Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[BORK]

Yes we know mothers are discriminated against in the course of their employment.

What is your point?

Childless women have it easy? Does this relate to some religious conviction that women should have the babbies and let the manfolk go out to work?

Would you like to explain how you could have had that thought.

My point is outlined in the second sentence of the post you quoted.

 

[Chief]

Would you like to explain how you could have had that thought.

My point is outlined in the second sentence of the post you quoted.

"It is known which gender is the majority carer a child's early years. There are stereotypes that employers may have on particular genders once they become parents. There will be some truth to the stereotype in practice but the problem emerges when people face undeserved discrimination because of those stereotypes."


And... ?

 

[Ruck Machine]

Question
Has anyone ever seen a woman being discriminated against or paid less for the same work?????

I my 10 year IT career I have never seen a women being discriminated against.

I have seen less competent women promoted before men and women paid more for the same work.

Also the conditions for women coming back from child-care and taking maternity leave have been nothing short of brilliant.

Am I alone in my experience?

 

[CM86]

Question
Has anyone ever seen a woman being discriminated against or paid less for the same work?????

I my 10 year IT career I have never seen a women being discriminated against.

I have seen less competent women promoted before men and women paid more for the same work.

Also the conditions for women coming back from child-care and taking maternity leave have been nothing short of brilliant.

Am I alone in my experience?

Perception plays a huge part.
it's very possible that you've never seen it.
But it's also possible that you just didn't notice it due to existing prejudice.


Can you give more details or information about the women (plural) who were paid more for the same work?

 

[BORK]

I really would like to see some research comparing women with children, women without children and men. I believe that most of the unexplained gap would be targeted toward women with children.
It is known which gender is the majority carer a child's early years. There are stereotypes that employers may have on particular genders once they become parents. There will be some truth to the stereotype in practice but the problem emerges when people face undeserved discrimination because of those stereotypes.

When a married man becomes a father the chances are the mothers income reduces and he may work harder to compensate for that and take his job more seriously because of the extra responsibilities in life. An employer perception of a father may be "this guy has mouths to feed and he will work his ass off for me".

Quite simply. When a man becomes a parent an employer may perceive him as being MORE dedicated to his job and/or more reliable because of the extra responsibilities in his life.

When a woman becomes a parent in most instances she will have time off work. When she returns to work she will more likely be the parent to take days off when the child is sick than the father would. Being a majority carer(in reality it is the mother more often than the father) she may require more flexible hours on average than a father would.

Quite simply. When a woman becomes a parent an employer may perceive her as being LESS dedicated to her job and/or less reliable because of the extra responsibilities in her life.


The reality of split of genders in caring for children creates a different perception among employers of the average father compared to the average mother and their reliability and performance in the workforce. This can result in undeserved discrimination against mothers in the course of their employment.

Childless women do not face the same unique barriers in the workforce as women with children.

In addition to the bolded this study was of interest.
http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/motherhoodpenalty.pdf

Some passages of interest included:

Is There a Motherhood Penalty? Ratings of mothers and nonmothers.—The first two columns of table 1 compare the ratings of female applicants who are mothers with those who are nonmothers. As predicted, mothers were judged as significantly less competent and committed than women without children. The competence ratings are approximately 10% lower for mothers than for nonmothers, and the commitment ratings are about 15% lower. Mothers were also held to harsher performance and punctuality standards. Mothers were allowed significantly fewer times of being late to work, and they needed a significantly higher score on the management exam than nonmothers before being considered hirable. Similarly, the evaluation measures show significant and substantial penalties for motherhood. The recommended starting salary for mothers was $11,000 (7.4%) less than that offered to nonmothers, a significant difference. Mothers were also rated as significantly less promotable and were less likely to be recommended for management.

And a portion about becoming a parent not impacting men in the same way and even having opposite effect as I hypothesized earlier.

Ratings of fathers and nonfathers.—The last two columns of table 1 compare the ratings of male applicants who are fathers with those who are nonfathers. Our theory predicted that fathers would not experience a fatherhood penalty, and our results are consistent with this prediction. In fact, fathers were actually advantaged on some of these measures. For example, applicants who were fathers were rated significantly more committed to their job than nonfathers.

A passage a little further down comparing childless women vs childless men.

Confirming our prediction, mothers are viewed as less competent than nonmothers. As shown in the left-hand column of table 2, the motherhood penalty interaction is significant and negative, indicating that being a parent lowers the competence ratings for women, but not men. The female applicant dummy variable is significant and positive, implying that women without children are rated as more competent than men without children. While this finding was not predicted, one can imagine several reasons why women without children might be ranked higher than men without children in this setting. Cultural constructions of gender often include beliefs that women want (or even “need”) children to feel fulfilled. As a result, participants may assume that women who have apparently forgone childbearing to enter the labor market are extraordinarily committed to work. In contrast, because men are not expected to “need” children, this information does not carry the same impact for men.

