Good wrecker's around Welly?

[Ms Piggy]

(Friday afternoon, rises like a trout to a fly)

Explain yourself please, CSL!

Ok Mr H - basically overall women still get paid around 85% less than men.

This is looking at our hourly rate (without overtime), not average weekly income. We looked at some stats a couple of weeks ago in my Social Policy lecture.

[jrandom]

Ok Mr H - basically overall women still get paid around 85% less than men.

If I hadn't had three pints at lunchtime, I'm sure I'd have something witty and insightful to contribute here.

[Hitcher]

Ok Mr H - basically overall women still get paid around 85% less than men.

This is looking at our hourly rate (without overtime), not average weekly income. We looked at some stats a couple of weeks ago in my Social Policy lecture.

Is this an "apples with apples" comparison i.e. what female plumbers get paid compared with male plumbers; female accountants with male accountants; or a per capita figure?

[F5 Dave]

Stats are interesting but rarely tell the whole story, for example it is an inalienable truth that women often leave the workforce to have children. When they re enter they will be doing so with a big gap in their experience & sheer time in the workforce.

I'm not saying genetics are fair, just it happens this way.

So over a whole then yes the levels are bound to be less.

I think for this reason whether it be fair or not, the only sensible measurement would be if these women who left the workforce were not included in the statistics then perhaps a truer figure would emerge?

I don’t know I’m just suggesting & keeping the brain ticking over

[Ms Piggy]

Is this an "apples with apples" comparison i.e. what female plumbers get paid compared with male plumbers; female accountants with male accountants; or a per capita figure?

No it's not.

It's just a comparison of men and women in the workplace, not the same professions. So per capita I guess. I can get some more solid data for you if you like. I'd need to email my lecturer & then I can PM you with the info. It bummed me out a bit actually.

Basically what we were discussing is that b/c women generally go into caring professions ie. nurses, teachers (I think), social workers (my career eventually) and a few others I can't recall, those professions are paid less. It's an argument of what is percieved as "womens work" being undervalued.

[Ms Piggy]

Stats are interesting but rarely tell the whole story, for example it is an inalienable truth that women often leave the workforce to have children. When they re enter they will be doing so with a big gap in their experience & sheer time in the workforce.

Which is part of the whole argument. Why should women be penalised for choosing to leave work and have a family? It kinda reinforces the devaluing of a womans role in society. Thats how the argument goes anyway.

I think that makes sense. Tell me if it doesn't.

[F5 Dave]

No it's not.

It's just a comparison of men and women in the workplace, not the same professions. So per capita I guess. I can get some more solid data for you if you like. I'd need to email my lecturer & then I can PM you with the info. It bummed me out a bit actually.

Basically what we were discussing is that b/c women generally go into caring professions ie. nurses, teachers (I think), social workers (my career eventually) and a few others I can't recall, those professions are paid less. It's an argument of what is percieved as "womens work" being undervalued.

Well there are an awful lot of trades people (typically men) who are easily out earned by their office dwelling womenfolk.

As an electronics technician some years back it was disheartening to find out even though we were making the stuff making the money we were out comprehensively out earned by the secretarial staff.

[toads]

Hi Hitcher, the stats were in our local rag the other day with regard to the financial quarter, ended june, statistically a woman working in the same job doing the same hours will earn only 85% of the amount her male counterpart will.

[James Deuce]

Which is part of the whole argument. Why should women be penalised for choosing to leave work and have a family? It kinda reinforces the devaluing of a womans role in society. Thats how the argument goes anyway.

I think that makes sense. Tell me if it doesn't.

If I left the IT world for 5 years, I wouldn't expect to go back in at the level I left at. Actually I wouldn't expect to be able to get back in at all without significant expenditure and study, which highlights how unfair it is to have legislation in place to protect jobs left open for reasons of "maternity" leave. I have a family friend whose wife died in childbirth, who has been unable to re-enter his previous employment, because there is no such thing as paternity leave. Denied due to pedantry.

Social Workers, Nurses, and Midwives have things a great deal better here in NZ that the UK. Over there banks class those roles as vocations, which means you can't get a mortgage, or borrow significant amounts of money. Hmmm maybe that's a good thing. However their North American counterparts (US, and Canada) have significantly better rates of pay and conditions, ignoring currency conversions, which are meaningless when comparing standards of living for the top 20 OECD countries.

NZ's top corporate executive is a woman and gets paid more than $2million a year. The PM is a woman and much of the cabinet is female and earn 6 figure salaries. If the data your lecturer has is more than 3 years old, it may need revising. There are a large number of women where I work who are paid substantially more than me and my colleagues, who are largely male I might add, and have positions of "authority".

Way OT now.

Damn these thread hijackers.

Sorry everyone.

[Ms Piggy]

Well there are an awful lot of trades people (typically men) who are easily out earned by their office dwelling womenfolk.

