Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[Toump Ass]

Just browsing through this thread and this comment caught my attention. Why do you mean by this? In what ways could senior positions be made more flexible that could be beneficial for women?

The company I work at is super flexible: working from home is expected at least a couple of days a week, which is brilliant for anyone who has a family. This helps women as they are often the primary carers for kids. If this was adopted across more workplaces- and I assume many are moving this way already- then perhaps it could limit the amount of women who are missing out on senior management roles where women are under represented; even at lower management levels it means women could stay engaged in the workforce while caring so they don't miss out on "experience" which is often suggested as a barrier for women obtaining senior roles.

 

[fleabitten]

The company I work at is super flexible: working from home is expected at least a couple of days a week, which is brilliant for anyone who has a family. This helps women as they are often the primary carers for kids. If this was adopted across more workplaces- and I assume many are moving this way already- then perhaps it could limit the amount of women who are missing out on senior management roles where women are under represented; even at lower management levels it means women could stay engaged in the workforce while caring so they don't miss out on "experience" which is often suggested as a barrier for women obtaining senior roles.

It's fine to stay engaged in the workforce in some way, but there's no way you can be an effective full-time employee from home while also serving as the primary carer for children unless you either neglect your job or neglect your kids. Once you make that decision to have a family and be a primary carer for even a short period of time, you're putting yourself at a career disadvantage. No-one is forcing anyone to do that though. For the majority of working women, they have jobs rather than careers and it makes sense for the parent who gets pregnant and gives birth to take time out while the parent who doesn't keeps paying the rent and the bills.

 

[Toump Ass]

It's fine to stay engaged in the workforce in some way, but there's no way you can be an effective full-time employee from home while also serving as the primary carer for children unless you either neglect your job or neglect your kids. Once you make that decision to have a family and be a primary carer for even a short period of time, you're putting yourself at a career disadvantage.

Disagree entirely.

No-one is forcing anyone to do that though.

Debatable. It's the social norm for one thing, there's definitely pressure for women to be the primary caregiver.

It makes sense for the parent who gets pregnant and gives birth to take time out while the parent who doesn't keeps paying the rent and the bills.

It makes sense that the parent who gets pregnant is not disadvantaged with career opportunities later in life because they got pregnant and had to give birth.

If you think about the 5 women closest to you, how many fit that description? I'm at 0/5.

Does this include yelling at my mum if she doesn't clean my room?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Just browsing through this thread and this comment caught my attention. Why do you mean by this? In what ways could senior positions be made more flexible that could be beneficial for women?

Part time or job share.

 

[CatFan79]

If this was adopted across more workplaces- and I assume many are moving this way already- then perhaps it could limit the amount of women who are missing out on senior management roles where women are under represented;

You clearly have no idea what senior management positions require in most organisations. It's not flexible, it's high pressure, high responsibility, high stress and long hours. Most people would consider it a s**t life and not worth the money.

But you're only thinking about your precious pay gap aren't you.

So not only do you expect women looking after young kids (which is already close to a full time job if under 5) but you expect they can be senior managers at the same time?

No wonder women are more unhappy now than they have been in the past 60 years, it's people like you telling them they need to be a CEO and a mother of 3.

How ironic.

 

[fleabitten]

Disagree entirely.

With which bit? The bit about it not being possible to be an effective full-time employee from home while also being a primary carer for a small child? Anyone who thinks that is even close to possible is either a rubbish employee or a terrible parent.

Debatable. It's the social norm for one thing, there's definitely pressure for women to be the primary caregiver.

It makes sense that the parent who gets pregnant is not disadvantaged with career opportunities later in life because they got pregnant and had to give birth.

So instead, disadvantage the people who didn't leave the work force? It's arguments like these that make it clear that modern feminism is for entitled middle class brats.

 

[Toump Ass]

With which bit? The bit about it not being possible to be an effective full-time employee from home while also being a primary carer for a small child? Anyone who thinks that is even close to possible is either a rubbish employee or a terrible parent.

I would argue that if you can't multi-task you're likely a rubbish employee or a terrible parent.

So instead, disadvantage the people who didn't leave the work force? It's arguments like these that make it clear that modern feminism is for entitled middle class brats.

