Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

silverharp

hots wrote: »

How is that relevant?:pac: Supply and demand, if shop floor workers want to earn the same as those in the warehouse then they can go and work in the warehouse.

lawyers and economics mix like water and oil,its scary that professional moaners can get their way :pac:

If it's like Ireland the women aren't expected to lift as much as men. But it somehow still counts as "same work".

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's like Ireland the women aren't expected to lift as much as men. But it somehow still counts as "same work".

by the time they finish moaning about this companies like Amazon will roll out staff-less supermarkets

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's like Ireland the women aren't expected to lift as much as men. But it somehow still counts as "same work".

What the courts look at is work of 'equal value', which can be extremely subjective.

silverharp

givyjoe wrote: »

What the courts look at is work of 'equal value', which can be extremely subjective.

and for it to be a working model it would have to include supply and demand, presumably Tesco would prefer to pay everyone the lower amount but then warehouse people wouldn't show up. I havnt worked in a supermarket but Ive seen that they take out of hours deliveries so it looks like warehouse staff have to show up earlier or stay later for starters and then the rest.

Sleepy

In my days stacking shelves, out of hours work was always male dominated as female staff usually preferred the checkout roles whereas the lads preferred the harder physical work to the customer service work. Unsociable hours top ups are pretty sweet if you're a college student too.

I'd say there's an even simpler means of winning that case though: what percentage of the warehouse staff have an additional relevant qualification over the shop-floor staff?

I'd imagine a significant number of them hold fork lift licenses.

EDIT: in fact, I can remember at least one store I worked in during my college days that gave a raise on completion of the fork lift license.

feargale

Calhoun wrote: »

Oh looks like the mob have found new victims Rory Best and Henderson.

First things first. As of now the defendants in the Belfast trial are innocent.

Re the fuss over the attendance of Best and Henderson, I would like to ask, why is it ok for a victim to have moral or other support present in court, e.g. rape counsellors, but not acceptable for the defendant to have similar support present? A criminal trial is not even supposed to consist of a level playing field. It is supposed to be tilted slightly in favour of the defendant.
If there is a suspicion that the presence of someone is designed to colour the view of judge or jury, it is up to judge and jury to deal with that.

Furthermore it is more appropriate to have public comment on such matters in mid-trial left to the judge rather than to rags with an agenda which often amounts to nothing more than fingers in a greasy till.

DickSwiveller

p

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd say there's an even simpler means of winning that case though: what percentage of the warehouse staff have an additional relevant qualification over the shop-floor staff?

I'd think it was easier just to point out the lack of internal transfer requests for staff wanting to move from the checkouts to warehousing and vice versa. The lack of requests on either side would be telling... since I suspect we'd actually find more requests from men wishing to transfer to shop staff being denied, than shop staff being denied movement to warehousing.

Warehousing has traditionally been a bit like the mail-room. pretty much the ****tiest part of your career unless you've specialised for the more corporate mgt type of warehousing or operational mgt.

I think it's time that businesses nip this crap in the bud before it goes completely nuts. It's time that businesses point out the silliness of these claims for discrimination and launch counter-cases. Allowing these kinds of cases to continue without harsher objections is just going to cost them big time in the future. (and cost society too since we're allowing people another way to escape the responsibility/consequences of their career choices)

Cookie_Monster

having done both warehouse is far more demanding than shop floor. It's also a far more automated, time dependant process and generally requires you to be able to operate forklift-esque machinery and more higher performance targets. They're not directly comparable IMO.

givyjoe

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

having done both warehouse is far more demanding than shop floor. It's also a far more automated, time dependant process and generally requires you to be able to operate forklift-esque machinery and more higher performance targets. They're not directly comparable IMO.

