Prev
Next

Equal pay: Plenty of women are still being left behind

Ged Kearney

by Ged Kearney

30 May 05:40am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Equal Pay, Income, Men And Women, Society

111 comments

Sometimes we are so busy getting on with our lives we don’t notice history is being made before our eyes. That is precisely what is happening right now with equal pay.

I'll let you in on a little secret - the Mining Magnate award rate is actually quite good. Photo: Colin Murty

Forty years ago an Australian woman doing the same job as a man was not guaranteed the same pay. The law allowed employers to set two rates of pay, one for men and one for women,  the unspoken basis being a woman could not hope to be as efficient and productive as a man. Work was often seen as a temporary thing for women, before they became wives and mothers. Women in some jobs, like teaching and the public service, were required to resign once they got married.

No women had sat in Cabinet, on the High Court or served as Governor-General. Or, Heaven forbid, led the union movement.

We have come a long way since then, and it is often easy to think that because we have legal equality, and because both our Prime Minister and our richest person are female, that there are no real barriers to equality.

But there’s one fight for equal pay that still hasn’t been won, and that’s for workers in the social and community sector.

The majority of these workers are female. They are in jobs that require a blend of skill, experience and compassion yet are often paid little above the minimum wage.

For a long time people have shrugged their shoulders and said “well, that’s just how it is”.

Sometimes the fact that these jobs are seen to be a “vocation” or “their own reward” is used to somehow justify the low wages.

The amount of women in these professions is not the sole reason for low wages, but if we pretended it wasn’t a factor we’d be ignoring the elephant in the room.

But things might be about to change

The Australian Services Union has led a campaign to have these workers given the pay that they are entitled to.

In a recent decision Fair Work Australia has recognised that the 200,000 workers in this sector covered by the federal industrial relations system are not receiving equal rates of pay, and that a major reason is the fact the jobs are mainly done by women.

This covers workers in areas like disability services, aged care in the community, family day care centres and employment and training services.

This is a historic shift because Fair Work has compared the work this mainly female group does with similar work in other fields, and found that the pay is systematically lower.

Fair Work is waiting to hear more evidence before it decides how much extra pay social and community services workers get, but it’s clear that they will finally be getting a decent pay rise.

The WA Government has already increased its budget for the sector to fund the higher wages.

Next Tuesday (June 8th) will see rallies across Australia to push home the message.

This decision has brought the usual hostility from right-wing commentators and employer groups who moan that it could be the start of a “wages breakout”.

This is despite the fact that in the last year average full-time wages have increased by 3.8 per cent, while profits have increased by well over twice that rate.

The interesting thing is that most of the employers in the sector support the decision, because they recognise the long-term damage that is being done by low wages.

Unless we are being cared for by these workers, or know someone who is, they are often overlooked. But they are part of an army of people that give some dignity, joy and hope to the lives of the vulnerable.

The insufficient amount that they are paid gives a disturbing insight into our values as a society. What does it say about us when the people looking after the elderly, the disabled, or homeless earn so little? I have even met housing support workers whose take home pay is so low, they would qualify for help from their own service.

It shouldn’t be. These jobs are tough and have a high-burnout factor. The workers often have multiple tertiary qualifications. Adding the stress of looking after a family on a low wage means we’ll have a higher turnover of workers, and lower quality of care.

Rather than looking at the bottom line, and asking will this add a few dollars to the cost of care, we should be asking how much will fair wages improve the quality. How much will allowing these skilled workers to stay in their jobs contribute to the lives of the people they help?

We are good at valuing people’s physical labour, and the physical risks they take in the workplace. We are good at putting the right value on jobs that require complex mental skills. What we are not good at is putting a value on jobs that require an emotional component.

For instance, nursing is a job that requires knowledge, but also one that requires you to give of yourself. If you’re having a bad day on an assembly line chances are no one will know about it, but you can’t let yourself do that on a hospital ward because it effects the people you are looking after.

The human commitment that carers put in every day is simply not valued, and we need to change that.

If this test case does that then indeed it will be an historic outcome.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

111 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:01am | 30/05/11

      Once again, the feminist wage gap myth is trotted out and used to benefit women at the expense of men.

      The ACTU is an anti-male organisation, as are most other unions, which support an explicitly feminist agenda. Male workers who are members of a union are only providing funds to groups that wish them harm.

      If male and you’re one of the few still in a union, you should quit.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:52am | 30/05/11

      Mr B.A.Santamaria has the right idea - keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant!

    • KH says:

      07:52am | 30/05/11

      Its not a ‘myth’ - its quantifiable, unlike most of the other tripe you spout.

    • Bitten says:

      08:38am | 30/05/11

      Well, actually KH, it is in this instance: the case-study Ged has referred to is not about women being paid ‘less’ (than what is another issue entirely) because of their gender, but because of the industry they happen to be working in - which is community sector support. Men who work in this sector are paid the same as the women in this sector. So it’s not about a gender-based pay gap, but rather that the work itself is not particularly well-paid, (irrespective of what genitals you have while you’re doing it). Now that is a separate issue and an important one. Unfortunately that issue becomes obscured when people unintelligently try to class it as a ‘gender pay gap’. It isn’t. It’s an industry pay gap.

      Now the issue of whether those in the community sector should be paid more is something to be debated.  But it is inaccurate to attempt to frame such a debate on the flawed premise that it’s about gender. As clearly demonstrated, such a cheap and intellectually lazy shot simply alienates at least half of the Australian population, who quite rightly resent the perpetuation of the myth that ‘men have it good, women have it bad’. PEOPLE working in the community sector might argue that they, collectively, have it bad - and they’d get a decent hearing because, for once, it’s being both intellectually honest AND societally inclusive. Which is a powerful tool in advocacy. Unfortunately, it requires a reasonable amount of intellect and foresight to see the benefits of such an approach and well…

    • Erick says:

      08:39am | 30/05/11

      Actually, if you count inheritance, wealth transfer through taxes, and transfer from husbands to wives, women control and spend much more money than men.

      It’s true that men earn more because they work harder, but women are wealthier because they gain more benefits from men’s labour.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      08:42am | 30/05/11

      Yes KH because comparing tuckshop ladies (apples) to Garbos (oranges) is a fair and equal comparison. This is not a hypothetical, feminists actually argued for this.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:59am | 30/05/11

      KH, it is not quantifiable, it is circumstantial. Big difference.

      The sectors referred to in the article are not-for-profit sectors or at least don’t earn great profits. Pay is a function of profit, among other things like training, difficulty, supply of labour, demand for labour etc.

      If you work in an industry that doesn’t generate a lot of money then don’t expect to earn much because you don’t deserve it. If you work for the government then the only way your entire sector can earn more is to raise taxes, which does no-one any favours.