You're putting words into my mouth to suit your own tired crap.

You clearly have no idea what senior management positions require in most organisations. It's not flexible, it's high pressure, high responsibility, high stress and long hours. Most people would consider it a s**t life and not worth the money.

So in other words, you don't think a mother is capable of a difficult job. Amazeballs New Zealand hasn't descended into anarchy yet, isn't it?

So not only do you expect women looking after young kids (which is already close to a full time job if under 5) but you expect they can be senior managers at the same time?

No wonder women are more unhappy now than they have been in the past 60 years, it's people like you telling them they need to be a CEO and a mother of 3.

How ironic.

Your posts are hard to read with all the whining. See a doctor.

 

[its free real estate]

I would argue that if you can't multi-task you're likely a rubbish employee or a terrible parent.

Do you have children?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

So in other words, you don't think a mother is capable of a difficult job. Amazeballs New Zealand hasn't descended into anarchy yet, isn't it?

She may be the Prime Minister of New Zealand but she still is only a public servant. There is a massive difference between the public service and the private sector. She also has a stay at home husband and also a nanny.

 

[Toump Ass]

Do you have children?

As I said before, I work in a company where I and other staff are given allowances to perform our roles: flexible office hours, working from home, skype meetings/slack hookups, sharing responsibilities. It works. We're not the only company to take a progressive approach to office time.

 

[Toump Ass]

She may be the Prime Minister of New Zealand but she still is only a public servant. There is a massive difference between the public service and the private sector. She also has a stay at home husband and also a nanny.

Point still stands.

In any case, the average age of a CEO is what, 50? 60? We need get women there in the first place.

 

[its free real estate]

As I said before, I work in a company where I and other staff are given allowances to perform our roles: flexible office hours, working from home, skype meetings/slack hookups, sharing responsibilities. It works. We're not the only company to take a progressive approach to office time.

That's nice. Has nothing to do with my question. Do you have children?

 

[Gough]

That's nice. Has nothing to do with my question. Do you have children?

Is this your version of "as a mother" where you imply that having unprotected sex gives you some sort of unique insight.

 

[its free real estate]

Is this your version of "as a mother" where you imply that having unprotected sex gives you some sort of unique insight.

This is amusing from one of the most self indulgent posters on here. Tell us again how you tuned dudes while fighting apartheid.

 

[CatFan79]

So in other words, you don't think a mother is capable of a difficult job. Amazeballs New Zealand hasn't descended into anarchy yet, isn't it?

Yeah, that's what I said.

Your posts are hard to read with all the whining. See a doctor.

This false feminist narrative has saturated your brain to the point you're no longer thinking logically. Good luck with that and with your pursuit in trying to make women even less happy than they already are.

 

[owen87]

Companies paying women's super while they're off having kids would be beneficial, as would more flexibility in senior management roles so women can look after little people & do their (unfair) share of domestic stuff.

Just coming back to this; expectations of senior management is not really a gendered issue.

As a society we expect more hours worked must therefore equal more work done, and more success (and pay). High level roles could be more flexible, but it would take a significant shift in the expectations of society as to the role of work in our lives. It also neglects that if one person is wanting flexible arrangements, and another is willing to do whatever the company wants them to do, then that gives the latter a significant advantage in their likelihood of gaining the role.

That inflexible work arrangements happens to generally suit (some) men, is not in and of itself a gender bias.

For Super; why should an employer pay someone for a private decision that disadvantages (in terms of employee availability) the company that employs them? I much prefer the option that 'encourages' fathers to also take paternity leave, in terms of trying to spread the 'risk' of being a parent equally to either gender.

 

[perthblue]

Just coming back to this; expectations of senior management is not really a gendered issue.

As a society we expect more hours worked must therefore equal more work done, and more success (and pay). High level roles could be more flexible, but it would take a significant shift in the expectations of society as to the role of work in our lives. It also neglects that if one person is wanting flexible arrangements, and another is willing to do whatever the company wants them to do, then that gives the latter a significant advantage in their likelihood of gaining the role.

That inflexible work arrangements happens to generally suit (some) men, is not in and of itself a gender bias.

