Screw equal pay; what do women really want?

Reg says:

09:43am | 02/09/11

The “equal pay for equal work” mantra is inevitably flawed… because it doesn’t factor in value/worth.

Just because you do the same work as someone else, doesn’t mean you have the same value to the business.

Now depending on your field, two similar employees can differ immensely in terms of reliability, speed and efficiency, management and effectiveness in working with others, relationships with clients, leadership etc etc

So whilst they may do the same job, one of them can be a “keep-at-all costs” employee whilst the other can be an “easily replaceable” employee.

Hence, equal pay for equal work cannot work in that sense. Because, ultimately, none of us are equal in value.

But we should all have equal opportunity to excel and prove our worth, then reward accordingly.

Osiris Fox says:

10:58am | 02/09/11

Oh go away TChong! Surety of equal wages? Give me a break. Sounds like a recipe for creating lazy people that expect others to pick up the slack while knowing they’ll get paid the same. And those award conditions you speak will be axed very quickly. Speaking of which, union representation? No thanks. I’ve got no interest in paying membership fees to some fat cats and thugs who pay for hookers and unmentionables with their union credit cards.

Lola says:

12:02pm | 02/09/11

Well said, Reg. Wholeheartedly agree that statement. So very true.

Ian1 says:

01:13pm | 02/09/11

Or are we jealous and not wanting to allow our employer the right to distribute their wealth in a way they see fit?

I am all for equal opportunity and pay.  It’s crazy when trying to understand how the agenda is still being pushed though, considering the wage disparity in question is directly linked to the difference in averaged hours in the working week between the genders.

In essence, those who continue to assert that pay isn’t equal are actually sugesting that women should be paid the same weekly wage as men who put more hours into the working week.

Look into the statistics, the facts behind them indicate equality has been achieved - as is the law.

As for women in top positions, it could be argued that having the flexibility is the top position.  Would women complain if they were paid the same as men who didn’t have to work as many hours in the office, as they were positively discriminated against and allowed the flexibility to be at home, the school or the shops (and paying for their man’s purchases?)?

I have never witnessed an efficient and effective worker fail to succeed over time.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

01:37pm | 02/09/11

TChong - I’m sure union representation wouldn’t make me happy - don’t want some dofus spending my union dues on prostitutes, handbags and trips overseas -

acotrel says:

05:40am | 03/09/11

@Reg
Great theory about adding value , but where would we managers be if we couldn’t ride on the backs of creative people ? There is one golden rule for managers- never employ anyone better than yourself ! If you do happen to do this, make sure their talents are well hidden !

Kris says:

06:47pm | 03/09/11

People seem to be ignoring the fact that the “equal pay” thing isn’t about a difference in the weekly pay cheque, it’s a different hourly rate for doing THE SAME WORK.

This article seems to think that the only way to close the pay gap is to get more women into high paying executive jobs. This is completley missing the point, as the way to close the pay gap is simply to make people have to pay their employers the same hourly wage for doing the same amount of work.

It’s simple really, and it is a goal which is in no way at odds with wanting more flexability (and besides, why wouldn’t men want to create more flexability and have a better work/life balance?)

acotrel says:

06:45am | 02/09/11

@Erick
Equal pay doesn’t even apply between men.  Around Australia the wages vary enormously, especially in regional situations where there is no union influence !  Since we have been able to recoup any shortfall in wage payments, the situa tion has improved.  But the country hick business owners really loved Workchoices !  They had a field day with their cynical bullshit !

marley says:

08:20am | 02/09/11

“Country hick business owners?”  What happened to the respect with which you supposedly treat everyone, acotrel?

Max, of Rocky says:

09:45am | 02/09/11

@ acotrel (obviously an urban cowboy)

Are you talking about David Hicks ?  Do not think so !

See now why Labor will never be loved outside the Big Smoke ?

The majority of business in country Australia is small business.
The FIFO miners barely contribute anything more than bodily gases to the communities.( you would know about that)

Most of the miners wives stay in coastal towns or cities, not contributing to the community or employment in the country.

For this we thank the Labor party.  Mine built towns died the day Labor introduced FRINGE BENEFITS TAX.

Another tax to bail out a Labor government up to it’s neck in debt. 
Sound familiar ?

The unions are up to their necks with the FIFO miners, nearly all unionists.  Being so far away from them you may have not heard of the recent strikes !

Your credibility is on par with Julia Gillard - nearly ZERO.  8-)

Peter says:

12:02pm | 02/09/11

Equal pay has already been in place for decades - it just requires equal work.

Not exactly.  Equal responsibility is more to the point.  Taking risk.  That is what you’re paid for.  Not “work”.

Shinsengumi says:

03:54pm | 02/09/11

I’ll outline my situation, which has been pretty much universal for all the companies I’ve contracted for, and see what people think.  I’m a guy.  I come in to work @ 8-8.15, generally eat lunch inside 20-30 mins @ my desk and leave around 6-6.30.  After work I go to the gym, and get home around 8.30.  My team is around 60% blokes.  All the girls in my team are mothers, except for one girl who is single and unmarried.  Around half the guys in my team are married, the others are partnered, I’m the only single one.

All the girls in my team get in around 8.45-9.15.  They have to drop kids off, feed demanding husbands (lol, don’t laugh it’s true for some of them!) etc etc.  I’ve had my coffee @ 8.15 at my desk; they put their stuff on their desk and go for coffee after getting in, starting work @ 9.30ish.  Their desks are empty from 5-5.30 - kids, meals for husbands, domestic stuff etc mean they have to leave at that time.  Some of them go to lunchtime yoga or gym, because they can’t do it before or after work, so, 1.25 hour lunch breaks several times a week are the norm.  They work hard when they are here, no doubt about that.  And they are good at what they do.  However, the amount of times I hear them on the phone to childcare, primary school, or other important non-work related calls is reasonably often.  These things happen, kids bump their heads at school, get splinters, puke, etc etc, you can’t just not take that call.  So, I’m not against this at all.  Kids need mothers, and in a marriage with kids getting home at the times I do simply isn’t workable.

Most of the guys, like me, get in between 8-8.30.  We’re usually at our desks all working by 8.30 in general.  Half of us ride motorbikes, so it’s easy to tell when we get in - our helmets are on the corner of our desks.  We generally eat lunch inside 30 mins, quite often at our desks as well.

The point which the Author makes is a very valid one.  Our work habits are vastly different for the genders in our team.  My experience in other companies has been pretty much the same, for my industry.

So, it is a very valid question posed by the Author.  What should the pay scheme be in a situation like mine?  Should all of us be on the same rate, regardless of the hours we actually work?

labrat says:

01:06am | 03/09/11

@max of rocky
the spending power of FIFO miners and their companies is what keeps your small-medium businesses afloat. i’ve been working in the industry for over nine years max, and i have never encounted union involvement on any of the sites i have worked on. furthermore you will most likely find that it the EX-wives who live in the coastal towns and cities, along with the rest of the population who aren’t willing to live out in the middle of bumf*&k nowhere, doing sh$t jobs for good money.

Kris says:

07:03pm | 03/09/11

@Shinsengumi: You have just perfectly illustrated the problems of why being a working mother is still a massive struggle for many women. Does it not occur to you that maybe some of the men could/should be taking responsibility for their kids as well? Why is it considered amusing by you that a woman has to basically mother her husband as well as her children? Do you not see that the mothers in your office are essentially doing two jobs, both of which are important both for the culture and the economy (raising the next generation of workers)? Why are the father’s in your office not engaging with their kids? And why are they being rewarded for this?

