10 things women can do while dreaming of equal pay

Davida says:

07:29am | 10/06/10

@Eric,
Simpler still, whilst working the same hours at the same jobs why not issue them penises….let’s end this ridiculous disparity once and for all.  All these women roaming the planet, it’s an outrage I tell you.

Sherlock says:

07:50am | 10/06/10

Come on Sally. How about illustrating some cases where women are doing the same job as men and are getting paid less. After all, seeing how women are constantly complaining about being paid less than this should be easy.

Then after detailing these cases would you please explain to us why these employers paying differing sums based on gender haven’t been dragged through the relevant tribunals?

If you can’t do that than I’d say you were just talking rubbish.

Heather says:

10:50am | 10/06/10

As a woman, I have never been paid less than a man for doing the same job; I get paid more than many of my male, older, colleagues, and in IT, which is traditionally a male field. This is mostly tosh; in what jobs don’t women get equal pay?

Tara says:

03:36pm | 11/06/10

I don’t know what study all you people are referring to when you state that men and women have completely equal pay. Have a look at the World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report, which shows that the gap is not only present for men and women in the same positions, it is also widening.

Amanda says:

11:36am | 10/06/10

Maybe the problem is the “softer” trades are not as valued and paid as much as the male dominated ones.  Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get paid as much, the work is just as hard, only different.  There is more than one definition of equality.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

12:55pm | 10/06/10

@Amanda,

It isn’t about which jobs are valued—it’s simple supply and demand. If half of the country’s child care workers/nurses/teachers etc suddenly retired, there would be massive demand and wages in those ‘softer’ industries would increase accordingly.

Wages are high in engineering/mining etc simply because there is a strong need for them and a shortage of people willing to do the work (which often involves relocating to a regional area).

McLawyer says:

09:06am | 10/06/10

“Soft profession” -

Bit of a poor terminology, admittedly. But often you’ll find women gravitate to caring roles that aren’t in industries that generate large profits. Even in law women will go for jobs in property law or family law which aren’t the big moneyspinners like M&A, Banking & Finance and Tax. Your pay is partly determined by the revenue the company generates and your contribution to the bottom line. Go for the moneyspinners and push hard.

2.
Your pay details aren’t often known. That is why you need to aggressively pursue pay rises and never accept the first (or even the third) offer. If you’re not satisfied then leave and get more money elsewhere. You’re there for you and the paypacket, not the good of the company. Many women fail to realise this.

4
Most women have children. Whether you have chosen not to up until now is irrelevant. They look at the group as a whole and manage accordingly. Anyone in a management position knows that you can’t take every individual preference into acocunt all of the time and that you have to use a blanket approach.

That painter is being paid a market rate. That is the only factor involved. I choose the painter that will do a good job for the lowest rate. SImilar to childcare. Their rates are determined by market forces not some touchy-feely concept of what feels “fair”.

Ultimately it is difficult to compare wage rates. The only real comparison is people doing the exact job for the exact same hours and have the exact same output. This is extremely rare as there will be differences across those 3 factors. Therefore, pay will be reflected accordingly. Then you have bargaining tactics thrown into that mix and this will create a distortion.

Al says:

09:28am | 10/06/10

Sounds like you ned to learn how to better negotiate your income. Don’t blame your employer because you are too gutless to ask for a raise - that is your responsibility not theirs. The fact that you could leave and get a job paying $20k more shows that you were lazy when it comes to valuing your contribution and ensuring you recieved adequite remuneration. Of course an employer is going to avoid paying more if their staff don’t ask.

Markus says:

10:19am | 10/06/10

Regarding the childcare issue it seems people are definitely happy to pay the people who look after their kids in peanuts.
They complain about the lack of training, then complain that the cost of care goes up when the carers become more qualified.
This despite childcare being ridiculously subsidised by the government as is.

That aside, it is a capitalist market. Everyone knows that childcare is a low-paying job with few opportunities for promotion. There is no point knowingly pursuing a low-paying career then complaining that the pay is lousy.

Steve M says:

10:30am | 10/06/10

In reply to point four, while this may not apply to you, it is a relevant factor in a high number of womens working lives. So it is not unreasonable to see managers “factoring” it in. Especially since it is illegal to actually ask.

Hugh says:

10:54am | 10/06/10

Point 1:
soft professions are those that usually didnt require any type of university degree, or physical labour. As you think conferences and blackberries are there only for entertainment purposes, you clearly dont belong in the upper echolons of management.