For Super; why should an employer pay someone for a private decision that disadvantages (in terms of employee availability) the company that employs them? I much prefer the option that 'encourages' fathers to also take paternity leave, in terms of trying to spread the 'risk' of being a parent equally to either gender.

agree with this and I find it odd that anyone could believe that you could be devoted to your full-time role and to your children in equal measure. maybe if you handball them to a nanny or day-care from the moment they're born but thats not really parenting. this applies double if the person is aiming for some high power, high responsibility role. at the end of the day it's not really a gendered issue, it's about choice. you can choose to climb the corporate ladder or you can choose to be a mother. If you think being a mother is some huge inconvenience that needs to be mitigated through the workplace then perhaps don't have kids at all.

 

[MrKK]

Is this your version of "as a mother" where you imply that having unprotected sex gives you some sort of unique insight.

The poster in question thinks it's possible to work from home and simultaneously parent a small child. Everyone who's had children knows that's not possible.

Whenever my son has been sick or on kindergarten holidays I'd take carers/annual leave to be at home with him. I would be deadset taking the piss if I said I'd work from home those days.

 

[Toump Ass]

Whenever my son has been sick or on kindergarten holidays I'd take carers/annual leave to be at home with him. I would be deadset taking the piss if I said I'd work from home those days.

How have you not been fired yet, kids are sick all the time. You can't actually take leave every time your child is off, can you? Really? Is your wife working two full-time jobs, no grandparents to help, siblings, friends, child care..?

That sucks mate. I'm not sure my company would even exist if people had to take days off because their kid had a cold, let alone kindy closed.

That's nice.

Yeah it is actually. More places should operate like this but plenty already do; not only does it make for a more enjoyable workplace, it means one partner can stay engaged in the workforce while the other parent spends time with the kids. Thanks for mentioning it, I genuinely never thought about how good it was 'til today. It's bloody awesome.

And it's really not as hard as you might think. A few hours at the crack of dawn, a couple of hours after dinner. That's where the "flexible" bit comes into it: working from home doesn't mean working 9am to 5pm; it means doing all the s**t I'd do in an office at home. Thank * for the internet right?

(FYI I don't care about your family or partner or kids or parents and I don't want to talk about mine, sorry. hope you understand)

Yeah, that's what I said.

I don't recall saying I expect all women to be CEO's and have three kids either. Now stop your whinging please, it's tiresome.

For Super; why should an employer pay someone for a private decision that disadvantages (in terms of employee availability) the company that employs them? I much prefer the option that 'encourages' fathers to also take paternity leave, in terms of trying to spread the 'risk' of being a parent equally to either gender.

Ripper idea, let's do that too. Equality with paternity and maternity leave just like them europeans get.

To answer your question: social responsibility. Minimise the superannuation gap women suffer from. As it is women already get paid less anyway, so why not help them if you can- surely it makes your workplace more attractive, increases staff loyalty, makes people actually not hate being at the job and therefore increase productivity: I assume that's why some companies have started doing it anyway. Good to see Shorten's committed to helping out a little too.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Politics is another interesting case. Parliament is too male. Parliament is too white. Etc. Etc. So they push to get more female candidates and MPs and everyone gushes about how brilliant people like Kate Ellis are, and then she has a baby and quits because being in parliament is too hard. Well I hate to break it to you love but men have been spending months away from family for decades. So is the solution now to not only pre-select more women because the ratio needs to change but to change parliament as well?

We could consider redesigning the job of parliamentarian. It does seem rather important that women are well represented in politics given that make up half the population. Why should parliament not be changed to better enable this? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[cartwright]

How have you not been fired yet, kids are sick all the time. You can't actually take leave every time your child is off, can you? Really? Is your wife working two full-time jobs, no grandparents to help, siblings, friends, child care..?

That sucks mate. I'm not sure my company would even exist if people had to take days off because their kid had a cold, let alone kindy closed.
Yeah it is actually. More places should operate like this but plenty already do; not only does it make for a more enjoyable workplace, it means one partner can stay engaged in the workforce while the other parent spends time with the kids. Thanks for mentioning it, I genuinely never thought about how good it was 'til today. It's bloody awesome.

