More gender pay gap rubbish

professore

Top story on independent.ie... Male graduates paid 4k more than women... With zero explanations.

Some 93pc of education graduates were working, followed by health and welfare (87pc), ICT (82pc) and engineering (82pc);
Arts and humanities graduates had the lowest employment rate (63pc) and lowest average salaries at €24,728; they were among the highest percentages in further study (24pc);

Is there any possibility that more women study humanities than men... Fields that are not in demand in the jobs market... Or are companies and government bodies so sexist they go out of their way and risk huge fines and bad publicity to pay women less? Hmmmm...

Who is driving this narrative?


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/teachers-top-the-pay-league-for-new-graduates-but-gender-pay-gap-remains-37825469.html

As an aside, these poor teachers earn more out of college than ANY OTHER TYPE OF GRADUATE!!!!! And they will be out on strike again looking for more since the nurses already got what they want. Crazy.

Red_Wake

I'm more interested in the gender thigh gap tbh.

Inspector Coptoor

professore wrote: »

As an aside, these poor teachers earn more out of college than ANY OTHER TYPE OF GRADUATE!!!!! And they will be out on strike again looking for more since the nurses already got what they want. Crazy.

A complete joke of an article.

You can’t compare a teacher to an Arts graduate.

Some Teachers ARE Arts graduates who have then gone on to do a Masters in Education at a cost of €12k to become teachers.
A basic Arts degree is a 3 year level 8 degree. Teachers now spend either 5 or 6 years in Higher Education depending on their subjects.

Teachers are double graduates with a level 8 and a Level 9 degree.

This article says teacher graduates have the highest starting salary at €38.7k but then goes on to say the MEDIAN salary for a Masters graduate is €40.8k.

All recent teacher graduates HAVE a masters.

Pathetic reporting.
Awful interpretation of data.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

KungPao

The lovely girls should just be appreciative that they are allowed to work.

Hedgelayer

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

A complete joke of an article.

You can’t compare a teacher to an Arts graduate.

Some Teachers ARE Arts graduates who have then gone on to do a Masters in Education at a cost of €12k to become teachers.
A basic Arts degree is a 3 year level 8 degree. Teachers now spend either 5 or 6 years in Higher Education depending on their subjects.

Teachers are double graduates with a level 8 and a Level 9 degree.

This article says teacher graduates have the highest starting salary at €38.7k but then goes on to say the MEDIAN salary for a Masters graduate is €40.8k.

All recent teacher graduates HAVE a masters.

Pathetic reporting.
Awful interpretation of data.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Thats only the tip of the iceberg with lies, gaslighting manipulation and more lies.

Sometimes when I listen to political interviews on the radio, you can actually hear them lying through their teeth.

Denying they said so and so, but there's evidence of them lying...

Is it a civilization of liar's were living in ?

Ray Palmer

The gender pay gap is real, it just doesn't mean what most people think. There is a gap in what women get paid compared to men. The problem is it is because they work less hours and lower paying work. Equal pay for equal work is not an issue.

aloneforever99

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Equal pay for equal work is not an issue.

I must have imagined that whole Micheline Sheehy Skeffington case so. And Sharon Ni Bheolain.

Mr. Incognito

FACT:

It is illegal to pay men and women in the same job doing equal work different rates of pay.



The rest is just gob****es using statistics to push agendas.

silverharp

Its amusing that all these disgruntled headlines are generated by “people” that were either to lazy or not talented enough to go into STEM fields themselves.

aloneforever99

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

FACT:

It is illegal to pay men and women in the same job doing equal work different rates of pay.



The rest is just gob****es using statistics to push agendas.

Illegal stuff happens, though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

professore wrote: »

Top story on independent.ie... Male graduates paid 4k more than women... With zero explanations.




Is there any possibility that more women study humanities than men... Fields that are not in demand in the jobs market... Or are companies and government bodies so sexist they go out of their way and risk huge fines and bad publicity to pay women less? Hmmmm...

Who is driving this narrative?


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/teachers-top-the-pay-league-for-new-graduates-but-gender-pay-gap-remains-37825469.html

As an aside, these poor teachers earn more out of college than ANY OTHER TYPE OF GRADUATE!!!!! And they will be out on strike again looking for more since the nurses already got what they want. Crazy.