That's not what they focus on what trying to 'balance' the gender pay scales though. They (the court who presides over these pay claims - think it's EAT these days) will try and establish if the work is of 'equal value' (to the company), even if the roles are not directly comparable. I've also done both, and if i were offered the same pay rate for both jobs, i know which one I'd be picking.

silverharp

givyjoe wrote: »

That's not what they focus on what trying to 'balance' the gender pay scales though. They (the court who presides over these pay claims - think it's EAT these days) will try and establish if the work is of 'equal value' (to the company), even if the roles are not directly comparable. I've also done both, and if i were offered the same pay rate for both jobs, i know which one I'd be picking.

equal value is a disturbing term. clearly you need both or you couldnt run a supermarket but i see no logical way to allocate profits between them

givyjoe

silverharp wrote: »

equal value is a disturbing term. clearly you need both or you couldnt run a supermarket but i see no logical way to allocate profits between them

It's not about allocating profits to staff as such, it's about the 'value' each adds to the products or service provided. This is one area of Employment I was always a bit fuzzy on when studying it, mainly because the decisions seemed to be pulled out of a bag to settle it one way or the other.

silverharp

givyjoe wrote: »

It's not about allocating profits to staff as such, it's about the 'value' each adds to the products or service provided. This is one area of Employment I was always a bit fuzzy on when studying it, mainly because the decisions seemed to be pulled out of a bag to settle it one way or the other.

I'd agree, in very broad terms if you need a lot of training for one and not for the other you can rate them but that doesn't account for the supply of labour and their choices. All things being equal people chase income so if women herd at the shop floor for lower pay than the warehouse that tells you something, they are trading income for relative comfort.

Iseedeadpixels

DickSwiveller wrote: »

p

enis?

You damn misogynist!

Calhoun

Having worked in places like Dunnes ect i would have always felt that there was a bit of gender bias. The men were typically lumped into the areas that were more physically demanding while women were put into more customer facing roles. At times there were individuals who bucked this trend but for the most part this is how it was.

As far as wage is concerned you cannot compare the two roles and nor should you. The warehouse roles typically are more unsociable and more physically demanding but should be open to all who apply. Compared this to the checkout roles which are a bit more social friendly hours but has its own challenges.

Each job should be paid on merit of how difficult the job is and factoring in hours of work/experience ect but anyone should be able to apply for them in my eyes. If we are talking about pay increases for the checkout workers i would do so on the basis of performance increases.

My local Dunnes is case in point, predominately a female checkout staff and depending on the day you go in the staff sitting beside each other will be in a full blown conversation with each other and ignoring the customer. You want more pay then good customer service with metrics to monitor should be apart of it.

Alternatively just go the Lidl/Aldi route and have the staff cross trained to work everywhere and pay them all less.

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

not going to die on a hill for Tesco but is this potential case taking the michael? some law firm either are or are going to take a case against tesco because the warehouse staff are paid more than the shop floor staff. they are different jobs ffs and this being sold as a gender case even though Im sure both sexes are free to apply for either job? dont see a strong case here unless everyone loses the run of themselves

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-07/tesco-faces-equal-pay-case-that-seeks-as-much-as-5-6-billion

You know, there is a part of me that would like to see them win this just to see how the whole situation plays out.

How far would they go to be able to say "we pay men and women the same, on average"?

Ban men from doing overtime? Stop giving employees pay raises based on performance?

That's not to say that only men do overtime and women don't perform well enough to get a raise.

For every man who does an hour overtime in the warehouse you'd need a woman doing an hour of overtime on the shop floor. Otherwise you've got a variance in pay. So would we just give all employees a singular uniform salary across the company?

Now you couldn't get anyone to do overtime so you'll end up with more people looking to work 2 jobs. If we end up with more men working 2 jobs than women then again you will see an imbalance so we would maybe have to make it illegal to have 2 jobs.

You want me to show up earlier for work? Pay me more.
You need me to stay later? Pay me more.
I've done training that qualifies me to use machines X, Y and Z now. Pay me more.

Every time you give a man more for any of the above you need to pay a woman the same amount extra (or divide that extra amount between all the women) in order to avoid seeing a gender pay gap in your average wages figures.

If they win this case and Tesco find themselves making a 5 to 6 billion payout then the first thing they will do to counter that loss is put people out of a job.