Tim says:

09:55am | 02/09/11

Of course what you say is true for most people (men and women).
But if people want to put in extra above that, then they should be rewarded for it.
It’s not bad management, it’s sacrifice.

John says:

10:13am | 02/09/11

I’ve worked in finance for over two decades and you’re dreaming if you think that every job in existence can be done in a 40 hour week. At a bare minimum, there is 50 hours of work to be done in my role, that often takes me 60+ hours to achieve as I can’t consistently work 10 hours a day without breaks anymore. The folks in the c-suite work just as hard if not harder.
If I wanted to, I could leave this role for a relaxed analyst or advisory role tomorrow but i’d take a six figure paycut. Personally, I’d rather give them that extra pound of flesh for considerably more money, if your ‘guy’ isn’t happy with putting in the hours, I suggest he look for a govt / large enterprise role as they tend to be more reasonable with their expectations (although it can be harder to move up & the pay is generally lower.)

Aaron says:

01:10pm | 02/09/11

I quite agree. I think that you should be hired for a realistic amount of work. In engineering, for example, we’ll get the 40 week “plus extra time” This extra time is unpaid and as need. Fortunately for me this extra time is a once every so often thing ie, finishing off a project and getting all the paper work done so you have to put in extra hours for a couple of weeks every few months. I think that’s better, do your hours, but every so often a little bit more might be required.

Kate says:

05:33pm | 02/09/11

Tobias Funke would probably help in the fight for feminism. After all, he got a big gay fanbase after writing ‘The Man Inside Me’.

bec says:

05:39pm | 02/09/11

But, John, that sounds like a workplace flaw to me - if the job can’t be done by a person in a 40 hour work week, then a business needs to hire more staff.

I don’t mind people getting paid overtime, or doing it for advancement purposes, but for a number of people it’s an expected norm, and it’s shitty for men and women.

(And bahahahahaha, my fiance is working for the government. He regularly works 60+ hours per week with absolutely no overtime. They refuse to hire more staff, and keep all of the employees on these miserable continual three-month contracts, and threaten them if they don’t put in ungodly amounts of time. It is a total rort, but alas there are few employment opportunities in the private sector based on his area of specialisation. Le sigh.)

Tina says:

07:04am | 02/09/11

I will probably get a bashing for this comment. As much as I understand the drivers for flexible working hours, part-time etc - and I think it is good that people can balance their family and work lives better - I find it terribly irritating and annoying to schedule a meeting or arrange working groups, when I get ten people saying “I work only Monday, Wednesday and Friday” - “I leave early on Tuesdays” - “I cant stay 5 minutes longer because I have to pick up my kid”.

Now dont get me wrong, I want you to be able to care for your family, but it has to be bloody well managed in the company in order not to sabotage the workflow.

Chris_D says:

07:48am | 02/09/11

@Tina, you are right, and you should just schedule the meeting whenever it suits the business needs.  It is up to the employees to be there, or miss it.  Everyone has time off some time.  Flexibility goes both ways.

Mahhrat says:

07:57am | 02/09/11

@Tina, have less working groups.

You get the seniors to delegate authority, then you expect those people to make authority.

See, this is what I don’t get.  I think too many employers still expect a 100% output from an employee working 80% of the time.  I don’t think that’s deliberate in all cases, but you equate a person with an output, and not really consider that hey, on Wednesday, that stuff just ain’t getting done.

Jeff from Meroo says:

08:01am | 02/09/11

@Tina - I’ll cop some of the bashing with you as I fully agree.  I think to sum up Lucy’s article we can say “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”.  Top jobs and top pay demand 100% focus on the job.  Someone who demands flexiblity in order to do things outside of work will be passed over when these promotions and payraises come around for someone who brings 100% focus to the office the majority of the time.  Said another way…  If I have two employees, both do the same job, currently are on the same wage and I’m in a position to give one a pay raise (or promotion).  Would you expect me to give it to the employee who jets out of the office every day at 4:59:59 to pick up his kids or do I give it to the employee who calls his wife 3 times a week to tell her he’ll be working late to finish the project?

Jem says:

09:18am | 02/09/11

@ Tina

Even the most committed employee can be sick and miss a meeting.  It isn’t the end of the world.  A well managed workplace is capable of coping with absence.  I have trouble making meeting times, not because I don’t work full time, but becasue my job requires me to be out of the office visiting clients on site, but without a fixed schedule of visits.  Good communication goes a long way.

@ Jeff Personally, I’d be wondering why the guy has to work back 3 days a week to perform to the same level as the one that can manage both their work load and their family commitments in their normal working hours.

I assess my workers based on their performance, not what time they get back from lunch or if they had to stay home to look after a sick partner or child.  A sollid committed worker is simply one that neglects their family for the sake of looking good for the boss.  I value substance over show. 

I do agree with the premise of the article though.  Once I started my family, I haven’t concerned myself with ‘career progression’.  I have a job I enjoy, with less responsibilities than previously, so I don’t have the urge to take my work home with me on weekends and I can focus on my family.  I am not interested in trying to do it all, as long as I can pay the bills I’m happy.

Tim says:

10:08am | 02/09/11

Jem,
“@ Jeff Personally, I’d be wondering why the guy has to work back 3 days a week to perform to the same level as the one that can manage both their work load and their family commitments in their normal working hours.”

Who says he’s performing at the same level as the employee with family committments?
He’s just as likely to be performing at an equal or higher level, just with more committment to his job.
If you’re willing to sacrifice things for your job then you should be rewarded for it, not punished.

veteran of a hundred million meetings says:

10:23am | 02/09/11

Tina - flexi work arrangements make little difference. Just look at Outlook, pick a time and get people from home to dial in if needed. It is normal that sometimes poeple don’t make your meetings so just catch them up with what is important to them.

It is the meeting organisers who think their weekly team meeting is critical to the worlds survival and invite every Tom, Dick & Margret to every meeting rather than keep it to only those who need to attend that seem to have issues.

Tina says:

09:09am | 02/09/11

How about we just take the slightly sexist note out of the comment and turn “woman” into “appointed carer”?

Michael says:

09:29am | 02/09/11

Lucy if you want to work from home start your own business, it’s not the employers responsibility, what assurances does the employer have that you are doing your work? do you think that if your tasks are completed it shouldn’t matter how you structure your day? what if you use drugs or alcohol at home whilst doing paid work? where are the protections for the employer from being defrauded by flexible work arrangements.

Freelance, that’s a bit like working from home isn’t it?

youngsam says:

09:45am | 02/09/11

Sarcasm duly noted.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

10:20am | 02/09/11

We should channel all the money we currently use for foreign aid and immigration into funding Aussie women to have more kids and look after them. If that means paying them a wage, so be it.

James1 says:

10:51am | 02/09/11

Tony, you know as well as I do that this would result in thousands of little Jaydyns and Kelishas swarming into our school system and hastening the onset of the idiocracy.  If you pay people to breed, it is invariably the worst types with little to no pride that do the breeding.

Max, of Rocky says:

12:13pm | 02/09/11

@acotrel

You really are a card, Mr B.A Santamaria was a leading light of the Democratic Labor Party and an anti-communist of note, who left this mortal coil in 1998. May he rest in peace.

The DLP is on the way back.  Eat your heart out.

Tony Abbott and John Howard were not members, so, what are you really trying to say ?