Those unemployment rates are ridiculously high, people are making themselves more unemployable by going to university.

Ray Palmer

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Equal pay for equal work is not an issue.

I must have imagined that whole Micheline Sheehy Skeffington case so. And Sharon Ni Bheolain.

You imagined that experience and loyalty doesn't warrant a higher wage. They were working there less than their male colleagues. Showbiz jobs are very different. Marlon Brando got paid more for his role in Superman I than Christopher Reeves got.

Where I work there are several women who work part time and not one man. They shouldn't be paid the same amount as they work less hours. Even ignoring the contracted hours these women never do any overtime. They can't be promoted as it would require working full time hours and commitment to do overtime when needed. They have made a choice to do this. When they eventually start doing full time hours they are not on equal footing to somebody who worked full time over the same time.

aloneforever99

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You imagined that experience and loyalty doesn't warrant a higher wage. They were working there less than their male colleagues. Showbiz jobs are very different. Marlon Brando got paid more for his role in Superman I than Christopher Reeves got.

Since Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeves aren't paid by the TV licence, that's not comparable.

People said women get paid the same for doing the same work. Sharon Ni Bheolain does the same work as Brian Dobson and gets paid considerably less. That's a fact.

And you're just wrong about Sheehy-Skeffington and her colleagues, as the court case proved beyond doubt.

I can readily admit that in many cases women are paid less because they work fewer hours or took a career break, or have careers in less lucrative fields to begin with.

Can you admit that in some cases women are paid less due to sexism? Or are you honestly telling me this never, ever happens?

kneemos

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I must have imagined that whole Micheline Sheehy Skeffington case so. And Sharon Ni Bheolain.

RTE solved the problem by getting rid of all the men.

Ush1

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Can you admit that in some cases women are paid less due to sexism? Or are you honestly telling me this never, ever happens?

Can you admit the inverse?

Can you admit that tall people get paid more than small people due to sizism?
Can you admit thinner people get paid more than overweight due to body facism?

aloneforever99

Ush1 wrote: »

Can you admit the inverse?

Can you admit that tall people get paid more than small people due to sizism?
Can you admit thinner people get paid more than overweight due to body facism?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

Ush1

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

Yes, people discriminate constantly in all facets of life and business for endless numbers of reasons.

aloneforever99

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, people discriminate constantly in all facets of life and business for endless numbers of reasons.

Right. So we are agreed that gender discrimination is a thing, and that for a variety of reasons, some to do with discrimination and some to do with other factors, a gender pay gap exists.

Ush1

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Right. So we are agreed that gender discrimination is a thing, and that for a variety of reasons, some to do with discrimination and some to do with other factors, a gender pay gap exists.

No it's ALL discrimination actually. Same reason why lots of men doing the same job don't get paid the same.

aloneforever99

Ush1 wrote: »

No it's ALL discrimination actually. Same reason why lots of men doing the same job don't get paid the same.

Okay, are you able to acknowledge that in some cases companies choose to pay women less or offer them fewer opportunities for advancement specifically because they are women?

Ush1

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Okay, are you able to acknowledge that in some cases companies choose to pay women less or offer them fewer opportunities for advancement specifically because they are women?

I answered you, you didn't answer me.

kneemos

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Right. So we are agreed that gender discrimination is a thing, and that for a variety of reasons, some to do with discrimination and some to do with other factors, a gender pay gap exists.

He didn't say that at all.

My God that's one of the biggest free standing leaps I've ever seen.

aloneforever99

Ush1 wrote: »

I answered you, you didn't answer me.

You didn't really. You answered the question "Does discrimination exist?" which isn't actually what I asked.

My question, once again, is specifically to do with gender discrimination. Can you acknowledge that it exists?

To answer your question, yes, I can freely acknowledge that other forms of discrimination also exist.

Ush1

aloneforever99 wrote: »

You didn't really. You answered the question "Does discrimination exist?" which isn't actually what I asked.

My question, once again, is specifically to do with gender discrimination. Can you acknowledge that it exists?

To answer your question, yes, I can freely acknowledge that other forms of discrimination also exist.

