The equal pay case will affect all our interests

Scotchy says:

07:34am | 09/02/11

Erick, that may apply to hazardous industries etc as you asert, however the overall statement you make is in my humble opinion inaccurate.
I have first hand experience of femail colleagues in my industry (I am a contractor in IT) that are paid a lower rate for the same roles as males!
Perhaps you should survey the broader working community first to ascertain the inequities of Male/Female pay rates.

Tim says:

08:42am | 09/02/11

Scotchy,
There are men in my profession that are getting paid less than women.
And it’s because either:
a) the roles aren’t the same, even if they may seem similar or
b) they didn’t negotiate hard enough at pay rise time.

Are these men getting discriminated against?

Prazza says:

09:13am | 09/02/11

Erick, you are clearly an angry and bitter man (or an excellent troll!). Every article that even hints at gender inequality has you jumping up and down screaming “But what about the men!!!”. Why don’t you go back and re-read the article before you start shooting down so-called “greedy feminists”

Luce says:

09:18am | 09/02/11

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/93831E680B4ADFA2CA25773700169C70?opendocument

Erick, figure 8.47 shows average pay by profession, and out of the 8 professions mentioned men earn a higher average wage then women in every single one.

GKM says:

09:28am | 09/02/11

I never thought it would happen, but in the context of this article, I agree with you.

The lifetime income discrepancy bewteen men and women has to do with the kinds of jobs favoured by women and the fact that most women still choose to shoulder the main burden of child rearing. Women often choose teaching or other ‘soft’ sciences as they are aware that those professions offer better conditions when the time comes to have children. The trade off is that you take home less pay.

The women out there with the drive, ambition and skills to enter traditionally male dominated industries like engineering earn the higher wages by making the same sacrifices that their male counterparts have to make - less time for family and less flexibility.

The women who whinge about the pay gap should simply find work in one of the high paying industries and don’t break your career for children. Return to work straight after having children. Your husbands/partners may relish the opportunity to work less and look after the kids.

CB says:

09:40am | 09/02/11

@ Erick.

Community work IS dirty work. Ok, I may not be at risk of being trapped in a mine on a daily basis, but myself, my colleagues and fellow graduates are at daily risk of the dangers associated with agressive clients, not to mention needle stick injuries. Don’t even get me started on the damage that is done to these worker’s mental health, particularly in the barely funded NGO sector where supervision of worker safety is minimal to none.

Tim says:

09:59am | 09/02/11

Luce,
those statistics are not normalised.
Using that graph to claim some sort of discrimination pay gap is the same as saying that a receptionist is being discriminated against because their boss earns more than they do.

Shorn says:

09:59am | 09/02/11

Erick

It’s not about men doing the dirty work. It has more to do with the different labour market economics in different occupations.

You can never compare a nurse with a lawyer. Nurses work in mostly government funded institutions in a universal health care system that is not designed to maximise profits. Lawyers work in the free market and will work to maximise their profits and will pay their workers accordingly.

When I worked at a major law firm my charge-out rate was $700 per hour and my pay reflected the billable hours earned by me and similar lawyers in my position. If I felt I could earn more somewhere else then I would. And I did as I now work at a major financial institution.

There is no way a nurse can charge a patient like that because it simply doesn’t work that way in nursing. Their pay is determined by the government based on government income (ie taxes) and other demands on government income in the budget.

The idea that there is “male work” and “female work” is a furphy. Just because more women tend to gravitate to certain occupations and more men to others doesn’t mean each is locked out of the other (there are more women graduating from law than men).

It comes down to individual choices. If you want to earn a lot of money then work in an occupation that pays a lot of money. Don’t work in an occupation that has a natural ceiling on your earning capacity such as teaching or nursing (because of government funding) or social work (because your “clients” don’t have much money).

Your pay will be determined by the labour market economics within your occupation. Accept it and make the appropriate choices.

If no-one wants to become a nurse then the government will have to pay more to attract people to that occupation…........

Markus says:

10:11am | 09/02/11

@CB, an honest question it would be great to get insight on from someone in that industry - why do you do it then?
If it requires (supposedly) the same level of education as other tertiary degree professions, yet the pay is insufficient and the conditions are potentially dangerous, why is there not a nationwide shortage of people working/looking to work in the industry?
Honestly all I can think of are:
- The skill requirements aren’t as high as claimed
- There are many non-monetary bonuses involved that you would not get in a higher paying industry (job satisfaction for example).

Bilby says:

10:46am | 09/02/11

Scotchy - I have first hand experience of colleagues not being paid the same as me too. It’s called private enterprise. Which company is it exactly that pays everyone the same? How do they reward the higher achievers? Cane the lazy bastards? I can see a totally motivated workforce there.

Prazza - This article is actually about [supposed] gender inequality. It’s not hinting. Which bit specifically should he reread that shows that there is a pay gap *because of gender*? Not because of profession, not because of ngo v govt. v private enterprise. Not because of environmental considerations (danger, distance, depth). If you don’t reply I’ll assume you’ve got nothing. I’ll stick $20 on that. Any takers?

Luce - Figure 8.44 shows that men are prepared to work longer hours for their money. Should that not be reflected in ordinary time earnings as well? Dedication to the company is rewarded with higher wages and promotions. Men’s total earnings are 5% above their ordinary time earnings, whereas women’s are only 1.3%. A significant difference.

Michael N says:

11:05am | 09/02/11

After about the 3rd line I couldn’t properly focus on the article as I was so excited about what Eric(k)‘s response was going to be!!!!

Aaahhh Eric(k) - you’re like the"bonus” Punch editorial

P.S. Supply and Demand. That is all.

James1 says:

12:20pm | 09/02/11

It seems to me that this is fundamentally an issue of choice, rather than equality.  Many women choose to go into the community services sector, because that is what they want.  A benefit of this choice is that they perhaps get to do work that they enjoy.  A cost is that it pays less than some other industries.  To attempt to redress this would be to legislate for equality of outcome.  That is entirely unnecessary when we already have equality of opportunity.  Every woman has the opportunity to study IT or engineering instead of other subject, therefore they should not complain when making such a choice comes with long-term costs relative to making a different choice.

We all make choices - I loved academia but decided to leave for the public service because of a lack of job security and relatively low pay.  My new job comes with costs, which I accept because I think they are outweighed by the benefits.  The inequality identified in the article, if indeed it can be called inequality, is a consequence of the choices made by individuals, not the Harvester Judgement or a sexist society.

Rissa says:

12:26pm | 09/02/11

@Erick - not dangerous? I suggest you look at the self-defense classes they have been forced to teach even the ward nurses of non-psych hospitals. Add the constant threat of disease/illness and shock to the system of constantly changing night rosters or back to back late (finish 2230) early (start 0630).

@ Markus - really? they do it because they’re empathetic people. It’s tough work on so many levels but someone has to do it. Just hope that one day when u need any sort of community care that the person looking after you is doing it because they have a passion for ensuring others’ well-being and not cut corners, time, sympathy because they are driven by the bottom line

CB says:

12:36pm | 09/02/11

@ Markus

In my experience, social workers are a pretty similar bunch in terms of their philosophical and political views, and choose social work as a career as it’s (more or less) one of the only ones where a true “impact”, in terms of social justice, can be made.

There is a shortage of workers. Any day of the week you can find 20+ positions for govt position social workers available in Sydney, even more if you include NGO sector. My graduating year was only 80 or so students, some of which never entered the field. Keep in mind there’s a high level of attrition, either through burn out or moves to higher paying public service positions.

To become a fully qualified social worker takes 4 years of university, including 2 semesters of unpaid FT work within the sector.

