Equal Pay: The Myths and Facts of the Gender Wage Gap

[Up_Tilt_390]

On this day (November 10th) it is the day that women are effectively working for free until the end of the year. Except it isn't. The so-called gender pay gap has been debunked every time it comes up, yet the myth that women are paid less than men for the same work still perpetuates.

It's true, women on average earn less than men. The keyword here is 'EARN'. They earn less because they work less hours, work lower paying jobs, and take more time off work for things such as maternity leave, among some other factors. If there is a problem, it's women not being encouraged to go into higher paying jobs and fields, and they are also less likely to ask for a pay raise, and therefore it's a cultural problem.

Yet despite this, politicians (especially left-wing) like Sadiq Khan and Jeremy Corbyn have perpetuated the myth that women are effectively working for free until the end of the year, which is totally untrue (if you don't believe me just check their Twitter page). Under the Equal Pay Act. 1970 and Equality Act. 2010, it is illegal to pay someone less for the same work and hours based solely on sex or gender. If this does happen to be happening to you then speak to your employer and, if you really have to, SUE THEM.

 

[pemma]

Agreed - statistics have to be treated with caution. Not everyone does the same job or works the same hours. There are even some men who earn less than less experienced women working for the same company. There is possibly some truth in the claim that women are less likely to go and ask for a pay rise but even that isn't exclusively a women's problem - some women are excellent at selling themselves and negotiating while some men lack confidence and would be scared of trying to negotiate a pay rise.

Earlier a post by the Women's Equality Party saying women should set their out-of-office messages to say something related to the story about women working for free for the rest of the year. I responded to that asking if Men in North Wales should do the same, as based on this BBC map: https://t.co/YGAVS64InP there's a pay gap in North Wales where men are behind women - by as much as 23% in Gwynedd. Unsurprisingly they ignored it!

 

[Harbouring]

You might want to double check your calendar

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

You might want to double check your calendar

Damn it. Second time I’ve made an elementary mistake in these debates this week. Thanks for that, it could’ve been real embarrassing

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Earlier a post by the Women's Equality Party saying women should set their out-of-office messages to say something related to the story about women working for free for the rest of the year. I responded to that asking if Men in North Wales should do the same, as based on this BBC map: https://t.co/YGAVS64InP there's a pay gap in North Wales where men are behind women - by as much as 23% in Gwynedd. Unsurprisingly they ignored it!

That reminds me of the time when Audi made an advert about the pay gap. Then someone called them out and accused them of paying their women less than men. They responded with how when various factors were considered, Audi women were on par with men. It was a right laugh to hear about

 

[NSEFAN]

It's true, women on average earn less than men. The keyword here is 'EARN'. They earn less because they work less hours, work lower paying jobs, and take more time off work for things such as maternity leave, among some other factors. If there is a problem, it's women not being encouraged to go into higher paying jobs and fields, and they are also less likely to ask for a pay raise, and therefore it's a cultural problem.

I agree that it's a cultural problem, but there's two seperate issues which I think often get blurred together. The first is fewer women going for the higher paid jobs compared to men, meaning the global male vs female pay ratio is going to be unbalanced.

The second issue is the rate that people are paid. For lower-level menial jobs where salaries/hourly rates are standardised it's obviously illegal to pay someone less because they're a woman (in the UK, at least). For higher-paid jobs where salaries are negotiated, the problem could be some women not being as demanding as men when it comes to asking for more pay? I honestly don't know what the statistics are, it would be interesting to see normalised male vs female pay rates for equivalent job descriptions, as my guess would be there's actually more imbalance at the top rather than the bottom.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I agree that it's a cultural problem, but there's two seperate issues which I think often get blurred together. The first is fewer women going for the higher paid jobs compared to men, meaning the global male vs female pay ratio is going to be unbalanced.