Chris_D says:

07:52am | 02/09/11

@S.L.  I take your point, and there is the issue of the “bar” being lowered to accomodate “equality”.  Military and policing is an obvious one.  Equal pay for an equal job, no problem.  But there are just some jobs that men and women do not preform equally.  And that goes both ways in certain jobs too.

Fiona says:

07:58am | 02/09/11

Now, from a boss’s point of view can you let us know what men want???
Or is it just women who are “problem” employees?

AJinDarwin says:

08:11am | 02/09/11

And THAT is why a couple of the workplaces I have been employed at over the last 10 years simply refuse to even grant women an interview. Its unfair, but they are perceived as very high maintenance employees compared to men. Its not necessarily fair, but they want to stay in business without excessive staff costs.

S.L says:

09:23am | 02/09/11

To add to my comment if your workplace is a union shop (like mine) you get to know all union officials on a first name basis because that’s where they run to before trying to settle any matters inhouse.
I had one employee (a real pain in the rear) that went to the union so often they ended up telling me “we don’t care just sack her!”
@Fiona yes there are as many bad male employees as women but they are NOT the protected species that women are!

S.L says:

12:56pm | 02/09/11

@ Tory without being too specific I’m in the transport industry and a (female) colleague of mine is incharge of 150 (male and female) employees. If she meets anyone socially and they ask her what she does for a living her answer always is Pre School Teacher!
My dad had a female employee that needed a few days off. Just the fact she was “sick” wasn’t enough for him and he kept at her until she told him exactly what was wrong. (he never asked why when she needed time off after that!)
A few of my female emloyees simply say “I have an appointment” It could be an appointment with their hairdresser for all we know but they know we’ll think it’s to do with “downstairs” so we don’t ask…..............

MadKat of Melbourne says:

01:14pm | 02/09/11

S.L. - sounds like your workplace isnt run very well if you have so many issues - you’re the boss so maybe it’s your fault if you can’t kept control of your staff -

S.L says:

02:16pm | 02/09/11

@MadKat it’s not a constant issue but it happens. The women I employ I hope stay with me for a long time to come.

Chris L says:

02:37pm | 02/09/11

@Mad Kat - Are you suggesting he stop hiring women?

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:36pm | 02/09/11

Chris L - show me where I said that - stop trying to start a fight with your ignorance -

Chris L says:

04:29pm | 02/09/11

One baseless assertion deserves another

Hikari says:

06:48pm | 02/09/11

Equal pay and time off when their kids are sick. -
WHY WHY WHY does no-one ever think that if there’s TWO working parents then the father can take the day off work? There’s a lot more gender discrepancy going on with this assumption than just the pay debate.
Kids sick = one parent stays home. Gender should be irrelevant therefore this argument is invalid. Next…

Equal pay and extra sick days for “womens issues”.
I’ve never needed a day off work for ‘women’s issues’. Then, I’ve worked with a guy who takes two days off every time he has a slight sniffle. He was sick every second week. The excuse might be different but taking advantage of sick leave is not specific to either gender. Next….

Harrasment allegations if it is brought to my attention they’ve “stuffed up”. Sexual harrasment allegations if someone is caught admiring the revealing outfit they wore to work.
I don’t have an answer to this. Sounds like an experience with one or maybe two women and you’re tainting all females with the one brush, which is just silly. There’s plenty of idiots representing each gender. Next….

If gender was truly irrelevant none of your arguments would hold weight. Fathers should have equal responsibility to care for their children, and flexible working arrangements would benefit all your employees, not just the women.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

07:18pm | 02/09/11

Chris L - my comment was not baseless and you are acting like a wanker - if you haven’t got anything intelligent to add and just want to be provocative and start a fight out of nothing then simply piss off -

Fiona says:

10:51pm | 02/09/11

SL, you still didn’t say how men can be problematic on the job….I know very few women that take sick leave for women’s issues….and I work in a female dominated industry.

Fiona says:

10:55pm | 02/09/11

Hikari, they (the day care centre or school) always call the mother first, if they want the kids picked up. Particularly irritating if I’m at work and they call my mobile while my husbands sitting at home.

Chris L says:

02:00pm | 03/09/11

@MadKat - “sounds like your workplace isnt run very well if you have so many issues - you’re the boss so maybe it’s your fault if you can’t kept control of your staff” - Hmmm.

Nothing baseless about that… except that you’re trying to tell S.L. that the problems he’s had with staff must be his fault without even knowing the situation or the people involved.

Interesting that you should come out swinging at me and calling me names while, at the same time, accusing me of trying to start a fight.

A classic case of projection.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

05:45pm | 03/09/11

Chris L says: 02:00pm | 03/09/11 - and a classic case of jumping on a band-wagon - I’m sure SL can fight his own fights - you’re the one trying to start a fight with “@Mad Kat - Are you suggesting he stop hiring women?” - and putting words into my mouth - you’re the one trying to project by making stupid comments that have no basis - I never said that - get a brain and make an intelligent comment for once -

Chris L says:

06:52pm | 03/09/11

Indeed, MadKat, S.L. has already shown he is quite capable of responding to you. Much like his employees would be quite capable of surviving without you to champion them. In all such cases you get to choose whether to bite or not, and I see you have chosen to do so.

Interesting that your own contribution involves criticising and belittling others. Indeed your posts in this thread seem to consist of nothing else, but they are still entertaining to read.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:12am | 05/09/11

Chris L - “Interesting that your own contribution involves criticising and belittling others. Indeed your posts in this thread seem to consist of nothing else”

Another stupid post - on this blog I’ve interpreted some legislation for Tim and his response was “fair enough” - I’ve agreed with Tubesteak (I’d hardly call that criticising and belittling) and Economist put words into my mouth like you have so I have set him straight -

Truly Chris L by what you have written I can clearly see that you are the one with problem - you’re spending time to go through the blog in search of what else I’ve written - pretty weird don’t you think -

Chris L says:

04:49pm | 05/09/11

That’s why I specified “in this thread”. Your comments in other threads were quite constructive.

CVN says:

08:55am | 06/09/11

I have managed large groups of people, I find Men want to get in and get the job done and women are going to nit pick, gossip about thye boss and then claim bulling or sexual harrasment if the boss bring them in, not to mention ratio of days off men versus women 5to3 sick pay per year that easliy gobbled up the 17% and yes women also seem to have caste system inbuilt against them selves, I have a couple of issuses with women saying directly to me ” look at her how can she dress like that.” or worse. Men often complement women for looking nice but never had I heard any of the males complain that a women hair is a mess or how can she wear that, for fear they would lose their jobs now i won’t rave on but if you think about this it is true and no femminest could deny. PS sorry spelling

Mahhrat says:

07:59am | 02/09/11

@Super D, and this is exactly why I’m a male Executive Assistant.  I have exactly that flexibility.

I made that decision when I was 19, that the family I wanted to have was way more important to me than my name on some stupid office door.

Tina says:

08:38am | 02/09/11

Really? I am a female Executive Assistant and I am practically on call 24/7 including the odd weekend work. Must be doing something wrong

Aphrodite says:

09:34am | 02/09/11

@ Tina… No offence but you may be able to avoid working weekends if you worked in office hours instead of commenting and reading Punch…

Mahhrat says:

10:25am | 02/09/11

@Tina, EA is a great role if you get the right boss.  I’ve had two great ones a about the same really bad ones.

The secret for me here is understanding that the cannot ask of me anything they won’t ask of anyone else.

See, what happens is if you’re really good at your stuff, you just end up getting more work.  That’s patently unfair.