    • KH says:

      09:32am | 30/05/11

      Geoff - we aren’t comparing ‘tuckshop ladies’ to ‘garbos’.  My mother worked in aged care for most of her life.  Most people would baulk if they knew what was involved in these jobs, and it isn’t dealing out soup from a pot.  How exactly do you think you get a patient out of a bed and into a shower chair when they are incapacitated?  How exactly do you think you change soiled sheets without moving the patient?  You have to lift them genius - its hard physical work, made all the more precarious by the fact it is a person, not a garbage bin that you can handle roughly - even with a ‘lifting machine’ there is still a lot of manual lifting to be done.  Often she had to look after more than 2 dozen people at a time, with only a ward assistant (recently most likely to be a recent immigrant with little or no training) for help.  People die - who exactly do you think cleans up bodies, and the mess left afterwards?  How many garbos do you know who have to wipe someones backside for them?  Its filthy, heavy, hard work.  Then there are the technical things - administering medical care, dealing out medications - a mistake could kill someone - again, dropping a bin is hardly going to have the same consequence.  While they do all of these things, they also have to maintain a relationship with the people they look after - they aren’t inanimate objects - they are people, like you, who just got old or sick.  People who are incapacitated or ill are also often upset, or angry.  She was punched and kicked a few times over the years. The elderly often also have dementia -  they don’t just lie there.  You have to have eyes in the back of your head. But you still have to treat them with dignity and respect.  Its unforgiving, hard work.  I saw how it wore her down.  I saw how hard she worked, often coming home exhausted.  These people work their asses off.  They are on their feet for whole shifts which can often extend to more than 12 hours at a time, or even longer if its a double.  You probably wouldn’t last a day.  I know I wouldn’t.  They deserve to be paid more than minimum wage.

    • PTom says:

      09:40am | 30/05/11

      @Tubesteak,
      “If you work in an industry that doesn’t generate a lot of money then don’t expect to earn much because you don’t deserve it”
      What a load of crap. So according to people who help look those that need help just to live don’t deserve to be paid well. These are people that work in meal-on wheels or beyondblue help line,.
      While Politician & Doctors who earn lots of money in non-money generate industry do.

    • Tim says:

      10:07am | 30/05/11

      KH,
      Then why did she do it for such low pay?
      Could it be that she was getting other non monetary benefits from working in that sector?
      That she actually enjoyed her job?
      Other people like myself sacrifice enjoyment of work for money. Why should people in the community sector get to have their cake and eat it too?

    • Liam says:

      10:36am | 30/05/11

      @Erick and bitten - Perfect!(once again)
      There are to many rules in place to promote equal opportunity but only from the females point of view, I’ve never heard of a male winning a case of discrimination based on gender because the courts and the rules are simply tailored towards women.

      How can feminists go on with this unequal pay crap, its ILLEGAL to pay someone differently for the same job based on your gender… How do people not understand this, they base their argument on the average male income compared to the average female income. You predominantly see females in fields of work including waitressing, aged care, nursing, bar work, childcare, and many other low to mid paying jobs while men are in jobs like trades, defence, police, politics, and many other mid to high paying jobs.

    • Anubis says:

      10:37am | 30/05/11

      KH I agree with you that they DO DESERVE better pay rates. But this is not what the article was implying. The article was implying that the lower pay rates were essentially a matter of sex discrimination. They are not. They are a matter of the services provided in this sector being given lower rates than the equivalent in private sectors. It has nothing to do with lower pay for women as compared to men.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:39am | 30/05/11

      PTom

      You are not paid based on some intrincsic value of how much you like your job or what touchy feely types of things you think you add. You are paid based on what profits you generate or the difficulty of that job (as well as education levels, training, demand/supply of labour etc).

      Most doctors don’t earn much. Go and talk to your local GP. Whilst plastic surgeon Dr Tavakoli might be raking it in because he can charge $10,000+ for each breast augmentation there aren’t that many like him.

      Politicians are the ones that make the law so of course they are going to set their own pay rates. Back-benchers only earn about $130,000 so I wouldn’t call that a lot of money. The PM earns only about $350,000. Again not much when you compare her to some of the bankers who work for institutions earning billions. She would have been earning twice that amount when she was a partner in a law firm.

    • AAAdam says:

      11:07am | 30/05/11

      The market pays people what they are worth. Simple. If there was this huge supply of women who were equal to their male counterparts in every way (experience, qualifications, work ethic, output, commitment, etc), offering their labour for a lower price than men, the market would quickly respond. Businesses filled with these equally qualified yet cheaper women would spring up and outcompete those that hired similarly qualified men that cost more. The fact this is not occurring is merely a reflection that some women are not equal to their male counterparts in every job specific aspect.
      So feminists, stop bleating and asking the government to intervene in the free market when it is working fine; try getting off your ass and making yourself at least as competitive as your male counterparts if you want the same pay. The free market doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender so your arguments are irrelevant and meaningless feminist garbage.

    • LeonT says:

      11:51am | 30/05/11

      @Tubesteak Firstly, $130k not a lot of money? It is about twice what the median Australian *household* earns.

      Secondly, the ‘free’ labour market does not allocate resources nearly as efficiently as you and AAAdam seem to think it does. I suggest you investigate some of the literature.

    • JulesG says:

      12:16pm | 30/05/11

      Good onya Erick! Women get the same for the same job and hours as men.  To quote KH’s example, ancilliary health care is poorly paid and is just as low paid for men too.

      Women tend to do casual, unqualified work which does not pay well but men and women get the same pay doing those same jobs. Traditional male roles worked by women attracts exactly the same pay. It has to by law. Mechanics, plasterers, bricklayers, doctors, engineers and carpenters all get the same pay - man or woman!

      Women expect to work 20 hours a week as a manicurist and get paid the same as a male engineer responsible for billions of dollars of works and works 100 hours. The female engineer is paid exactly the same, the hair dresser is not.

      Women - stop bleating about your miserable lot; you already have it all, it is men that are discriminated against!

    • JulesG says:

      12:22pm | 30/05/11

      KH: Work is not paid for how physically hard it is. It depends on the worker’s clout in any given industry whether or not the pay is good.

      Men have had to put up with this inequity for donkey’s years - so shut up and get on with it, like we have to.

    • Paul Horn says:

      12:48pm | 30/05/11

      KH you are seriously crazy!!!

      My wife has worked in the disability support services sector her entire career and earns about one third of my salary. Even though she earns much less than me she gets a 30% fringe benefit entitlement which means she ends up paying bugger all tax! This boosts her equivalent income considerably. I note this has not been mentioned in this typically hypocritical feminist rant! 

      Amazingly enough that even though she supports folk with high level needs the vast majority of her problems revolve around the generally sub standard folk she works with. Most of these people in the services sector would never cut it in the real world and often come with an array of mental issues themselves.

      They would fall apart at the seams if you placed them in a high pressure construction environment where they had to deliver on time, on budget and on quality despite their typically female whining and complaining. 

      Personally I believe they are way overpaid as it is. As for the crap about nurses having to relate to patients etc etc etc many jobs require far more subtle and evolved communication skills. Try negotiating with someone that knows a lot more about a particualr issue than you and holds all the cards over whether the project will become a success or not. In the real world the vast majoity of people have to communicate on an equal basis not from a position of austere authority.

    • dancan says:

      12:52pm | 30/05/11

      Bitten summed up this piece perfectly.  This is not an example of difference in pay rates due to a person’s gender, instead this is about necessary yet under-valued sector within the community that is grossly underpaid as a whole.