Point 2:
I worked in a job where men and women were paid based on ‘pay scales’ - and upon discussing salaries with the women, those with more experience, knowledge and capabilities were paid more. Any employee who is a ‘mate’ of management will get a free lunch. But thats not gender bias, its mates rates

Point 3:
[deleted as it’s a personal attack - mods]

Point 4:
That is clear gender bias, and please let everyone know the HR representative’s company so that they can be taken to the relevant tribunals etc… unless your second hand information is rubbish and unprovable

Painting v childcare costs: supply and demand. There are plenty of year 12 students who cant get a job who decide “i like babies” and go work in childcare…. no one wants to be a painter as it is monotonous, and very dangerous (ie scaling a roof to paint chimneys, etc)

Childcare is relatively soft - where are the KPI’s to be met? Sales targets? It is soft as wages are low, yet people performing the role are usually there for love of the job.

I wish i could get paid to taste beer, but so does every man - therefore there is no money in it.

KH says:

11:01am | 10/06/10

Oh, I did ask, without giving any details about what I knew - just looking at job ads and talking to recruiters and citing what the market was giving - their response was ‘too bad’, or words to that effect!  Up until that point, I thought things were OK - only after I found out the info that I shouldn’t have had did I realise the situation.  I don’t know anyone - male or female - that just goes and starts demanding more money - they move on.  Most companies I work in give % pay rises - you don’t get an opportunity to negotiate.  And I don’t stay in places for too long - the market moves and new people coming in get paid more - so I move on too.  But sometimes, if you like the job, you don’t go looking. In this case, we had all started around the same time, so there wasn’t that excuse.  Geez, anyone who knows me knows I am no doormat!

Tim says:

11:09am | 10/06/10

KH,
you are forgetting the most sensible and plausible explanation for your predicament.

Maybe you’re just not very good at your job.

KH says:

11:15am | 10/06/10

Hugh - what a shame I didn’t get to read your ‘personal attack’ - usually the last resort of those without any real arguments.  As I have noted - my personal experience tells me that is some truth in this.  I didn’t say it applied generally - your experience might be quite the opposite.  As long as there are examples, then the topic is relevant.

KH says:

01:07pm | 10/06/10

Tim - yes, thats why I get high performance ratings every year.  Because you know, they are humouring me.

Tim says:

02:26pm | 10/06/10

Well for someone getting high ratings, you haven’t come up with a very persuasive argument.
Looks like a few anectodal points thrown in with a slice of victim mentality.

1. I would call a “soft profession” one of the caring professions. You know, the ones that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about helping people, the ones that are usually government funded and the ones that don’t make a lot of money for the employer.
2.Wow, i can name just as many lazy women in all the offices i’ve worked in. In fact the woman are always the most likely to take sick leave, take days off to look after the children or leave early.
And even if your examples were accurate, who’s fault is it? The employer or the employee who refuses to ask and negotiate for more cash.
3. So you left and were given $20k extra? Life must be tough being so discriminated against.
4.Oh, Let me guess, it was the HR women that told you so? It must be true, HR people know everything.

As for painters and childcare, supply and demand.
There are plenty of people who love kids and want to be childcare workers. Not so many think the idea of being a painter is great.
And i’d say seeing that every time childcare prices raise, a whole contingent of women whinge about how unfair it is and how they can’t afford it, that no-one really wants to pay childcare workers any more than they have to.

Peter says:

10:28am | 10/06/10

@ Sarah, these feminists are so trapped in the past they are inventing issues to remain relevant.. Like you, in my 22 years of working life, i have never witnessed a woman getting paid less than a man for the same job.. This issue does not even exist…

AdamC says:

11:51am | 10/06/10

Sarah, I couldn’t agree more. Women earn less money than men because of different lifestyle choices and experiences, not structural issues in the workplace as such. For example, I work for a regulatory agency, and many of my colleagues are female lawyers with kids. The work/life balance benefits of working at my employer attract these women, but they obviously lose out in the pay stakes in comparison to (more likely to be male) peers at law firms and corporations.

Until this debate moves on from the current, tired ‘battle of the sexes’ rheortic to embrace the compromise-driven reality of most women’s work and personal lives, nothing will change. Which will no doubt leave Sally et al wilth plenty of time to eat cake and email Julia Gillard.

Al says:

09:30am | 10/06/10

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins JP. When I go to a marketing function (e.g. a lunch) my work is still waiting when I get back to my desk.

Martin G says:

11:10am | 10/06/10

Must be tough work spouting anecdotal ‘evidence’ instead of coming up with real facts.

Still, JP, that’s more than the author of this article managed, so congratulations.

JP says:

04:57pm | 10/06/10

@ Al
Gosh yes, I am very envious Al.  Guilty as charged; Mea culpa! 
Take me to your “marketing meeting leader”.  Hell- for a nice lunch- I’ll even complete all that work waiting for you back on your desk.