The second issue is the rate that people are paid. For lower-level menial jobs where salaries/hourly rates are standardised it's obviously illegal to pay someone less because they're a woman (in the UK, at least). For higher-paid jobs where salaries are negotiated, the problem could be some women not being as demanding as men when it comes to asking for more pay? I honestly don't know what the statistics are, it would be interesting to see normalised male vs female pay rates for equivalent job descriptions, as my guess would be there's actually more imbalance at the top rather than the bottom.

I'm inclined to agree, especially on your last point. The amount of white men in high positions like CEOs is much higher than white women and minorities. My best reasoning for that is partially because I do think there are some women who get into those high positions and keep others out, but I'd say it's mostly because CEOs aren't young people. They're men who were born at a time when women were secretaries and stay at home wives, not executives in high company positions, and also when racism was a social norm before the civil rights movements. Given how the old people are more conservative than younger generations, it's not likely that they'll change their attitude when it comes to appointing women or minorities to high positions.

 

[D365]

“If women can be paid less than men, why don’t companies employ more women?”

Is that a fair counterarguement to go by?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

“If women can be paid less than men, why don’t companies employ more women?”

Is that a fair counterarguement to go by?

It's one of the best counters you can go by. It doesn't necessarily debunk their argument but it's effective at either making them think about their arguments, or it'll just make them mad because you dared to question them on a topic that they're self-appointed experts at. Either way, you've most likely won the argument.

 

[D365]

Oh I don’t mean it to sound like I get involved in debate. My job (this week at least) is simply to tell young folk to go and work as railway engineers

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Oh I don’t mean it to sound like I get involved in debate. My job (this week at least) is to tell everyone simply to train as railway engineers

Hopefully a job well done then

 

[edwin_m]

That reminds me of the time when Audi made an advert about the pay gap. Then someone called them out and accused them of paying their women less than men. They responded with how when various factors were considered, Audi women were on par with men. It was a right laugh to hear about

Or did they just put a cheat into the payroll software so it looked as if they were being paid the same?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Or did they just put a cheat into the payroll software so it looked as if they were being paid the same?

Then I'd say they were hypocrites

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree that it's a cultural problem, but there's two seperate issues which I think often get blurred together. The first is fewer women going for the higher paid jobs compared to men, meaning the global male vs female pay ratio is going to be unbalanced.

I think it's even more complicated than that, because you need to disentangle the reasons why women are less inclined to go for higher paid jobs. Here are a couple of theoretical possibilities (besides the one you mentioned about pay being set on an individual basis):

1. Women are more inclined to prefer occupations that happen to be lower paid (because of market conditions).
2. Some female-dominated occupations have traditionally been lower-paid because of discrimination 50+ years ago, and that pay imbalance has never fully righted itself.
3. Women are less inclined to organise themselves into or join Unions.
4. Some higher paid jobs require many years of training/experience, and therefore still have a historical male dominance arising from more men entering those professions 10 or 20 years ago.
5. Hidden discrimination happens, whereby managers (perhaps even without being consciously aware of it) are less inclined to notice the achievements of women on their staff.
6. Some higher paid occupations have traditionally been male-dominated, and that has resulted in a very 'male' culture which makes it much harder for women to fit in. In extreme cases, maybe that manifests itself in an acceptance of sexual harassment, discouraging women from those occupations. Perhaps that even results in subtle, unrecorded discrimination at job interviews, whereby men are more likely to be chosen because of a subconscious sense by the interviewers that they are more likely to fit in.

I'm not necessarily saying all those are widespread, but common sense suggests that the reason for average lower pay for women is likely to include some combination of all those factors (and there may be others I haven't thought of). And offhand, I think all except possibly the first one would be legitimate causes for concern if/when they happen.

Indeed, the current controversy over sexual harassment in both the entertainment industry and in politics should give ample food for thought for why women may be discouraged from some occupations.

