As far as I know, Pay Inequality isn't nearly this bad in the U.S. Yes, there is a slight difference, and women do get the short end of the stick, but it isn't that much to start a nation wide movement.
Plus, the inequality becomes more apparent with the more you get paid. If you have a simple job that pays minimum wage, no one will ever notice because the pay is the same. But, if you are, say, a doctor in a special field of medicine, then you will likely see a difference in the pay.
I'd say, in the U.S., it's less of a problem of sex then it is race. A Caucasian male will not only get paid far more then an African American male, he will have a far easier time at finding a suitable career.
Plus, the inequality becomes more apparent with the more you get paid. If you have a simple job that pays minimum wage, no one will ever notice because the pay is the same. But, if you are, say, a doctor in a special field of medicine, then you will likely see a difference in the pay.
I'd say, in the U.S., it's less of a problem of sex then it is race. A Caucasian male will not only get paid far more then an African American male, he will have a far easier time at finding a suitable career.
Thank you to Emikadon for this sig!
Electro522 wrote:
As far as I know, Pay Inequality isn't nearly this bad in the U.S.
I know this is only Wiki, but apparently the gender pay gap in America is higher than in Australia by a few percent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
~19% in America
~17.5% in Australia
jhoijhoi wrote:
I know this is only Wiki, but apparently the gender pay gap in America is higher than in Australia by a few percent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
~19% in America
~17.5% in Australia
~19% in America
~17.5% in Australia
I just wanna point out that that's likely across the board, a pretty unfair way of comparing things.
Should one make a comparison it should be in a line of work where muscle isn't a big factor (sexual dimorphism in humanity give males more muscle). And then one needs to consider the fact that females can get pregnant, and pregnancy is a pretty huge negative for an employer.
That being said, the pay gap is most definitely too big. Even considering differences in muscle and pregnancy the difference should not exceed 10%.
Let's take teaching as an example since that is what you do. Teaching in general should have less than 10% difference in pay, seeing as muscle holds very little importance in that line of work (phys ed is an entirely different thing which I will ignore for now).
The reason I would allow a difference in pay is solely on the basis that pregnancy is a pain in the *** for an employer. But I feel like there could be a way of solving this problem.
Like, say, a contract between the employer and employee, stating that the employee cannot get pregnant during the next X years she works there, and for this she will receive equal pay to the men. That seems fair to me.
Thoughts?
"I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m ****ing ******ed but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache†and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding." - Guuse
"uh, I identify as counterstrike and I find this globally offensive" - ???
"uh, I identify as counterstrike and I find this globally offensive" - ???
^Well, in terms of the pregnancy thing, it works both ways. The father asking for paternity leave is often seen as "soft"; if he does successfully get it (it's illegal to deny paternity leave here in Oz), he returns back to work and is seen positively as a father, more capable of many things (responsibility, bread winner, masculine).
However, if a women gets pregnant and takes maternity leave for however long and comes back - she is seen as less capable and is often not considered at all for promotions due to the fact that she has a young child at home.
Your idea doesn't really have merit. The problem doesn't exist in the fact that a women gets pregnant and has to leave. The problem is that the employer doesn't consider the woman to be of equal value of a man after pregnancy. Once a woman gets pregnant and goes on maternity leave, she is immediately devalued - she doesn't gain any sort of credibility for having children. Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination. Also, what happens if she falls pregnant during the contract due to any sort of reason (rape etc)? Is her contract terminated? Why can a man be employed without signing the same contract? Why is the woman being punished for an act that takes two?
Edited to add:
And this cycle is cruel and perpetual. Families that are successful are often those wherein the women becomes a stay at home mother, allowing the father to work full time and earn substantially more than a family where the mother attempts to work full time. This isn't always the case, but when presented with the fact that women simply don't get promoted or paid as much as men, it seems easier not to try.
However, if a women gets pregnant and takes maternity leave for however long and comes back - she is seen as less capable and is often not considered at all for promotions due to the fact that she has a young child at home.
