Salary inequalities

[SocketRocket]

Where you are going wrong, is to keep making the assumption that the gender pay gap is simply about women not getting 'same pay for same job/responsibility'. That's not the issue - at least not the sole issue. While folk keep thinking it is the (sole) issue, the gap will persist

I promised myself I'd not get drawn into this thread as I think a forum - especially this forum - is not a useful place to discuss complex issues of this type. Plenty of other threads have shown why. But Amanda and others have already suggest how and where to look. The news & media regularly highlight it. The pay gap is not hard to see - if you want to see it.

And on that note, here ends my involvement in this thread. (Sorry girls - too easy for me to duck out but here's not the place).

I don't keep assuming anything as I've only asked the question once.

I've read suggestions here that we should look at median salaries of men and women, that will have a myriad of complex factors making up the result so is a bad method to determine inequality in pay.

I would like to see someone show clear facts of major employers paying women less than men for the same job and conditions.

 

[rudebhoy]

I don't keep assuming anything as I've only asked the question once.

I've read suggestions here that we should look at median salaries of men and women, that will have a myriad of complex factors making up the result so is a bad method to determine inequality in pay.

I would like to see someone show clear facts of major employers paying women less than men for the same job and conditions.

Is the ONS not a reliable enough source for you?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Just heard a comment on television that for every pound a man earns women earn 58p. I think every single job I've ever had had fixed salary bands regardless of sex. Can anyone provide any examples of professions where woman earn less? I'm genuinely curious.

Likewise, it's from higher up boardroom levels that women get screwed.

From my perspective I'm currently in a job getting equal pay to my opposite number who is absolutely shite at her job. Is that fair?

 

[BiMGuy]

Likewise, it's from higher up boardroom levels that women get screwed.

From my perspective I'm currently in a job getting equal pay to my opposite number who is absolutely shite at her job. Is that fair?

No, but the fact it’s a woman is irrelevant.

 

[PNWokingham]

My last 2 employers were large multinationals where disclosing your salary was a disciplinary offence. However I was involved in salary decisions on an annual basis, so had sight of what everyone who worked for me was paid. I did this for 15 years, must have had 200-odd folk working for me over that period, and it was noticeable that women were routinely paid 20%-30% less than men doing the same job.

A lot of this came from their starting salary, there was an obvious bias at play year after year when it came to recruitment.

So you managed over 200 men and women and facilitated gender pay inequality?

 

[theoneandonly]

Is the ONS not a reliable enough source for you?

He wants it on the side of a bus :⁠,⁠-⁠)

 

[Swango1980]

Is the ONS not a reliable enough source for you?

SocketRocket asked: "I would like to see someone show clear facts of major employers paying women less than men for the same job and conditions."

That was a specific question, that is related to the gender pay gap. But, it is not the sole reason for it, and maybe not even a major reason in today's world (at least for those starting out their careers). The ONS data, posted by LiverpoolPhil was not answering this specific question. It was looking at the overall difference in the pay between men and women, not the difference between men and women doing exactly the same job.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

No, but the fact it’s a woman is irrelevant.

In this case it actually isn't.

She used to be paid less than I was, we got offered a derisory pay increase about 3 years ago, I argued my (our) jobs had changed and got an increase based on that. My colleague who was happy with the initial 0.5% (cos she's a moron) also got a pay rise, a massive one to take us level. If she'd been a bloke, I doubt that would have been the case.

 

[SocketRocket]

Is the ONS not a reliable enough source for you?

My point is the data they produced showed a median wage, they then made a suggestion that this was evidence showing women were lower paid than men. A Median rate doesn't give a meaningful comparison for a myriad of reasons.

I wanted some clear data showing where in a major industry women were paid less than men doing the same job. Its no good someone saying 'just Google it' I tried that but can find anything.

 

[rudebhoy]

So you managed over 200 men and women and facilitated gender pay inequality?

Over 15 years I reckon I would have managed around 200 folk. Largest team was 50, 20-30 was the norm.

I was given an overall budget for bonuses and pay rises, I allocated it purely on performance, regardless of gender. It wasn’t perfect as budgets were always limited.

 

[PNWokingham]

Over 15 years I reckon I would have managed around 200 folk. Largest team was 50, 20-30 was the norm.

I was given an overall budget for bonuses and pay rises, I allocated it purely on performance, regardless of gender. It wasn’t perfect as budgets were always limited.

so if you allocated it purely on performance are you saying that the men warranted 20% to 30% more, as per your last post " it was noticeable that women were routinely paid 20%-30% less than men doing the same"? job. Confused here?

 

[rudebhoy]

My point is the data they produced showed a median wage, they then made a suggestion that this was evidence showing women were lower paid than men. A Median rate doesn't give a meaningful comparison for a myriad of reasons.