    • Slothy says:

      01:02pm | 30/05/11

      People are overlooking the deeper issue here: yes, men and women working in the community sector get paid the same, shamefully low, wage, but the reason that community work is paid so badly is because it is traditionally seen as women’s work.  That is why it is being characterised as a gender pay gap - gender discrimination is what led to the disparity in the first place.

      And to those arguing that ‘people get paid what they’re worth and according to the profits they bring in’ well, the flipside is ‘you get what you pay for’. The low pay and high stress of the job means a super high burnout rate and therefore, a low standard of care. You can hold your own opinions on whether you’d like the society you live in to value the sick, elderly and disabled enough to ensure that quality carers are paid enough to stick around, but personally think it’s a step in the right direction.

    • AAAdam says:

      01:08pm | 30/05/11

      @ Leon T - “Secondly, the ‘free’ labour market does not allocate resources nearly as efficiently as you and AAAdam seem to think it does”

      Lol, and what, the iron fist of central control allocates resources in a more efficient manner? Give me break.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:08pm | 30/05/11

      LeonT(rotsky)

      $130k isn’t much when you acknowledge that many politicians are lawyers who could be earning triple (or more) than that in the private sector. It is irrelevant when compared to “average” pay rates.

      The free market is the most efficient allocation method available. It’s not perfect, but nothing is. It’s a damn sight better than the government or military dictatorships or anything else.

    • redvixen says:

      01:27pm | 30/05/11

      Well, blow me down, I agree with Erick!!

      A couple of years ago my husband ‘resigned’ from his union because the union negotiated with the employer that, instead of getting a reasonable wage rise for everybody, they asked for a minor wage rise for everybody and generous paid maternity leave (notice ‘maternity’ leave, not parental leave).  So, instead of the entire work force getting what was fair, only a small portion of the work force was benefitted.  Once you take out all the men, and then the women that fall into the following categories (past child-bearing age, unable to have children, don’t want to have children, are young and want something that benefits them now) there’s not a lot left.  Any of the men who opened their mouths to comment were shot down immediately.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:31pm | 30/05/11

      An d Mr / Ms Slothy a lot of that community work you bang on about used to be completely voluntary! That is priveliged time rich women would lend their endergies towards those less priveliged. Seems like they have come a long way now that they demand to be paid for this kind of work! 

      I guess you could take the argument further and demand that women who choose to stay at home should be funded by the taxpayer also. I mean are they not also in the caring sharing profession and therefore equally deserving!

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:39pm | 30/05/11

      Slothy
      It has nothing to do with being viewed as women’s work and therefore should be paid less. It is viewed as unprofitable work paid for by over-taxed taxpayers. If you want better care then you can pay for it yourself. It’s up to you to get yourself in the situation where you can afford it. Personal responsibility and personal choice come into play there.

    • Bev says:

      06:17pm | 30/05/11

      Slothy says:01:02pm | 30/05/11

      People are overlooking the deeper issue here: yes, men and women working in the community sector get paid the same, shamefully low, wage, but the reason that community work is paid so badly is because it is traditionally seen as women’s work.  That is why it is being characterised as a gender pay gap - gender discrimination is what led to the disparity in the first place.

      I dont see many jobs considered traditional belonging to men which are poorly paid being considered underpaid because of gender.

    • Jon says:

      12:51am | 31/05/11

      Mate, I am a male youth worker, and our pay IS stupidly low.  I will take any any reason for fairer compensation.  How is this at the expense of men?  You sound like a knee jerking reactionary fool.

    • acotrel says:

      06:57am | 30/05/11

      Erick, you must be a squirrel, you’ve got a phobia about having your nuts stolen!

      Reply

    • Sarah says:

      08:36am | 30/05/11

      BA HA HA HA HA - That’s gold Acotrel!. Erick - seriously. You’ve got some great views and I often enjoy your comments, but this paranoia about women is really sad. You believe women are the inferior sex - yet the way you yap on shows just how terrified you really are - all of which is even more confusing. You’re afraid of something more inferior to you? Get a grip - clearly you’ve been screwed over at some point in your life - that much is as obvious as the sky is blue. Just because you may have met a few women who have clearly shaped your world view into what it is today, does not mean that every female out there deserves to be tarred with your bitter brush.

    • Erick says:

      09:07am | 30/05/11

      Sarah - Everything you say about me exists only in your imagination. Try reading what I actually say, instead of making up things to suit your prejudices.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:28am | 30/05/11

      Sarah, are you familiar with the principles of feminism? Can you not see that what Erick is doing (taking an article that is not about X and making it about X) is exactly what feminism seeks to do? Sometimes it is justified, sometimes it is not - just like feminism.

      All Erick is doing is playing the game. A feminist academic will read an article about garbage collection and pick up on a couple of lines and turn it into descrimination of women. That is simply what Erick is doing, but for men. I think Erick had invented “Malinism”.

      I have never seen it done before and I think it almost as hilarious as the responses it achieves. The most ironic thing in the world is a feminists response to Erick. It is like Lindsay Lohan tut tutting Paris Hilton for having a champers at Christmas. Hilair.

    • Justin says:

      09:33am | 30/05/11

      I’m not a big fan of Erick’s often twisting it to see things that I just can’t see. Difference of opinion as it is, I just don’t see the world the way he does.

      But he has never ever ever ever claimed to beleive in anything othe than equality. Even I can admit that. Your claim that Erick sees women as the inferior sex destroys any credibility you might have.

    • Erick says:

      09:57am | 30/05/11

      @Fairsfair - It’s hilarious! I keep wondering when the feminists will realise exactly where I get my ideas and attitude - but they never do.

      @Justin - Thanks for your thoughtful input. I try to ignore the trolls who have nothing but personal attacks to offer, but their weakness does get annoying at times.

    • Tim says:

      10:09am | 30/05/11

      Fairsfair,
      I think that’s the best description of Erick’s posts ever.

    • fairsfair says:

      03:14pm | 30/05/11

      lets keep it under our non-gendered hats, I never want them to find out wink

    • thatmosis says:

      07:39am | 30/05/11

      I agree, lets give them equal pay for equal work,  notice I said equal, no special requirements or conditions, scrap the maternity leave pay and family allowances. They do the job they get the pay, they get pregant they get bugger all. They lift what the men lift they do exactly the same work in the same conditions and yes they get equal pay otherwise get stuffed and suck eggs. Bloody unions are a blight on the Australian landscape.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:31am | 30/05/11

      @thatmosis ’ Scrap maternity leave’ - Do you agree that employers should train their staff?  Who gets the benefit when a woman has a child, raises it and educates it?  The saying ‘user pays’ applies?

    • Helen says:

      08:52am | 30/05/11

      You have it arse about. Give us equal pay and give Dads equal leave. Let men have time at home with kids if they want it. Not everyone wants to be a chronically angry macho man stuck in the 1940s.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:16am | 30/05/11

      @Helen. That’s highly discriminatory. What about singles and childless couples who have to work harder to cover the slack caused maternity leave / paternity leave / structuring their life around the kids. Or don’t they count? How about the concept of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

    • Helen says:

      09:25am | 30/05/11

      What about WorkCover, Shane? Should you get a payout when the guy next to you breaks a bone?

