully agree it should be divided between parents how they see fit, sorry I think I misunderstood you. I think one of the reasons women take the full length of maternity leave, is because of the cost of childcare and not wanting to leave their really young baby in a crèche or with a child minder etc.. and wanting the parent to be the one looking after them. If you have parental leave whereby this responsibility of care in the early months is shared, maybe you would find more women willing to go back to work earlier, knowing that their partner was looking after their baby?

Stiffler2

jaja321 wrote: »

You've forgotten a third 'type': those women who want a career and want to have children

Agreed - Women should be able to get promated in the workplace. Men should have rights over their kids when parents split up.

Don't give out to me, I don't make these ridiculous laws but doubt they'll get changed.....

There are women out there obviously whom both have careers and kids but when they take 6 - 9 months off every few years and then moan when they don't get promoted or their pay isn't the same then what do you expect ??

If I was to ring in sick for 6 - 9 months I would be fired. simple as that.
I would prefer if I could take 3 - 6 months off to help split the load.

But until the laws change there's not even any point in having this discussion.

hardybuck

Too much focus on matenity, but it is a definite factor.

1. What types of careers to women enter in higher numbers? Far higher numbers do teaching and nursing than men, where they earn a nice average salary, but never a very large salary. Many enter retail also where wages are generally lower.

Men tend do end up in more demanding and cut-throat roles in sectors such as finance, construction, industry etc. where pay tends to be higher

2. Maternity is a factor. As stated a male 35 year old with a degree is likely to have 10 years continuous experience. His female colleague may have worked the first 5 as normal, then had two-three children in the next 5 years working only a couple of years in the process.

Who gets promotion first?

3. Personally I believe that women's priorities are different to men. I don't think that as many want the high powered stressful roles at a later stage in their careers. I think this is especially true in the current 45+ age bracket. This may change in time, we'll have to wait and see.

jaja321

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Agreed - Women should be able to get promated in the workplace. Men should have rights over their kids when parents split up.

Don't give out to me, I don't make these ridiculous laws but doubt they'll get changed.....

There are women out there obviously whom both have careers and kids but when they take 6 - 9 months off every few years and then moan when they don't get promoted or their pay isn't the same then what do you expect ??

If I was to ring in sick for 6 - 9 months I would be fired. simple as that.
I would prefer if I could take 3 - 6 months off to help split the load.

But until the laws change there's not even any point in having this discussion.

I'm not giving out to you.. but maybe roll back the 'my heart bleeds for you' kind of language and it could be a bit more helpful. What do I expect? I expect the government to pull their finger out and start realising how discriminatory our archaic laws are to men and women and do something about it!

Stiffler2

jaja321 wrote: »

I'm not giving out to you.. but maybe roll back the 'my heart bleeds for you' kind of language and it could be a bit more helpful. What do I expect? I expect the government to pull their finger out and start realising how discriminatory our archaic laws are to men and women and do something about it!

Apologies - I'm not here to offend anyone. I was simply trying to put the point across of how men are discriminated against when it comes to parents splitting up versus women getting promoted in the workplace.

I don't want to retract my "My heart bleeds for you" statement simply because of the above.

stepping out of thread now because it's a "warzone" with no victories to be had for either side.

Eoin

opinion guy wrote: »

Rubbish. We are not way too generous with maternity leave - we are way too sexist.

The reason women leave for all this time is because the law forces them to take the time off and doesn't allow men more than a few days. This, I believe is also a large part of why women earn less.

We need to update our archaic parental leave laws to give women the right to continue working should they want to, and men the option to be stay at home dads should they want to. Like they have in Norway. IT should be up to parents to make their own decisions who minds the child - not codified in law according to some neanderthal concept of parenthood

I agree with the overall sentiment - that maternity leave should be able to be shared if the parents want to. Apparently this was something the National Women's Council also mentioned, though it's not in the link above.

But women are not "forced" to take the full 6 months maternity leave. They must take 6 weeks - 2 weeks before the due date, and 4 weeks after. I don't think there is anything that says they can't return after that. I seem to remember a TD was very keen to let people know that she was back at work 6 weeks after the birth of her child.

Also, men are not entitled to any days off under normal circumstances. The 3 days that people talk about does not exist.

The only provisions for the father to take leave off (in the event of a healthy birth) is parental leave, and the employer can choose to postpone that for 6 months.

jaja321 wrote:

How about splitting the full time 50/50 between partners?

As a choice, I presume you mean. I know that my wife wouldn't want to give up her maternity leave.

