Inequality in Britain

[Loz]

So what? Unemployment rates in the UK are higher for men than they are for women. Better to be a low income earner than a no income earner.

Besides - what is the equivalent statistic to your 50% stat for the private sector?

[Undisputedtruth]

It's about time you do your own research on private sector pay. I've already answered your other questions relating to the public sector in full. Pretty pointless comparing unemployment rates by gender. Benefit rules and child caring responsibilities can distort the unemployment rates.

[Loz]

Sorry, but giving one side of a stat is pretty useless. It's your stat - you do the research.

[Undisputedtruth]

As you've been so dismissive in the past then my final answer is no. In any case I have a fair understanding of the Equality laws/policies so I won't benefit in doing research for you.

[The Chair]

In the past I have been a benevolent Chair. I have allowed threads to divert from their original scope in oder to foster debate. I have allowed passionate rhetoric in order to nuture radical ideas. I have even tolerated bad language when done with panache.

But some people on here are testing my patience.

I will not tolerate any further personal insults nor persistent bickering. This is meant to be a wood-panelled Drawing Room for sophisticated debate whilst drinking brandy. Some of you seem to have over-indulged.

It is not the Oxford Union so stop behaving like students.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As you've been so dismissive in the past then my

> final answer is no. In any case I have a fair

> understanding of the Equality laws/policies so I

> won't benefit in doing research for you.

In that case, thank you for your interesting piece of tangential trivia.

Anyone got anything of substance to add to the debate? Should PS jobs cuts be seen in isolation as female unfriendly or should the public sector as a whole - which is, on the whole, female advantageous, be taken into account?

[DJKillaQueen]

Did someone ask for stats?

It's easy to find stats on employment and gender. The stats for the Labour market are updated every three months.

c/o office for national statistics as of may 2011....

The number of men claiming JSA increased by 11,100 to reach 1.01 million and the number of women claimants increased by 8,500 to reach 483,700

In the previous three month period, the number of people employed in the public sector fell by 24,000 over the quarter to reach 6.16 million but the number of people employed in the private sector increased by 104,000 over the quarter to reach 23.08 million. I don;t know if he those jobs lost gained are full or part time though.

Four in ten of all working women work in the public sector...so most women who work, do so in the private sector.

It was recently announced that public sector salries are now on average higher than private sector salaries - for the first time ever.

With regards to the gender pay gap.....the most recent measurements say the following

The full-time gender pay gap (as measured by the median hourly pay excluding overtime from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) narrowed by two percentage points between 2009 and 2010.

For full-time employees the pay gap is 10.2 per cent, down from 12.2 per cent in 2009. This is the biggest fall in the gender pay gap since the measure was first produced using the ASHE methodology in 1997. For part-time employees the gap has widened in favour of women, extending to minus 4.0 per cent, compared with minus 2.5 per cent in 2009.

The gender pay gap for all employees has decreased to 19.8 per cent from 22.0 per cent in 2009. This is the largest movement since 1997. In April 2010 hourly rates for men were ?13.01 for full-timers, ?7.69 for part-timers and ?12.35 for all employees. For women, hourly rates were ?11.68 for full-timers, ?8.00 for part-timers and ?9.90 for all employees.

Women?s full-time earnings increased more across the bottom

10 per cent of the distribution than men?s, with growth of 1.8 per cent compared with 0.8 per cent for their male counterparts. The hourly earnings of the top 10 per cent grew by 0.8 per cent and 2.1 per cent for men and women respectively.

The scale and direction of the gender pay gap varies according to age. For instance in the 22?29 age group, full-time women earned 2.1 per cent more than full-time men and part-time women earned 1.7 per cent more than part-time men. The largest pay gaps in favour of men for full-time and part-time employees were in the 50?59 age group at 17.0 per cent and 17.4 per cent respectively. The largest pay gap for all employees, 27.4 per cent, was seen in both the 40?49 and 50?59 age groups.

The gender pay gap in the public sector was 10.0 per cent for full-timers, 20.6 per cent for part-timers and 19.2 per cent for all employees. In the private sector, the pay gap was 19.8 per cent for full-timers, -2.0 per cent for part-timers and 27.5 per cent for all employees.

The widest pay differences by major occupation groups for full-time and all employees are seen in the Skilled Trades, where the gap ranges from 31.4 per cent to 26.0 per cent. The narrowest pay differences for full-time and all employees are in Professional occupations where the gap ranges from 4.2 per cent to 1.6 per cent.

Calculated using the mean rather than the median, women?s hourly pay was 15.5 per cent less than men's pay for full-time employees, 11.7 per cent less than men?s pay for part-time employees and 19.3 per cent less for all employees. These are all below the mean pay gaps for full-time, part-time and all employees in 2009, which were 16.4 per cent, 11.8 per cent and 20.1 per cent respectively.

Although mean and median hourly rates provide useful comparisons between the earnings of men and women, they do not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay averages are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations, their length of time in jobs, and whether they work full-time or part-time.