      And single workers should have ample leave and flexibility to have lives, too. but get off the cross.

    • Tim says:

      09:32am | 30/05/11

      Helen,
      when did bringing up your own children become a cost that your employer must pay for?
      And here I was thinking that we should be paid by the amount and quality of work we did.

    • James1 says:

      01:00pm | 30/05/11

      “scrap the maternity leave pay”

      Hold on, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.  Why not just have parental leave instead?  For a start, that would give more of us men a chance to stay at home with our babies.

    • Snake says:

      01:40pm | 30/05/11

      The entire concept of equal pay does not work. We live in times where supply and demand dictates. I work in the ludicrous IT industry where a technical specialist can ask anywhere from 500 to 1200 per day depending on their skills and if they are needed. That same specialist might get a fair bit less for his daily rate after a huge influx of Cereal Box IT Master’s from India show up.

      If a company is willing to pay x amount for your skills, cash in on it. If there is no work and a company will only pay z, then you don’t really have a choice do you? Perhaps the people who work in these lower paid industries need to plan their careers better or realise that they wont be earning top dollar in return for rewarding work. Either way, this entire thread has proved one thing, there are discrepancies between pay and work in differing industries, government vs non-government and shift work/overtime. There is no difference in pay between men and women. Feminist myth methinks.

    • B. says:

      07:43am | 30/05/11

      I agree with Erick.  If you are male and in a union, you should get out and redirect your annual membership fee towards something far more beneficial for yourself or your family.
      A woman who “beat” a very capable man to a job that IMO the man was more qualified for (and far less troublesome around the bitchy female dominated office environment) asked the same man to climb a ladder and carry down a heavy crate of books for her.
      He replied that because the “lady” colleague was deemed gender-suitable for a job that involved lifting heavy items, then she should be capable of doing it for herself. Then she asked another man, who also refused. 
      As someone previously suggested, occasionally take a good look out your window Ms Kearney, and write a column here on everything you see that was built by a woman.

      I suspect we would see a rather catchy headline, followed by an empty space.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:37am | 30/05/11

      They should sack that Heather Ridout,and Quentin Bryce. They’re obviously not worth their salt ? The ones I like are the police women.  Why is it that when they give me a warning, I really feel warned?

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:24am | 30/05/11

      “The ones I like are the police women”

      Policewomen in Russia wear miniskirts and high heels. I wonder if they get the same pay?

    • AAAdam says:

      10:36pm | 30/05/11

      Hmmm, female police. Don’t they have lower fitness standards in Australia, work in the same areas and yet get paid the same? Sounds a little sexist to expect men to have a higher standard of fitness based on their gender (not job) and then pay them the same as these women with lower standards.

    • Helen says:

      08:55am | 30/05/11

      Wow. So doing the occasional heavy lift entitles people to tens of thousands more, and greatly enhanced superannuation over their lifetime. That’s one lucrative heavy lift. Where do I sign up?

      (P.S. Nurses have to do heavy lifting, and they work in a job where their skills have life or death consequences, which you’d think counts for something!)

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      09:11am | 30/05/11

      And there are lots of male nurses. And you know what, they get paid shit too. And a QLD Police officer was shot in the face over the weekend - he probably rakes in $55k a year for that luxury.

      The issue is that in 2011 I see no gender inequality. I don’t live in a bubble FFS. I have friends who are extremely educated and others who are cleaners, they never report being treated differently because they are female.

      I work in an office (a lot of people do) and I negotiate my own pay rate.  My brother drives a cement truck and if I chose to do that I would get paid the same as him even though I wouldn’t have the upper body strength to lift myself up the drum to clean out the lines and I would be substantially slower at my job. THAT is unfair on “capable individuals”. Sadly, in that context most females are not capable, but shock horror they admit that - if somone is stopping me from being a cement truck driver it is descrimination.

      Why can’t unions fight for actual issues? Like the fact Nurses, Ambos, Police Officers and front line public servants out there are paid so badly. A police officer, who risks their life day in day out gets paid less than an administrator who has been in a govt department for a comparible amount of time. A nurse gets paid less than a council worker who weeds city gardens of a weekend.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:08pm | 30/05/11

      Wher do you get your pay rates from fairsfair? I have never read so much dribble in my life.

      Nurses are damned well overpaid, it’s disgusting. Ever read a job advertisement for these people?  It is a tax payer funded disgrace. They overwhelmingly get to choose between going part time or full time often with study leave thrown in etc etc. Some of their entitlements make me want to go out on a shooting rampage FFS!

      On top of that feminists have won them the right to be awarded a University Degree. Nurses are far less educated and capable than motor mechanics or fitter machinists yet they enjoy far greater privelige!  Utterly disgusting!

      As for the crap about nurses saving lives that’s why there are doctors. Sure they might be good at CPR but that’s about it. Real life threatening occurences are left to the people with the real qualifications - the doctors or surgeons.  I’ve seen qualified nurses who can barely administer a needle. And you call them skilled?   

      Sp let’s leave all the touchy feely trite where it belongs   - in one’s imagination as that’s all it’s worth!

    • James1 says:

      01:28pm | 30/05/11

      Every nurse reading this: remember the name Paul Horn. 

      See how well you do on your next trip to hospital without the assistance of nurses.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:39pm | 30/05/11

      My mother is a nurse and she earns $21 an hour. She works in an orthopaedic rehab facility at a Private Hospital. She only earns $21 an hour because she can’t work shiftwork because she has to look after my father. Her lot in life, her decision. I worked on reception when I was 21 and at uni - I got $21 an hour. So yes, I answered phones in 2006 and earnt the same as my mother, a registered nurse does in 2011.

      There are hard workers and good and bad in all industries Paul - that is a very harsh thing to say about people who whether or not you like how they do it, will contribute toward your care should you ever be admitted to hospital. Thats right Paul - they will wipe your arse at 2:00am for the third night in a row - something a doctor would probably not like to do.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:17am | 30/05/11

      Women will get equal pay once they bring equal value to an employer. Paying women the same pay for less value is just plain subsidy. Market reflects the reality of the values involved; anything else is ideological blathering divorced from reality.

      Positive discrimination is worse than discrimination.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      09:46am | 30/05/11

      I second that. Well said.

      It is also important to note that in some instances women do bring equal value and in those instances they are paid equally. It happens in my organisation. The most infuriating thing is to watch those women start at 8:45am every morning and often “choofle home” at 4:30pm because they have kids. They are just as educated and are fantastic at their jobs (when they are here) but the men (who also have kids) start at 7:00am with me and are often here until 7:00pm with me.

      And it is also important to note that in many male dominated industries (like mining) women are often preferred for roles like dump truck operator. I know several women who perform the same operating roles as men and are paid more. I also know a woman who operates the digger at a large coal mine in the Bowen Basin. How does that reek of inequality?