I think in conclusion, the OP is correct to argue that it's not as simple as just looking at the average salaries of men and women. But that's not to say there isn't a problem. In many industries, there probably is.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

1. Women are more inclined to prefer occupations that happen to be lower paid (because of market conditions).
2. Some female-dominated occupations have traditionally been lower-paid because of discrimination 50+ years ago, and that pay imbalance has never fully righted itself.
3. Women are less inclined to organise themselves into or join Unions.
4. Some higher paid jobs require many years of training/experience, and therefore still have a historical male dominance arising from more men entering those professions 10 or 20 years ago.
5. Hidden discrimination happens, whereby managers (perhaps even without being consciously aware of it) are less inclined to notice the achievements of women on their staff.
6. Some higher paid occupations have traditionally been male-dominated, and that has resulted in a very 'male' culture which makes it much harder for women to fit in. In extreme cases, maybe that manifests itself in an acceptance of sexual harassment, discouraging women from those occupations. Perhaps that even results in subtle, unrecorded discrimination at job, interviews, whereby men are more likely to be chosen because of a subconscious sense by the interviewers that they are more likely to fit in.

I think most of your points, particularly four and six, kind of add to my suggestion of how most of the higher ups are old white men who grew up at a time when women weren't executives and instead were cleaners and secretaries. Your points on subtle and unconscious discrimination also help give me an insight as to other reasons why they might be less inclined to hire women, because not every old man is as conservative as some of the other higher ups, though coming from a conservative generation does play a part.

For example, the railway industry. I have seen many train drivers in my lifetime, but very few are women. I've spoken to three of them, two of them were men who had been on the railway for both 29 and 37 years. That's a very long time, but the third one was a woman who had only been a driver for 10 years. Many of the drivers at the same depot had been there for much longer. Back in the old days, train driving was a manual labour blue collar job. Stoking coal into a firebox in the dirty cab of a steam engine certainly wasn't considered a woman's work, and some railway workers, both on the trains and up in management, have been through the steam, diesel and electric periods of time. The times they grew up in might just stay with them at times.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It's true, women on average earn less than men. The keyword here is 'EARN'. They earn less because they work less hours, work lower paying jobs, and take more time off work for things such as maternity leave, among some other factors. If there is a problem, it's women not being encouraged to go into higher paying jobs and fields, and they are also less likely to ask for a pay raise, and therefore it's a cultural problem.

Having spent all my working life in the financial services sector I have to say what you have typed is absolute nonsense. On average women are paid less for working the same hours and having just as much ability as their male counterparts. I'm absolutely astonished to read what you have posted.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Having spent all my working life in the financial services sector I have to say what you have typed is absolute nonsense. On average women are paid less for working the same hours and having just as much ability as their male counterparts. I'm absolutely astonished to read what you have posted.

You say on average they’re paid less for the same hours. But are they for the same jobs? If my post is absolute rubbish then you’re going to need more than than one vague example which hasn’t specified every factor.

If you’re so astonished to read what’s been said many times then you probably haven’t done very much research into this subject, because these statistics and their context are always pointed out every time the myth is brought up.

You might have worked in finance, but my best friend, who is more knowledable with politics than I am, works in payroll, and he doesn’t dispute my arguments the way you have.

 

[pemma]

Some higher paid occupations have traditionally been male-dominated, and that has resulted in a very 'male' culture which makes it much harder for women to fit in. In extreme cases, maybe that manifests itself in an acceptance of sexual harassment, discouraging women from those occupations. Perhaps that even results in subtle, unrecorded discrimination at job interviews, whereby men are more likely to be chosen because of a subconscious sense by the interviewers that they are more likely to fit in.

If you look at a role like newsreaders there aren't all that many women who have the experience of the highest paid men. For instance, some people were complaining about Mishal Hussain being paid a lot less than John Humphreys. Personally I was surprised Mishal Hussain is paid as much as she given she has overall less journalism experience than Justin Webb, never mind John Humphreys.