Yes of course it exists. For men and women and trans and any number of new genders that people dream up. Agreed?

Wanderer2010

In my experience, women who shout the loudest about demanding pay equality at work do the least amount of work. Plus the fact that women are the ones on maternity leave. A huge number of women after having their first kid get tired of working and opt for 3 day weeks, job sharing etc and more sick leave. Which does not equal the same hours or money as someone full time.

Im not saying all women do this but a huge amount do, so they cant expect the same pay.

aloneforever99

kneemos wrote: »

He didn't say that at all.

My God that's one of the biggest free standing leaps I've ever seen.

Yeah, I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek there, but it's the logical conclusion.

I have no issue with anyone saying that

- many women choose less lucrative fields than men
- many women take career breaks to have children
- many women work fewer hours than men

As long as they can also acknowledge that many women face certain disadvantages despite not doing any of the above simply because they are women.

Sexism is a thing, and denying its existence does not change that.

Sky King

Red_Wake wrote: »

I'm more interested in the gender thigh gap tbh.

Yeah? Personally i am interested in the gander pay gap.

What's good for the goose....

Diceicle

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Can you admit that in some cases women are paid less due to sexism? Or are you honestly telling me this never, ever happens?

I would say sexism is one factor in certain cases of pay disparity. Sexism is also a factor in the current push for women replacing male presenters wherever possible - 9 o'clock news, Late debate, BBC question time etc etc

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Sharon Ni Bheolain does the same work as Brian Dobson and gets paid considerably less. That's a fact.

Dobson is 11 years older than Ní Bheoláin. He has significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. So he earns a higher salary. No surprises there.

She's still pulling in a very comfortable six-figure salary for reading the news on TV.

aloneforever99

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote: »

Dobson is 11 years older than Ní Bheoláin. He has significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. So he earns a higher salary. No surprises there.

See this is it.

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

Then you point out a case where that's very clearly not the case, and people go into explanation mode as to why the pay gap - that didn't exist a minute ago - exists and is actually justified.

Mr.H

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote:

She's still pulling in a very comfortable six-figure salary for reading the news on TV.

If a man was hired in the morning with less experience than her, he would be on less money. Of course thats right.

Silentcorner

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Yeah, I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek there, but it's the logical conclusion.

I have no issue with anyone saying that

- many women choose less lucrative fields than men
- many women take career breaks to have children
- many women work fewer hours than men

As long as they can also acknowledge that many women face certain disadvantages despite not doing any of the above simply because they are women.

Sexism is a thing, and denying its existence does not change that.

The only way to eliminate all types of pay disparity is socialism...the free market economy in open democracies are not capable, on their own, of achieving equality in politics, industry and innovation.

If we don't like the choices people make when allowed to make the free choices they feel best fit their lives....then we have to remove the ability of people to make those choices however subtle or using whatever flag (diversity/equality) necessary....that is undemocratic, unequal, incredibly risky...it has the potential to undermine all the comforts and rights our current economies afford us.

You need only look at the basket case industries like media and hollywood, (and separately Gillette) as the more obvious examples of the wrecking ball that occurs when an industry embraces "equality/diversity"...not to mention the damage it will do to our birth rate and all the issues that brings...the price we all pay is not worth paying.

Ray Palmer

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Since Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeves aren't paid by the TV licence, that's not comparable.

People said women get paid the same for doing the same work. Sharon Ni Bheolain does the same work as Brian Dobson and gets paid considerably less. That's a fact.

And you're just wrong about Sheehy-Skeffington and her colleagues, as the court case proved beyond doubt.

I can readily admit that in many cases women are paid less because they work fewer hours or took a career break, or have careers in less lucrative fields to begin with.

Can you admit that in some cases women are paid less due to sexism? Or are you honestly telling me this never, ever happens?

It is irrelevant who pays the salary in showbiz value and costs are not based on gender or age but fame. Older employee often get loyalty salary pay rises. Completely comparable. Does Fiona Bruce get paid more than a less famous news reported in the BBC. It isn't about gender as many women are paid more in showbiz than males due to fame.

I will say some PEOPLE get paid more than others. Claiming it is all gender based is an issue when lumping it with less pay for less hours makes it disingenuous.