Mr GG says:

12:39pm | 09/02/11

@Prazza
No, we are starting a new movement to counter the Feminazis, the strategy is to Blindly dispute anything the other side says and if you cant prove them wrong call them sexist, racist, uneducated bigots. It worked for the Feminazis, I think or new group might go by the name ‘FreeMen fighters’. Its time we took our rights back.

Lostie says:

01:03pm | 09/02/11

Luce 09:18am | 09/02/11:

With respect to the statistics cited:

(1) how does the number allow for the time that person how been in the work force without a career break?

(2) How does it allow for persons who are unwilling to put in extra unpaid hours that are rewarded when the next pay rise comes around?

(3) How do the statistics allow for person who do not aggressively pursue promotions (while the field may remain the same, the ‘grade’ of the worker may vary - this does not appear to be noted in the data)

(4) What allowance, if any, has been made for the earlier retirement age for women as opposed to men? (While this may not be effective any longer, it is relevant to persons who have been working for 30+ years and are now retiring or are at the highest point of their wage cycle).

(5) How does the organisation adjust for the inherent unreliability of self-reported data? In particular gender differences in self reported incomes?

Kazzee says:

01:23pm | 09/02/11

Hi Erik, my understanding is that the equal pay case is not so much about men vs women - It is about equal pay for an equal job regardless of who you work for or whether you are male or female. You see I do a job for one organisation and someone does the same job as me in the government - but the govt worker is paid almost 20 - 30% per annum more than me. My industry which is social / community work is mostly women and this would be because of the low pay. I believe many more men would love doing social work if the pay was equal to a govt social / community worker.

Tim says:

03:12pm | 09/02/11

@CB,
so you freely admit that people choose this type of work because it allows them to have an impact on social justice issues.
How much is that “impact” worth in the workplace? You must sacrifice some financial benefits for this internal benefit.
Many people would love to be able to work in more personally rewarding industries but are forced to do their jobs because of financial pressures.
This is truly a case of people trying to have their cake and eat it.

Ben C says:

03:34pm | 09/02/11

@ Kazzee

That may be how you understand it, but from the first sentence - “It is not fashionable for a member of Gen Y like myself to care about equal pay for women.” - should have been a clear indicator that the OP was writing about the gender pay gap. She also makes further references throughout the piece.

Charly Lindsay says:

07:51pm | 09/02/11

The gender pay gap has grown in Australia over the last four years, so women are now earning 83 cents, to a mans dollar. A quick visit to eh ABS site will show you this is going across industries. You’re a man aren’t you, I thought that meant you were good at maths?

and for anyone to say social work or nursing isn’t dangerous is kidding themselves. I have worked in construction and the medical industry and thanks to the falling standards of our health care system, I felt safer in construction.

You and your ideals belong in the 1950s, along with the gender pay gap.

Tim says:

10:36am | 10/02/11

Charly Lindsay don’t use figures that you don’t understand.
Yes women on average earn 17% less than men.
So What?
They also work less hours, are more likely to work part time, take time off for having children and then stay home to look after them.
We should all strive for equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

Michael N says:

11:14am | 09/02/11

After Erick you are my second favourite poster (which I’m sure will make your day), but please don’t assume that workers and unions are synonymous. I assure you that to value one is not to value the other. I’ll let you guess which one I think is more important…

But back on topic - the reward for community service is that your work is selfless. To increase the remuneration would only cheapen the sacrifice and more than likely attract the wrong people (those financially rather than humanely driven).

Ben says:

12:14pm | 09/02/11

The argument that women will never feel equal until they have gained superiority is a false argument, which comes from male fear of female revenge for centuries of oppression.

The fact that we as a community value certain professions as more important than others can also be understood as a legacy of a time when economic discrimination against women was a legally enshrined and commonly accepted norm, which constituted a large part of this oppression.

We have moved past that time, and overt sexism and discrimination based on gender is, rightly, widely condemned. As you mention in your comment, we have legislation which acknowledges that such discrimination is wrong.

However, unfortunately just because there is a law which says something should be a certain way, it doesn’t follow that the material circumstances of those people it addresses will change. Law and legislation does not always reflect the way the world is, but often the way in which we (or a certain group of us) think it should be.

If the system is supposed to ensure equal pay for women, but the findings of studies is that equality of pay between genders is still not apparent, then at whose feet should the blame lie?

It seems to me that it is vitally important that we persist in questioning why these inequalities continue to reoccur and find new ways of representing themselves.

Erick says:

02:06pm | 09/02/11

Rubbish, Ben.

In my experience, special interest groups such as feminists *never* feel satisfied. There is no point at which feminists will say, “Well, we’ve got everything we wanted; we’re happy now.”

They will always demand more, more and more. It’s the nature of the beast - after all, if they stopped demanding, there wouldn’t be any need for feminists, would there?

Ben says:

03:30pm | 09/02/11

Erick, you appear to perceive special interest groups as always demanding and never satisfied, but make no justification for this beyond your personal experience.

This is understandable, after all, your experience is your experience, who am I to tell you that it is otherwise? But, my personal lived experience is different than yours, just as it is different to that of the female population, amongst whom there exists a massive variety and plurality of experiences.

My point is that by universalizing your experience you teach us nothing. You use your experience as your own personal justification for your views and prejudices. Your view of feminism as an insatiable hunger seems to speak much more about your own fears and preoccupations than of any objectifiable truths about social movements and their aims.

Discrimination and prejudices often seek to disguise themselves as rational thought and make claims to the essential nature of things; these are amongst the processes by which they come to be ingrained in our cultures.

Erick says:

03:43pm | 09/02/11

No, Ben, it’s not *just* my personal experience.

It’s my observation, over thirty years, of how these ggroups operate.

And it’s my rational conclusion that they *must* always demand more - because it’s the only thing that justifies their existence. This fact is inherent in the structure of lobby groups, and cannot be denied.

Ben says:

05:21pm | 09/02/11

I dispute that the observations of any one individual (over any period of time) can justify such a totalizing view of the nature of social movements.

I also dispute that social movements can be reduced to nothing more than lobby groups.

I agree that demands play a key role and that they may be ongoing, but I do not see how it logically follows that this will manifest a desire to gain superiority.

I acknowledge the right of anyone who is being oppressed anywhere to demand the right to self-determination, to do so is to recognise that “we” never had any legitimate natural authority to grant or deny “them” rights in the first place.

I also understand that material situations are constantly changing; fluid not fixed. Self-determination is an ongoing process (or processes), operating in a space (or spaces) where it is susceptible to exterior influences. In other words, as the conditions change, so do the needs. I therefore believe that it is entirely possible, and legitimate, for social movements to continue campaigning on issues once their demands have been met.

It also seems to me that once initial demands are met that often the focus will become ensuring that these concessions are adhered to in the short and long terms. This appears to me quite a different demand than the demand for superiority.

Mark says:

09:02am | 09/02/11

Reading through the comments, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to get it, and you got it. The reason for the salary disparity is that there is a shortage of qualified IT, engineering etc. professionals relative to positions available in the market. What also helps is that you cannot get into those industries without qualifications.
These factors mean qualified IT, engineering etc. professionals command high salaries.

Oppositely, there are plenty of people with social work, arts etc. degrees relative to positions available in the labour market. What you also often find in these professions is that people can get into entry level jobs without any tertiary qualifications at all and work their way up from there. These two factors mean that employers can offer low salaries and they will still get more than enough applicants to fill positions.

The key point of your article Megan is your male friends chose to do engineering and IT, while your female friends chose to do social work and arts, even though they would have known that these degrees would lead them into lower paying jobs. Further proof that much of the salary differential between men and women simply reflects the different career choices of men and women rather than any entrenched discrimination.

Nigel says:

09:13am | 09/02/11

Yet another orthodox economic theory that doesnt hold up in reality. You are ignoring market failure - community work produces large positive externalities which the sector is largely unable to capture (unlike other private industries). While the demand for community workers is there they cant capture enough of the total social benefit to pay market wages.