 

[Ruck Machine]

Perception plays a huge part.
it's very possible that you've never seen it.
But it's also possible that you just didn't notice it due to existing prejudice.

Can you give more details or information about the women (plural) who were paid more for the same work?

I think it is more possible that discrimination didn't exist.

Yes, I can give you some examples (hard without giving awy too much).

Example 1 - Myself vs Female X
- Started at same time, same department, same level of competence (both brilliant) - My pay 90k, her pay 99k

Example 2 - Myself vs Females (in my grad group)
My Starting Salary - 40k
Female Starting Salary - 44k

Note: This was at IBM who have won awards for encouragement of gender diversity.

Can you give me any examples of where you've seen discrimination?

 

[BORK]

"It is known which gender is the majority carer a child's early years. There are stereotypes that employers may have on particular genders once they become parents. There will be some truth to the stereotype in practice but the problem emerges when people face undeserved discrimination because of those stereotypes."


And... ?

Employers act in their perceived self interest. If mothers are more likely to be the majority carers of children then they are more likely to require time off when a child is sick and need more flexible hours. This can impact the perceptions of other mothers when compared to men and childless women. I have linked a study which demonstrated the differences in perceptions of mothers compared with childless women.

Is There a Motherhood Penalty? Ratings of mothers and nonmothers.—The first two columns of table 1 compare the ratings of female applicants who are mothers with those who are nonmothers. As predicted, mothers were judged as significantly less competent and committed than women without children. The competence ratings are approximately 10% lower for mothers than for nonmothers, and the commitment ratings are about 15% lower. Mothers were also held to harsher performance and punctuality standards. Mothers were allowed significantly fewer times of being late to work, and they needed a significantly higher score on the management exam than nonmothers before being considered hirable. Similarly, the evaluation measures show significant and substantial penalties for motherhood. The recommended starting salary for mothers was $11,000 (7.4%) less than that offered to nonmothers, a significant difference. Mothers were also rated as significantly less promotable and were less likely to be recommended for management.

http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/motherhoodpenalty.pdf

 

[Lebbo73]

I think it is more possible that discrimination didn't exist.

Yes, I can give you some examples (hard without giving awy too much).

Example 1 - Myself vs Female X
- Started at same time, same department, same level of competence (both brilliant) - My pay 90k, her pay 99k

Example 2 - Myself vs Females (in my grad group)
My Starting Salary - 40k
Female Starting Salary - 44k

Note: This was at IBM who have won awards for encouragement of gender diversity.

Can you give me any examples of where you've seen discrimination?

Yeah. You didn't notice it due to an existing prejudice!

 

[chelseacarlton]

May I ask what industry she is in? Do not have to answer.

Sorry BORK shes in wine sales management!

 

[CM86]

I think it is more possible that discrimination didn't exist.

But you must know that that just isn't true?

Yes, I can give you some examples (hard without giving awy too much).

Example 1 - Myself vs Female X
- Started at same time, same department, same level of competence (both brilliant) - My pay 90k, her pay 99k

Example 2 - Myself vs Females (in my grad group)
My Starting Salary - 40k
Female Starting Salary - 44k

Note: This was at IBM who have won awards for encouragement of gender diversity.

Can you give me any examples of where you've seen discrimination?

I'm sorry this is still very vague. Can you be more specific of these women that are paid more for doing the same work?
It could actually just be your perception rather than reality.

 

[CM86]

Yeah. You didn't notice it due to an existing prejudice!

OK, switch it around.
Would you say that if a man and a woman are working in the same profession for the same length of time, but the male is on $99k and the female is on $90k is definitive evidence of sexism in the workplace?

i.e. if men and women are working for the same amount of time in the same industry, if there is a disparity in their total income, it's down to sexism? Or do you believe there could be many other factors at play?

 

[Lebbo73]

OK, switch it around.
Would you say that if a man and a woman are working in the same profession for the same length of time, but the male is on $99k and the female is on $90k is definitive evidence of sexism in the workplace?

i.e. if men and women are working for the same amount of time in the same industry, if there is a disparity in their total income, it's down to sexism? Or do you believe there could be many other factors at play?

I have never seen a woman be paid less in any industry I have worked in. However, if there is a disparity in incomes when both sexes do the same amount of hours with the same experience, it is sexism unless one of the sexes is more productive or profitable for that employer.

 

[CM86]

I have never seen a woman be paid less in any industry I have worked in. However, if there is a disparity in incomes when both sexes do the same amount of hours with the same experience, it is sexism unless one of the sexes is more productive or profitable for that employer.