When I was asked to undertake a body of work this year, I said no, because it’s somebody else’s role to manage those aspects of the business.  I asked, simply, why they weren’t doing it.

The answer was pretty much because the other person wasn’t capable.  I suggested then that if you weren’t going to ask the person who’s job it is, you shouldn’t ask me.

Tina says:

10:39am | 02/09/11

@ Mahhrat and Aphrodite

He is a great boss and I respect him a lot. And I can be online as often he is too busy during the day to give me the input I need so we meet when everyone has left the office and he has the time to go through the work.

Alex says:

08:42am | 02/09/11

You haven’t met many women, have you?

Brizben says:

10:07am | 02/09/11

I have worked with too many women who demand equal pay with out doing equal work or demand (and get) flexible hours only to abuse the system.

Fiona says:

11:03pm | 02/09/11

Not helpful (or true) and a gross generalization.

Tina says:

09:20am | 02/09/11

Its harsh, but if you have a company, do you want committed employees that have the drive to make profit for you and subsequently themselves or do you want someone that likes work-life-balance?

Work-life-balance is a good concept but it doesnt work in every job and every environment. Different jobs have different requirements. Some requirements are education and a degree, others may be heightened engagement and sacrifice.

marley says:

09:49am | 02/09/11

Well, I look at it this way.  If you’ve got a good employee, and you’ve invested time and money in getting them trained up, it makes a lot more sense to give them some flexibility in their work arrangements if the need it, rather than look for some young dufous with no commitments and start the training process all over again.  The “no commitment” kid will be off in a year or so anyway, to see the world or explore his inner self, or try a different line of work.  And you’ll be going through the whole process all over again.  And the cost of training, combined with the lower productivity of the employees until they’re up to speed, is not negligible.

Frankly, with an aging population and skill shortages, it makes more sense to hang on to your good employees, even if it means cutting them some slack on hours, rather than churn through a string of lesser-skilled employees just because they can put in a few extra hours.

Now, it’s true that employees given this sort of flexibility can’t expect to get to the top of the totem pole - but that’s their choice.  And I’ve never worked in an organization where everyone has to be a heavy hitter - there’s always plenty of room for the less ambitious but entirely competent to beaver away at the nuts and bolts jobs the keep any business or organization afloat.

fml says:

10:09am | 02/09/11

Tubey.

“Women want everything and the ability to choose what suits them.”

Everybody wants that.

Tim says:

10:29am | 02/09/11

Lucy,
what if people choose not to have a family?
Why should they suffer simply because others make different life choices?
You can’t have your cake and it eat.

Markus says:

10:37am | 02/09/11

Yes fml, but it is only women (well, feminists at least) that are claiming their inability to achieve all of that is because they are women, being held down by the oppressive patriarchy, blah blah blah

Most men are sensible enough to realise it’s just never going to happen, and some priorities have to come at the expense of others.

libertarian vegetarian says:

10:40am | 02/09/11

Too right Tubesteak. The purpose of a business is to make money. Otherwise it’s a HOBBY.  I work for money. My employees want to work here because they get money for working. Imagine if I told them all they will have to take a pay cut because my work/life balance requires that I only work 4 days a week, but since I want to earn the same it will have to come out of thier pay!
If people want to earn big $$$, they have to work hard. That usually means long hours. Your employer is not in business to supply you with a job.  If you want to pend time with your kids, choose the 9-5 lower paid job or become self employed (then try telling your clients they have to understand your work/life balance. That will make them laugh) If you want to make the big $$$ either in the corporate world or being self employed, pay a nanny.

Lucy says:

10:48am | 02/09/11

Yep that’s a good point Tina. I think that flexibility should extend to everyone, inlcuding people without kids. Let’s face it, everyone is more productive when they are happy at work. And as long as you have enough people working for you, there is no reason why you can’t come up with flexible working arrangements, that meet the targets you’re working for and within reason, fit into the needs of the employees.

Tubesteak says:

01:17pm | 02/09/11

Lucy
You work FOR the company and the company pays you accordingly. The company does NOT work for you nor does it exist to suit your desires. Companies exist to make money and NOT to give people a job just for the sake of it.

More flexibility usually means less output. Less output means less profit.

I started my career in the public service and soon realised that it was a glorified work-for-the-dole scheme. Most people were there only to pick up a paycheque and do very little work. This particular organisation had about 20,000 employees but could have done the work with about half that if they were required to work hours that are expected in profesisonal services firms where you are rated on the amount of billable hours you work and amount of money you bring in.

Whilst not every organisation can work on this model it is something that can be largely applied by monitoring outputs and comparing people (this is how performance ratings are done).

Marley
People can be retrained pretty quickly. If given enough incentive they can be heavy hitters in no time.

Fml
Most men realise that it’s impossible so choose one that suits them. They don’t expect companies to change their tune.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

02:20pm | 02/09/11

Tubesteak “started my career in the public service and soon realised that it was a glorified work-for-the-dole scheme” - CLASSIC

I agree with Tubesteak and I’m a woman -

Lucy its not that you should be penalised for needing flexibility but something has to give - why should other people step up or the company have to take responsibility for your lifestyle choice (they’re giving flexible jobs what more do you want) - you can’t expect equal pay when you’re not doing equal work or have equal commitment -

Economist says:

05:05pm | 02/09/11

Looks like I’m going to be the first to call you on it Tubesteak and MadKat, other than Lucy. ICB. This idea that your entire self worth is predicated on your contribution at work is nonsense. That your employees should be thankful for making money for the company? heh? You reckon with your attitude you’d hold onto your good staff? If they’re good they’re likely to move on to a job that offers better pay and better conditions. It’s pretty obvious in a workplace your replaceable, but to your family and friends your not.

Flexibility in my workplace means if your required to work 100 hours a week on occasions, you do, on other occasions you work less than 40. My blackberry means that effectively I’m at work 24/7 but get paid a salary. I seem to recall the personal computer was meant to free up our lives that we could work 40 hours a week and be more productive because of it. Talk about wanting it all you want the productivity games from capital improvements and the slaves as well. This notion that we can have continual productivity improvements based on labor without the corresponding improvements in capital is nonsense. And if my employer was so mingy as to not give me the opportunity to pick the family up ocassionally I’d tell where they can stick it.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

07:33pm | 02/09/11

Economist - I’m not talking about productivity gains - I’m talking about people that don’t do the same amount of work asking to be paid equally - that is counter productive - you could lose your good workers by pandering to these flexi-people - I’m not going to work for a company that pays the same to someone who does less work than me -

You said “This idea that your entire self worth is predicated on your contribution at work is nonsense” - tell me where I even alluded to that in my post - baseless assumption Economist.

And you said “That your employees should be thankful for making money for the company?” - again where did I even allude to that one.

All this crap about productivity gains as well - where did I even mention that. I know that you need a flexible workplace for productivity gains - but not to pay someone the same amount of money as someone who works longer hours gets - that is not equality

Economist (if you even are one) get back to me with where I said all the things you accuse me of saying.

Brian says:

01:49am | 03/09/11

Lucy, while I see what your trying to say, I disagree with one statement. You say “Why should they be penalised for needing flexibility”.
Ok ,Now flip that around, WHY should I as an employer be penalised for YOU needing flexibility. If you look at it fairly, I need to change the way the business operates, and not do things the way I want them too, just to accommodate the flexibility that someone wants. Now it would be different if ALL employees male or female NEEDED this flexibility, but why should i change things around, penalising myself and the business just so I can get that warm fuzzy feeling of being perceived as an equal opportunity employer.
I challenge you to tell me one good reason why I should choose an employee ( male or female) who wants me to change my way of business to be flexible to them, when compared to hiring another person of equal skills ( male or female) who will just work within my existing boundaries and require no “penalty” to me ?