    • Jo says:

      08:44am | 31/05/11

      fairsfair,

      From my experiences in the mining industry, the story about women being preferred as drivers is nothing more than a myth. All (yes, ALL) of the drivers on the site I worked at were men, I asked them about women being preferred and they laughed. Gender inequality does exist, I know a female electrician who is constantly picked on by the men and has been since she was in trade school. It’s no different from the way any group singles out someone different from themselves.
      I’ve seen some interesting comments here about men having to do heavy lifting: in my experience heavy lifting is rife for manual handling issues (workcover) and many workplaces are trying to remove it.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:52am | 31/05/11

      My experience is different Jo. I grew up with a father at the mines and have primarily worked in E&P since 2006. I guess all that proves is there is good and bad conditions for everyone in certain situations. My best friend is a civil engineer working in design - she is paid more than her male civil engineer partner who works on site.

      I just don’t get why we are constantly being fed this woe is the female line. It is there in certain situations, but the woe is the male certainly is too. We need to stop all this gender label crap. Feminists don’t want change - it is too easy to blame all their personall ills on the fact they are female.

    • Carz says:

      09:17am | 30/05/11

      I have just finished a field education placement in a small, completely female, community services organisation that deals primarily with clients on low income or government benefits. These people work damn hard to make sure that those at the bottom of the financial heap are able to survive. Yet in most cases they only just make it above the income limits that would make them eligible for the assistance they hand out. Workers in the community services sector truly are the working poor.

      One thing I did note about this piece is that the fact that people doing the same job in government organisations that fall into the same sector, are paid a heck of a lot more than those in NGOs. All the staff I worked with commented on that.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      09:39am | 30/05/11

      Carz,
      then why don’t those people apply for the government jobs instead of working in the NGO?
      Probably because they aren’t the same job.

    • Carz says:

      10:29am | 30/05/11

      Tim could you imagine what would happen if all workers in NGOs went to work for the government? The majority of community based organisations, many of which also use a high volume of volunteer workers, would cease to exist. This would leave clients of organisations like refuges, Dads in Distress, Meals on Wheels and so many more without any services at all. The government already effectively tenders out many of its services to NGOs. If they disappeared there would be a huge cost blowout in welfare services for the government and the community would be screaming about it. As it stands now the organisations rely on a mix of public and private funding and that private funding is what helps keep costs down for the government. If the NGOs disappeared then so would the private funding.

      As for not doing the same job, how can you judge that? A social worker at Centrelink or a public hospital is no different to one at a rape crisis centre or neighbourhood centre. They all do the same training and their roles are remarkably similar. Why should the ones employed by the government be paid more than the ones employed by NGOs?

    • Erick says:

      11:07am | 30/05/11

      So what you are complaining about is not a gender-based wage gap, but a government-vs-non-government wage gap.

      Glad we cleared that up. Now let’s drop this silly sex-based pay gap myth, and concentrate on the real disparities.

    • Tim says:

      11:22am | 30/05/11

      Carz,
      there are benefits of working for an NGO that government employees don’t have.
      Government jobs are also notoriously more restrictive than NGO’s. The people who work in these organisations do so because they get personal satisfaction out of their work and other non monetary benefits.
      They are free to leave and get other work if they wish and the government is simply trying to limit costs to the taxpayers for providing these services by outsourcing some of the work.
      Should these people get paid more? Maybe
      Is it a gender issue? No.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:23pm | 30/05/11

      Oh Carz cry me a river! You did’nt know the conditions when you chose your career path? If you did’nt you must be a complete fool and don’t deserve a decent wage. Fact is you are sucking off the taxpayer pure and simple. All of the work you describe should be on a voluntary basis only. Once upon a time charity did all of this! 

      Many years ago I worked as a pot scrubber in London earning about 3 bucks an hour. Bloody back breaking work and no miminum wage! I can guarantee you it was far harder than anything you have done in your life!   

      So why the whinging? You are compensated according to what the market (ie taxpayers in your case) can bear. You don’t have deadlines, you don’t have requirements to cure people you simply “manage’ their illness so why blather on about higher pay based on some subjective perception about being undervalued!  Be thankful for what you get or find something else!

    • Shane says:

      09:31am | 30/05/11

      I would highly recommend Punchers read some of the work from Dr Warren Farrell. A feminist, he sat on the Board of the US Organization for Women. He also conducted research into the “pay gap” and came to the conclusion that no such gap exists due to discrimination.

      The problem is lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      A man and a woman may both be classified as a “Doctor” by the pay scale police… but history shows us that men are more likely to be surgeons, are more likely to travel for work, are more likely to agree to inconsistent hours, more likely to undergo career advancement training, are more likely to switch employers etc etc etc etc All of which lead to better pay.

      In fact, Dr Farrell’s research indicates that if a man and a woman are in identical, child-free circumstances and make the same decisions re: career progression, women are paid 117% of the male pay rate. Add to that the fact that men are more likely to die, be injured, be sacked or be assaulted while at work… and I would say there is indeed an inequality, but it’s not the one getting all the unwarranted publicity.

      So Ged is annoyed that an entire industry is paid below what it is worth. Perhaps, but way FWA forced a square plug into a round hole to include gender as a factor is pretty glaring when you actually read the decision.

      Women are not being left behind… and entire sector is, men and women.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      01:03pm | 30/05/11

      Well said, Shane!

      The fact is that if women were actually paid less than men for the same work - which would be illegal - then companies would hire women and not men.

      The whole gender pay gap concept is absurd.

    • Bev says:

      06:44pm | 30/05/11

      On average male vets get paid $10,000 more than female vets. Why because many more male vets work as large animal/farm vets.  It is a lot harder physicaly to manhandle livestock than to handle cats and dogs and guess what the former pays much better than the latter. Female lawyers also on average gets paid less than their men.  Mostly because the they tend to work in fields that are less intensive/stressful and have better hours but pay less. In the end it comes down to work/life decisions not gender.

    • ronny says:

      09:35am | 30/05/11

      They get paid less in these jobs because they are lesser jobs. They aren’t doctors or teachers or nurses or police or firemen (firepeople?). If you do a tafe course in childcare don’t think you are the equivalent of a teacher or nurse because yu are not.

      Reply

    • Carz says:

      10:31am | 30/05/11

      No but social workers do the same training yet the one employed by the government will receive a higher rate of pay than the one employed by a community based organisation.

    • Lostie says:

      04:02pm | 30/05/11

      Carz - So what is it you want?

      A cut in government spending on social workers so that they are on par with what the private sector pays?

    • AdamC says:

      09:42am | 30/05/11

      Oh please, this exercise is clearly all about delivering to an industrial and political constituency of the Labor movement. The feminist rhetorical overlay is just marketing claptrap. Or will men working in community services organisations not be subject to the Fair Work wage ruling?

      It is quite legitimate for anyone to desire, and seek out, better rewards for their work. Unfortunately, Fair Work Australia is empowered to set wages based on political campaigns like this one, not simply on productivity gains. If this one is successful, no doubt we will see many other similar claims, with wages being set on a purely political basis. That will not be good for the country, but I guess that’s not the ACTU’s remit.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      10:08am | 30/05/11

      They are just as educated and are fantastic at their jobs (when they are here) but the men (who also have kids) start at 7:00am with me and are often here until 7:00pm with me.

      Kind of sad. I hope when they’re on their deathbed they are equally smug about the choices they’ve made.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      10:23am | 30/05/11

      Helen, they do it because there is societal pressure for men to be at work all the time. Just as much as there is for the woman to drop everything and rush to her child who is at sickbay for a scraped knee. It is messed up and there can never be a happy medium when we are focussing on issues like in this article.