Eoin

dark crystal wrote: »

In that case, the only alternative is for women to put off having children altogether if they want to get promoted. Men, of course can continue to have children without it affecting them at all, but women in the same job must forgo having families if they wish to get ahead.

Would it not be fairer to have equal parental leave, as opposed to just maternity leave...this way, women would be less discriminated against in the event of starting a family.

It's funny how these things can be worded.

You could quite easily say that it's men that are discriminated against when starting a family, not women. And that they have to continue working because they're not offered the same legal protection as expectant/new mothers.

jaja321

Eoin wrote: »

I agree with the overall sentiment - that maternity leave should be able to be shared if the parents want to. Apparently this was something the National Women's Council also mentioned, though it's not in the link above.

But women are not "forced" to take the full 6 months maternity leave. They must take 6 weeks - 2 weeks before the due date, and 4 weeks after. I don't think there is anything that says they can't return after that. I seem to remember a TD was very keen to let people know that she was back at work 6 weeks after the birth of her child.

Also, men are not entitled to any days off under normal circumstances. The 3 days that people talk about does not exist.

The only provisions for the father to take leave off (in the event of a healthy birth) is parental leave, and the employer can choose to postpone that for 6 months.



As a choice, I presume you mean. I know that my wife wouldn't want to give up her maternity leave.

Absolutely as a choice, if you read my other posts you'll see I think this should be a choice.

Also yes you are right women aren't forced to take the full maternity leave, but childcare is very expensive and often parents don't want to leave very young babies with child minders etc and would prefer to have a parent looking after the child. So the way the situation is now, women while not forced, have little choice in the matter, particularly if money is tight.

amacachi

Eoin wrote: »

It's funny how these things can be worded.

You could quite easily say that it's men that are discriminated against when starting a family, not women. And that they have to continue working because they're not offered the same legal protection as expectant/new mothers.

Exactly. The whole thing about how women were "lied to" and told they could "have it all". Men can't "have it all", if anyone (male or female) believes it then I'd like to know so I can pop around to see them as the wallet inspector.

De Dannan

Women can go on maternity leave at any time and leave their employer in a tough position, finding a replacement for them but at the same time keeping their job for them when they come back

Eoin

jaja321 wrote: »

Absolutely as a choice, if you read my other posts you'll see I think this should be a choice.

Cool, I agree with that.

jaja321 wrote: »

Also yes you are right women aren't forced to take the full maternity leave, but childcare is very expensive and often parents don't want to leave very young babies with child minders etc and would prefer to have a parent looking after the child. So the way the situation is now, women while not forced, have little choice in the matter, particularly if money is tight.

That's not discrimination though, certainly not towards women anyway. They are given more rights than the fathers. They have the choice of getting maternity leave and benefit to stay at home, the fathers don't.

I have to stay at work, my wife doesn't. It makes more financial sense for her to take off the full 6 months - but that's a by-product of the extra rights she has, not a way she is discriminated against.

Brain Stroking

Promotions and earning potential are based on what happens inside the office, not outside of it. If you arent at work then be happy to have the same role when you return but dont even concern yourself with those (male or female) who were in the office covering for you while you were off and are now in line for promotion.

Plus that study is sh1te. No way in hell are 50% of working irish women on 50k or more

pickarooney

Personally I think anyone that regards a career as the most important thing in their life is a little odd. I don't understand why people would prefer to spend their time working than with their families or this notion that being tied down to an office for 10 hours a day is some kind of achievement.

jaja321

Eoin wrote: »

Cool, I agree with that.



That's not discrimination though, certainly not towards women anyway. They are given more rights than the fathers. They have the choice of getting maternity leave and benefit to stay at home, the fathers don't.

I have to stay at work, my wife doesn't. It makes more financial sense for her to take off the full 6 months - but that's a by-product of the extra rights she has, not a way she is discriminated against.

You raised the issue of women not being forced to take the full maternity leave and I just answered what I thought was one of the reasons that they do. I think maternity leave is discriminatory to both genders and I've said so several times on Boards on different threads. I don't think there should be maternity leave I think there should be paid parental leave - both men and women are discriminated against under our current system for different reasons. Women, if they want to pursure careers and men if they want to spend time with their kids more.

Eoin

Yep, and that's a very valid point - it makes total sense for the mother to use up the full leave in most cases. Who in their right mind would want their newborn in childcare after a couple of months... I just don't agree (with other posters ) that it's discriminating against mothers.

I don't agree with paid parental leave though, it could absolutely cripple some employers. What we have now, but with the choice of splitting it between the parents would be a massive step.