Direct says:

09:57am | 02/09/11

Blokes want the option of being the primary carer for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is typically the primary carer who gets access to the children in the event of divorce, secondly spending time with and helping your children learn and grow immensely more rewarding than being a wage slave and finally, being the primary carer is a massive bludge, despite wailing of women everywhere.

Lee says:

11:38am | 02/09/11

Direct I feel sorry for you that your first concern of being the primary care giver is so you get custody in the event of divorce. That should be not even be a consideration in deciding who in the relationship takes the majority of care. The joy of spending time with your kids and having a positive influence should be your main reason. How would your kids feel if they knew you only looked after them to win a custody battle. Also if you think being the primary carer is a massive bludge you are either ignoring the kids to get stuff done or your not doing it well. My husband looks afer the kids when I am at work and does a great job but he doesn’t do all the household chores for the day. All the after school activities are on days when I am able to take them and I prepare dinner, he just heats it up.

Direct says:

12:18pm | 02/09/11

Lee, save your pity for the men who are 14% fathers or the men who are 0% fathers based on the amount of time they are allowed to see their children. It’s great that you have a wonderful relationship with your husband, but the fact of the matter is, not all families end up living happily ever after.

This point might be too obvious for you to understand, but the point of winning custody is to win the right to spend time your children, so I imagine my kids would see winning custody of them as consist with my decision to look after them in the first place and based on my desire to continue to be able to spend time with them and enjoy having a loving relationship with them.

Beyond that, the final point was supposed to humourous, but given you didn’t understand my previous point, it comes as no surprise to me that you take it as such.

Lee says:

12:59pm | 02/09/11

Direct as the child of divorced parents I am quite aware of custody battles. I was in the middle of one. I also know I didn’t believe the parent that lost loved me any less that the parent who won. What affected me most was attempts by both parties to claim superior parenting skills by belittling the parenting ability of the other one. Kids are not a winner takes all prize to be fought over alongside who gets the house and the TV

MadKat of Melbourne says:

02:40pm | 02/09/11

Gee Direct - you’re just a loving joy-filled creature aren’t you - really Direct no wonder you’re divorced with those attitudes -

Markus says:

09:10am | 02/09/11

“This article attempts to speak for all women when only speaking of a certain demographic of women”
That ‘certain demographic’ is what is generally referred to as the overwhelming majority. No one is forcing you to be a part of it.

marley says:

09:53am | 02/09/11

The system as it now stands works just fine for those who don’t want to raise a family, but do want to devote themselves entirely to their work.  There is equal pay, and if you’re prepared to work 80 hour weeks and are good at what you do, you will progress in your job, be you male or female.

The point is that not all women (or for that matter, all men) want that - in fact, the majority of the former at least would prefer flexibility - and so we shouldn’t fixate on closing an apparent earnings gap which is a product not of discrimination but of conscious choices by individuals to sacrifice or stall career progression in favour of family life.

Heartsease says:

10:11am | 02/09/11

There is no true gender equality, because the genders are NOT equal; in that one is the same as the other. 

It is simply not so.  I may invite huge whacks from some of you for saying this, but the idea of a woman at home, caring for her children, caring for her husband, caring for herself and the community; being a wife and mother, was and is an honourable, honest, wonderful profession.  A lot of people chose that path in the past, and a lot of people now cannot choose it because the world has changed and they no longer understand that this is an honest and good way to live your life, if you choose it. 

Good for the woman, the man, the children, the community, and the world.  There.  Now I expect to get slammed for that.

KH says:

11:17am | 02/09/11

Heartsease - you bet your arse.  Mostly because it wasn’t a ‘choice’ but at best an obligation, and at worst an expectation.  And the only people it ‘worked for’ were men.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

01:51pm | 02/09/11

@ KH - You make it sound like working in a dark factory with no breaks, lights or seats was a good thing. How about coal mining with a pic axe and a lantern.

Please go.

Chris L says:

03:12pm | 02/09/11

@KH - My mother will be quite surprised to find out that looking after her children and the household made her unhappy. Thanks for the heads up.

PS. Many men only got married, had children & pursued careers because of societal expectations. It wasn’t just women getting the short end of the stick. Hopefully such narrow confines are becoming a thing of the past.

Lil says:

04:15pm | 02/09/11

“The five-year Australia at Work longitudinal study of more than 4000 employees by the University of Sydney’s Workplace Research Centre has found a wage gap of more than 8 per cent between men and women on an hourly basis, even after all mitigating factors are taken into account”.

http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/five-decades-of-fight-but-the-pay-gap-still-remains-20110831-1jlzf.html

It’s the principle of the matter. It’s not fair or just that women are paid less for the same work simply because they’re female. It’s a denial of the basic right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender. The research clearly shows that women experience gender discrimination in this area, which impacts on something as basic and fundamental as economic security and independence. Whether this effects you personally or not is irrelevant. But may I suggest it effects every woman personally, because of what it says about our status as women.

Erick says:

09:18am | 02/09/11

The great majority of gender inequities in our society are those that favour women over men.

Women do better than men in education, yet have more special programs to help them. Women live longer than men, yet receive more funding for health and medical research.

The majority of victims of violence are men, yet there are no campaigns against violence against men. Men charged with crimes are more likely to be convicted, and if convicted, receive heavier sentences than women. Men are discriminated against in family law.

The list goes on and on, but privileged feminists can only whine about made-up issues like the phony “wage gap”.

Tina says:

09:40am | 02/09/11

@ Erick

Fair comment actually and I havent thought about it.

How about the bus driver waiting for women and not for men?

Markus says:

09:45am | 02/09/11

Name a single area where women are being denied the opportunity to do whatever it is they’re capable of, on the basis that they are a woman.

Gender equality is both genders being offered the same opportunities in life. Gender equity is demanding government enforced equality of outcome, when equality of opportunity did not automatically result in equality of outcome.

One is a legitimate fight for individual rights. The other is communism. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

Mayday says:

10:05am | 02/09/11

If men had the babies what a different world we would live in.

The five day week would morph into a three week month and women would “rule the world.”

fml says:

10:15am | 02/09/11

MArkus,

I dont know why they would want it, but they women are not allowed to fight on the front line.

Erick,

“The majority of victims of violence are men, yet there are no campaigns against violence against men. ” Thats because the majority of the aggressors are men, its man on man violence, there shouldnt be a targeted campaign, but a general one saying, dont be violent. But i spose there are the one hit death campaigns that are targeted towards male violence.

Markus says:

11:06am | 02/09/11

Fair point fml, and it is a situation that is currently being looked into.

So long as they still have to meet the same minimum requirements as men for combat duty (currently female defence force members do not have to meet the same entry level physical requirements as men), then I don’t see a problem.

Tim says:

11:13am | 02/09/11

fml,
women already have lower standards in the military than men. Is that fair?
I’d be all for women on the front line, as long as they have to meet the exact same standards as men.

Erick says:

11:49am | 02/09/11

@fml - So what if the majority of violent offenders are men? I’m talking about the majority of victims. Your point is pointless.