      I don’t agree with either side of it - but we must acknowledge that not everything in this world is about women. Men are descriminated against too, in some instances they are forced to work twice as hard for the same money as women who genuinely enjoy leaving work early to be with their children (any mother would). Women stand up and protest mistreatment on gender basis, but who is going to stand up for the men? They would no doubt love to leave work to spend time with kids too, but any suggestion of that feeling is met with the kind of respones Erick gets.

      And are you insinuating that I am smug? I am a childless female who will work like a man until I birth a child. Once that happens, society’s view of me will change and so will my contribution at work. I say that without any judgement. It isn’t smug, it is the truth.

    • Anubis says:

      02:29pm | 30/05/11

      @fairsfair - “I am a childless female who will work like a man until I birth a child”

      Do you need help with that FF ?

    • fairsfair says:

      03:58pm | 30/05/11

      The working like a man bit or the child birth? wink

    • Helen says:

      10:14am | 30/05/11

      Threads like these always end up dominated by workaholics (Women often aren’t available to work 14 hour days, therefore they’re inferior employees) and libertarians (there is no social contract, only an hourly rate, I’ve got mine, stuff the rest of you.)

      Most reasonable people want some work-life balance and many of those people are skilled and competent workers who employers would like to retain. as far as “choofing off” at 4.30, for heaven’s sake why shouldn’t you as long as your job gets done? Being visible and sucking up to the boss is not the same as being productive.

      The most skilled and productive worker we had before she retired at, I think, 65 was a female IT whiz who got a contract agreement to leave at 3.30 daily. If our company could have kept her, they would have (retirement was her choice, again, some ppl have priorities!)

      And the heavy lifting thing, I think, is really grasping at pathetic straws. If this was the criterion for higher pay, garbos and brickies labourers would be paid more than CEOs.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      11:28am | 30/05/11

      Helen, I am not sure what you are arguing for here. It reads like you are contending women should get paid the same amount for working less than men. You don’t need to be a workaholic or libertarian to think that is immature and unrealistic (and also unfair).

      The fact is that women are more likely to make choices which limit their income-earning potential, when compared to men. This is, by and large, because women choose to be primary family care-givers and secondary family income-earners. As a result, women are more likely to gravitate towards roles that provide non-financial rewards (such as a feeling of altruistic satisfaction) and allow for fewer hours to be worked.

      These are choices made voluntarily by individual women. Now, some may argue that there are contstraints on women’s choices and that ‘freedom to choose’ is never absolute. I would agree. However, men’s choices are also constrained by the realities of life and there isn’t a whole political movement dedicated to ‘empowering’ them.

      In my view, there is nothing illegitimate about (some) women wishing to limit their income-earning potential in favour of tasks they find more fulfilling (but less lucrative financially). If a perceived ‘gener pay gap’ is an outcome of that, who cares?

    • n_dude says:

      11:30am | 30/05/11

      If that is the case, then the company would be more than happy to employ more productive female workers on supposedly lower wages right? The problem is not that women need to leave early and hence do not move up the ladder? Otherwise, if women are paid less than men, why wouldn’t management take the more cost effective option and promote more women? The fact is that in professional positions men are equally prductive but put in more hours because they are expected to and are more productive for it.

    • fairsfair says:

      12:29pm | 30/05/11

      In threads like these there is alwasys someone who doesn’t quite grasp the “reply” button concept. Hard to keep up with all these insults when it is so all over the place.

      Choofing off at 4:30pm is not really acceptable when your job is perpetual. We don’t have set tasks for completion on a daily basis and when others can fill 7:00am to 7:00pm while another can rock in at 8:45pm and leave at 4:30pm it is not exactly fair is it. Most of my job is waiting around on the input of others. If I have to stay until 8:00pm for that, I have to stay - but if I had a kid to pick up from school it would be a whole other story.

      I’m not complaining, it will be allowed for me if/when I have a child, but if I was a man I would not be too impressed. Until such time I best to my bit and make up for the mothers as someone will have to do that for me at some point.

    • Lisa H. says:

      02:47pm | 30/05/11

      Fantastic answer AdamC.

      I agree that not all choices are completely ‘free’ choices… there are many reasons why women do end up going for kids, in many ways it’s an easier road, and much more socially acceptable than the alternative route. Also there is a strong primordial urge, in my view and personal experience anyway.

      Much has been made about increased flexibility at work for parents. In many ways, flexible work times are not as efficient, and customer service and productivity is reduced. But we’re not allowed to discuss that aspect of flexible hours.

      The push always seems to be increased money for less work… I guess that’s no surprise. Pay rates are already being raised, because super is legislated to increase.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:26pm | 30/05/11

      “Most reasonable people want some work-life balance and many of those people are skilled and competent workers who employers would like to retain. as far as “choofing off” at 4.30, for heaven’s sake why shouldn’t you as long as your job gets done? Being visible and sucking up to the boss is not the same as being productive.”

      Here you are confusing a job in which your pay and/or job security is dependent upon your measurable performance and a job—which includes much of the public and private sectors—where your pay and/or job security is not measurable performance and therefore necessarily involves office politics and sucking up.  Most people have more experience with the latter than the former.

      Measurable performance is always superior to a floating job where you’re paid on a salary.  With measurable performance criteria it’s harder to sack you.  You also have greater power to negotiate since all that is required is to meet certain targets.  Beyond that, as you say, why shouldn’t you leave?

    • Tchom says:

      10:16am | 30/05/11

      I agree that its terrible that social and community work is so undervalued and under rewarded, but why bring gender into it? ‘Most carers are women, carers are paid less, therefore carers are paid less because they are women’ is a fallacy of false cause. While it my have a historical reason for having lower wages because its workers were primarily women, the issue now should not be that women carers are being underpaid, its should be that carers are underpaid

      Reply

    • bikinis on top says:

      10:21am | 30/05/11

      all women should get more money than all men for exactly the same work jobs as all women do all domestic chores , all child minding, and all the thinking in this world.
      They also get domestic violence, abuse , pregnancies and periods as bonuses .

      Reply

    • mike j says:

      01:55pm | 30/05/11

      I fail to see how the following comment, already rejected twice for this blog, is any more offensive or generalised than the comment I’m replying to for contrast. I guess women want equal pay, but don’t want equal responsibility, or equal treatment in a public forum. I’ll act surprised, shall I?

      “Industries dominated by women have lower wages in general, because women are vacant, lazy creatures who can’t be bothered with the training required for skilled positions, because they assume they’ll end up marrying a CEO and retiring at 30.

      “Of course, women have the same (or better) opportunities for education and professional development that men do, but they’d prefer to take the easy option, get the easy jobs, then lobby the Government for ‘equal pay’.

      “There’s only one explanation. Women are communists.”

    • Paul Horn says:

      03:16pm | 30/05/11

      Jesus bikinis that time of the month? If you can’t gaze upon the brilliance and virility of the white male in worshipful adoration I suggest you turn your power off at the meter, shut down your water supply, move out of your house and take up residence with the local Aboriginal tribe scouring the outback searching for lifes basics essentials with the odd clubbing over the head when the tribal elder feels a bit loving.