There is an obvious solution here that instead of paying warehouse staff and shop floor staff the same wages they should just make sure that both the warehouse and the shop floor are 50-50 men and women. Otherwise it just feels like women are asking to be paid a man's salary without having to do a man's job.

citytillidie

Calhoun wrote: »

Having worked in places like Dunnes ect i would have always felt that there was a bit of gender bias. The men were typically lumped into the areas that were more physically demanding while women were put into more customer facing roles. At times there were individuals who bucked this trend but for the most part this is how it was.

As far as wage is concerned you cannot compare the two roles and nor should you. The warehouse roles typically are more unsociable and more physically demanding but should be open to all who apply. Compared this to the checkout roles which are a bit more social friendly hours but has its own challenges.

Each job should be paid on merit of how difficult the job is and factoring in hours of work/experience ect but anyone should be able to apply for them in my eyes. If we are talking about pay increases for the checkout workers i would do so on the basis of performance increases.

My local Dunnes is case in point, predominately a female checkout staff and depending on the day you go in the staff sitting beside each other will be in a full blown conversation with each other and ignoring the customer. You want more pay then good customer service with metrics to monitor should be apart of it.

Alternatively just go the Lidl/Aldi route and have the staff cross trained to work everywhere and pay them all less.

I worked on the tills at Smyths for 2 Christmas periods and got the midday to close shirts the whole time, so not only was my day ruined but I would nearly always miss dinner as it would fall on the turn over of the staff who started at 9 and those who would work then in the evening. I was the only one who did such a shift.

pilly

Calhoun wrote: »

Having worked in places like Dunnes ect i would have always felt that there was a bit of gender bias. The men were typically lumped into the areas that were more physically demanding while women were put into more customer facing roles. At times there were individuals who bucked this trend but for the most part this is how it was.

As far as wage is concerned you cannot compare the two roles and nor should you. The warehouse roles typically are more unsociable and more physically demanding but should be open to all who apply. Compared this to the checkout roles which are a bit more social friendly hours but has its own challenges.

Each job should be paid on merit of how difficult the job is and factoring in hours of work/experience ect but anyone should be able to apply for them in my eyes. If we are talking about pay increases for the checkout workers i would do so on the basis of performance increases.

My local Dunnes is case in point, predominately a female checkout staff and depending on the day you go in the staff sitting beside each other will be in a full blown conversation with each other and ignoring the customer. You want more pay then good customer service with metrics to monitor should be apart of it.

Alternatively just go the Lidl/Aldi route and have the staff cross trained to work everywhere and pay them all less.

Or go the Lidl/Aldi route and pay all staff well? Both pay the living wage, not minimum.

Calhoun

pilly wrote: »

Or go the Lidl/Aldi route and pay all staff well? Both pay the living wage, not minimum.

I dont actually know what lidl and aldi pay but my point is that the staff there do it all and would all be on similar pay.

Calhoun

citytillidie wrote: »

I worked on the tills at Smyths for 2 Christmas periods and got the midday to close shirts the whole time, so not only was my day ruined but I would nearly always miss dinner as it would fall on the turn over of the staff who started at 9 and those who would work then in the evening. I was the only one who did such a shift.

That is the downside of working in a store, you have folk there for long periods of time who get the nice shifts and then you have folk who havent been and have to do all the crap hours.

There are different crap hours for different jobs though. As checkout staff your there when the shop is open, as warehouse more than likely when its closed also.

silverharp

Calhoun wrote: »

I dont actually know what lidl and aldi pay but my point is that the staff there do it all and would all be on similar pay.

Without suggesting that women cant work efficiently in a warehouse, based on anecdotal evidence one hears, in situations like that it can happen that man ends up with the heavier work. you would need a good management system in place

pilly

Calhoun wrote: »

I dont actually know what lidl and aldi pay but my point is that the staff there do it all and would all be on similar pay.