And it's really not as hard as you might think. A few hours at the crack of dawn, a couple of hours after dinner. That's where the "flexible" bit comes into it: working from home doesn't mean working 9am to 5pm; it means doing all the s**t I'd do in an office at home. Thank **** for the internet right?

(FYI I don't care about your family or partner or kids or parents and I don't want to talk about mine, sorry. hope you understand)

I don't recall saying I expect all women to be CEO's and have three kids either. Now stop your whinging please, it's tiresome.

Ripper idea, let's do that too. Equality with paternity and maternity leave just like them europeans get.

To answer your question: social responsibility. Minimise the superannuation gap women suffer from. As it is women already get paid less anyway, so why not help them if you can- surely it makes your workplace more attractive, increases staff loyalty, makes people actually not hate being at the job and therefore increase productivity: I assume that's why some companies have started doing it anyway. Good to see Shorten's committed to helping out a little too.

My company offers flexible work hours. It’s becoming more common.

Ive read a few articles recently reporting that people prefer flexible hours above any other “perk”. Forget the table tennis and free fruit, just offer some flexibility.

 

[demontim27]

My company offers flexible work hours. It’s becoming more common.

Ive read a few articles recently reporting that people prefer flexible hours above any other “perk”. Forget the table tennis and free fruit, just offer some flexibility.

When I worked an office job they had flexible hours. Could start anytime between 7-10. Finish after 8 hours. If you did OT you got time in lieu, could work extra hours for weekly RDOs

Flexible hours were great. Working from home sometimes worked. Other times people just used it to be slack (especially when they did it to be home with kids. You’d try to skype them and half the time they’d be “away”), managers seemed to just use it when they didn’t want to do anything but still wanted to be considered working.

 

[MrKK]

How have you not been fired yet, kids are sick all the time. You can't actually take leave every time your child is off, can you? Really? Is your wife working two full-time jobs, no grandparents to help, siblings, friends, child care..?

That sucks mate. I'm not sure my company would even exist if people had to take days off because their kid had a cold, let alone kindy closed.

Same leave entitlements as everyone else and it's manageable through careful planning. That's not the point though, my point is that on those days my job is being a parent and I'm not claiming any capacity for work.

And it's really not as hard as you might think. A few hours at the crack of dawn, a couple of hours after dinner. That's where the "flexible" bit comes into it: working from home doesn't mean working 9am to 5pm; it means doing all the s**t I'd do in an office at home. Thank **** for the internet right?

That's effectively two full time jobs and not really the ethos of flexible working. Who the hell wants that life? And if you're in a senior management position there's the expectation that you're always available in case of work crises, which is not feasible if you're the primary carer.

 

[CatFan79]

That's effectively two full time jobs and not really the ethos of flexible working. Who the hell wants that life? And if you're in a senior management position there's the expectation that you're always available in case of work crises, which is not feasible if you're the primary carer.

These current feminist and leftist narratives have perpetuated a lie that senior managers are a pompous misogynist boys club who sit around all day smoking cigars and counting their millions while the down-trodden do all the work. It's bloody hilarious.

The truth is, a lot of them would rarely see their kids. Like I said, it's a s**t life unless you're an incredibly driven person who's willing to give up a lot of your life so I just don't get the attraction to it. Is it just the money?

By leftist I'm referring to that recent union ad campaign where the poor people couldn't pay their bills due to greedy CEOs.

 

[owen87]

Ripper idea, let's do that too. Equality with paternity and maternity leave just like them europeans get.

To answer your question: social responsibility. Minimise the superannuation gap women suffer from. As it is women already get paid less anyway, so why not help them if you can- surely it makes your workplace more attractive, increases staff loyalty, makes people actually not hate being at the job and therefore increase productivity: I assume that's why some companies have started doing it anyway. Good to see Shorten's committed to helping out a little too.

I don't think it's all across Europe, but from memory Germany has very favourable parental leave guidelines in an effort to make the risk of hiring a male or female more equal in terms of liability of them taking leave.

Your large corporates may be able to afford such a scheme; but where does a small business fund such an arrangement, and why should they implement an inherently biased policy that disadvantages a portion of the workforce who doesn't want to take time off?

It's all lovely to say "oh we should prop up the females who take time off" but it rapidly bounds in to the realms of socialism and completely ignores those who don't take time off.