Most people don't work in colleges and Sheehy case has very little bearing on the work of most people. It was wrong but an outlier in an unusual work place.

The gender pay gap issue is an attempt to make an argument of pay discrimination. People will look back at this and cringe at the obvious attempts to corrupt logic.

Gender pay gap is not discrimination it show freedoms of choice but it is actually hard for men to get job sharing that women can get. If you want equality campaign for it don't lie about it to get preferential treatment.

Tomw86

Just on a point in here.

More experience/time worked in a role is absolutely grounds for one party to be paid more than the other - I do not agree that all roles should be paid the same regardless of experience or time spent in that role.

Tomw86

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is irrelevant who pays the salary in showbiz value and costs are not based on gender or age but fame. Older employee often get loyalty salary pay rises. Completely comparable. Does Fiona Bruce get paid more than a less famous news reported in the BBC. It isn't about gender as many women are paid more in showbiz than males due to fame.

I will say some PEOPLE get paid more than others. Claiming it is all gender based is an issue when lumping it with less pay for less hours makes it disingenuous.

Most people don't work in colleges and Sheehy case has very little bearing on the work of most people. It was wrong but an outlier in an unusual work place.

The gender pay gap issue is an attempt to make an argument of pay discrimination. People will look back at this and cringe at the obvious attempts to corrupt logic.

Gender pay gap is not discrimination it show freedoms of choice but it is actually hard for men to get job sharing that women can get. If you want equality campaign for it don't lie about it to get preferential treatment.

EXACTLY! I actually think Maternity benefit is massively sexist, why not offer it to men also, or if the government is paying be able to transfer it to the male partner.

In jobs that will pay women for 6 months, they will only offer men 2 weeks....hardly fair.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

aloneforever99 wrote: »

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

It all depends on experience. A teacher with 25 years' experience will earn nearly twice as much as a newly hired teacher, even if they're both doing the same job.

In our example, you're comparing the salary of 48-year-old Ní Bheoláin to that of a 59-year-old with significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. Of course they're not going to be the same.

Ri_Nollaig

aloneforever99 wrote: »

See this is it.

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

Then you point out a case where that's very clearly not the case, and people go into explanation mode as to why the pay gap - that didn't exist a minute ago - exists and is actually justified.

No, I think you failed to understand what was just explained. A "pay gap" exists here but has nothing to do with gender.

He had more experience then her, simple as. If a male news anchor was hired tomorrow, with 11 years less experience, would you be expecting them to be on the same wage as her? Honest question!

aloneforever99

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote: »

In our example, you're comparing the salary of 48-year-old Ní Bheoláin to that of a 59-year-old with significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. Of course they're not going to be the same.

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

Wanderer2010

Alondra Helpless Dream wrote: »

Dobson is 11 years older than Ní Bheoláin. He has significantly more broadcasting experience and a longer tenure at RTE. So he earns a higher salary. No surprises there.

She's still pulling in a very comfortable six-figure salary for reading the news on TV.

And to add, shes not even a great news reader. Stammering over her words and generally having the charisma of cardboard. She was brought in years ago for eye candy reasons.

doolox

The only one that is remotely talented and capable is Miriam O'Callaghan.
Sharon Ni Beoilan has a bad delivery and an unpleasant voice, always sounds strained or someone choking on something.
Keelan Shanley sounds too casual all the time no sense of urgency in her news reports.
Bring back Anne Doyle, Thelma Mansfield and definitely get rid of the former US correspondent Cathy Perry. She is my least favourite TV worker but at least held her composure in the presence of Donald Trump and his unscripted remarks when she was in the White House. I do not like her voice one little bit; too scratchy, whiny and shrill. She needs to take notes from Keelan Shanley in this regard in order to keep her voice in the lower registers where possible.

A similar phenomenon existed with Margaret Tatcher in the 80's when she was trained to lower her voice modulation when doing media and other public speaking engagements in order to avoid shrillness and convey better authority.
Her speaking voice, when not angry, improved over time as her experience and confidence grew.Also honourable mentions should be made of the two O'Seoige sisters who were good in the "Pleasant Voice to Listen to" stakes......

aloneforever99

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

And to add, shes not even a great news reader. Stammering over her words and generally having the charisma of cardboard. She was brought in years ago for eye candy reasons.