Yes, you're correct. It does seem a fairer system.

givyjoe

silverharp wrote: »

Without suggesting that women cant work efficiently in a warehouse, based on anecdotal evidence one hears, in situations like that it can happen that man ends up with the heavier work. you would need a good management system in place

In Aldi or Lidl (cant remember which) last week and saw exactly this. Lady of slight frame dragging/pushing a monster pallet of goods from outside to inside using the customer exit.

Sh1t dropping off it left right and center. Seemed to be using a motorised pallet truck but still struggling. Maybe everyone was equally poorly trained but was making an absolute pigs b0llocks of moving stock from A to B.

Calhoun

silverharp wrote: »

Without suggesting that women cant work efficiently in a warehouse, based on anecdotal evidence one hears, in situations like that it can happen that man ends up with the heavier work. you would need a good management system in place

Thats a management issue, but you only have to look at the females working in the likes of the amazon warehouses to get an idea that this shouldnt be an issue.

silverharp

Calhoun wrote: »

Thats a management issue, but you only have to look at the females working in the likes of the amazon warehouses to get an idea that this shouldnt be an issue.

I meant more in a cross working environment, if someone's sole job is working in a warehouse I'd imagine there wouldn't be an issue. It also depends maybe on the equipment available, Im sure Amazon have it down to an art that people aren't lifting or having to drag stuff around etc.

Calhoun

givyjoe wrote: »

In Aldi or Lidl (cant remember which) last week and saw exactly this. Lady of slight frame dragging/pushing a monster pallet of goods from outside to inside using the customer exit.

Sh1t dropping off it left right and center. Seemed to be using a motorised pallet truck but still struggling. Maybe everyone was equally poorly trained but was making an absolute pigs b0llocks of moving stock from A to B.

If you have been to either and observe them you can see a trend they are always in a hurry. I would guess the performance management system is fairly strict, i have seen staff of both genders cut corners.

Calhoun

silverharp wrote: »

I meant more in a cross working environment, if someone's sole job is working in a warehouse I'd imagine there wouldn't be an issue. It also depends maybe on the equipment available, Im sure Amazon have it down to an art that people aren't lifting or having to drag stuff around etc.

Thats why management structure is so important, i havent observed it in my local lidl/aldi. All the workers do the same thing.

the_syco

maybe

pilly wrote: »

Or go the Lidl/Aldi route and pay all staff well? Both pay the living wage, not minimum.

Less staff, more work, jack of all trades? Have seen those on checkout do floor work (sweeping the floors, stocking the shelves, etc). Also, have bare minimum amount of staff on the checkout. Compare that to Tescos, where there used to be a few idling at the checkouts (these are getting replaced by the self service checkouts).

Calhoun wrote: »

Thats a management issue, but you only have to look at the females working in the likes of the amazon warehouses to get an idea that this shouldnt be an issue.

From what I've seen in a documentary, the automated robots do all the lifting.

Calhoun

the_syco wrote: »

From what I've seen in a documentary, the automated robots do all the lifting.

Exactly automation has leveled the playing field. Realistically anyone can do it.

silverharp

the_syco wrote: »

From what I've seen in a documentary, the automated robots do all the lifting.

there was a auto parts supplier on the news recently in the UK where they opened a new warehouse basically stacked 80 or 90 ft high , all automated. those kind of jobs as well as the retail side are going to be decimated in the next decade or 2

givyjoe

Calhoun wrote: »

If you have been to either and observe them you can see a trend they are always in a hurry. I would guess the performance management system is fairly strict, i have seen staff of both genders cut corners.

This one was not cutting corners or in a rush. Literally looked like she was waiting for someone to come take the stuff off her. It's not rocket science and I've done the same job (manually).

I'd be interested to see/hear how things run out the back (storeroom) from staff themselves and what the reality is. There are still very heavy items that need to be moved from one place to the other (e.g. shelves) and that is always going to require a certain level of strength.