Al says:

01:02pm | 02/09/11

Kate re “After all, by retirement age most women are behind the eight ball economically due to family committments.unpaid care work etc. interrupting their careers. Fair enough if that’s what you want, but not all women want that.”
So if they don’t want that why do they CHOOSE that?
If they DON’T CHOOSE that then guess what, no pay gap.
Or are you proposing that the government (or employer) pay them at their salary for all the time they do care work (I am assuming you mean for their family and NOT as an employee) or family commitments.
I’m male but I’d like to be paid my salary to do care work or family responsibilities, hell I will even take on yours if I am paid my current salary!

andye says:

04:09pm | 02/09/11

@Erick - So… the majority of violence is caused by men… and this is a feminism problem? What is the “Men’s movement” doing about the problem of male violence?

OchreBunyip says:

06:58am | 03/09/11

@andye, the approaches taken to address male violence vary depending upon the group. As a generalisation, avenues are provided for men to discuss their concerns amongst other men without being demonised, outlets are organised for men to de-stress by taking part in activities that suit men’s interests and contribute to their mental and physical wellbeing, activism against unfair profiling as women always being victims and men as always being perpetrators (this leads to considerable anger), mental and physical health professionals are involved in providing information to men to help them make better decisions and in the case of legal problems resources are available so men can understand what they are facing if they should be accused of a crime and what their options are. The real difference between this and similar programmes for women is these men’s groups are organised by volunteers with little or no government funding or support.

fml says:

10:18am | 02/09/11

John you sausage. The movement towards equal rights for all is divisive? only for people who want total control, i propose john, you are the socialist red puppet master!

Care factor says:

02:26pm | 02/09/11

I agree most of the partimers in my office suffer from guilt because they are not full timers and while they are there put in a big effort and try to work Mondays and Fridays so the full time staff can get a long weekend and still have staff in the office. A lot of the fulltimers dissappear for an hour at least twice a day (not including lunch) just to get coffee. Also this is applicable for both sexes as my office has both sexes doing full and part time work. Personally I have not gone for promotion because I believed that as it would be a supervisory role it should be held by a full time staff member

Markus says:

09:58am | 02/09/11

“How about we as a society change the culture of power and make it possible for people of all genders to have a career AND a personal life.”

It is already possible. It is just not possible for someone who has chosen such a balance to then complete the same amount of work, and thus earn the same amount of money, as someone who has chosen to dedicate their life to their job.
And it is ridiculous to then claim that you deserve equal pay on the basis that you are doing equal work, when you clearly are not.

marley says:

10:01am | 02/09/11

If you want to get to the top of the executive ladder, be you male or female, you have to abandon flexibility.  It’s as simple as that. You have to commit yourself to the job first and everything else second.  That doesn’t mean that, if you want flexibility, you can’t have a career, it just means that the career will not advance as far or fast as that of someone who is totally focussed on his or her work. 

I have a relative who is at the top of his particular food chain - and that means he is home about 10 days a month, is on call 24/7, and spends a fair bit of his life in the air.  Given the business he’s in, and the demands it imposes, that’s how it has to be.  That suits him, but it wouldn’t have suited me - I would never have been prepared to make those kinds of sacrifices, so I never expected to make that final leap into the career stratosphere.  An awful lot of people, male and female, would agree with me.

PsychoHyena says:

10:53am | 02/09/11

Tilda, I actually got the feeling that’s what Lucy was saying, rather than fighting for equal pay why not fight for everyone to have equal pay AND equal flexibility?

Markus says:

12:07pm | 02/09/11

“why not fight for everyone to have equal pay AND equal flexibility?”

Because that discriminates against people who have chosen to forego flexibility in favour of increased pay, as well as against employers who would then be forced by law to pay both of these people ‘equally’.

PsychoHyena says:

07:43pm | 02/09/11

Markus you misunderstood what I meant, currently if a male needs time off for the kids it’s responded with “Can’t your wife do it?”.

At the moment however females are in a better position to bargain for accepted time off than males. My current employer is a great guy and is willing to deal, I know of one person at least who has taken a pay-cut so that they can get extra time off during the year.

We do a nice cross between collective bargaining and individual agreements, and even were WorkChoices to come back in (no matter the form) we all know in my workplace that we will be treated fairly. As a matter-of-fact our employer has commented that he prefers the current system to WorkChoices because he knows that what they are offering us is fair.

I digress though, males should have equal opportunity to flexibility while women have equal opportunity to the same pay and roles as males. Equal pay for equal work.

The biggest issue though is that taking time off work for kids actually comes under sick-leave, it’s called sympathy leave. If staff are taking excess sick-leave then you have a problem or you are too generous with amount of paid sick-leave you offer.

AdamC says:

10:26am | 02/09/11

Well said, Fairs. Though, I must say, I have worked with some excellent part-time mums. Sure, they aren’t around as much, even the conscientious ones, but at least they are keeping their knowledge and expertise available to their colleagues in some way. Of course, I’ve worked with plenty of crummy ones, too ...

fairsfair says:

10:45am | 02/09/11

And thats why it should be down to choice of the employer. The protection offered to crap working mum’s blows my mind. If you can’t do your job, get out and let someone who can do it.

I was never taught that that was descrimination - I was taught that that was life.

I work with one lady who is fantastic. She is only 3 days per week, great at her job and never takes liberties nor uses her child as an excuse. She has perhaps been lucky interms of illness, but in the past two years has taken only one day off in sick leave relating to her child’s health. She is fantastic, so she is looked after. I have no issue with that at all - but the ones over in accounts who constantly leave at 3 to pick little Timmy up because he purposely missed the bus - you sort that out on your own time and don’t make me hang around until 6:00pm on the one day I can finish at 5:00pm to pick up your slack *steam escapes ears* returning only to gloat that you still have 4 weeks holidays owing this year etc etc

Tim says:

11:37am | 02/09/11

Sing it sister

Claire says:

01:57pm | 02/09/11

I have to agree. At my old job there was a useless part-time mother who would take off at least once a month cus her kid was sick, and her husband was too lazy to look after them. We’d be left with her work. She also came back to work for the minimum time before getting paid maternity leave again. Eugh.

At my new job, we have a part-timer who is actually useful to the company, she works from home if she has too, and we never have to pick up the slack.

It’s all about competence in my eyes. If you can’t perform you shouldn’t get rewarded.

bec says:

05:43pm | 02/09/11

Laws of the internet dictate that you will misspell the word “incompetent” when pointing out someone else’s incompetence. And knowing me, I’ve just invoked Muphry’s Law myself…

Elizabeth1 says:

07:21pm | 02/09/11

This is going to get really interesting with our ageing population.  We wont be talking about “mothers” we will be talking about sons and daughters needing flexible work places to care for their ageing parents.  Or is the taxpayer going to foot the bill.  People live in families and families are sometimes inconvenient and require attention.  Workplaces who refuse to recognise this are a negative to our community, impact on taxpayers and dont deserve our support.

Fiona says:

11:29pm | 02/09/11

Fairsfair, have you had kids yet yourself (or do you intend to)?  How about you post if/when you have. Yes there are women who take advantage of Their employment conditions, but there are also plenty who don’t. As for your comment about perpetual baby machines. Would you like to dictate someone else’s family planning? It just happens that commonly women have a baby, have up to a year off, come back to work and soon after are pregnant. Look at the age gap between most siblings. I do feel sorry for small businesses in these cases, but what is your solution?

Markus says:

10:11am | 02/09/11

If one is in the public sector and one is in the community sector, then they aren’t the same job. Equal pay legislation does not apply.