Matt says:

10:10am | 09/02/11

I was thinking exactly the same thing @dovif.

AdamC says:

10:14am | 09/02/11

Nigel, I strongly disagree. I would argue that, given the extraordinary amounts of money lavished on social work and community development programmes over the decades, calling any positive social outcomes ‘externalities’ is an economic nonsense. What are we all paying for?

Rissa says:

12:36pm | 09/02/11

@Mark. how does supply demand explain the shortage of nurses? Both university educated RN’s or assistants? I’m confident in saying some of the courses they have to take are tougher than the nastiest of law courses and far surpass many arts subjects (personal experience of both, haven’t studied engineering).

Supply demand doesn’t work where there is a government employer. Suprisingly in this sector, it also doesn’t work in private practise (private employees are often on much lower pay and worse conditions). The numbers of overseas workers (especially at the assistant level) shows the shortage of workers, and has also distorted any chance of supply-demand operating in this industry

Mr GG says:

12:56pm | 09/02/11

@Nigel
So????
there is NO PROFIT.
wages are paid from profits, don’t blame others because you choose to do something you like over something that pays well. I work in IT a get a decent wage, would I prefer to do some arty farty job? hell yeah, would/should I get paid as much? no, the real dollar value of the output of those sort of positions is too low.
And helping a Junkie or shooting a Junkie has the same benefit to the rest of society, but the latter is cheaper, the main benefit of the first option is to the junkie and the social worker who would be out of a job otherwise. There is enough people in Sydney, helping foreigners set-up lives in Sydney has been detrimental to Our society, far beyond the benefits.

And Demand comes from people who can afford and willing to pay. by your logic there is infinite demand for Ferrari’s so if Ferrari made any number of cars they would all sell instantly… that does not hold up to reality, as although people might want a Ferrari if they cant afford one they cant get one. So the demand is limited to those that may actually buy one.

James1 says:

02:16pm | 09/02/11

Mr GG,

The children that those junkies have are innocent of their parent’s crimes.  You are thinking in terms of black and white, when this is actually a complex issue full of grey areas.  One role played by social workers is attempting to remove and rehouse children in bad home situations.  Given that a child has no choice in who their parents are, it seems a bit harsh to leave them to the dogs because their parents make stupid choices.

This is not to say they should get paid more - just that they do play a role beyond enabling junkies (although I am sure that some do fulfil this role).

kj_storm says:

07:38am | 09/02/11

I agree.

The differences in pay are for different jobs. You want to get paid more go into a profession where there is a high demand for people with those skills. Like I did. I am a woman and let me tell you I have NO problem with what I’m earning…

Michael K says:

08:56am | 09/02/11

I trust, Malohi, that you have earned an “arbitrary” arts degree yourself and that you indeed earned it with limited study?

It’s difficult to swallow the contention that “real men’s work” is defined by concrete results. I would much rather work in a “discrete results driven industry” where I can go home at the end of the day and maybe think about really unimportant work-related problems, like implementing a new off-site backup program across the company’s network. On the other hand, if I was a mental health employee working with young people, I don’t think I could bear going home to simply watch TV after failing to prevent the suicide of a youth who had sought my help (to use the example you provided).

I would not be so quick to judge the “value” of a field of study or occupation,  Malohi. It only serves to demonstrate your naivety.

Markus says:

10:22am | 09/02/11

“I trust, Malohi, that you have earned an “arbitrary” arts degree yourself and that you indeed earned it with limited study?”
I know I have. Unless you have absolutely no grasp on the English language, the only way to fail any Arts subject is by not handing in assessment.
P’s get degrees!

Tim the Toolman says:

10:54am | 09/02/11

“I would not be so quick to judge the “value” of a field of study or occupation,  Malohi. It only serves to demonstrate your naivety.”

You missed his point…if we take your point though, it is society that is naive, not Malohi.  But that would require us to ignore his point on the efficacy of such work, which I do not think we should.

malohi says:

11:34am | 09/02/11

Michael K.
I earned my degree while working full time. It is has a legitimate purpose and is for a recognised profession. I can assure you it was not a 3 year joke include such keystone subjects as ‘from buddah to bruce lee’ (uq) and ‘music of Aboriginal Australians’ (unsw).

I do not think any job is ‘mens work’ or ‘womens work’. The whole gender issue in the initial thread is a tremendous piece of non sequiter logic. It is akin to saying…” doctors get paid more than hairdressers, doctors are generally male and hairdressers female. Therefore it must surely be due to gender discrimination that they get paid more.”

Budz says:

07:55am | 09/02/11

Since no one is willing to do it unless they get paid a premium for that risk. There is a reason for example miners get paid so much. On top of the risk there is also the conditions they work in, having to do 2 weeks worth of work in 1 week. It also makes it difficult to have a social life and have a family with those conditions, and they need to get paid for that.

Macca says:

07:58am | 09/02/11

“Since when are jobs paid according to risk?”

@Emily, I’m going to say always. An executive is paid more than an operator because the decisions the executive makes can be responsible for millions of dollars of revenue, where as the operator is responsible for a few thousand at best.

Unfortunately, many service jobs make little if any money. Nurses, Policemen, Teachers etc. are all increadibly admirable occupations, and there is no doubt that a higher wage for these professions could attract a larger number of potential employees into areas where real shortages exist. However, these roles produce no real income, and unlike the miner or stockbroker, whose day-to-day actions have a tangible impact on the economic output of the country, the jobs listed above do not.

This may seem like a cold and harsh argument, but the reality is it’s hard to argue you should be paid more when you bring in no revenue.

grumpy says:

08:07am | 09/02/11

Umm since always. danger money is common when there is risk involved in a job. I think you should check your stats. Its not a fact. The article says women in female dominated roles are paid less than male’s in the same positions. The article is referring to community services. If you want to make money an industry YOU DONT GO INTO! theres lots of female lawyers who im sure get paid as much if not more than many men. Its like teachers complaining they dont get paid enough. They get paid plenty and if they wanted a 6 figure income, dont become teachers (theres plenty of teachers on close to 6 figures anyway).This is a case of people wanting more money than they are worth. Its illegal to discriminate, it is NOT illegal to pay a minimum wage for an industry. The stats could go either way in this case, its easy to lean statistical data to benefit most arguments.

The Original Oz says:

08:57am | 09/02/11

Emily, many job pay scales are calculated on the perceived and real risk of injury or death. Has been for many, many years.  As was stated by other contributors there have been laws inplace in Australia for over 30 years that makes it illegal to offer different payscales to men and women for the same duties.

Brando says:

09:14am | 09/02/11

“Since when are jobs paid according to risk?”

Well for as long as I remember and I started work in 1974 as an apprentice electrician. I was comparatively well paid at $40 a week when most of my compatriots only got $30. However, those that worked in the mines were paid $60 per week and I don’t remember any of us screaming about equal pay.

It was well recognised that mine workers were well paid due to the danger and the appalling condition under which they worked. You’d never get me down a mine I don’t care how much you paid me

Mouse says:

07:47pm | 09/02/11

Emily, your last sentence is tongue in cheek surely!  I can get paid a fair wage for working in a packing shed, hot & heavy work. Or I can get paid a bucketful for working in a mine, hot & heavy work too. The difference being that if something goes wrong with the shed conveyor belt I can walk away and wait until it’s fixed, whereas underground if the chute collapses, I probably won’t get the chance! To work with that sort of risk I expect to get a whole heap more money, as would you. No industry I have ever worked in has a man been paid more than me for the same work. Nor do I know any other female that this has been the norm. There may be some out there, I have just never met them.

Tim says:

08:54am | 09/02/11

Gerogia,
you think that community service workers do some of the hardest and most essential work.
The market and society says different.