[Laddy Muck]

Also, women remain in the minority when it comes to securing "top" jobs - e.g. at senior management level and above.

[Loz]

Laddy Muck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, women remain in the minority when it comes

> to securing "top" jobs - e.g. at senior management

> level and above.

Which, I think, is one of the two main factors in explaining the pay gap. The other is time off for babies causing a delay in career progression and therefore a slower salary progression.

The first is fixable, and will be in time to an extent (though the single minded career fanatic gene seems to turn up in the male more often). The second will only be fixed if men, society, employers and, to a degree, mothers accept that, following birth, fathers are equivalent to mothers in terms of parenting.

[DJKillaQueen]

Men are three times more likely to earn six figure salaries than women

Again from the National office of statistics (although these stats are a year old)

Median earnings of full-time male employees were ?538 per week in April 2010; for women the median was ?439.

The difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (?554 per week) and the private sector (?473 per week) widened over the year to April 2010, following annual increases of 3.0 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively.

I would argue that year on year guaranteeed pay rises have facilitated this along with the types of skilled jobs that were created within the public sector over the last decade.

[Loz]

Great stats, DJKQ. The most interesting one was tucked away in the middle.

For instance in the 22?29 age group, full-time women earned 2.1 per cent more than full-time men and part-time women earned 1.7 per cent more than part-time men.

This has been around for a while now, so it is not indicative of a 'new dawn' in the pay gap. Women start equal (or even ahead) in pay, then fall behind in their late twenties. This would suggest (but has never been proven) that the 'gender' pay gap is actually mainly a 'mothers' pay gap. This would be backed by the fact that the uber-feminist Swedes (who have 'positive' discrimination practices all over the shop) have a not too dissimilar pay gap.

I don't think I've seen any UK stats that delve into this and examine male/female parents/non-parents. I suspect parent hood has a low impact on male salaries, but a pretty heavy effect on female salaries.

But still doesn't answer why the public sector has such a skewed gender ratio!!

[DJKillaQueen]

Loz the pay gap measurements are based on payscales for like for like jobs and they have nothing to do with those not in employment. There are lots of stats on this. It is being constantly measured and women on average, in high earning jobs, ask for 4k less in salary when negotiating contracts, than their male counterparts.

Measurements of meridian or mean annual salaries do on the other hand have lot's of mitigating explanations.

That does not however take away from the fact that women are still paid less in some jobs than men doing the same job (although that gap is slowly improving) nor does it take away the likely hood by 4-1 that a man will get the high earning job rather than a woman (and there is definite evidence that descriminatory employment attitudes to women - and children - play a part in this).

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Men are three times more likely to earn six figure

> salaries than women

But is that the 'men take the extremes' thing again? That men tend to occupy more of the extremes of most stats of this kind, whereas women tend to group more tightly around the average? Thus, higher male unemployment and high male homelessness are the price men pay as a gender group for these ultra-high earners.

[DJKillaQueen]

We crossed posts then Loz...the point you make on the surface seems to explain everything, it doesn't quite. The kinds of jobs young people are doing are often menial. You are not finding graduates in this age group on anything but the first rung of a long ladder either. You won't find a lad working at McDonalds being paid more than a lassie doing the same job. The pay gap issue doesn't effect this group in many repspects because of the type of jobs they are doing. And this I think partly expalins why even in Sweden you still see a pay gap in older groups.

Descrimination against women and pregnancy is a real issue. It is illegal to decriminate on those grounds but time and time again women are asked in interviews regarding family plans. No man would ever be asked this.

And it is worse in high flying jobs. I have a friend. She qualified as a corporate lawyer...was taken on by a firm and continued studies whilst taking clients for the firm. At the of 29 she got married and fell pregnant. The firm stopped feeding clients to her and in the end she left. Took a couple of years out and then when trying to regain employment couldn't get anywhere. This women is bright, highly qualifed, but frozen out because she started a family.

And until some meaningful legislation comes about to force the attitude of male driven institutions to change, you never will see the pay gap disappear, nor will you see the gender balance within the higher earning sector redressed either.

[Loz]

That does not however take away from the fact that women are still paid less in some jobs than men doing the same job

Now, see I don't believe that is happening (or at very least widespread enough to be statistically significant). That has been outlawed for over 40 years.

And also, are you taking individual cases, or looking at it in a wider sense. I used to have quite a lot to do with salary increases at my company and so saw most people's salaries. If you were to ask me to find a women earning less than a man doing roughly the same job, I could do. But equally, I could also easily find you a man earning less than a woman doing roughly the same job. It's the nature of a performance related review over many years and the fact that my company doesn't have a strong role/salary relationship.

So I really don't believe that the 'gender' pay gap is at all due to sexual discrimination of that nature. Yes, there are still pockets of it, but it's not common enough to be a big factor in the gap. And those stats for 20-29 year age group would tend to support that.

[DJKillaQueen]

Higher male unemployment figures have more to do with other things as well. A lot of non working women are invisible to unemployment stats because as married women they are not counted as claimants. The unemployed husband being the family claimant. I don't know how many of those unemployed men are claiming for a family (I'll see if I can find a stat on that) but it will show the gap is not as wide as the fgiures suggest if we are literally talking about adults (male or female) not in employment.