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

Without suggesting that women cant work efficiently in a warehouse, based on anecdotal evidence one hears, in situations like that it can happen that man ends up with the heavier work. you would need a good management system in place

I would imagine though that employees who are more willing to do the less attractive work could also be the employees that will move up the ladder.

That could even just be things like always being the one who opens the shop in the morning or closes the shop at night. Or being the one that will come in to work with 30 minutes notice when another employee calls in sick.

The one who does an extra hour here and there for free etc etc.

Not to say that women do not do these things and not to say that women do not show initiative. However, for every man who does do these things you need to have a woman doing the same or else you will have a gender imbalance in the workplace. The opposite is also true.

Having a good management system in place could ultimately mean having a management system in place that potentially keeps ambitious employees down so that they do not upset the balance.

If we are talking about salaries in the region of 10 pounds/euros an hour then even giving a man an extra 0.5 per hour because he does x or y or z on his own initiative can create a gender gap of 5%.

Is it "good" management if part of the management system involves preventing employees from doing more to possibly increase their future earnings and/or career path?

If you've some guy in there who always does the heavy lifting and is known as someone you can rely on when you need help with that kind of thing then that's kind of like an outstanding employee in a way. Could be "employee of the month" etc.

Feels like we'd be asking managers to put a stop to that to ensure that each drone is bringing "equal value" to the company.

I think many are missing the angle that even in the warehousing area of any business, there are "soft" jobs related to paperwork or other areas, which women will feel entitled to do even if they don't have the physical capabilities to lift things.

I worked a year in the warehousing department of a hospitality leasing company. I was situated immediately beside the guys that were doing the heavy lifting, and the very different guys who the transportation side of the warehousing. I never once had to lift anything heavier than a pen or document binder.

On a side note, ever see women doing the driving for the transportation of goods? I was thinking about this earlier, watching all the heavier lorries going past, and not spotting any female drivers.

LostinBlanch

maybe

I came across this freakonomics podcast last night and thought people on here might be interested in it. Apologies for the long post, but there is a lot in it. Scroll down for the TLDR at the end if you have to.

Basically five economists, two are employed by Uber, two are Stanford professors and one is a researcher looked at Uber driver weeks from January 2015 to March 2017 in certain cities in the US. This comprised of 1.8 million drivers and 740 million Uber trips. Initially they looked at Chicago, then San Francisco, Detroit, Houston and Boston with similar results in all cities.

The Uber algorithm is gender blind, it doesn’t care what gender the driver is. Neither did customers, they just wanted to get to where they were going. Nationally 27% of Uber drivers are female, in Chicago it is 30% (slightly more, but pretty similar number). After going through the data and checking the drivers earnings they found that there was a 7% difference in earnings i.e. men tended to earn 7% more than women, which they didn’t expect.

LIST: We found something very surprising. What you find is that men make about 7 percent more per hour on average … For doing the exact same job in a setting where work assignments are made by a gender-blind algorithm and pay structure’s tied directly to output and not negotiated

This seven percent gap is not very different than the overall average across all firms in the US, even in the traditional labour market according to Professor Rebecca Diamond of Stanford Graduate Business School.

They looked at reasons why the earnings gap existed in a situation where there was no discrimination and earnings are based purely on output. Everything is governed by the algorithm. They found three factors;

1. Roughly 20% could be explained by drivers choosing when and where to drive. Men target different neighbourhoods to women, often these are more lucrative. They also choose to drive at different times graveyard shift, pick ups when clubs close, airport trips etc.
   
2. Men have more experience i.e. they are more likely to have two or more years of experience driving for Uber than women. 76% of women leave Uber within 6 months compared to 63% of men. Also the average man drives about 50% more trips per week than the average woman.
   
3. Men are also completing more trips per hour than women, which implies they’re driving faster. Something mirrored in the general population.

All this mirrors research by [URL=". http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/"]Claudia Goldin, professor of economics at Harvard[/URL], that any gender gap isn’t driven primarily by discrimination but by female demand for temporal flexibility or flexible work hours in normal speech.

Goldin uses the example of two law graduates a man and a woman.