 

[pemma]

I'm inclined to agree, especially on your last point. The amount of white men in high positions like CEOs is much higher than white women and minorities. My best reasoning for that is partially because I do think there are some women who get into those high positions and keep others out, but I'd say it's mostly because CEOs aren't young people. They're men who were born at a time when women were secretaries and stay at home wives, not executives in high company positions, and also when racism was a social norm before the civil rights movements. Given how the old people are more conservative than younger generations, it's not likely that they'll change their attitude when it comes to appointing women or minorities to high positions.

I disagree slightly. They are generally happy to put a woman on the board provided she's a junior board member, so you finish up with men in their 50s and 60s on the board and then a 38 year old woman. Then the 38 year woman is paid £40k and the older men are paid £60-£75k and there's complaints about a pay gap on the board. Of course not all women would want too be on a board where all the other members are much older men.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I disagree slightly. They are generally happy to put a woman on the board provided she's a junior board member, so you finish up with men in their 50s and 60s on the board and then a 38 year old woman. Then the 38 year woman is paid £40k and the older men are paid £60-£75k and there's complaints about a pay gap on the board. Of course not all women would want too be on a board where all the other members are much older men.

I presume that junior board members are naturally paid less and work a bit less just judging by the job title?

 

[TheNewNo2]

Just a quick query, but are any of the members who have so far argued in this post actually women? (No I'm not either)

It may surprise you to learn that the pay gap is not based on overall earnings across the population. They don't just add up how much all men make and divide by the number of men. It's normalised based on what job the person has, so they're not putting the wages of a female CEO and a male dish washer directly into the same pot and determining that thus men are paid only 1% of women. They're generally controlling based on length of service as well. So what the statistic is saying that, for example, a male and a female teacher doing the same job for the same time would expect to receive differing amounts of compensation.

You're right that it is illegal to pay people different amounts, or refuse to employ them, based solely on gender. But there are ways to get around that. There is a lot of subtextual discrimination in our society. If you offer a recruiter identical CVs but the names are changed from Joe to Jane, they tend to consider Jane less qualified than Joe. The same thing happens when it comes time to get promoted - women's contributions are devalued. There's also of course the time aspect. Women are, more than men, the ones who deal with childcare in a family. That means that their hours are less flexible, because they have to be at school at 4pm. Thus they can't go out and socialise with their colleagues, they can't do the working dinners that get attention and clients, etc etc. And then of course there's maternity leave, which men don't have to deal with.

It may not be intentional, instead based on custom and practice, but it all adds up to women being paid less than men for equivalent work.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Just a quick query, but are any of the members who have so far argued in this post actually women? (No I'm not either)

I do not expect many women to comment. I imagine the forums are mostly men since railways are both a male-dominated industry and interest.

You're right that it is illegal to pay people different amounts, or refuse to employ them, based solely on gender. But there are ways to get around that. There is a lot of subtextual discrimination in our society. If you offer a recruiter identical CVs but the names are changed from Joe to Jane, they tend to consider Jane less qualified than Joe. The same thing happens when it comes time to get promoted - women's contributions are devalued. There's also of course the time aspect. Women are, more than men, the ones who deal with childcare in a family. That means that their hours are less flexible, because they have to be at school at 4pm. Thus they can't go out and socialise with their colleagues, they can't do the working dinners that get attention and clients, etc etc. And then of course there's maternity leave, which men don't have to deal with.

Maternity leave and time off work can also affect the salary, and a year off work for maternity leave can make a woman fall behind a man who only gets two weeks paternity leave.

Reasons such as devalued work and seeing them as less qualified is likely down to several reasons. One of them could be the worries of them getting pregnant, which as many know can affect the time in work. It’s illegal to ask in interviews whether they plan to get pregnant too, so they might just not want to go through the trouble. Higher positions especially can’t afford that one year maternity loss of work, because CEOs can spend up to 120 hours a week working.

Others may think that they won’t fit in because the field could be male-dominated, which in turn is because of the old days where women weren’t working as much as they are now. Even if the employer today doesn’t hold those beliefs, the male domination could make it uncomfortable for some women, so they just don’t bother with that either.