“a key reason for this being because they work in a female dominated industry”
The key reason for this is because it is the community sector, so it is funded primarily by taxpayer money and generates no profit. Being female has nothing to do with it.

Liz Gardiner says:

10:52am | 02/09/11

Wow Markus, you have a lot to say about a matter you obviously don’t know much about… do you work in the Community Sector under a caring profession? How about the Govenment Sector under a caring profession?  If you did… you would know what has been happening.  Oh and by the way…. when fighting for equal pay… it is also fighting for the men who work in this profession as well… they to are paid at a much lower rate simply because they work in what is considered a female dominate work place.  Oh by the way…. why do you feel so threatened by people going for a much needed pay rise?

Markus says:

11:23am | 02/09/11

I don’t have any issue with people fighting for higher pay. But the shocking pay in the community sector (and yes, I agree that it is shocking) is purely an industrial dispute, it has nothing to do with gender. As soon as you start pulling the “it’s because we’re women” claim, your argument loses credibility.

“when fighting for equal pay… it is also fighting for the men who work in this profession as well”
So unless the men you work with are getting paid more than you on the basis that they are men, then it is clearly not a gender issue.

Liz Gardiner says:

03:46pm | 02/09/11

You haven’t quite got it.  The issue is about the sector as a whole… anyone working in that sector is seen as working in the caring profession, and as history states… the caring profession is women’s work… it doesn’t matter if you are a male in the profession (and god we need more men in it) because it has been historically seen as women’s work… then it has been paid at a lesser rate… historically… What the pay claim is about is “not” seing this sector as women’s work any longer… It should become a sector like all other sector’s banking, retail…. bus driving etc.,  It has awards and levels of awards for pay.. depending on your experience and your education… but it is still poorly paid.. because it has been again “historically” seen as women’s work.  Hope you get it.

Elizabeth1 says:

05:42pm | 02/09/11

I have noticed the best way to improve wages and conditions in traditionally female roles is to have men working in the sector.  It worked for nurses in the 80’s and it will work again for the community care sector.  Men seem to be less likely to tolerate unreasonable renumeration and conditions and seem more likely to agitate.  It would be interesting to know what the tipping point is.  The Community Care sector has seen a large influx of male workers in the past 15 years.  The nursing sector saw the same in the 1970 - 80’s just before a significant increase in hourly rate.  To the comment that this sector does not make a “profit”.  The community care sector is positioned at the front line, working with the most disadvantaged people in our society. Alcohol & drugs, mental health, anger management , child neglect,  the list goes on.  Many of the people in contact with community services exhibt behaviors that are a threat to a safe community and civil society. Perhaps the community sector should go on strike and let the general community experience life without this buffer.

Slothy says:

04:07pm | 02/09/11

I don’t have a lot to add, I just want to say that this is an excellent comment that cuts through a lot of the ‘flexible means they just want to bludge!’ crap that comes up in these discussions.

It also makes me less terrified of possibly taking the plunge to have kids of my own at some stage.

l says:

07:20am | 03/09/11

Thank you J - finally someone who can explain what we mean when we want flexability.  At this time in our lives when our children are young we want to be able to pick our kids up, we may have had high paying high pressure jobs before but for now we want to work without the same level of pressure. There is only so much one person can take on and be an efficient and productive worker and a good parent to young children.

I am fortunate, I wanted to do two careers when I was younger.  I knew I wanted to have a family one day so I chose to do the one where I had to work long hours first (and long they were), achieved the level and experince I wanted to and when I was getting closer to the age when I would be wanted to have children retrained into the other career I wanted to do.

My children are about to start school next year and I have negotiated to be able to work a 3/4 workload so that I can pick them up when school finishes.  Which is fortunate.

However this is not an “expectation” that my work would do this.  I am very good at my job and dedicated.  I have spoken to my boss and it was determined what the buisness wanted from me.  So I am only decreasing working on things my workplace deemed the least important.  To get “flexability” you must be dedicated, good at your job and be able to make solid agreements with you workplace so that they are happy as well.

Markus says:

10:23am | 02/09/11

If money was such an issue for you, why did you choose a career in childcare over, say, bus directing?

“I excel in my work and I enjoy what I do”
There is your answer. You sacrificed money for job satisfaction.

You want the same pay as a someone who directs people to get on buses? Go and get a job directing people onto buses, and stop claiming you are being discriminated against because you are a woman.

Liz Gardiner says:

10:38am | 02/09/11

Will look forward to caring for you Markus when you need it… and you will… at some stage of your life.

AJinDarwin says:

10:25am | 02/09/11

Get a new job, not all work places do this

Markus says:

10:27am | 02/09/11

“That said, it should not be at the expense of wages and conditions.”
Of course it should. Why should the employer be expected to pay someone who can choose duck out to pick up the kids whenever they want and who won’t work weekends, the same as someone who can work late hours and weekends if required?

Tim says:

11:15am | 02/09/11

So parents should be paid the same as non parents even if they do less work?
Yeah that sounds completely fair.

Kipling says:

11:55am | 02/09/11

Guys, how about, you get paid AT THE SAME RATE for the work you complete AND ONLY the work you complete bar leave loading etc.

I think the actual pay rate is the point, but don’t let that get in the way of a whinge….Comprehension guys comon.

@Markus, the wages and conditions mate, read it again and again until you get it…..

Employers have it pretty bloody good, but never good enough it would seem. To keep an employee happy in their job (regardless of their gender) then the job should accomodate responsible parenting, That is in no way suggesting the person should be paid for their down time inappropriately. Of course, sick leave, holiday loading etc are effectively paying for downtime. Do you support the dropping of these conditions?

Of course, if someone can work late hours and weekends as required is paid appropriate penalties that is fine. Sadly this is often NOT the case though cause the poor bloody employer wants the extras for free.

Tim says:

12:23pm | 02/09/11

Kipling,
most professional jobs are salaried.
The idea of a rate for these jobs isn’t realistic, it might be OK for contracting but for full time positions it just doesn’t occur.
Thus the extra work is usually rewarded not with immediate pay but rather with promotions and advancement for dedication and sacrifice.

Parents expect their workplaces to be flexible yet a lot of them don’t think that this flexibility should come at a financial cost to them. It’s unfair and unrealistic to expect parenthood to not affect your career.
I’d like to play golf every afternoon but I wouldn’t expect to be able to do it without it costing me financially. Why do parents think their life choices are any different to a company with a bottom line to meet?

Markus says:

12:34pm | 02/09/11

“how about, you get paid AT THE SAME RATE for the work you complete AND ONLY the work you complete bar leave loading etc.”
Because that’s not the only factor when considering somebody’s pay value. One of the other major factors is level of responsibility in the job.

It’s not the person who takes Mondays and Fridays off whose arse is going to be on the line if/when things go wrong.

lee says:

02:41pm | 02/09/11

Markus most people I know get paid by the hour. If you work 24 hours a week you get the hourly rate time 24. If you work a 38 hour week you get the hourly rate time 38. Its not rocket science. Also if staff have to work more than a 38 hour week ie work back or extra shifts they should be compensated for it by overtime. If the need to do extra hours is happening a lot the employer obviously needs to employ more staff and is taking advantage of anyone who puts in the extra hours for free

J says:

10:49am | 02/09/11

I think you’ll find most of them do.  And it would be the fastest way to reduce (rare) discrimination against women percieved to be likely to have a child soon - if there was just as much chance that the bloke who is hired will go on parental leave and need to take sick days to look after the kids - no point in discriminating!