Your idea doesn't really have merit. The problem doesn't exist in the fact that a women gets pregnant and has to leave. The problem is that the employer doesn't consider the woman to be of equal value of a man after pregnancy. Once a woman gets pregnant and goes on maternity leave, she is immediately devalued - she doesn't gain any sort of credibility for having children. Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination. Also, what happens if she falls pregnant during the contract due to any sort of reason (rape etc)? Is her contract terminated? Why can a man be employed without signing the same contract? Why is the woman being punished for an act that takes two?
Edited to add:
And this cycle is cruel and perpetual. Families that are successful are often those wherein the women becomes a stay at home mother, allowing the father to work full time and earn substantially more than a family where the mother attempts to work full time. This isn't always the case, but when presented with the fact that women simply don't get promoted or paid as much as men, it seems easier not to try.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Well, in terms of the pregnancy thing, it works both ways.
Why can a man be employed without signing the same contract?
Why can a man be employed without signing the same contract?
It obviously goes both ways. I think the same contract would be fair for a man to sign as well. In terms of pregnancy if he was physically able to be pregnant, but more commonly for normal males: not in terms of pregnancy, but instead in terms of whether he will take a maternity leave or not. Because normal males aren't really physically unable to work the same way women are when a pregnancy occurs(toward the later parts ofc).
Quoted:
However, if a women gets pregnant and takes maternity leave for however long and comes back - she is seen as less capable and is often not considered at all for promotions due to the fact that she has a young child at home.
The problem doesn't exist in the fact that a women gets pregnant and has to leave. The problem is that the employer doesn't consider the woman to be of equal value of a man after pregnancy.
Once a woman gets pregnant and goes on maternity leave, she is immediately devalued - she doesn't gain any sort of credibility for having children.
The problem doesn't exist in the fact that a women gets pregnant and has to leave. The problem is that the employer doesn't consider the woman to be of equal value of a man after pregnancy.
Once a woman gets pregnant and goes on maternity leave, she is immediately devalued - she doesn't gain any sort of credibility for having children.
And you're stating this on what basis? Personal experience? And even then it's simply an extrapolation.
I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to do better than that if you wanna hold a real discussion..
Quoted:
Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination.
Why would it be? If it interferes with a persons work then anything is fair game for the employer. It is after all the employer that is giving her money to work, if said work cannot be fulfilled I think it would be rather stupid not to consider that.
Quoted:
Also, what happens if she falls pregnant during the contract due to any sort of reason (rape etc)? Is her contract terminated?
There's this pretty convenient thing called contraception(after-the-fact).
The terms will be part of the contract itself, but generally the contract would obviously be terminated if the person gets pregnant.
Yeah, let's be progressive here: if the person gets pregnant, no matter the gender or perceived gender identity.
"I walked up to her big butt and asked her *** butt what." - Lil Wayne, lyrical genius
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
Searz wrote:
Because normal males aren't really physically unable to work the same way women are when a pregnancy occurs(toward the later parts ofc).
But like I said, it's not that the woman becomes pregnant that is the problem, it's that when she returns to the work force she is automatically discriminated against in the sense that employers ALWAYS see the fact that she's a mother first above anything else she's done. Whereas a man who becomes a father is a worker first before a dad.
Searz wrote:
And you're stating this on what basis? Personal experience? And even then it's simply an extrapolation. I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to do better than that if you wanna hold a real discussion.
https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04_PP_different_genders_different_lives.pdf
^
jhoijhoi wrote:
Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination.
Searz wrote:
Why would it be? If it interferes with a persons work then anything is fair game for the employer. It is after all the employer that is giving her money to work, if said work cannot be fulfilled I think it would be rather stupid not to consider that.
Lol, that's my point, it's discrimination. You can't just choose not to hire someone because maybe they'd get pregnant. Just like you can't choose to not hire a disabled person because their "disability will interfere with their work". That's discriminatory. I don't make the rules, that's just how they stand; you can be sued for defending your employee choices with "their fat would interfere with work" or "his skin colour doesn't match our decor".