@Martin
I’m keen daily observer of human social behaviour Mr Martin G. - even famous biologists and zoologists learn much from simple daily observations.  (Psst- not everything “researched” and published as factual evidence is true… just ask someone like- umm, Dr Andrew Wakefield.)

KH says:

10:28am | 10/06/10

Some people really do enjoy doing that stuff, and thats great.  My sister in law is the same - she is at home with the kids, and she loves it.  And I think she is brilliant, and everyone is happy.  But if you choose to have a career instead, you shouldn’t be penalised because of gender.  A lot of people here will say it doesn’t happen, but it does - in my experience anyway.  I accept that others in different jobs will get more or less - you expect that; but in the same job role given experience etc, there should there be no obvious difference.

Phil says:

02:41pm | 10/06/10

KH My comments as always are only for my situation. I would never impose my views on others. Before we got married we talked about our roles, what we wanted from life, our dreams, desires and careers.

Whilst this works for us does not work for others, and I respect that. I also respect women who want a career so they are not reliant on a man to provide for them.

My first employee due for long service leave was a woman, who I paid her airfare to Europe and gave a $ 2,500 tax paid bonus, as I appreciated her loyalty for 15 years of service. I felt she was paid equal to a man in the same role.

Some would call me a male chauvinistic pig, and often they would be right for my views, it just so happens that my wife agrees often with them and is happy to look after the children and support my business, so I can provide for the family.

A situation arose 5 years ago where we needed more money and she happily went to work for a set period and that is nearly finished when we will retire to motherhood, which is exactly what she wants to do.
I respect women in the work place, but am intolerable to them being bitchy, gossipy etc. That said I rarely had to stamp this out as they knew my views on this.

I probably had 50/50 employees male and female, and generally gave time off if requested with a good reason, provided those asking for extras were also happy to put in on the other side of the ledger when deadlines needed to be met. My last staff in a business were paid the same regardless of gender.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

12:59pm | 10/06/10

@Luke

I agree that point ten would cause immediate offense if it were reversed.

Ironic, given the theme of the article is gender equality.

Jase says:

11:30am | 10/06/10

My understanding is that while that 17% figure has been bandied about, it has also been accepted that factors such as extra working hours and time off for kids, and part time work while they’re growing up is included.

Saying that a women has earned less, while not saying how much less she has worked, is a little disingenuous.

The only number that I think would be relevant would be a per hour comparison. Unfortunately the per hour figure put out by the government is the hourly wage of the average *full time* worker. It doesn’t take into account situations such as my wife who earns 75% of my wage, while working 60% of the hours.

The biggest problem is a fundamental lack of honesty in the whole debate. That’d be a good starting point I reckon. What say you?

Sarah says:

11:38am | 10/06/10

“In 2010, women are likely to earn 17 per cent less than men - which equates to about $1 million over a lifetime. This is a huge problem “

No, you meant to say “this is a misleading statistic.”

Show me a woman and a man who work the same role in the same company for the same hours with the same experience, but who have different salaries.

You can’t, because it doesn’t happen.

Comparing a woman who takes 3 years off to have children, and chooses to work in a low paying industry, with a man who has no time off and works in a high paying industry, will always “prove” that women get paid less than men. Unfortunately anyone with half a brain can see that you’re comparing apples with oranges.

Treat us like idiots and provide false ‘evidence’ then wonder why no-one gets on board with your cause = fail.

Bron says:

03:30pm | 10/06/10

Lauren, I didn’t say women get things handed to them on a platter, I said that some women appear to think that is the way it should be. What you are talking about is NOT equal pay for equal work, but paid parental leave to compensate for unpaid time off work when having kids. After having worked in male dominated industries for the last 25 years, I reckon I have an excellent understanding of the role of feminism and equal rights in the work place, which comes down to “if I work the same job for the same hours, I get the same pay” (in fact, I reckon I get better pay than most because I am good at my job) & that the majority of training & job opportunities are open to me. Feminism is not everybody getting paid the same amount no matter what job they do or hours that they work.

Anne71 says:

12:58pm | 10/06/10

But Nate, that is exactly the problem. I don’t have kids and at 39 it is unlikely I ever will. So why should I receive less pay to compensate for the maternity leave I will never take?  And now they’re changing it to “parental leave” to allow men to take time off when kids come along, does that mean men will start getting paid less to compensate for it? Like hell it will!

Nate says:

01:12pm | 10/06/10

Go buy that book Anne that I linked to.
Women who remain single compared to guys who remain single actually make more than guys in a lot of cases.