Feminist extremists would love you then.
Some of them like to ignore any other factor and just claim it's sexism.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n/news-story/77e835b1c8f946278f833f8351b06f50

The country’s top female chief executives were paid almost 40 per cent less than their male counterparts last year, according to data signifying the gender pay gap widens further up the corporate ladder.


Mr Liveris highlighted the case of Ms Lloyd-Hurwitz, whose salary package was almost $3m less than that of Lend Lease Group’s Steve McCann, despite their companies’ comparable market size.

Christine Holgate, who has led market darling Blackmores through its recent stellar performance, earned $1.53m last year, ranking her at 138 compared with the company’s market capitalisation ranking of 81.
​

Is this down to sexism in the workplace? Or can there be other factors involved?

 

[BORK]

Those oppressed 0.1 percenters.

 

[Lebbo73]

Feminist extremists would love you then.
Some of them like to ignore any other factor and just claim it's sexism.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n/news-story/77e835b1c8f946278f833f8351b06f50

The country’s top female chief executives were paid almost 40 per cent less than their male counterparts last year, according to data signifying the gender pay gap widens further up the corporate ladder.


Mr Liveris highlighted the case of Ms Lloyd-Hurwitz, whose salary package was almost $3m less than that of Lend Lease Group’s Steve McCann, despite their companies’ comparable market size.

Christine Holgate, who has led market darling Blackmores through its recent stellar performance, earned $1.53m last year, ranking her at 138 compared with the company’s market capitalisation ranking of 81.
​

Is this down to sexism in the workplace? Or can there be other factors involved?

Mirvac Group made $455m profit after tax for 2015. Lend Lease's profit was $619m.
Blackmores annual profit for 2015 was $46.6m after tax. What are you trying or failing to tell us?

 

[jatz14]

OK, switch it around.
Would you say that if a man and a woman are working in the same profession for the same length of time, but the male is on $99k and the female is on $90k is definitive evidence of sexism in the workplace?

i.e. if men and women are working for the same amount of time in the same industry, if there is a disparity in their total income, it's down to sexism? Or do you believe there could be many other factors at play?

To me this is an issue that confuses a lot of significant social issues. It is almost like it gets to a point of a presumption of bias, and stops there, like there is a fear that if the data is drilled into to much, the bias may disappear.

Better to have soft data that is an outrage, than hard data that isn't.

Of course, soft data doesn't lend itself to hard solutions.

A case in point is black deaths in custody, which is repeatedly presented as a racism in the prison issue. However 2 studies, 1 of them an independent UN study found the same thing, Aborigines in prison are no more likely to die in prison than non Aborigines are. The large numbers of deaths are due to over representation in prison. This over representation is itself portrayed as discrimination in the justice system, but is largely due to criminality rates, and this is due to social inequality.

So THE issue of race in Australia, massive social inequality, gets wrapped up in soft numbers and outrage, and pops out in an Australian version of black lives matter.

This is really important as energy and focus is directed at a symptom, and the cause is ignored.

Your example is the softest of soft data, and you can draw any conclusions you like from it.

She may be an outstanding and talented employee undervalued and belittled by her mediocre talentless Male colleagues. She could also be an idiot, who only has a job because she is screwing the boss, how could I know?

The same goes to the majority of the, 'here is a number, come up with a reason that suites', arguments presented here.

The professionals need a big detailed, drill into the data study that says, here is the difference, here is the context, and here is the cause(s). This is what we need to do. Hasn't really happened yet. Will not be meaningful change until they do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[CM86]

To me this is an issue that confuses a lot of significant social issues. It is almost like it gets to a point of a presumption of bias, and stops there, like there is a fear that if the data is drilled into to much, the bias may disappear.

Better to have soft data that is an outrage, than hard data that isn't.

Of course, soft data doesn't lend itself to hard solutions.

A case in point is black deaths in custody, which is repeatedly presented as a racism in the prison issue. However 2 studies, 1 of them an independent UN study found the same thing, Aborigines in prison are no more likely to die in prison than non Aborigines are. The large numbers of deaths are due to over representation in prison. This over representation is itself portrayed as discrimination in the justice system, but is largely due to criminality rates, and this is due to social inequality.

So THE issue of race in Australia, massive social inequality, gets wrapped up in soft numbers and outrage, and pops out in an Australian version of black lives matter.

This is really important as energy and focus is directed at a symptom, and the cause is ignored.

Your example is the softest of soft data, and you can draw any conclusions you like from it.

She may be an outstanding and talented employee undervalued and belittled by her mediocre talentless Male colleagues. She could also be an idiot, who only has a job because she is screwing the boss, how could I know?

The same goes to the majority of the, 'here is a number, come up with a reason that suites', arguments presented here.