As an electronics technician some years back it was disheartening to find out even though we were making the stuff making the money we were out comprehensively out earned by the secretarial staff.

Yeah we were talking more about jobs requiring the same skill set. Not that I'm undervaluing trades people at all. But what a computer guy gets as opposed to a nurse sorta thing. We didn't discuss secretarial work or trades people.

What it boils down to is I'll be under paid b/c I've chosen to go into a career that is predominantly women and under paid and under valued. Not doing a whinge, just stating a fact.

Ok - stop distracting me! I need to study! So I can be underpaid!

[Hitcher]

No it's not.

It's just a comparison of men and women in the workplace, not the same professions. So per capita I guess. I can get some more solid data for you if you like. I'd need to email my lecturer & then I can PM you with the info. It bummed me out a bit actually.

Basically what we were discussing is that b/c women generally go into caring professions ie. nurses, teachers (I think), social workers (my career eventually) and a few others I can't recall, those professions are paid less. It's an argument of what is percieved as "womens work" being undervalued.

Be wary of these sorts of general comparisons. Teresa Gattung has probably single-handedly closed the gap!

Also beware of drawing "equity" comparisons between professions dominated by women and those that aren't.

Also beware of "social engineering" of salaries, as this comes with all sorts of costs. While market forces may be an imperfect model, it is vastly superior to any alternative -- such as a Government agency that may be required to make calls about the relative values of one profession versus another.

I don't support the Government paying parents to have children in the form of paid parental leave. If individual employers want to do that, that's fine --and many do. But Government intervention is discriminatory -- you have to be in work to qualify and self-employed people are ineligible. Also the Government does not have a magic tim-tam packet from which it extracts money. We all pay for this as taxpayers and most of us would prefer to pay less tax and have less Government in our lives.

At face value some things may appear unjust, and they probably are -- a bit like having to pass exams to get qualifications!

[F5 Dave]

Why should women be penalised? Well as I said I don’t think its fair, but to alter this ‘inequity’ then it would mean that companies would have to be coerced into hiring staff with less experience & a patchy work history at a higher rate than the equivalent person who did not stop work.

In the real world this isn’t going to happen. People are hired for their ability, experience & how well they interview.

Again I didn’t say it was fair, but riddle me this. Why is it that engineers who develop the products are vastly underpaid compared to the sales people who know little about the technology but have a knack for getting people to buy stuff.

I’m in a good job now but I still get out-earned by the (new) car salespeople down the road. I don’t think this is fair, but I can’t change it.

[Hitcher]

Hi Hitcher, the stats were in our local rag the other day with regard to the financial quarter, ended june, statistically a woman working in the same job doing the same hours will earn only 85% of the amount her male counterpart will.

I missed seeing those. I have some difficulty rationalising how this can be so, given my experience in a range of public and private sector organisations.

[Ms Piggy]

If I left the IT world for 5 years, I wouldn't expect to go back in at the level I left at.

Social Workers, Nurses, and Midwives have things a great deal better here in NZ that the UK. Over there banks class those roles as vocations, which means you can't get a mortgage, or borrow significant amounts of money. Hmmm maybe that's a good thing. However their North American counterparts (US, and Canada) have significantly better rates of pay and conditions, ignoring currency conversions, which are meaningless when comparing standards of living for the top 20 OECD countries.

NZ's top corporate executive is a woman and gets paid more than $2million a year. The PM is a woman and much of the cabinet is female and earn 6 figure salaries. If the data your lecturer has is more than 3 years old, it may need revising. There are a large number of women where I work who are paid substantially more than me and my colleagues, who are largely male I might add, and have positions of "authority".

Way OT now.

Damn these thread hijackers.

Sorry everyone.

Ok I'll check back to my lecturer, I thought it was up to date.

The point is Jim I don't ive in the UK I live in N.Z, so what happens there is relative to me. Yes I've heard the argument about lots of women being leaders now but I think the point of our discussion was overall women still get paid less b/c typical women's work i.e. caring professions are undervalued overall. An interesting point our lecturer made was that now more men are becoming nurses the pay rates for nurses are increasing. Anyway - sorry about the hijack Jazbug! Really must go study!!!

[James Deuce]

Yeah we were talking more about jobs requiring the same skill set. Not that I'm undervaluing trades people at all. But what a computer guy gets as opposed to a nurse sorta thing. We didn't discuss secretarial work or trades people.

What it boils down to is I'll be under paid b/c I've chosen to go into a career that is predominantly women and under paid and under valued. Not doing a whinge, just stating a fact.

Ok - stop distracting me! I need to study! So I can be underpaid!

If my wife, a Nurse, went back to work full time, she would earn 95% of what I earn, with penals on top pushing her past my earning potential. Contrary to popular opinion IT is NOT well-paid, and has not kept pace with cost of living increases for the last five years. My brother is a truck driver and earns more than me, so I think there are a lot of assumptions out there that need dispelling.