If you want higher pay, then argue a case for it. Wrapping it up in a bullshit gender argument is not helping.

Harry High Pants says:

08:55am | 09/02/11

“Were Government not to up funding and community orgs cut jobs or hours it would not only impact the workers and their clients - but our whole community”

I’d rather have electricity and water over not putting a drug addict in prison.

Prazza says:

09:19am | 09/02/11

You’re absolutely right Georgia, and its about time that community workers got the recognition that they deserve.
To the author, thank you for pointing the focus towards a subject that is on the verge of being forgotten due to Gen Y’s apathy

GKM says:

09:35am | 09/02/11

No one denies that the work done by community service workers is important or that what they do isn’t tough. However, those jobs do not generate profit and in a capitalist consumer driven society the dollar is king. The people who work in jobs which generate profit are paid higher. You want equal pay for all jobs no matter what they are go live in a communist country.

Markus says:

09:55am | 09/02/11

So it has nothing to do with an overarching pay inequality based on gender, and entirely to do with certain industries feeling undervalued.

I have no objection to social workers demanding more money for what they do - it is hard, emotionally draining work.
But don’t try and spread the lie that it is part of some world conspiracy to pay women less than men.

CB says:

10:03am | 09/02/11

@GKM

Don’t want to get all theoretical on you, but a good social worker can contribute to the economy in extremely tangible ways: by assisting and supporting the disenfranchised to become social, civic and economic citizens. Slightly strange that a profession which aims to assist the disadvantaged to become participating citizens is seen as one that “doesn’t generate a profit”.

GKM says:

01:09pm | 09/02/11

CB - yes they may help others get back on their feet and join the workforce, however, they do not generate direct income for the groups that employ them. The service providers that employ people in the social services area are constrained in the wages that they can offer because the services do not opperate on a profit model.

Mr GG says:

01:12pm | 09/02/11

@Georgia
Nup, I have worked with Community liaison officers. they already get more than they deserve. They produce nothing of value. they help people that if they are not willing to help themselves should be let go. Not everyone shares your ‘lets save everyone at any cost’ attitude but you expect everyone to pay for it.
Nurses and teachers on the other hand probably deserve more, the nurse can save the life of people that actually generate wealth for the nation and teacher educate the smart and hard working kids that will generate money in the future. the Community liaison officer enables a bludger and drain on society to continue being a bludger and drain on society for longer probably their whole life. Most people with capacity to be valuable members of society will never need a community liaison officer, like you said it is the useless members that achieve nothing and add nothing positive to society that the social worker spends their time with…well obviously those people can pay you bugger all so you get paid bugger all, the rest of us already subsides them so you get paid something, that’s fair payment.

Scrappy says:

01:56pm | 09/02/11

Oh Georgia aren’t you a good little union official, bright eyed and bushy tailed up and posting so early in the morning, I am sure the FBEU is proud of you.

AdamC says:

08:43am | 09/02/11

Eva, I see there is a theme to some of the replies to the replies. I will respond to you but my comments apply generally.

I suspect that you and most of the like commenters here know full well that it is not merely ‘male prejudices’ that dictate differing salary levels in different professions. There are quite obvious and economically valid reasons for the pay differentials between, say, social work and civil engineering. Here are a few important ones:

1. The civil enginner’s work creates outputs that are commericlly valuable and create profits, while the social worker is usually paid by the state or an NGO out of taxes or donations as social work is not commercially valuable.
2.  The social worker usually derives a great deal of altruistic satisfaction from her work and is therefore prepared to work for a (ceteris paribas) lower salary than the civil engineer.
3. The difficulty of obtaining qualifications and base skills in civil engineering is greater than in social work and, therefore, there are fewer qualified candidates.

Women, in choosing their careers, are aware of these factors. I also suspect that, on balance, many women in the ‘female professions’ are quite satisfied with their chosen career. After all, there is actually nothing stopping them from becoming civil engineers, for exampele.

The fact is that women are more than capable of making career and other life decisions and taking responsibility for them, tired feminist barrow-pushing aside.

CABAL says:

09:25am | 09/02/11

OH MY GOD… If you want to make large sums of money go and work for a corporation that is profit driven and will therefore generate revenue which will allow it to pay its workers more. Governments are not profit driven therefore they can’t afford to pay as high as company can…. if you work in a field that isn’t profit driven you aren’t going to make as much money….. seems simple to me

GKM says:

09:38am | 09/02/11

Adam C is correct. Work in a profit driven industry and you will see higher salaries. Work in an industry where the ‘clients’ and consumers do not pay for the services and products and you will see lower salaries.

Shorn says:

10:39am | 09/02/11

Saying that taking care of people makes societies more civil and pleasant is merely your own value judgement. It’s not mine.

I prefer a system that will pay according to measurable results, such as profit. Not only is it more efficient but it is better for all concerned.

As far as I care, it doesn’t bother me if there are homeless and starving out there. They are of no consequence to me. I work and earn the money I need to lead a comfortable lifestyle and this is purely a result of my choices and work. Therefore, as far as civil and pleasant is concerned I only care about my own outcomes. Most people have that opportunity in our society.

James1 says:

12:27pm | 09/02/11

You are being naive if you think social dysfunction does not affect you because you earn enough to look after yourself Shorn.  It is not a coincidence that most criminals are raised on housing commission estates.  Of course, they are of no consequence to you until they break into your house, stick up your business perhaps shoving a gun in your face, steal your car, or rob your children at train stations.  That is why social workers are necessary - they might not be perfect, but imagine where society would be without them.

Otherwise, agree 100 percent with Adam.

Shorn says:

01:10pm | 09/02/11

James1
That’s what insurance and police are for. Home and contents insurance is a small cost to me each month and I live a very long way away from any housing commission area. The police are a necessary cost borne by my taxes, similar to education.

The benefits of social workers is difficult to measure in this context. Not even their outcomes can be proven.

Mr GG says:

01:27pm | 09/02/11

@James1
As someone that has grown up around those areas (Blacktown) if they want to get out of it they do (like me, my brothers and my friends) if they don’t they become thieves junkies or dealer (like several acquaintances and ex-friends) no social worker is going to convince them otherwise. they don’t want to work end of story they are not interested in becoming valuable members of society, they are interested in bludging, getting drunk or high and rooting the local sluts (single mothers pension professionals). I can see how much they can get for doing nothing. they all have a social worker wrapped around their little finger, who goes into bat for them every time they stuff up giving them excuses for their own rotten behaviour and lifestyle.

And ALL that stuff still happens and the perpetrators are normally signed up with social workers already, they are a joke to the people that use them, a tool to use to get the most from the gov’t bodies or leniency for their crime. Actual outcome is not much therefore pay should be not much.
And the fact that pacifists get robbed is a different issue… one social workers find hard to accept not everyone agrees that violence is not the answer, I can tell you to all these problems you think social works help, Violence is the Immediate solution. You can claim what ever but Growing up and still living in Blacktown I have already learnt this the hard way and have the scars to prove it.

James1 says:

02:10pm | 09/02/11

Shorn,

The benefits of having lawyers is difficult to measure…

Otherwise, the only way we can quantify the benefits of having social workers would be to conduct an experiment whereby they were removed and we charted the increase in crime and death by neglect of children.  That is not going to happen, fortunately.

Good for you GG for getting out (I have also worked my way out of humble origins) - as I am sure you would be aware, others have been helped out of their terrible upbringings in such areas by social workers.  Children have been saved from their drug addled parents by social workers.  Can you really put a value on a life saved from indolence and addiction?  Even if only one in ten is saved, that is a gain for those individuals and a gain for society in terms of crimes that will not be committed.  That was my point.