I like to think about an individual who gets a degree — let’s say a law degree — and it’s a woman, and now I have an individual, a man, who gets a law degree. And they graduate from law school and they’re both equally brilliant, and they both get jobs in approximately the same type of firm. By and large they’re going to earn approximately the same amount when they start. Things will continue in their lives — they’ll both perhaps find partners, get married, have kids.

It’s often the case that women will leave the very large law firms that put a lot of time demands on them and go to smaller firms or become corporate counsel, become part-time corporate counsel, perhaps, for a while. They will go to smaller firms where the workload is somewhat different. They may work in fact the same number of hours, but they may work hours that are their hours rather than the hours imposed on them by the firm. The woman will then begin to make — if she’s the one who did this — she will make considerably less than the man. And a lot of what we see — not all of it — but a lot of what we see is this choice to go into occupations that have less expensive temporal flexibility, that allow individuals to do their work on their own time.

Rebecca Diamond transfers Goldin’s findings to explain the Uber results.

If you look at her previous work, for example, on workers in the financial industry, the pay gap there is enormous. It’s bigger than 7 percent. And in the financial industry, there’s this huge compensation for working extremely long hours, and never having, like, interruptions in your career. But Uber shows that even when you strip away all of this stuff, you definitely don’t go to a gender gap of zero, and you still have this important experience component, where you work more and you learn about how to do the job better, and you get better at doing the job.. . . women prefer to work fewer hours per week than men on Uber, and in the broader economy. That’s a choice by men and women, given the other aspects of their life, that they’re taking into account, when deciding how much to work. Women are choosing to drive slower, which is a choice likely just based on preferences of just how they’ve learned to drive in their broader life. Those aren’t aspects of the labor market, those are just differences between men and women outside of the labor force that happened to lead to differences in compensation in the labor force.

TLDR:
Economists examined Uber results for 2 years in the US to check for any earnings gap. They didn’t expect to find any but men earned on average 7% more than women. They economists determined that even in a situation where there is absolutely no discrimination there will be an earnings gap, and the main reason for this is differences in how men and women choose to work and spend their time.

the_syco

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

there was a auto parts supplier on the news recently in the UK where they opened a new warehouse basically stacked 80 or 90 ft high , all automated. those kind of jobs as well as the retail side are going to be decimated in the next decade or 2

The supermarket that Amazon bought in Canada have the automated machine go around, checking things. Staff have a load more paperwork to do, so can see the shops being a lot more automated in the future. Which means that smaller shops will probably be better for fresh produce, unless the machine can tell what looks gone off.

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly automation has leveled the playing field. Realistically anyone can do it.

Realistically, they don't need anyone to do it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think many are missing the angle that even in the warehousing area of any business, there are "soft" jobs related to paperwork or other areas, which women will feel entitled to do even if they don't have the physical capabilities to lift things.

The logistics side would be the soft jobs, but said logistics don't always have to be onsite, and can be done for multiple sites by a group of people at a remote location.

Saruhashi wrote: »

I would imagine though that employees who are more willing to do the less attractive work could also be the employees that will move up the ladder.

Agreed. A jack of all trades will often make manager if they help the current manager out, and the current manager is not an ass. If the manager is an ass, the lick arse gets the job, and the team has a high turnover.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

The Uber algorithm is gender blind, it doesn’t care what gender the driver is. Neither did customers, they just wanted to get to where they were going. Nationally 27% of Uber drivers are female, in Chicago it is 30% (slightly more, but pretty similar number). After going through the data and checking the drivers earnings they found that there was a 7% difference in earnings i.e. men tended to earn 7% more than women, which they didn’t expect.

I wonder how what percentage of women did the weekend night shift when you'd get a lot more drunks?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Goldin uses the example of two law graduates a man and a woman.

By and large they’re going to earn approximately the same amount when they start. Things will continue in their lives — they’ll both perhaps find partners, get married, have kids.

If people want to compare like with like, they'll have to compare childless people who put in the hours. Otherwise the pay gap will fit your* agenda.