Direct says:

04:00pm | 02/09/11

No, this is about a part time day care centre worker no earning as much as a CEO.

Fiona says:

11:48pm | 02/09/11

IMO, the day care center worker’s job is just as important as the CEOs…..

Lee says:

02:48pm | 02/09/11

I thought it was as long as we take out the bins

Amanda says:

07:49pm | 02/09/11

Thanks, Michelle. I’ve been reading through the comments wanting to say something but not knowing where to begin! Many,or at least some, of the 62% might be carers who, like me, gave up career, prestige, reasonable income, qualifications etc to be carers to children, parents or others. I’ve been doing it for 20 years and whilst an end of my caring duties is in sight, my employment prospects are zero. So much has changed; there wasn’t OH&S when I worked, for an example. In those 20 years, I’ve gained invaluable life experience but that means nothing in the job market now a days compared to the requirement for formal education and verifiable employment history etc. Study was not possible for me over the past 20 years; exhaustion, low income etc prevented study. I don’t expect anyone to understand, other than for those who have been there themselves, but maybe it might give some insight as to where many professionally qualified people disappeared to!  The funny thing is, my qualifications were in the field od developmental disabilities; exactly all I’ve done for over 30 years!

Al says:

12:36pm | 03/09/11

Amanda: Are you trying to say that your experience over the past 20 years should equate to the same as:
- Someone who has been working and continued studying in that field and are up to date. (rather than 20 years old)?
As for education, you were a carer, so are eligible for support and as such were able to do discounted (and in many cases FREE) education via government facilities such as TAFE. If you chose not to put in those hours don’t be surprised that employers won’t recognise qualifications that are 30 year out of date, a lot has happened in the last 20 years.
You may have experience in the specific areas you dealt with, but that does not translate to keeping up to date with the methods and procedures of the industry.

michelle says:

02:49pm | 03/09/11

amanda not to mention that wasn’t the gist of my argument. My argumaent is 62% of our teryiary educated women are no longer working full-time. Yes some of them would be carers and some would be on maternity leave or stay at home mothers- but 62% of tertiary educated women. I don’t think so. Plus other western countries also have stay at home mothers and need to take on a carers role- but yet they have much higher rates of tertiary educated women working full time. Was doesn’t asutralia

Direct says:

01:13am | 04/09/11

How do you encourage these women to stay in the work place when they clearly don’t want to?

Elizabeth1 says:

10:17am | 04/09/11

Direct - I think they do want to work.
“•Women’s workforce participation rate has increased from 43.5 per cent in 1978 to 58.4 per cent in June 2010
•In June 2010, women were much less likely to work full-time than men (54.3 per cent compared to 83.4 per cent), and 69.6 per cent of all Australians working part-time work were women.
•In couple families where the father was employed, 13 per cent of children aged 0–2 years had a mother working full time, compared with 30 per cent of children aged 9–12 years.
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/general/factsheet_women_issues/Pages/facts3.aspx

Elizabeth1 says:

07:35pm | 02/09/11

I wish I had written that.

HT says:

01:07pm | 03/09/11

I love this comment.
What amazes me is the number of people who presume that number of hours spent in the office somehow equates to the persons ability to do their job, how well they do it, and how much work they produce. Not the case. I have met many workers who spent more than 8 hours a day in the office and still do a poor job.

Elizabeth says:

08:11pm | 03/09/11

Absolutely agree HT.  I would love to be paid for output , by the job, the completed outcome.  I could double my income.  I have the contacts, the organisational/time management skills and community networks to get things really moving.  But because I am in salaried, by the hour, employment I held at half the pace and have time to read Punch.

marley says:

01:09pm | 03/09/11

You missed the entire point of the article, didn’t you?  So here it is:  the reason there’s a pay disparity between males and females is because a large number of females have chosen a flexible, balanced life over career progression.  As a result, they don’t go as far, as fast, or make as much money, as their male counterparts.  And they don’t expect to.  They know that, if they want flexibility in the workplace, they’re going to sacrifice something, and they’re prepared t do it.  And it seems to me that that undermines your whole argument about women wanting it all.

Mero says:

02:19pm | 03/09/11

raving on about last night’s SOO game? Are you for real? Men only rave on about sports, and in my office it only occurs on Monday mornings.
Women..on the other hand rave on about anything and everything from the health benefits of avocadoes to whos getting married and what type of dress wil suit their heels. As I sit at my desk, heavily typing my days work away, all I hear in the background is the useless chatter of women blabbing on about utterly useless crap that has no relevance whatsoever to anything work related.

Call me a sexist, but hiring women is a nothing but a long term LIABILITY.

Elizabeth1 says:

08:20pm | 03/09/11

Metro - the World Bank, Goldman Sachs and United Nations economists disagree. For example a recent paper from Goldman Sachs found that closing the gap between male and female employment rates would have huge implications for the global economy, boosting American gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 9%, Eurozone GDP by 13% and Japanese GDP by 16%. (http://pslforum.worldbankgroup.org/resources/empowerment.aspx). Equals improved lifestyles for all. Makes sense to support dont you agreee?

Elizabeth1 says:

08:39pm | 03/09/11

Millie I see you think spending power is a negative.  I have to disagree.  I only have to compare movies that are presently available to movies that were available in the 80’s to be grateful that women have spending power. Did you read the article.  Women are taking a hit in money, power and superannuation to spend time ensuring their offspring are catered for.  I will add that over 2/3’s of the unpaid labour in our community is done by women, including looking after ageing parents.  Doesnt really fit with “the selfish nature of women” statement.  Your argument of men being paid more because of stress levels is interesting.  I have never heard of an employer measuring stress levels and paying accordingly.  The guys in IT at my employment seems pretty relaxed to me.

OchreBunyip says:

11:57am | 04/09/11

Unpaid labour has nothing to do with paid labour and flexibility at work. While the two issues often get conflated, businesses are only liable for paying an employee for their work on behalf of the business. What an employee does with their private time is their own business.

OchreBunyip says:

02:41pm | 04/09/11

I agree workplace flexibility does indeed impact unpaid labour however fklexibility is part of the package; more flexibility means less gross wages, it is the price of flexibility. Unpaid wages are usually treated as a homogenous service when house and yard work is a very different unpaid labour compared to say aged, disability or infirmity care provided by family members.

Concerning house / yard work, a recent survey showed that men were indeed picking up an increased share of “housework” but a stumbling block was their partners wanting it done their way, leading to redoing work and a belief that less work was actually been done by male partners.

As for familial care, I would argue that while it is cheaper for the economy I’m not sure it is necessarily better for the cared for or for the unpaid carer. What it often comes down to is what can be afforded.

Elizanbeth says:

05:45pm | 04/09/11

I cant explain what those women could be thinking, certainly not the way to encourage support around the home. The men in my circle have shown that they are capable and willing to put in around the home. Its not seen as special behaviour , no ways says gee your lucky blah blah.  And in my circle its certainly not the place of women to stand over men judging their performance.  I dont hold to the view that women are the experts of all things domestic. I agree also that being a carer impacts on health, superannuation and bank balances.  Those being cared for prefer to be cared by family.  What concerns me is our ageing population.  The average age of nurses currently sits at around 65yrs of age. I doubt our community services will not be able to cope.  Add our unsustainable welfare system and funding aged care places will also be an added problem on top of workforce numbers.  There is every possibility that the demand will outstip supply.