The professionals need a big detailed, drill into the data study that says, here is the difference, here is the context, and here is the cause(s). This is what we need to do. Hasn't really happened yet. Will not be meaningful change until they do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Just to clarify, I was using it as an example of how it is a complex issue.
Ruck machine said that he has worked the same amount of time as a female, and that the female is on $9k more per year than him.
My point was that we need more details than that.

I'm actually saying that we do need more information and data, and the reason it isn't forthcoming, is because it will reveal that there are reasons for it. Rather than just labeling it as sexism.

Mirvac Group made $455m profit after tax for 2015. Lend Lease's profit was $619m.
Blackmores annual profit for 2015 was $46.6m after tax. What are you trying or failing to tell us?

That I would like more information from Ruck machine.
Whereas you have accepted it as is.

I appreciate that you looked deeper into trying to disprove and explain the reason for the disparity for the example I linked to.
I am using it to show why I would like more information from Ruck machine.

Hope this has cleared things up for you.

 

[Ruck Machine]

I'm sorry this is still very vague. Can you be more specific of these women that are paid more for doing the same work?

Care to comment on my 2nd example of the 4K difference between starting salary?

Without going into too much more detail about example 1 we had an identical ratings record at year 5 (2 X rating 1, 2 X rating 2+ and 1 X rating 2) and we were in the same role (however I had more team leadership experience)

 

[CM86]

Care to comment on my 2nd example of the 4K difference between starting salary?

Without going into too much more detail about example 1 we had an identical ratings record at year 5 (2 X rating 1, 2 X rating 2+ and 1 X rating 2) and we were in the same role (however I had more team leadership experience)

I don't suppose you can provide any evidence to verify your claims?

Example 1 or 2, it doesn't matter. I just took the first one to try and find out if it is your perception or if it is reality.

You've not really gone into any detail. You stated that women you graduated with started on 4k more.
Same job? Same business? Everything the same? Nothing was different?

Example one, you have the exact same job as a woman, you have more team leadership experience, but she is on $9k more.
Can you elaborate on this ratings record and what it means?
Did you both negotiate for your pay, or is it a set salary?
Did you take time off to give birth? Did you take time off to raise your kids?

 

[Ruck Machine]

I don't suppose you can provide any evidence to verify your claims?

Example 1 or 2, it doesn't matter. I just took the first one to try and find out if it is your perception or if it is reality.

You've not really gone into any detail. You stated that women you graduated with started on 4k more.
Same job? Same business? Everything the same? Nothing was different?

Example one, you have the exact same job as a woman, you have more team leadership experience, but she is on $9k more.
Can you elaborate on this ratings record and what it means?
Did you both negotiate for your pay, or is it a set salary?
Did you take time off to give birth? Did you take time off to raise your kids?

Graduates = Same job. Same business. Everything the same.

Pay rises and bonuses based on rating scores. Every employee scored on a scale 1, 2+, 3 and 4. The higher the rating the bigger the bonus/pay rise. Rating 1 = Top 10%, Rating 2+ = Next 20%, Rating 2 = Next 40%, Rating 3 = Next 20% (on probation), Rating 4 = Bottom 10% (out the door).

Pay was techically negotiable but in practices wages were set.

Not time off for either of us.

Obviously not all things were exactly the same but as similar as I've seen 2 work histories.

 

[CM86]

Graduates = Same job. Same business. Everything the same.

Pay rises and bonuses based on rating scores. Every employee scored on a scale 1, 2+, 3 and 4. The higher the rating the bigger the bonus/pay rise. Rating 1 = Top 10%, Rating 2+ = Next 20%, Rating 2 = Next 40%, Rating 3 = Next 20% (on probation), Rating 4 = Bottom 10% (out the door).

Pay was techically negotiable but in practices wages were set.

Not time off for either of us.

Obviously not all things were exactly the same but as similar as I've seen 2 work histories.

And your ratings have been identical every year you have worked together?

What things aren't exactly the same?

What do you mean technically negotiable? Did you negotiate? Did she negotiate?

 

[Ruck Machine]

And your ratings have been identical every year you have worked together?

What things aren't exactly the same?

What do you mean technically negotiable? Did you negotiate? Did she negotiate?

I noticed how you have ignored my earlier question about providing examples of where you have witnessed wage discrimination in the work place.

Your turn.

 

[Ruck Machine]

And your ratings have been identical every year you have worked together?

What things aren't exactly the same?

What do you mean technically negotiable? Did you negotiate? Did she negotiate?

Also I like how you once again have ignored the graduate starting wage disparity.

 

[medusala]

Now - 10% or so was the info i had at Uni a few years ago.

Lucky you, i got fed far worse lies than that at uni

#magicpudding

 

[Chief]

Lucky you, i got fed far worse lies than that at uni

#magicpudding

If you ever went.