*by "your" I mean the person pays for the survey/research.

LostinBlanch

maybe

the_syco wrote: »

If people want to compare like with like, they'll have to compare childless people who put in the hours. Otherwise the pay gap will fit your* agenda.

*by "your" I mean the person pays for the survey/research.

But Claudia Goldin's example had two people who both got married and had kids then made different choices* which resulted in different financial outcomes.

If you're referring to the application of Goldin's findings to the Uber study, I don't think Uber has that information, so the economists are working with the data they have and extrapolating from that.


*I'm not making any judgement on either of these choices as one person puts family life above work and the other does the opposite. Both have their good and bad points.

Calhoun

LostinBlanch wrote: »

TLDR:
Economists examined Uber results for 2 years in the US to check for any earnings gap. They didn’t expect to find any but men earned on average 7% more than women. They economists determined that even in a situation where there is absolutely no discrimination there will be an earnings gap, and the main reason for this is differences in how men and women choose to work and spend their time.

I think a big part of this is down to societal pressure on men, your expected to be a decent earner and provider.

the_syco

maybe

LostinBlanch wrote: »

But Claudia Goldin's example had two people who both got married and had kids then made different choices* which resulted in different financial outcomes.

*I'm not making any judgement on either of these choices as one person puts family life above work and the other does the opposite. Both have their good and bad points.

Whilst pregnant, a womans body will not allow them to work 100%, and after the baby pops out, she may not be able to work 100%. She may also be limited to how long she can work, as I'd imagine women who want a family will want to see the family. Society expects the father to put in the hours, and thus if they want to examine a pay gap between man and woman, they should be working equal hours. Otherwise, there'll be a pay gap.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Whilst pregnant, a womans body will not allow them to work 100%, and after the baby pops out, she may not be able to work 100%. She may also be limited to how long she can work, as I'd imagine women who want a family will want to see the family. Society expects the father to put in the hours, and thus if they want to examine a pay gap between man and woman, they should be working equal hours. Otherwise, there'll be a pay gap.

There will be a pay gap regardless. There is a pay gap with single women without children too. The point is that men and women tend to view their careers differently, with men more often placing their career at the top of their priorities... whilst women tend to look for more free time, weekends being sacred, using all their holidays and generally look to their health/wellbeing more. Society is changing with more men wanting these things too but the averages point to most men looking at their career in the traditional sense.

The example usually given to describe fallacy of the pay gap is the legal profession or accounting/finance where prior to 30, women often outperform their male colleagues and make more money... but after 30, they see the tradeoff of far more working hours (with the promotions) versus marginal salary increases (until they reach upper/partner levels) as not being worth it. When you're already earning 100k is that 25k extra worth the increase in work hours and responsibilities. It's the same for women without children as it is for those with children. Their priorities shift. Whereas for men, the expectation of long hours, hard work, and likely health/personal problems are all part of the accepted price for success.

This focus on having a family as being a problem seeks deflect from the other very real and valid reasons for a wage gap. Choice, expectation and... commitment. Many women do these things and are at the top of their fields regardless of whether they have children or not. The difference is that they're willing to make the "sacrifices" necessary, and have the ambition to endure those hard long hours.

I've worked in positions where women in my department were earning more than me. They did it through working harder, being better at the job, and ultimately more driven than I was. Was it fair? Sure... because I knew I could do the same as them if I wanted that kind of life. I didn't... These complaints about a broad gender pay gap simply seek to bypass that choice and gain the benefits without the required commitment/dedication to your career. Are there some forms of gender discrimination? sure there is. But not to the degree that this kind of debate suggests.

citytillidie

Calhoun wrote: »

That is the downside of working in a store, you have folk there for long periods of time who get the nice shifts and then you have folk who havent been and have to do all the crap hours.

There are different crap hours for different jobs though. As checkout staff your there when the shop is open, as warehouse more than likely when its closed also.