It seems that some of the reasoning behind to why these two cases may happen is because the employer doesn’t want to chance having a worker be off for a year regardless of whether the woman plans to get pregnant, and the simple reasons of fitting into the environment. Unless they know the person they have no way of knowing, so they’re just basing things off assumption. I can’t say these are the only reasons, but I do think that they might be some of them.

 

[pemma]

I presume that junior board members are naturally paid less and work a bit less just judging by the job title?

Well they're not called junior board members but might have a title like 'Digital Marketing Director' when there is a more senior 'Sales & Marketing Director' - a bit like Paul Maynard being a Rail Minister but that being a less senior position in government than Chris Grayling's position of Transport Minister.

 

[pemma]

Maternity leave and time off work can also affect the salary, and a year off work for maternity leave can make a woman fall behind a man who only gets two weeks paternity leave.

Reasons such as devalued work and seeing them as less qualified is likely down to several reasons. One of them could be the worries of them getting pregnant, which as many know can affect the time in work. It’s illegal to ask in interviews whether they plan to get pregnant too, so they might just not want to go through the trouble. Higher positions especially can’t afford that one year maternity loss of work, because CEOs can spend up to 120 hours a week working.

While it's common for women to take a significant amount of time off after having a baby to look after the baby and men usually take a few days off around the birth date, in some cases the woman returns to work not too long after the birth and the man takes a longer period off work, particularly if the woman earns a much better salary.

 

[pemma]

Women are, more than men, the ones who deal with childcare in a family. That means that their hours are less flexible, because they have to be at school at 4pm.

The children of a woman who works on a BBC breakfast show attend a school near to me. Needless to say it's not the mum who takes the children to school in the morning. Although, I suppose having one person working an early shift helps when you have children, while mum isn't there to see the children off to school it allows both mum and dad to have well paid full time jobs and one can be available to take the children to school and the other to pick them up in the afternoon, which probably isn't possible for a lot of families.

 

[43096]

Well they're not called junior board members but might have a title like 'Digital Marketing Director' when there is a more senior 'Sales & Marketing Director' - a bit like Paul Maynard being a Rail Minister but that being a less senior position in government than Chris Grayling's position of Transport Minister.

Grayling is Secretary of State for Transport, is he not?

 

[pemma]

Grayling is Secretary of State for Transport, is he not?

If you want to be precise Grayling is Secretary of State for Transport while Maynard is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Rail, Accessibility and HS2, who are both government ministers.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

While it's common for women to take a significant amount of time off after having a baby to look after the baby and men usually take a few days off around the birth date, in some cases the woman returns to work not too long after the birth and the man takes a longer period off work, particularly if the woman earns a much better salary.

I imagine that in future there will be more men taking time off work to spend time with children and more women spending more time in work. Women in their 20s and 30s already earn more than their male counterparts of the same age group. But then again with the way things are today I don't expect there to be many families in the future. Men, especially younger men, seem to be giving up on the idea of a marriage and a family because it's no longer a social requirement to be considered a real adult, and there's really nothing to gain from it nowadays. Single men are often preferable for employment nowadays because of the almost guaranteed availability for work, and in fact the same applies to women. I imagine a single woman will be more likely to get a higher-up job than a woman in any relationships, and though it's a personal matter it can be of value to the employer.

 

[Jonny]

Perhaps the whole so-called equal pay thing is a ploy to drive up wages as a means of driving up taxation revenue. Let's just say that it's probably not a conspiracy, but a conspiracy couldn't do any better if it tried.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Higher positions especially can’t afford that one year maternity loss of work, because CEOs can spend up to 120 hours a week working.

This is why I will never be a CEO. I'm contracted a certain number of hours, when I reach that amount I walk out of the building. Anyone who works more than 40 hours per week by choice rather than financial necessity is to my mind an idiot.