      Everthing you take for granted yet have utterly no idea about that feeds, warms, shelters, transports, clothes and protects your pampered little rights infested expansive behind comes to you direct from the sweat, brilliance and ingenuity of the Western European Male!

      If you have a problem with that I suggest you and your bitter feminist mates remove your persons out of my society and build your own!

      I for one will pay you handsomely to see your rather voluminous bikini bottoms disappearing forever over the horizon.

      Have a nice day!

    • Deb DeGood says:

      10:37am | 30/05/11

      As one of the female workers referred to here, I can tell you that someone doing the same job in govt gets at least 35% more pay than I do.  In the service where I work, there are 18 women and 2 men.  Go figger.

      Reply

    • Bitten says:

      10:54am | 30/05/11

      Then go and work for the government then and force your current employer to compete on wages. This is how it works Deb - firms compete for the best employees on salary and conditions.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:55am | 30/05/11

      Deb I agree that that figure is terrible. This discrepancy should be focussed on in lieu of the Female Vs. Male thing. The difference between the public and private sector for these types of roles and middle management is rediculous. Yes, an Engineer can perhaps earn more in the private sector thanks to the current resources boom, but in most other circumstances the superior pay scales and conditions of public service at the expense of the tax payer is frightening.

    • Erick says:

      11:10am | 30/05/11

      So you too agre that it’s a government-vs-non-government pay gap, not a gender pay gap. Good-oh, I think the argument is settled then.

    • Rev says:

      11:13am | 30/05/11

      So why aren’t you working for the government then?
      Maybe the grass is greener on the other side.

    • Dan says:

      04:03pm | 30/05/11

      I think you have to be able to spell figure to get a government job these days…

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:56am | 30/05/11

      “Equal Pay for Equal Work” That is what our politicians, particularly those from the ALP & the pesky pimple on it’s arse the Greens, have been calling for years. They really have only tinkered around the edges, haven’t they?
      All it would take would be for the Federal, State & Territory Governments to pass complementary legislation making Equal Pay for Equal Work mandatory so why don’t/won’t they do it?
      For a few years I was a Public Servant. The government I worked for allegedly had in place an Equal Pay Policy. A policy which was manipulated by senior management as & when it suited them. How do I know this? Because I was on the receiving end of this manipulation. I was a receptionist, you know them don’t you? Often rude, off-hand & unbelievably arrogant when dealing with the public but snivelling, sycophantic turds when dealing with management - or at least until I came along they were!!
      My manager got around the Equal Pay bit very simply. She impressed on me how important it was that I kept all details of my salary Confidential & should never discuss it with anyone other than herself. She authorised my pay tobe one level above the other receptionist, a female who was, in fact, the Senior Receptionist with 2 years more experience than myself. She was on Class 1 Year 2 Salary Level. I was also Class 1 but on Year 3 Salary Level. Because we were both bound by Confidentiality Provisions we did not discuss our pay & it was not until both of us had left the Public Service that we found out what was going on!
      Equal Pay is possible. it should be mandatory. There are no excuses for our politicians not to put it in place.

      Reply

    • Sony B Goode says:

      01:07pm | 30/05/11

      I think we have hit a new low in double speak today: An “industry pay gap”.

      Collectivist insanity is like a multi-headed hydra challenging difference everywhere it finds it.

      Until we are all reduced to grey suited homogenised units riding state made option-less bicycles there will be no end to these champions of inequity demanding “social justice” and the eradication of difference.

      Clearly Ged is running for the job of central planner because she and she only knows the true value of labour and the greedy markets are ripping off the needy workers.

      I think it’s time we banned collective bargaining in the public service it’s a massive waste of taxpayers’ money when people like Ged exist. Beyond a shadow of a doubt these people working in the public sector are undervalued and should be able to earn their real value in the private sector

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      01:08pm | 30/05/11

      Like all of Ged’s pieces, this one is full of half-truths, bare-faced lies, and oodles of spin and propoganda as she prepares herself to abandon her union members and dive into a safe ALP seat in 2012.

      I’ve been in the workforce for 25 years…in such roles as retail, food, services, exploration and mining. Never once have I seen, or heard about, a woman being paid less than a man for doing the same job. Never.

      The only place it could possibly happen is in the public service - one of the most heavily unionised and least productive sectors of the community (ambos, fireys, cops and nurses excluded).

      Yes, women do tend to make up the majority of positions in aged care and disability services, and yes - those two areas are hugely undervalued. That is the real issue Ged…now toddle off and spruik your crap elsewhere.

      Reply

    • nossy says:

      01:46pm | 30/05/11

      What is Tones saying to Gina in your article photo Ged ? Maybe “Give me a big kiss Gina -I’m your man !”  hahaah After all Gina does have $10.3 BILLION in her purse to spend !

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      01:49pm | 30/05/11

      How much do you get paid Ged?

      I just want to work out the perspective you bring to the pay rate debate.

      Reply

    • Rev says:

      02:45pm | 30/05/11

      Too much.

      I always wondered, why don’t unions start their own companies?
      The CFMEU could start up a construction arm, employ their own boys and girls, and compete with the rest for contracts.

    • Trent says:

      04:12pm | 30/05/11

      lol are you refering to the company Texberg then???


      Former directors include Wayne Swan, Bill Ludwig, Milton Dick,  Mike Kaiser, Cameron Milner,John Battams, Larry Moses and Nick Kassos

    • Justin C says:

      02:03pm | 30/05/11

      Too bad all the community sector workers are too busy working to read all this free market/discussion about lifting things. The arguement for this case was that people who work in the community sector are underpaid because these roles have traditionally been seen as women’s work. This has allowed Government’s/society to outsource this work to NGOs with a funding model based on unacceptably low wages.

      Having worked in the disaiblity sector I can tell you that the labor market does not operate as a competitive market. There is the Government which pays substantly better but is difficult to get into and the ngos who set wages based on the funding they received from the State Government.

      The question whether the union movement should have made this an issue about gender is questionable, but it is probably fair to say that the wages in the community sector are as low as they are because society assumes all the workers in the field are working in the industry out of the goodiness of their heart.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      04:17pm | 30/05/11

      “but it is probably fair to say that the wages in the community sector are as low as they are because society assumes all the workers in the field are working in the industry out of the goodiness of their heart.”

      If money was the primary factor in their choice of career, they would be in accounting, law, or any other variety of soul-crushing corporate job, so yes that is a fair assumption.
      Clearly they receive non-monetary perks from working in the community sector that they would not in any of the above professions, otherwise they would never have taken up the work.

    • Anubis says:

      02:32pm | 30/05/11

      This is just another chapter in Ged’s run for a safe Labor seat as the next step of her career - just the same as her “Climate Change is Real” article a couple of weeks ago. Toe the party line and accept that safe seat Ged. Just a shame it will be a seat in a party that will not have a snowballs hope in hell of taking government for at least 10 years after this current joke of a Government is done.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      03:54pm | 30/05/11

      Ged does this mean it will be another month before you write another article on this crap. It’s like a cut and paste exercise of withering potential. Just hit resubmit on your default button.