That is the thing it was mostly temp staff

silverharp

Calhoun

I love seeing crap like that is show the duplicitous nature and blatant sexism. How any right minded person would vote for a party of so called equality with crap like that going in is beyond me.

I actually didnt think it could get any better but they are now claiming its a Tory smear campaign against them and that white men are only excluded from voting but can attend. However most of us that read can see that is not the case.

The case is being looked into by the equality board in the UK, be interested to see the outcome. Be much different if it stated on it that white men allowed to attend but not vote.

Riskymove

Today Catherine Connolly TD has expressed her unhappiness with the proposed ring road for Galway by calling it "male and stale"

Male now offically being used as a derogatory term...

backspin.

Riskymove wrote: »

Today Catherine Connolly TD has expressed her unhappiness with the proposed ring road for Galway by calling it "male and stale"

Male now offically being used as a derogatory term...

Its amazing the way this is becoming acceptable. Its the same with white. It seems perfectly acceptable to use 'white people' in a pejorative way. The double standards is pathetic. Aul Catherine would be having a fit if 'female' was used in the same way or black or Asian. Its a slippery slope when language like that gets normalized.

People should remember that if she ever comes looking for their vote.

backspin.

Calhoun wrote: »

I love seeing crap like that is show the duplicitous nature and blatant sexism. How any right minded person would vote for a party of so called equality with crap like that going in is beyond me.

I actually didnt think it could get any better but they are now claiming its a Tory smear campaign against them and that white men are only excluded from voting but can attend. However most of us that read can see that is not the case.

The case is being looked into by the equality board in the UK, be interested to see the outcome. Be much different if it stated on it that white men allowed to attend but not vote.

'Yeah black men can still attend but can't vote'.

Imagine what the response would be if that was said.

DEFTLEFTHAND

silverharp wrote: »

Note the 'Self Define' part.

This is where you can use their BS against them.

Say you self identify as a 22 year old lesbian Eskimo for instance. They'll have to admit you to the conference.

gizmo555

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Note the 'Self Define' part.

This is where you can use their BS against them.

Say you self identify as a 22 year old lesbian Eskimo for instance. They'll have to admit you to the conference.

Sure any Paddy could could self identify as an Irish minority ethnic.

Saruhashi

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Note the 'Self Define' part.

This is where you can use their BS against them.

Say you self identify as a 22 year old lesbian Eskimo for instance. They'll have to admit you to the conference.

Yeah, it's so strange. You don't even need to go that far. Surely it would be enough to say "I don't know how I define myself yet".

Disabled is a bit of a tricky one too because some disabilities are not obvious and it's more than a bit rude to interrogate someone on the nature of any disabilities and/or medical conditions.

(just want to note here that the use of "Disabled" is making me think that this is fake)

So if you show up obviously white and male are they going to quiz me on my sexuality and any disabilities I might have?

I'm not really sure how "minority ethnic" is defined. Would an Scotsman or Irishman in England be considered minority ethnic?

Of course, I don't see why anyone would actually WANT to go to this after reading the flyer so maybe that is the whole point of the exercise.

You'd have to already be pretty deep into this stuff to look at the information there and think "that sounds like it'll be a good event".

newport2

Saruhashi wrote: »

Yeah, it's so strange. You don't even need to go that far. Surely it would be enough to say "I don't know how I define myself yet".

Disabled is a bit of a tricky one too because some disabilities are not obvious and it's more than a bit rude to interrogate someone on the nature of any disabilities and/or medical conditions.

(just want to note here that the use of "Disabled" is making me think that this is fake)

So if you show up obviously white and male are they going to quiz me on my sexuality and any disabilities I might have?

I'm not really sure how "minority ethnic" is defined. Would an Scotsman or Irishman in England be considered minority ethnic?

Of course, I don't see why anyone would actually WANT to go to this after reading the flyer so maybe that is the whole point of the exercise.

You'd have to already be pretty deep into this stuff to look at the information there and think "that sounds like it'll be a good event".

Publicity seeking stunt that went wrong on them I think.