Finally, violence usually breeds more violence.  If you live in Blacktown, and are using violence to solve your problems (I had trouble getting your point with all the problems you have with expression, punctuation, etc - is that what you were saying?), you should take care, my friend.  I sincerely hope that you don’t have any repercussions affect you or your family.

Erick says:

02:11pm | 09/02/11

Notice Eva Cox’s sexist shaming language: “stupidity”, “male prejudices”, “simplistic sexism”, “grow up boys!”

I’m sure Eva would object most strongly if such insults were ever uttered by a man to a woman. But she’s quite happy to use this sort of language herself.

Feminism: It’s all about projection.

Shorn says:

03:32pm | 09/02/11

James1
The benefit of a lawyer can be gauged by their charge-out rate as determined by the market for legal services.

James1 says:

02:13pm | 10/02/11

Shorn,

That is more of a cost than a benefit.  You can show that they cost members of society $700 an hour, but what benefits do they bring?  Can you quantify them for me?

Mmmmm beer says:

09:48am | 09/02/11

November 12 or 19 depending on which country you are in.

Getting less lazy, but still pretty damn lazy Jesu says:

10:04am | 09/02/11

Cool! I was being a bit facetious, but I’m happy there is one.

I’m thinking I might start the M Collective and organise a march celebrating the 10th anniversary in 2013.

Alex the big gay commie bear says:

03:21pm | 10/02/11

The “F collective” kinda sounds like a swingers club

Tim says:

09:02am | 09/02/11

KH,
no we read the article and we disagree, read Adam C’s reply above.
And if money is so important to these social workers, what’s stopping them becoming plumbers or engineers or IT workers or doctors?
Oh that’s right, nothing.

MC says:

09:20am | 09/02/11

From jim at 7:48
“The community services roles are majority filled by women as you say…we all know these roles ARE undervalued. But they don’t really produce a profit for anyone do they…they are a cost and therefore the rates of pay are determined by funding. “

In saying that but, people genreally have an idea of the type of money they will be on before they start training in that field of work, so i cant really see why they would be complaining.

If they are after more money (which this article is all about), why did they choose a field with gerenerally low pay?

Adam Diver says:

09:41am | 09/02/11

Th problem KH, is not everyone else understanding but rather yours and that of the author.

There is a valid argument in here. Do we recognize and reward appropriately the role of social workers in our society?

There is an invalid argument where feminists have claimed inequity in pay, because women tend to do low paying jobs in low paying industries.

The obvious response to this stupidity is that there is no inequality in pay because Women get paid the same as Men, and there is even a law to protect this.

There are two ways of looking at these issues (one of them is correct).

1. Equality of outcome - Is the end result equal, i.e women and men get paid the same amount and have 50-50 splits in every industry.

or

2. Equality of opportunity - Does everyone have equal opportunity to training, education, employment etc so that they can become what they choose.

Hint: The left generally choose the wrong one

Aidan says:

08:52am | 09/02/11

The line of argument in the ASU case compares the community sector (mostly govt funded) with other Govt sector jobs. The theory is that these sectors should pay similar wages yet for some reason one which is, and has traditionally been, dominated by women receives less.

It’s not about cleaners not being paid the same as accountants.

Tim says:

09:27am | 09/02/11

Aidan,
there’s a difference between government funded and government sector. They are not the same and therein lies the difference.

Sally says:

01:58pm | 03/05/11

“If you are not getting paid enough in your current job then leave and find a better one.” Exactly, and this is why the community sector finds it hard to retain staff, as workers are leaving the sector for better paying jobs.

dr dr says:

11:15am | 09/02/11

um, care to share the source of those facts?

Adam Diver says:

09:59am | 09/02/11

Talk about Ironic or perhaps just hypocritical.

2 quotes from your comment.

“the standard of comment on this website is appalling.”

“the issue is not about women and men being paid differently for doing the same job, although that does still happen, particularly in industries like finance where people rely substantially on performance pay”

Are you saying pay based on performance is sexist (taken to the logical conclusion) because women are worse at their jobs then men?????

AdamC says:

10:10am | 09/02/11

“There is no market in communtiy services”

Snarl, if you had actually read the comments have been made, you would see that we are all in furious agreement on that point. And, indeed, that point is the major reason community services workers (more likely to be women) get paid less than investment bankers (more likely to be men).

If you are anti-market, you aren’t so much a feminist as a socialist.

Tim says:

10:40am | 09/02/11

Yes I agree that the standard of comment is appalling, yours straight to the top of the list.
1.Just because a gender pay gap exists doesn’t mean it occurs because of discrimination.
2. Whole industries being undervalued? Sort of subjective isn’t it? And even if they are, why is gender necessarily the cause?
3.No, that’s just a subjective argument as well. You value the community sector higher than society does. Why are you right and society wrong? And once again how does gender come into it?
4.Yes, community services are mostly funded by government. And society wants our government to spend the least amount of money possible to provide these services. As long as there are large numbers of people willing to provide these services, then why should the government pay above what people are willing to accept?
Face it, most people enter these professions because they want the warm fuzzy feeling of helping people and there are lots of people willing to do it.
Well to be able to get that kind of job satisfaction, you sacrifice getting paid large amounts of money.
Don’t like it? Leave.

Markus says:

10:41am | 09/02/11

So you have left point 3 aside for a moment, when are you going to come back to it?
It seems a fairly important point - why do women continue to choose to dominate industries that they know full well are low paying, and that (they claim) demand a comparable level of skills to other higher paying industries?

Snarl says:

11:32am | 09/02/11

@Adam Diver - Performance pay leads to greater gender pay inequality in many industries for a variety of reasons. To suggest that it is because women are not as good at their jobs IS sexist. The outcome of the process can be sexist without the process directly discriminating on the basis of gender.

@Adam C Scandalous. Imagine being a socialist in this day and age! You can’t justify an outcome becasue it is a legitimate effect of the operation of a market in an industry where no market operates. Some commenters have attempted to jsutify lower pay on this basis. That is the beginning and end of my point on that matter.

AdamC says:

01:11pm | 09/02/11

Snarl, if you are a socialist and therefore have a disdain for markets setting prices, why not make that argument? Why dress it all up in spurious feminist claptrap?

And the point I was making about the market for the services provided by social workers (not quite the same thing as the market for social workers themselves, which does exist) is that these services do not have commercial value. They therefore must be funded by the state or society through charitable donations. That is one of the reasons that social workers are paid less than some other professions.

Now, you can say that this situation sucks and ‘the market’ sucks even harder, but that’s got nothing to do with feminism.

Lostie says:

01:25pm | 09/02/11

Given that sexism means “prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of sex” (according to the Oxford dictionary). Sexist must mean a policy or process of prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of sex.

If there is no prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of sex then it can not (by definition) be sexism.

A policy that says you can do X for $50 or Y for $150 is not sexist so long as a persons gender does not disqualify them from selecting one or the other. So long as the person has a free choice of which they will pursue the choice is not sexist.

While I do not deny that (to use the above example) women choose X far more often than men do - there is no prejudice in the system based on gender. This is demonstrated by the face that men who are nurses get paid the same as women who are nurses (for example).

Would it not be a far more valuable question to ask why do women choose X over Y and how can we get them to change to level the playing field?

If however, you are looking at this from a social perspective (and advocating for a decrease in the disparity between wages for different types of work) the accusation of sexism is highly misleading and intellectually dishonest.

If however, you are suggesting that women are ‘pushed’ into the lower paid professions, that would indeed be sexist - but unless you can suggest where this push is coming from (and ignore the increasing number of women seeking to study accounting, law, medicine and the likes) you are left with a group who choose a career, knowing that it is low paid, and then complain that it is low paid.

Gender of the participants seems to be irrelevant.

Lostie says:

02:11pm | 09/02/11

For further clarification:

If I have a job of mucking out the pig’s stable.