Definitely no sexism there.

Wanderer2010

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Definitely no sexism there.

Meaning? Of course women are chosen on looks in the entertainment industry. Even the most hardened snow flake can see that.

Silentcorner

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

No, it is illegal to pay someone less for doing the same job...but it is not illegal to pay someone who performs better in a job more than someone who doesn't...

aloneforever99

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

No, I think you failed to understand what was just explained. A "pay gap" exists here but has nothing to do with gender.

He had more experience then her, simple as. If a male news anchor was hired tomorrow, with 11 years less experience, would you be expecting them to be on the same wage as her? Honest question!

I expect someone with five years to be paid more than someone with one year, and I'd expect someone with 10 years to be paid more than someone with 5 years.

When two people have 20+ years experience and they are doing the same job and performing at the same level, I'd expect them to be paid roughly the same. And if there was a disparity I'd expect it to be in the 5-10% range, not at the level that was found there.

Hedgelayer

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Meaning? Of course women are chosen on looks in the entertainment industry. Even the most hardened snow flake can see that.

Never...

Women chosen for their looks and not brains.

That would be very unprofessional.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

Salary can be a function of qualifications, experience, job performance, the industry, the geographical region, and numerous other factors.

It's not especially easy to isolate gender as an explanatory factor. It's simplistic to say "Woman A makes less than Man B ... therefore SEXISM!"

The #1 reason why women earn less than men is that many women take time out of the workforce in their late 20s and 30s to have and raise children, and thus have significantly less work experience than their male peers once they reach their 40s.

uptherebels

aloneforever99 wrote: »

See this is it.

People say there's no pay gap, that it's a MYTH, that women who do the same work get the same pay.

Then you point out a case where that's very clearly not the case, and people go into explanation mode as to why the pay gap - that didn't exist a minute ago - exists and is actually justified.

The actual problem is that the examples that people use to show the existence of a gender pay gap hardly ever compare like with like.

You can't take a position where the pay is determined by a number of criteria and use it as an example of different pay for different genders for the same job, when the pay isn't determined by the job.

Ray Palmer

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Definitely no sexism there.

You would need to be crazy to not acknowledge her being good looking didn't improve her opportunity to present the news.
I think she if very professional and good at her job but looks were an influence. She could have probably got more work from RTE as a presenter but seems she is happy to be in the news.

uptherebels

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I expect someone with five years to be paid more than someone with one year, and I'd expect someone with 10 years to be paid more than someone with 5 years.

When two people have 20+ years experience and they are doing the same job and performing at the same level, I'd expect them to be paid roughly the same. And if there was a disparity I'd expect it to be in the 5-10% range, not at the level that was found there.

Except you leave out that alot of positions that require 20+ years experience would have a significant level of negotiation in salary, bonuses etc based on performance/reaching targets etc. So I would expect a much larger disparity in packages

Ri_Nollaig

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

You paraphrased it there
what was said was:

It is illegal to pay men and women in the same job doing equal work different rates of pay.

He was her senior in the role. So its not equal. This should not be a surprise and answer me this, would you have cared if the genders were reversed?

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I expect someone with five years to be paid
more than someone with one year, and I'd expect someone with 10 years to be paid more than someone with 5 years.

When two people have 20+ years experience and they are doing the same job and performing at the same level, I'd expect them to be paid roughly the same. And if there was a disparity I'd expect it to be in the 5-10% range, not at the level that was found there.

Doesn't matter what you expect the range difference to be, RTE decided what to pay them. Different industries have different rules, RTE's board which is exactly 50:50 by the way, would have decided this.

Not to mention, these more celebrity cases are clearly extreme examples, and you know this!

Amirani

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My point is that on the first page guys are saying "It's illegal to pay someone less for doing the same work."

That is obviously not the case.

I assume you believe that a football player playing in the Conference in England is doing the same work as a player playing in the Premier League?

Just because 2 people have the same occupation, doing similar activities, does not mean they're doing "the same work".

On the RTÉ example; Dobson was clearly the most established and renowned newsreader. He handled far more of the major headline stories and interviews.