Searz wrote:
There's this pretty convenient thing called contraception(after-the-fact).
Mmm, so what about people who can't take the morning after pill because it is against their religious beliefs to terminate a pregnancy? Again, asking an employee to terminate their child as it is violating their contract is discrimination.
<Editor>
Show more awards
jhoijhoi wrote:
But like I said, it's not that the woman becomes pregnant that is the problem, it's that when she returns to the work force she is automatically discriminated against in the sense that employers ALWAYS see the fact that she's a mother first above anything else she's done. Whereas a man who becomes a father is a worker first before a dad.
I presume this has happened to you, or are you just basing it off what you've read about?
London is one hour ahead of the rest of England -Luther3000
You need to log in before commenting.
Claiming to be formulated "using a potent combination of old wives' tales to help CEOs conceive baby girls," Daughter Water is the brainchild of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, and is actually the result of research which shows that pay disparity within organisations begins to shrink when the boss has a daughter.
While this particular research has enabled the agency to develop and roll out this innovative and quirky campaign, the deeper message behind it remains the same: the disparity between what Australian men and women get paid is higher than ever, and it needs to be recognised.
"It's a humorous way of attracting attention and ironically highlighting 'equal pay is in your hands' while raising further awareness," says Yolanda Beattie, Public Affairs Executive Manager at WGEA.
"Discussions about pay can be confronting and challenging, so what we wanted to do was to make the conversations as positive and disarming as possible. We built the campaign into something with humour, with the insight that we needed more CEOs connecting to the issue of pay and equality."
Beattie explains that research has indicated that a lot of CEOs admit that having a daughter was a defining moment of change for them in how they viewed these kinds of issues. It was this connection that fuelled the 'daughter water' campaign.
"All of a sudden, they see their sons and daughters and want them to have the same opportunities as each other, but realise they don't have that in Australia," she says. "That's when they get the head and heart connection necessary to start being able to intervene."
And it would appear that intervention is needed, as reflected in the most recent figures released by the WGEA. Almost three quarters of Australian employers haven't taken steps to ensure that they are paying men and women equally, while 73.7 per cent of organisations have never done a pay analysis. Less than one in five have conducted a gender pay analysis in the last 12 months.
Here is where the problem lies: while most organisations believe they are paying awards or 'market rates' across the board, discrepancies are still creeping into pay rates. Without a gender pay analysis, this will continue to happen.
"We know that gender bias exists. In fact, we currently have 32 CEO ambassadors who are standing up saying 'this is real' – but without conducting gender pay analysis, organisations can continue to overlook this, as some simply just don't know," explains Beattie. "We very often find that the differences can creep in when scales and ranges of pay are at a manager's discretion, and it is highly unusual that any company has a pay scale or range without discretions."
Beattie explains that by conducting the analysis, employers will be able to detect where there might be bias, and further investigate how women and men are being assessed and subsequently paid in the workplace.
But the aim of the campaign doesn't just serve to raise awareness amongst employers; it's also aimed at employees, with a dedicated webpage, inyourhands.org.au, offering tools and resources, Beattie explains.
"We want employees to be able to see if their organisation has undertaken a gender pay analysis, as well as offer them guidance on how they can approach their employers about pay and how they can negotiate," she says.
Whether or not the campaign will have the desired outcome remains to be seen, but so far the feedback has been positive. "We've been trending on Twitter and had thousands of hits on our video already," Beattie says.
Regardless of anything else, it certainly appears that Daughter Water has is giving people something to talk about at the water cooler.
- As I'm teaching Business with my current contract, one of my classes is actually learning about Australia's pay system and employee rights/obligations. I'll be talking to them about gender pay inequality. Thought this was interesting, anyway ^^
Not sure if this issue exists in other parts of the world - do you have any stories?
Edited to remove quote function. Text in quotes is UGLY.
Interesting scenario comparison: https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04_PP_different_genders_different_lives.pdf