The fact that persons who have a religious belief that pigs are unclean are unlikely to apply for the job does not mean that there is some form of discriminatory practice. The outcome does not justify the claim of prejudice or discrimination.

where is the line says:

01:11pm | 09/02/11

That’s nice, but how does it relate to the topic that community service jobs are undervalued and so it becomes a gender issue?

Just because the majority of the employed in the field are female does not make it a gender issue. Think of it another way, if the ratio was 60% female, would the author consider it a gender issue? What about 55%, 45%?

BK says:

01:33pm | 09/02/11

Just because ‘hot’ women find it easier to get jobs doesn’t mean that other women are disadvantaged. It means that these few women are unfairly advantaged.

Tim says:

12:06pm | 09/02/11

That’s not for profit sector John, not just community sector.

baby with a keyboard says:

01:12pm | 09/02/11

Because we don’t agree with the author we have to “grow up”? What an infantile comment.

Mr GG says:

02:03pm | 09/02/11

ummm…
except there are people willing to be paid that. go to a nursing home (in western Sydney) nilly all the nurses are from Poor SE Asian nations. They are more than happy to Wipe granny’s bum for they pay they get. Just like the Guy in manufacturing, globalisation has meant that if your position requires low enough skills that it can be completed by a 3rd world work getting paid a pittance, you will also be paid a pittance if you keep your job at all.
That’s Capitalism Baby, like it or not.

James1 says:

01:13pm | 09/02/11

For a research scientist, you must have a very short attention span.  Try reading the article through to the end, and then come back and discuss the issue that the rest of us are focused on.

Mr GG says:

02:07pm | 09/02/11

@James1
she probably has…
If your are a social worker accept that we are your employers and we are telling you what we are willing to pay you for your job. if you don’t think its enough change jobs and stop whinging. there are plenty of others capable and willing to do it for that pay, if there wasn’t then we would have to pay more.

tokenfeminist says:

02:14pm | 09/02/11

MF i"m just going to assume that, for the sake of argument, you are a fairly well educated middle-class woman who speaks English as her first language and hasn’t had children yet.

Say for example you need to take time off for maternity leave to have the baby, and for the next decade or more you will need to work either part time, or take time off work when the kids are sick and can’t go to day care, and pay for day care in the first place.

You will be told that your employer is a family friendly workplace but you will always be rostered on for Bubba’s first day of school even though you planned six weeks in advance to have that day off work.

Even though you will receive the same pay as men at the same level or pay band as you, you will not rise through the ranks as quickly as an equivalent man who is able to outsource his child-caring duties to his wife or a child care centre, and by the time you are 65 you will be earning less, on average, than a man with equivalent qualifications and experience.

If you are one of those people who consider having children to be a ‘lifestyle choice’, consider that it is a choice made by both men and women but which only impacts on the woman’s career.

That is the essence of sexism, and one of many causes of pay inequality.

James1 says:

02:33pm | 09/02/11

GG,

I meant that the article is not about unequal pay within industries, but between them.  Indeed, the article explicitly recognises that it is not about unequal pay within industries.

You should do some more reading too - if you had you would notice that I disagree fundamentally with the premise of the article, and have said so twice already on this thread.

AdamC says:

02:35pm | 09/02/11

Tokenfeminist:

“If you are one of those people who consider having children to be a ‘lifestyle choice’, consider that it is a choice made by both men and women but which only impacts on the woman’s career. “

A mass market feminist making sense. Geez, it only took 100 comments for it to happen!

The challenge, though, is what do you do about the motherhood thing? Most women don’t necessarily want to completely outsource child care responsibilities to others, even their husbands. And employers can hardly expected not to favour those who are around more often. Initiatives like paid maternity leave won’t address this issue; if anything it will make it worse.

What is the solution?

MF says:

02:45pm | 09/02/11

TokenFeminist: Yes and no. I am well educated. I have a PhD and while I most certainly grew up lower-class, I’m doing ok for myself now. And no, I don’t have kids. Nor do I ever actually plan to. I hate kids. I love how people make that snap judgement that all women want kids, and if they say they don’t then clearly they’re just going to change their mind in the future. But that’s another rant for another day.

And surprisingly, I work for a university that has incredibly generous family leave provisions. I’m the only one in my research group that doesn’t have kids, but those around me, both MALE and FEMALE have got it pretty damn good. I’m regularly refused annual leave over school holidays because parents “get first priority”. Like the rest of us don’t deserve time off because we don’t have kids. So where the hell do you get off?

Tim says:

03:37pm | 09/02/11

tokenfeminist,
so your saying that because women are unable to manage their own lives and family circumstances they should be paid more?
Wow, that really is the essence of sexism.

Markus says:

04:04pm | 09/02/11

tokenfeminist,
So your argument is that a person who, for a large portion of their working life, chooses (yes chooses, the woman can choose to be the primary earner in a family, or choose not to have kids with a man who refuses that arrangement) to prioritise their family life over their work will, by the age of 65, have earned less money than someone who prioritised their work over their family life? And that the government should legislate to ensure she earns the same over a period in which she has worked less? How is that fair, equitable, or most importantly, sustainable?

The biggest flaw in your hypothetical is the assumption that the income the man earns is only his.
Parenting is a partnership, and that money is equally hers as it is his (and sadly in some cases of Family Law, it is determined to be MORE hers than his).

family person says:

04:09pm | 09/02/11

Token - “consider having children to be a ‘lifestyle choice’, consider that it is a choice made by both men and women but which only impacts on the woman’s career. “

It impacts on the whole family, mum, dad and kids. Families make the choice and bare the brunt of their choices. Dad’s often take second jobs to make ends meet, kids get second-hand rather than new, Mum’s career is impacted. Luxuries really become Luxuries when you have a single income and a family.

But all that is irrelevent to the topic of this article.

St. Michael says:

04:00pm | 09/02/11

I think the answer is the long haul.  Life and success isn’t a race, it’s a marathon.  It would be interesting to see how much the average teacher makes over the *entire* course of his or her lifetime, adjusted for inflation, versus how much the average engineer makes over the entire course of his or hers.  I suspect engineering, like law, demands close to indentured servitude in the first couple of years, but once you’ve proved you can actually build something that won’t fall over in three days, the pay rate rises sufficiently to compensate for it.

Victoria Cooper says:

05:35pm | 09/02/11

It is unreasonable to generalise from individual experience.  I wish posters to news discussion sites would learn this fundamental principle of logic.

fairsfair says:

12:00pm | 10/02/11

Isn’t opinion based on personal experience? You didn’t have to respond to me - or even read what I had posted for that matter. I am sure a lot of people simply skip everytime they see the name “fairsfair” and I am ok with that.

Please feel free to replace fairsfair with “my entire graduating class” and my best friend with “her entire graduating class”.

It takes a genius to scoot through a 5 year engineering degree without study and stress and a complete dunce to bomb out on a three year humanitarian degree. Hence a 19 year old Japanese girl’s (who could hardly speak the language let alone comprehend Nietzsche) ability to pass the course.

Fair point St Mick - she reckons uni is far harder than the actual job thanks to computers. At least however if the computer says no she should be able to work it out with a pencil.

St. Michael says:

03:56pm | 09/02/11

The last point is crucial.  For aged care and child care to be noticeably better than the Dickensian conditions which pass for the average, it means either (a) more private fees or (b) more taxes.  People generally want to pay neither.

In that, the private sector in these areas is quite literally hamstrung since where the government subsidises an industry, the “blue ribbon” providers are competing against the government.

Consider: you can send Grandma to one of two aged care centres.  One is a “blue ribbon” aged care provider which charges $200 per week above the average but where every t is crossed and every i is dotted.  The other is a centre that offers a low rate due to government subsidy, charges the industry average, but adheres to the government’s regulation.  You’re told by both that they will both look after your Grandmother.