Brain Stroking

pickarooney wrote: »

Personally I think anyone that regards a career as the most important thing in their life is a little odd. I don't understand why people would prefer to spend their time working than with their families or this notion that being tied down to an office for 10 hours a day is some kind of achievement.

It is if you are working in a challenging field. If not, and just a pen-pusher, then yes that is odd.

jaja321

Eoin wrote: »

Yep, and that's a very valid point - it makes total sense for the mother to use up the full leave in most cases. Who in their right mind would want their newborn in childcare after a couple of months... I just don't agree (with other posters ) that it's discriminating against mothers.

I don't agree with paid parental leave though, it could absolutely cripple some employers. What we have now, but with the choice of splitting it between the parents would be a massive step.

Sorry, what do you mean by paid parental leave? What you've said above in bold is what I mean by paid parental leave

Eoin

jaja321 wrote: »

Sorry, what do you mean by paid parental leave? What you've said above in bold is what I mean by paid parental leave

Sorry, a bit of confusion there. Payment by social welfare for either parent - yes. "paid parental leave" made it sound like full pay by the employer too.

ShadowHearth

"only half of all woman earn more then 50k a year"

Wtf?! Where the **** are everyone getting such wages?!

Eric Cartman

Maternity leave just shouldnt be paid for at all. If you cant afford to have kids , then dont .

Maternity leave, job choice, avoiding confrontation (not asking for raises etc...) , higher sickness rates and overall larger costs to the company (ergonomic chair supports , foot stools, little fan heaters under desks, not having air conditioners near them ) is why women get paid less, because per euro spent they produce less


Now thats not for all women , ive seen women in offices not take any leave , put up with the heat/cold , work hard and go after promotions like they were drinking testosterone , and those women succeed just as well as men

dr strangelove

erm.... hang on a second.... wimmins get paid to make sammiches?

jaja321

Eoin wrote: »

Sorry, a bit of confusion there. Payment by social welfare for either parent - yes. "paid parental leave" made it sound like full pay by the employer too.

Well this could remain an option in employment contracts, as it is now with paid maternity leave.

tigger123

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Maternity leave just shouldnt be paid for at all. If you cant afford to have kids , then dont .

Maternity leave, job choice, avoiding confrontation (not asking for raises etc...) , higher sickness rates and overall larger costs to the company (ergonomic chair supports , foot stools, little fan heaters under desks, not having air conditioners near them ) is why women get paid less, because per euro spent they produce less


Now thats not for all women , ive seen women in offices not take any leave , put up with the heat/cold , work hard and go after promotions like they were drinking testosterone , and those women succeed just as well as men

Wow.

jaja321

tigger123 wrote: »

Wow.

More of a :pac: !

opinion guy

Eoin wrote: »

But women are not "forced" to take the full 6 months maternity leave. They must take 6 weeks - 2 weeks before the due date, and 4 weeks after. I don't think there is anything that says they can't return after that. I seem to remember a TD was very keen to let people know that she was back at work 6 weeks after the birth of her child.

They aren't forced by law, they are forced by circumstance. Cost of childcare, not wanting to leave a 6 week old child with a stranger -etc.

De Dannan wrote: »

Women can go on maternity leave at any time and leave their employer in a tough position, finding a replacement for them but at the same time keeping their job for them when they come back

And if the sexism was taken out of the laws on parental leave - then men could do the exact same thing. Hey presto - biased leave and glass ceiling problems all solved at once.

amacachi

opinion guy wrote: »

And if the sexism was taken out of the laws on parental leave - then men could do the exact same thing. Hey presto - biased leave and glass ceiling problems all solved at once.

And what if it was a choice and it was still mainly women who took the time off? As long as there's any kind of difference there's gonna be cries of sexism.

opinion guy

amacachi wrote: »

And what if it was a choice and it was still mainly women who took the time off? As long as there's any kind of difference there's gonna be cries of sexism.

Change isn't going to happen overnight. I imagine it would take some time before men would start using maternity leave - althou in these economic times it will probably come down to who earns the most. You would have to account for the rates of male female takeup of leave in your figures to make true comparisons, but you are probably talking a generation for things to even out.

Mr.Biscuits

Think this article from the Independant Women's Forum summed the whole 'pay gap' nonsense up:

wrote:

Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction

As much as feminists love to parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents on the male dollar, they rarely bother to provide an explanation or solid evidence for this claim. But fortunately a smart new book has hit the shelves just in time for Equal Pay Day to help them out.

Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also ban sex-based wage discrimination.

So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class-action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is complicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?