I wanted some clear data showing where in a major industry women were paid less than men doing the same job. Its no good someone saying 'just Google it' I tried that but can find anything.

There were some high profile cases recently with Asda and some local authorities.

Discriminating because of gender is illegal, but in a lot of industries it is difficult to produce the level of proof required to support a court case or employment tribunal. It’s not as simple as men being paid x and women being paid y, some men will be paid more than others, same with women. But female pay is generally lower than for men.

 

[Swango1980]

Over 15 years I reckon I would have managed around 200 folk. Largest team was 50, 20-30 was the norm.

I was given an overall budget for bonuses and pay rises, I allocated it purely on performance, regardless of gender. It wasn’t perfect as budgets were always limited.

I'm a little confused in what you are saying. I believe the point you were trying to make was that women get paid less than men for doing exactly the same job? But, you also say you were responsible for bonuses and pay rises. So, you were in charge of salaries? So, if those companies paid more to males over women, then that would be on you?

However, you then clarified that you allocated bonuses and pay rises purely on performance, not gender. Therefore, that would suggest there is no bias in paying men more at those companies? So, the only reason men would get paid more than women for doing the same job is:

• Men performed better than women
• The companies only initially recruited men (or favoured men) for the higher paid positions in those companies (which, of course, would mean that men and women are not actually doing the same job)

 

[rudebhoy]

so if you allocated it purely on performance are you saying that the men warranted 20% to 30% more, as per your last post " it was noticeable that women were routinely paid 20%-30% less than men doing the same"? job. Confused here?

You’re not confused, you’re just at it as usual.

 

[funkycoldmedina]

You’re not confused, you’re just at it as usual.

Genuine question on this. Were pay rises purely based on quantitative analysis or was there a degree of subjectivity? If the latter could unconscious bias potentially be a factor? I don't think these things are done on purpose but you can see how the drift can happen

 

[PNWokingham]

You’re not confused, you’re just at it as usual.

You have said 2 things. 1. You awarded pay and bonuses based on performance; 2. The woman you you were in charge of earned 20%+ less than the men??

 

[rudebhoy]

I'm a little confused in what you are saying. I believe the point you were trying to make was that women get paid less than men for doing exactly the same job? But, you also say you were responsible for bonuses and pay rises. So, you were in charge of salaries? So, if those companies paid more to males over women, then that would be on you?

However, you then clarified that you allocated bonuses and pay rises purely on performance, not gender. Therefore, that would suggest there is no bias in paying men more at those companies? So, the only reason men would get paid more than women for doing the same job is:

• Men performed better than women
• The companies only initially recruited men (or favoured men) for the higher paid positions in those companies (which, of course, would mean that men and women are not actually doing the same job)

I didn’t set their starting salaries, which is a key factor. I managed projects which by their nature had transient teams. It wouldn’t be unusual for someone with 10 years service to have had 7 or 8 line managers over that timeframe, each would have been responsible for their pay at some point in time.

I tried to allocate pay rises and bonuses purely on performance. If I had a woman and a man performing at the same level, I would try to allocate what I had as fairly as possible.

 

[Swango1980]

Genuine question on this. Were pay rises purely based on quantitative analysis or was there a degree of subjectivity? If the latter could unconscious bias potentially be a factor? I don't think these things are done on purpose but you can see how the drift can happen

Indeed. And, what direction could that bias go in? Would the bias be any different today compared to, say, in 1960?

 

[rudebhoy]

Genuine question on this. Were pay rises purely based on quantitative analysis or was there a degree of subjectivity? If the latter could unconscious bias potentially be a factor? I don't think these things are done on purpose but you can see how the drift can happen

Honest answer is a bit of both and I totally agree that unconscious bias would have been a factor for some managers.

There was also a fair amount of lad culture in some project teams.

 

[Swango1980]

I didn’t set their starting salaries, which is a key factor. I managed projects which by their nature had transient teams. It wouldn’t be unusual for someone with 10 years service to have had 7 or 8 line managers over that timeframe, each would have been responsible for their pay at some point in time.

I tried to allocate pay rises and bonuses purely on performance. If I had a woman and a man performing at the same level, I would try to allocate what I had as fairly as possible.

Could you have set pay rises so that the rises would be higher for women than men, thus getting them on the same salary? After all, if they are doing exactly the same job, would pay rises not be better set to try and get them the same wage, rather than giving them the same pay rise, but on different base salaries?

Also, did you have any influence in those above you? For example, as a manager, did you not question why female employees were starting on lower salaries than male employees, given that they were doing exactly the same thing? It sounds like you were in a position to try and influence those above? And, I assume you were not the only one seeing these figures, and so it would have been good to see someone, at some point, challenge this practice. Given that it seems pretty blatant, the way you describe.