Which do you go with, in your heart of hearts? No bullcrap, now—for all you love Granny, she needs a fulltime carer, which is simply too expensive if you try and bring someone in to look after now.

You can’t quantify the level of care in either facility—which is the real problem.  Which means the cheapest centre wins.  Incredibly, the subsidy means the government both hamstrings the best, most expensive centres, and props up the worst, kerosene-bathing centres alike.

I say let the free market take effect.  You would immediately see a quantifiable level of care arise, because every aged care provider could charge what it wants and refuse who it wants, and carry whatever standard of care it wants.  Handouts corrupt.

Lisa H. says:

04:25pm | 09/02/11

I think women have to be honest with themselves. My pet (joke) theory is that HECS was introduced because with the majority of uni graduates being female, the government just wasn’t getting the education money back through income tax any more.
When men have babies, they spend more time in the office, and become more committed to work. Happened with my husband.
When women have babies they are less reliable. Not only do they have the children to look after, but they are co-opted into supporting their husband’s career as well.
Having children is a social thing. For this reason, I think income should be split for tax purposes in households which are raising children.

St. Michael says:

03:47pm | 09/02/11

Respectfully, I think the analysis you’re taking is off the mark.

The difference between the humanities and the math-based professions isn’t whether one provides more commercial or economic gains.  It’s that *performance* in the math-based professions can be objectively quantified with ease, whilst in the humanities it can’t.

(Law technically counts as a humanities subject, but it sits on an interesting cross-bench in that because our legal system is adversarial, it’s possible to quantify performance if only by a measure of how many cases the lawyer has won versus how many he’s lost.)

To take an extreme example, being the social worker vs. the structural engineer.  The social worker sees a guy for six months and proclaims the guy cured of his addictions.  The guy leaves and doesn’t come back, but there’s no quantifiable way to track his progress through recovery or how long the recovery will stick.  The structural engineer builds a bridge the progress of which can be measured and the effectiveness of which can be easily measured (i.e. whether it continues to stand up 6 months from the date of its construction.)

Or childcare workers: as a lot of “pulled myself up despite getting the crap beaten out of me at home” stories tell us, you can’t honestly quantify whether one centre is actually doing any good to your kid or not, because your kid generally can’t tell you, child development is not as simple as cause and effect, and childcare hides behind the idea that “every kid is an individual” (or worse, false pronouncements of ADHD.)

Compare that to a manufacturer of baby bottles.  You can measure how many bottles the plant puts out, what its sales are, and where the product’s defects are.

Which would you expect the free market to invest in? Or more relevantly, which one would *you* invest your entire life savings into expecting to generate a return?

The free market has problems with humanities, but not because it doesn’t recognise the economic gains.  It has it because it has no tools to tell when it’s getting taken for a ride in terms of performance.  Me, I think society across the board is behaving in a very economically rational way - see Tim Gerford’s “The Logic Of Life” for more about that.  We don’t value childcare or aged care because, like fat heart attack victims, we unconsciously believe the system is strong enough to fix the problems when they arise later on.

There’s different forms of intelligence.  Some people do better with quantifiable values, such as mathematics.  Others, who seem to do well in humanities and—the ultimate humanity ‘science’—politics, are simply good at reading what a tutor wants and repeating it back to them.

Tim says:

03:53pm | 09/02/11

You studied arts at university? Really?
Never would’ve guessed it with that long pointless rant.

Jade says:

11:12am | 10/02/11

The performance of teachers in particular is certainly quantifiable, in much the same way that the performance of universities is quantifiable. Long term outcomes of their students is definitely one way to do this. As a former teacher, I absolutely disagree with the bleating of most teachers that this is impossible and not a true measure of their success or failure. By looking at the future economic contribution of students, we can definitely assess the worth of teachers. Without a basic education, workers would not be able to enter the workforce, thus depleting the economy.

Even if the students themselves can’t see the gains, obviously one must be literate and numerate to enter any but the most basic and menial of professions. Students engaging in vocational education whilst at school get a leg-up in trades, which generate massive amounts of income, and therefore massive amounts of tax. Engineers get their start in the physics and mathematics classrooms, and generate, as many posters have pointed out, a quantifiable gain to society. Why should those who dedicate themselves to building the foundations not be valued more highly than they currently are? Without them, the engineers would not exist.

I am by no means suggesting that the social worker who proclaims a guy “cured of his addictions” be valued the same as the engineer who contributes a bridge. But perhaps the social worker who manages to get an individual who would otherwise be on the streets into further study or an apprenticeship which will then generate a substantial income for both the individual and society, should be given a greater share of the societal profits since, without them that contribution would not exist.

You state, St Michael, that some who “seem to do well in the humanities are simply good at reading what a tutor wants and repeating it back to them.” While that is certainly true, this is a skillset that many “mathematically minded” people simply don’t have, and a lack which contributes to their failure in some cases later in life. Furthermore, I don’t believe this to be the case in most humanities subjects. I think that because there are no numbers or percentages, people are lazy and don’t want to do the HARD work of properly analysing the evidence to determine objectively the effort and performance of students in the humanities.

I don’t think most students who are successful in mathematics would find the Illiad, or Aenid, or the writings of Virgil or Plato’s philosophy or linguistics or the philosophy of Thomas Paine or Aquinas or Aristotle easy. I have found that most students who are successful at subjects like mathematics, physics etc. struggle to even see the point of studying such works, even when it is pointed out that long before the Americans, the Greeks gave us the concept of democracy and liberty and freedom. When they do see the point, they struggle to understand more than a word. Even in English translations.

I am not suggesting that the philosophy or classics student be valued the same as an engineer or plumber. I took umbrige at the suggestion that the humanities were less difficult or somehow easier than more mathematical or scientific subjects.

St. Michael says:

11:50pm | 10/02/11

@ Jade: I don’t want to necessarily get into an engineering vs. arts debate, but with mathematical-based professions there is really only one correct answer; 2+2 = 4.  Interpretation of philosophical works or works of literature is another thing entirely; disagreeing with a lecturer or exam marker’s views on a paper is more likely than not to bring about a low mark or fail.  That’s human nature.

I’m not saying one discipline is more difficult or less difficult than another.  But the mathematics-based sciences do seem to have more inherent integrity than the irrelevant and out-of-date navel-gazing that passes for most philosophy courses these days.

The reason being that, as with the professions the mathematica (as I call them) support, they’re tangible.  They follow concrete rules.  They can be objectively measured without trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

See, 2+2 always equals 4, but Shakespeare, depending on which academic you talk to, could either have been writing brilliant philosophical subtexts into his plays ... or simply writing ripping yarns that would get people in to watch the play, much as Dan Brown does these days.  It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that engineering students can’t get their heads around things like the Aeneid or the Odyssey—(a) what relevance does it *really* have to modern life, and (b) where is the foundation of objective truth to be found, like a mathematical principle?

That’s the fundamental difference between the mathematica and the humanities.  Brilliance in the mathematica can’t be faked quite as easily as they can in the humanities.

I do still stand on the suggestion that the humanities remain largely unquantifiable in terms of performance.  You say the performance of a teacher can be gauged by the longterm performance of their students.  The problem is that longterm performance, or “success”, isn’t correlated directly to the teacher’s performance.  Individual will, stresses, persistence, and personal factors—not to mention academic performance versus being able to navigate the real world—all bear into those results so much that the teacher’s performance per se is no more relevant than just being a vague inspiration, the dedication section of a book.

This is especially so for university lecturers in the humanities.  Law in particular is bad, and has been for decades.  Across the board, most graduate “lawyers” are often seen as functionally useless to the legal profession, because they are filled up with a host of theory by academics who had neither the ability nor the courage to practice in the free market.

Jade says:

03:23pm | 09/02/11

The reason it is seen as a gender issue is because these jobs are still predominantly seen as “women’s work”. Which was the reason that in previous years those working in these professions were paid less. It is a gender issue because those professions that are traditionally seen as “male” are paid more and the work they did was valued more, regardless of the actual contribution to society.

marley says:

06:25pm | 09/02/11

@Jade - sorry, but I don’t agree at all.  This is not 1907 or even the 60s.  If you do the same job, there is legislation to cover equal pay. 

If you don’t do the same job, it seems to me it’s up to you to prove the job you are doing is worth more than you’re getting and more than society figures it’s worth.  Complaining that there’s a gender bias does nothing to establish that the job itself is worth more.  Social workers were never well paid, even in the days when there were a lot more men in the profession.  I don’t think gender has anything to do with how we value that particular occupation.

I might add that, traditionally, being a doctor was seen as a “male” occupation and being a nurse was seen as a “female” occupation.  But gender is not the reason the former were paid more than the latter.  The former had a higher level of education and skills than the latter and, in many cases, ran their own businesses.  That is why they earned more. And now that there are far more women practicing medicine than was the case 30 years ago, wages haven’t dropped. 

So I think the argument about “traditional” male vs female occupations is skewed by a whole lot of other factors, just as the author has skewed her argument by trying to link higher wages earned by IT specialists and engineers with gender factors. 

And the final point: if social work and its like are such undervalued occupations, why do women keep streaming to them?  If you want more money, go for an occupation that society values more - women do rather well in law, academia, medicine, engineering and yes, the trades.  If you want more money for you social work career, make your argument on the value of your work, and not on a comparison with other occupations.

Markus says:

09:58pm | 09/02/11

But the problem with that reasoning is that despite pay equality within jobs being enforceable by law for 40 years now, and that women now account for half of all employment and the majority of all consumer spending in this country, they are still putting the same value on this ‘woman’s work’.
You only have to see the uproar every year when childcare centres put up their fees by $2 a day as testament to this.

Jade says:

11:20am | 10/02/11

The problem with that reasoning, Marley, as Markus pointed out, is that despite the efforts by unions and workers’ groups within those professions pointing out the value, it is still not valued.

For instance, why are plumbers paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for a trade that most people can learn? Because their work is seen as more valuable. Women bitch and moan about the cost of childcare, but don’t value the fact that it is the choice of the workers in that profession that enables the women who choose other professions to go out and work as lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. Society forgets that these (mostly) women provide an invaluable service and assist in contributing to the economy by choosing this profession. They assist because without them, women would be unable to work as they would be required to be at home with their children. So a valuable contribution to the economy in the form of taxes and spending power would be lost.

Richard says:

09:27pm | 09/02/11

You are 100% correct Helen.

However, I do not make a judgement on that system of values. It is the way it is. If you think it should be changed, well you should try to change it, but I don’t see how.

Because wealth (or at least the traditional conception of wealth) is tangible and real. It can be accumulated.

The intangible benefits provided by social workers and mental health professionals etc. can not be accumulated or transferred. They cannot be a store of value. They can wear off, they can be temporary: they do not constitute real wealth (even though they are necessary).

But unless you can find a way to monetise the benefits derived from what is traditionally thought of as “women’s work”, it will continue to be less financially rewarding than productive, constructive, “man’s” work.

Markus says:

10:04pm | 09/02/11

Teachers and doctors’ wages have fallen? Are you sure we’re talking about the same country here?

And exactly what professions are we talking about that are male-dominated in one country and female dominated in another?

St. Michael says:

10:54pm | 09/02/11

Paraphrasing, you say that because women have been in teaching for about 50 years, that teaching has lost prestige, and then “Look out lawyers you will be next as more women enter the profession!”

The first female Australian legal practitioner was admitted in 1905.  I don’t think legal fees have dropped in the interceding 100 years or so.  And as far as I can tell, the legal profession hasn’t lost the “prestige” it seems to have.

There aren’t many statistics, but as at 1994-1995 the split on gender of Australian lawyers was roughly 70% men, 30% women (Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QGuLJsUBtfsC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Number+of+female+lawyers+in+Australia&source=bl&ots=rpKttGE_uK&sig=mK2ck5AbHIh_Vg0GP1EZm6P4nBA&hl=en&ei=MI1STbSGBIGYvAOlrP25CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Number of female lawyers in Australia&f=false)

Although you’re right most 17-18 year olds have no idea about wages and conditions when they choose their careers.

St. Michael says:

11:09pm | 09/02/11

I don’t agree on the doctor vs. nurse situation.  Nurses only recently have had to have any formal academic qualifications at all.  Doctors have always been held to a higher professional standard than nurses.  Even now doctors still do a university course twice the length of the longest nursing degree (6 years vs. 3).

When it comes to gender or pay equity issues, I say: actions speak louder than words.  Gender or pay equity is a smokescreen.  The quit rate is the real gauge for judging whether employees’ work is undervalued or that they’re not paid enough for what they do.

If a job is truly unbearable or isn’t getting you enough money to live on, you quit and find something else to do.  Simple as that.  Maybe you retrain before you go, maybe after.  I don’t buy the “frog in a pot of boiling water” thing any more except for those whose self-esteem has been so battered they don’t feel they *can* get anything else.

And in certain industries, if the number of people quitting that industry is matched by those going in (eliminating retirements from the equation) you do not have an underpaid or overworked industry.  That is because those going in clearly like the pay and benefits enough to consider going into it at all.  Note I say “pay and benefits”: a secure job as opposed to entrepreneurial risk is a clear factor in favour of what looks like an underpaid or undervalued job.  Not to mention that below certain income level the Government provides far more supplements than they otherwise would.

This is what makes it mildly amusing to hear 20-year “veterans” of nursing complaining that their work is undervalued and/or that they’re underpaid.  They obviously lasted 20 years in their field for something.  If not the dollars, then what? Altruism? Possibly that’s part of it, but if you choose to be Mother Teresa you can hardly complain when you have to live in Calcutta-style poverty.

People need to get out of the idea that any of the jobs they go into are lifetime choices or that they can’t retrain.  If enough people understood that, the whole system would change.  This is called the free market.

In some ways I think Lefties would be better served by just letting the free market determine how much child care or aged care are worth.  I would bet for the first few years you would have plenty of empirical evidence for how callous Australians are towards their children and their parents.  After that they’d have an irrefutable “shame on you, Australia” argument against anyone who chose to stick their kids or the parents in the cheapest flea-ridden child care centres or aged care homes available.  But instead they insist on government handouts to both industries and insist nobody can be denied child care or aged care.  And the malaises in both industries roll on.

Helen says:

11:16am | 10/02/11

Rubbish.  The social costs of domestic violence, child abuse, depression, suicides real and attempted, theft, vandalism and assault by untreated drug addicts and the mentally ill, etc etc etc can be given a dollar value, and it has been done before.  There are costs in the form of the loss of the productive potential of so many people who would otherwise be able to function and work properly in this economy.  And to answer those who say ‘but nothing can be done’, what can be done about pay inequity (ie. forms of work not being paid what they are actually worth to the economy), is that what can be done is precisely what is being done by the ASU and from time to time other unions: your run a campaign, you run a pay case.  Unions are an inevitable part of any capitalist economy.  Otherwise capitalism would eat itself by destroying the purchasing power of more than half of the consumers (who are also workers, by the way).

Markus says:

10:33am | 10/02/11

I agree, it is sad that these keep getting the same repeated statements over and over again.
But the fact that the same articles keep getting posted over and over again, regardless of the responses they get, clearly shows that the people leading this charge for ‘equal pay for women’ just don’t get it.