The 76-cent statistic (now actually 80 cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is misleading because it is a raw comparison of all working men and women. Thus a female receptionist working 40-hour weeks is tossed in with the male orthopedic surgeon putting in 70-hour weeks.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book "Why Men Earn More."

Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.

The real reason than men tend to out-earn women is the choices they make. Men are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions."

For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining and logging -- to name just a few high-risk jobs -- are all more than 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are more than 95 percent female.

Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year plus full medical benefits and retire after thirty years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male.

Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there's an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."

Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "Jobs that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat."

Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women, more so than men, adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families, and in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.

"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.

Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

smash

That's a great article. To be honest I think The National Women's Council should be questioned about why they even got involved in that RTE piece without decent figures to back back it up.

A Primal Nut

Like someone said, way too much focus on Maternity Leave and discrimination. I work in a male-dominated engineering company. I've heard managers say they prefer to hire women so as to redress the gender balance, I've seen women get promoted while they were still on maternity leave and wouldn't be back for a few months. And I haven't seen a case where a man earns more than a woman with similiar experience and the same role. I really do think it's a myth.

The reality is in the original article they love to try to blame men: male managers, male politicians, etc. But nowhere does it say that women need to adapt when it comes to their career choices, and that maybe it's woman's own fault that they don't earn as much as men. Instead men get blamed as always.

The closest they got was this:

undervaluing of women's skills

So instead of encouraging women to study and take up skills in areas of higher pay, they are encouraging companies to somehow start paying beauty therapists and Arts graduates the same as Engineers and IT graduates. Sorry, but it isn't going to happen.

If you think you are earning less than men, stop whining about it and go back to college and study something for which you can earn more money, even if it is traditionally male-dominated. In my experience, women are just as good as men in these areas.

Feminists expect that the world should adapt to suit their needs - quotas, strict pay analysis, etc. It isn't going to happen. If women want the same pay as men, they have to work for it - that means more difficult courses in university, longer hours and maybe even more manual labour (the last one wouldn't be the case in Engineering/IT, so women have no excuse!).

Ireland is particularly susceptible to this due to our dependency on IT/Engineering and I'm surprised the pay gap isn't bigger to be honest.

Eoin

opinion guy wrote: »

They aren't forced by law, they are forced by circumstance. Cost of childcare, not wanting to leave a 6 week old child with a stranger -etc.

They're allowed to, not forced to.

Scanlas The 2nd

pickarooney wrote: »

Personally I think anyone that regards a career as the most important thing in their life is a little odd. I don't understand why people would prefer to spend their time working than with their families or this notion that being tied down to an office for 10 hours a day is some kind of achievement.

I work in an office day in day out but the days just seem to turn into One big excel sheet blur that takes all the joy out of life. Don't know why anyone would do it if they didn't have to.

Scanlas The 2nd

Great article. There's also the simple fact men are more likely to ask for a pay rise.

lastlaugh

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I work in an office day in day out but the days just seem to turn into One big excel sheet blur that takes all the joy out of life. Don't know why anyone would do it if they didn't have to.

That sounds like a sh!t job in fairness.

Scanlas The 2nd

lastlaugh wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I work in an office day in day out but the days just seem to turn into One big excel sheet blur that takes all the joy out of life. Don't know why anyone would do it if they didn't have to.

That sounds like a sh!t job in fairness.

It's a good office job. Good money and not too stressfull.

grindle

tigger123 wrote: »

Wow.

I know, he makes a good case.

Owen_S

If anything the workplace is biased against men now. All this proves is that more men choose to do higher paying jobs. Any arguments of sexism against women are false in most cases IMO - people in this thread talk about the preferential treatment they get. Mr.Biscuits' excellent post should be enough evidence that the original article is pointless.

tempura

newport2 wrote: »

How come all the companies struggling to keep costs down are not recruiting women by the bucketload? Surely there'd be far fewer women on the dole if they were that much cheaper to employ?[/QUOTE

Internships !

boobar

smash wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0302/gender.html

Lets break this down here... Nowhere in the article does it say that the survey looked at people of comparable roles. And in fact it even states "women in Ireland are more likely than men to work in low paid and precarious work", which is a choice!

Then there's "including discrimination against women, undervaluing of women's skills and the low number of women in senior and leadership positions" which really annoys be because I think it's pure bs. People in higher positions get there because of their merits, not gender.

Thoughts?

I think one thing that has to be balanced out is paternity leave for fathers.

Lockstep

boobar wrote: »

I think one thing that has to be balanced out is paternity leave for fathers.

Fully agree here, the lack of paternity leave is a lose-lose situation for both men and women.