As to “getting paid less”, the point is moot. Even if you do, one person changes nothing. Some guys get paid less for the same work to. These observations are on an on average basis. There will always be exceptions.

Jase says:

12:07pm | 10/06/10

I would suggest that in fact just about everyone that works in the public health system is underpaid, from the wardsmen (not so many women there… heavy lifting and all that), through to the doctors. I personally know doctors that constantly wonder whether today is the day that they throw it all in and chase the mighty dollar in private practice. It’s not so much a gender issue, more of a “chronically underfunded public health system” issue.

Tim says:

12:12pm | 10/06/10

Helen,
who’s forcing these women to go into nursing or childcare?

Oh that’s right no-one.

Bitten says:

12:53pm | 10/06/10

So Helen, campaign for HIGHER pay in those professions, but don’t bleat on about a gender-based pay-gap because it doesn’t exist and it necessarily antagonises 50% of the population, who you may find you need to support your campaign for HIGHER pay in those professions. It’s about getting more pay, men have been doing that for years, it’s a struggle but it pays off in the end.

The outlandish statements of academics/bureaucrats from the feminism-industry of a pay-gap are insulting to the intelligence of every logical person on the planet, gender irrespective. Check out Justine Davies’ columns on this issue. And yes, I am female. I have never been paid less than a man for doing my job. In fact, at my last job, I earned more than my male colleagues. For a very good reason - I made the employer more money. It’s not the angst-ridden, hand-wringing issue that some would have you believe. Take your power back Helen, stop believing that your life is not in your control and that you have no influence over what happens to you. You do. Western women do. We are extremely fortunate.

KH says:

01:31pm | 10/06/10

Two weeks ago, a relative was admitted to emergency with a life threatening illness.  We sat there all night - I watched those nurses on their feet the whole time; they barely stopped for a break.  Accident victims, elderly people left there because it gives their other carers the night off, sick children, crying/screaming parents and children, drunks and at least one drugged out person that I saw, endless injuries and illnesses, and since its the Alfred, a helicopter arrived with a seriously injured road accident victim.  When that person came in, I saw people literally running to get there and save them.  The buzzers went off everywhere all night - people were on trolleys in the corridors because there isn’t enough room, a couple of people died, and still they managed to take care of my relative, observations, medications, ringing wards for beds, dealing with doctors.  They also dealt with ambulances, and even the police.  This went on for the whole 12 hours I was there, all night.  A lot of them were there again the next afternoon, when I came back.  How is that not valuable? Your life not worth much then?  They deserve to be paid more than most people.

As for our market theorists, when a profession is largely employed by the government, wages can be artificially kept down because a bureaucracy is making a decision about pay rates - the ‘market’ doesn’t get a say.  I would bet it would be different if the entire health system were privatised.  Of course, a lot of posters here today wouldn’t be able to afford to get sick then, including me.

Bitten says:

02:00pm | 10/06/10

KH, the point that I was making is that the people who feel underpaid in their professions absolutely should campaign for higher pay. Without question. Not a problem at all. That is their right.

However, to campaign on a platform of ‘gender-inequality’ or to allege a gender-based wage-gap because some people in some professions earn less than other people in other professions, is silly. It is untrue. It is illogical. And allegations of that nature are likely to do very little except antagonise and alienate at least 50% of the population. Which is not likely to help the campaign to raise the pay of people who would like higher wages. Public support for a campaign tends to work wonders. Perhaps instead of illogically chastising and alienating the populace, nurses and teachers and whoever else is feeling underpaid and undervalued, could attempt to get the population onside. Mind you, this may lead to results. And then where would the feminism-industry be?

nursie says:

08:30am | 11/06/10

‘wardsmen’ Jase? I think you’ll find that nurses do the heavy lifting. I’m not even sure what a ‘wardsman’ is. Oh, the intellectual calibre of most of these comments is inspiring! - not.

Jase says:

02:00pm | 11/06/10

nursie - I’m sure my mate, the wardsman, will be very disappointed to discover he doesn’t exist. Different hospitals I guess. I meant no dispresect to nurses btw.

ts says:

03:47pm | 10/06/10

ha, yes, i think that is the quality of logic these people deal in

Nicole says:

02:52pm | 10/06/10

Would you like arsenic or rat poison with that?

Man says:

05:41pm | 11/06/10

Successful trolling.  Yay me.

How does it feel to be a fish on a hook?

Othello Cat says:

03:58pm | 16/06/10

*bounces off elephant in the room* Huh? What was that?

Eric says:

06:13pm | 16/06/10

I hear panic that female privilege might be questioned.

The fact is that men work longer hours in more demanding jobs. That’s where the “pay gap” comes from.

There is no pay gap between men and women who do the same work at the same level.