      Fact is no one addresses the fact that because of a tainted education system (against boys) men may work in some higher paid professions but they also dominate the lower paid workplace.

      In fact in every State men show a greater unemployment rate than women.

      For example the Union started on electricians who actually have peoples lives in their conscience if they do not perform to standard. Started on miners as well, who are at higher risk of death and injury. Soldiers, 24 deaths- 24 men.

      The ACTU appears to have a gender policy where the head of the ACTU has a prerequisite selection criteria that only females need apply.

      I mean women with these claims are making men very bitter towards women. I know, I worked in a heavily dominated affirmative action environment (you guessed it , the Federal Government) where I spent more than a decade feeling unwanted in my own workplace to which I gave dedicated service. Had a family to feed so could not afford to throw away my credibility built up over years of service, by moving elsewhere.

      More than a decade pandering to educated air heads who knew everything but were installed as the deciples of ‘equaliy’. Equality! that’s a friggin’ laugh.

      Now we have a plethora of like minded deciples spreading the gospel no better than the misguided gospel of the likes of Hitler or Stalin.  Hitler and Stalin were protagon9ists of ethnic cleansing and erasure of a race and towns to satisfy their own inability for rational thought.

      Gender cleansing by the deciples of sisters is precisely the same thought process.

      Men are being done over by a dedicated if misguided philosophy. There was an article the other day about who carries the load when there is maternity leave , flexible work arrangements, quotas, and affirmative action, also now to be supplemented by fixed remuneration practices.


      I can tell you from experienced contractors Lawers, Accountants etc.do not work with a recorded message. They work with someone who is holding the fort putting in the work.

      You guessed it the full time male workers.

      The usual culprits wont like the truth. They can’t handle the truth.

      Got a ring to it?

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      04:14pm | 30/05/11

      “This decision has brought the usual hostility from right-wing commentators and employer groups who moan that it could be the start of a “wages breakout”.  This is despite the fact that in the last year average full-time wages have increased by 3.8 per cent, while profits have increased by well over twice that rate.”

      I read this about five times to try and see if it made sense.  It still doesn’t.  All I can really think is that it’s just the classic suggestion “you’ve got deep pockets, you can pay, therefore you should have no profit at all.”  Really, has the ACTU nothing more original?

      And it will start a wages breakout in those sectors, along with a lot of dismissals.  Oh, they won’t be expressed as dismissals because the wages went up, but just like minimum wage laws, if you set a floor on the amount of money you pay someone, you guarantee either the employer sacks anyone being paid less than that or the employer goes bust because it can’t physically make the payments.  This is an own goal to match all own goals.

      “The interesting thing is that most of the employers in the sector support the decision, because they recognise the long-term damage that is being done by low wages.”

      Bullshit!
      Assuming there’s one employer who’ll walk out in public and say it wants to pay their employees more (there isn’t), what they recognise is that this decision all but forces the government to massively increase funding to this sector.  Whether these funds actually get used to fund wage increases is another matter.  And let’s remember who ultimately pays for the funding: every person in Australia.

      This would be an easier exercise if the sector was a free market, but it isn’t. The government funds it and is therefore a player that nobody can compete against.  This is why seniors get kerosense baths and why aged care homes can’t pay for decent care: because the government’s funding determines the market.

      Congratulations to Fair Work Australia and the ACTU, though.  They just upped the tax load on everyone, including a double loadup for people who’re paying privately for their parents in aged care homes.

      Reply

    • Dementer says:

      04:20pm | 30/05/11

      One reason that women will struggle is the presence of a womb. Women can do everything at work like a man can with the exception of the obvuious gender roles.

      If you are 18- 40 and a women, the fear of every boss is that you will get pregnant. Now that the materinty leave will come in it make employers less likely to employ women in senior or leadership roles. Its the elephant in the room that nobody want to talk about because it not PC. But behind closed doors no bosses tend not to go down the path of employing a women if a man is available sometime with less quals or expirence.

      Reply

    • jim morris says:

      04:27pm | 30/05/11

      Why does Punch print these dishonest diatribes? The ‘female’ thing is just a red herring. Feminists can make any claim no matter how spurious and nobody challenges them. Women seem to consider themselves somehow divine and above the normal standards of decency and integrity.
      I am totally supportive of equality but as a female government minister said “Equality where equality is appropriate.” Orwell couldn’t have thought that one up.

      Reply

    • Front Row says:

      06:40pm | 30/05/11

      Another thing, Jim,
      Ged Kearney is - conveniently? - overlooking the fact that most of the workers concerned have highly lucrative access to special taxation breaks for things like car leasing and their home mortgages.
      Those working in the public sector don’t.  They get paid more up-front.
      Where it gets interesting is when those workers are told they’ll be given a pay-rise in return for forgoing the taxation benefits.
      My bet is that the public sector social workers will want the money and the tax breaks for all, the state and federal governments won’t be able to afford it and the PSA unions will set about yet another industrial campaign that will increase the suffering of their “clients”.
      This, in the lead-up to next Federal Election and/or QLD, will be an unmitigated disaster for the Parliamentary wing of the Labor Party.
      You watch.

    • nossy says:

      04:41pm | 30/05/11

      Update Ged -I have just been informed that in your article photo , from someone who overheard the conversation Tones asked Gina “Kin I git a job with you after I get the arse from politics Gina ?”  - and Gina is just saying “Pigs arse Tones - I want goers in my outfit !”  True !  hahahah

      Reply

    • The BadbadBadger says:

      07:03pm | 30/05/11

      I don’t think so nossy
      I heard she was asking Tony if he wanted his cake, cause she was trying to satisfy a powerful hunger.
      or
      She was answering Abbott’s question
      Abbott - Where did you get that lovely dress Gina dearest?
      Gina - Why from my exclusive designer of course, Omar the tentmaker.

    • nossy says:

      08:12pm | 30/05/11

      @The BadbadBadger - ohh that is cruel Badge ! Now why didnt I think of that - Omar the Tent Maker !  hahahah

    • Glen says:

      07:58pm | 30/05/11

      God this issue has been done to death. So what? Who cares anymore. The Left is already on the verge of destroying Australia with the Green policies - might as well throw in quotas… along with open borders, 99% estate tax and gulags while we are it.

      Reply

    • Bob Jones says:

      08:11am | 31/05/11

      I always here this ‘equal pay’ stuff but seriously what industries is this still occurring? I work in the public service and I am paid $20k less than one woman in my team and the other two I get paid $30k less and I have not worked with a woman who has been paid less than me! My wife’s income is $300 a fortnight more than mine and to top it off she gets flexible arangments so she can grab the kids from school which I asked to do for two days a week and got a flat ‘No’,  I’m not having a whinge, I suck it up and keep on trucking!

      I think this is the 4th article I have read about this in the last 3-5 weeks, seriously if you don’t like it get a new job!

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      03:25pm | 31/05/11

      Hey Ged can you clarify one point for me. Is it a prerequisite to be female for President of the ACTU, on similar lines as the female prerequisite for Sex Discrimination Commissioner. That’s the girl that will clear the air.

      Reply

    • Luke says:

      06:59pm | 01/06/11

      I just lost my barman job so a women could take it…
      sexism anyone?

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed