Is a new ism afoot ?

[ExRes]

I happened across a small article in the business section of the Telegraph today, the gist of which is the different rates of pay for certain members of the community

Lesbian employees in the UK earn 8pc more than heterosexual women, but gay men earn 5pc less than straight men.

The differences are starker in other nations, according to the study, which was commissioned by the World Bank and the economic research institute IZA World of Labor.

The pay premium for lesbians rises to 11pc in Germany, 15pc in Canada and 20pc in the US, while gay men can expect to lose out on 9pc, 12pc and 16pc in those respective countries.

“Lesbians may realise early in life that they will not marry into a traditional household,” said Dr Nick Drydakis, a senior economics lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University and the author of the report.



“Lesbians may be willing to make a series of career-oriented decisions, such as staying in school longer, choosing a degree that is likely to lead to a higher paying job, and working longer hours..."

It seems that lesbians are paid 8% more than straight women while gay men are paid 5% less than straight men

Should straight women become men in order to recover lost ground and should gay men become lesbians ?

Seriously though, is this just a strange statistical anomaly from a possibly small and concentrated group of subjects or is there more to it than that ?

 

[Oswyntail]

Another random set of figures given unwarranted significance to fill column inches. I very much doubt employers care enough about an individual's sexuality to pay them differently.

 

[Cletus]

not sure I understood any of post 1 :-?

 

[Abpj17]

It would be better if you used the link....

http://wol.iza.org/articles/sexual-orientation-and-labor-market-outcomes is the academic source (but is only a literature review really) and http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sears-Mallory-Discrimination-July-20111.pdf is one of the underlying studies which includes a table on various sample sizes. Only 1000 are typically needed for a margin of error of +/- 3% (so the magnitude and direction is usually about right)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Another random set of figures given unwarranted significance to fill column inches. I very much doubt employers care enough about an individual's sexuality to pay them differently.

And that spectacularly misses the point of most equal pay research. The problem doesn't tend to be that people in identical jobs are paid differently (although this is still a problem in some sectors with individually-negotiated pay, e.g. law and finance). The problem tends to be that male-dominated roles pay more than their equivalent female-dominated roles (e.g. binmen get paid more than care workers). The other problem is that women are much less likely than men to reach the most senior positions in an organisation.

I would expect that lesbian women tend to earn more because they are less likely to have children.

 

[Oswyntail]

And that spectacularly misses the point of most equal pay research. ....

As does the research, in that case. The report was framed in terms of sexuality, not sex. While the latter can be obvious to employers and may or may not affect careers and pay structures, the former can only be determined by asking (or experience) and I doubt many employers do that.

 

[deltic1989]

What interests me is, how does an employer know one's sexual orientation in order to set these payscales?
I don't recall ever having been asked my sexuality on any application form, or at any interview.

 

[455driver]

Where I work they treat everyone equally, they eff up everyones wages!