[DJKillaQueen]

But differentials in pay are common and technically legal where contract based work is in place. And this definitely is the case in higher paid employment. Women are not as sucessful as men in negotiating pay and an employer will often get a skilled female worker for a cheaper price than a man. If you want evidence of this...just look at how many jobs don't advertise a salary.....it's always negotiable!

Where I do agree with you though is that it's not clear cut. It's complex and some sectors do very well and others need a big kick up the ***. And it does seem to be the corporate sectors that are the worst offenders.

[Loz]

Definitely a lot of crossed posts. But at least the debate is more meaningful than it was.

Descrimination against women and pregnancy is a real issue. It is illegal to decriminate on those grounds but time and time again women are asked in interviews regarding family plans. No man would ever be asked this.

And it is worse in high flying jobs. I have a friend. She qualified as a corporate lawyer...was taken on by a firm and continued studies whilst taking clients for the firm. At the of 29 she got married and fell pregnant. The firm stopped feeding clients to her and in the end she left. Took a couple of years out and then when trying to regain employment couldn't get anywhere. This women is bright, highly qualifed, but frozen out because she started a family.

And until some meaningful legislation comes about to force the attitude of male driven institutions to change, you never will see the pay gap disappear, nor will you see the gender balance within the higher earning sector redressed either.

I agree with you on this, but that suggests that it comes down to a 'mothers' pay gap, rather than a 'gender' pay gap. Again, until society entertains and expects fathers to do a lot of the early baby care, this will continue. I'm guessing here, but your friend sounds like she was on a good salary, and chances are she earned more than (or at least similar to) her husband. Why did they not look at if it would have been better all round for him to take some time off? As I've said in other threads, men who would relish such an opportunity are not given the chance because the mother wants to do it - end of discussion.

If I owned a small business I would be kidding myself if I didn't think twice about employing a female between 25 and 35. Many female businesswomen have declared something similar. Now if men of that age had the same rights and were seen to use them then I would not. Inequalities of a different shade that you think might just be the cause here.

So it's not just the attitudes of 'male driven institutions' that has to change. Attitudes of the 'female driven institutions' need to be brought up to date as well. Not to mention government driven legislation in this area.

[Laddy Muck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...Descrimination against women and pregnancy is a

> real issue. It is illegal to decriminate on those

> grounds but time and time again women are asked in

> interviews regarding family plans. No man would

> ever be asked this...

> And until some meaningful legislation comes about

> to force the attitude of male driven institutions

> to change, you never will see the pay gap

> disappear, nor will you see the gender balance

> within the higher earning sector redressed either.

The problem with gender discrimination in the workplace is that - as with other types of employment discrimination - it is so incredibly difficult to prove. Legislative attempts to overcome such prejudice is an ongoing battle for the drafters of labour laws. At the end of the day, the burden of proof is on the woman to show that she has been discriminated against. This can be extremely difficult to do: she is unlikely to have in her possession an email from her boss stating that she - e.g. - has failed the selection process on the grounds that she is likely to fall pregnant.

[Loz]

Women are not as sucessful as men in negotiating pay and an employer will often get a skilled female worker for a cheaper price than a man. If you want evidence of this...just look at how many jobs don't advertise a salary.....it's always negotiable!

Now this I absolutely agree with. Women will almost always accept the offered salary (which is generally their current salary and a bit more). Men are much more likely to push back for a second or third offer and get a salary that they see that the role/job is worth.

Short of free salary negotiation classes, I'm not sure what you can do about this. But I fully agree it's a significant part of the issue.

[Loz]

Laddy Muck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the end of the

> day, the burden of proof is on the woman to show

> that she has been discriminated against. This can

> be extremely difficult to do: she is unlikely to

> have in her possession an email from her boss

> stating that she - e.g. - has failed the selection

> process on the grounds that she is likely to fall

> pregnant.

I used to do interviews as well. After some new legislation came in that said that, as well as the normal forms and such we filled in as a result of an interview, we now had to submit any notes we made during or after the interview. That was the day I stopped taking notes. I couldn't risk writing an odd hastily-written note that could be misconstrued, especially as I used to scribble notes on the cv.

So, yes, I can see that such action would be hard to take.

(And I would note that men get discriminated against too. I'm always a bit perplexed when some small companies describe themselves as 'all-women'. Sounds like an invitation to a lawsuit.)

[DJKillaQueen]

I tend to agree that maybe we are talking more about a mother's pay gap, and we are probably talking about mother's descrimination, more than female descrimination per se.

In my friends case, her husband was a former Army officer, and now working in IT. She didn't choose to leave....she was slowly forced out from the moment she was pregnant. They took clients away from her. It was quite clear that she no longer was of any value to them. Try then get a job in that sector whilst pregnant.....or with a newly born child. Even with a stay at home dad, that prejudice doesn't disappear.

I don't personally accept this idea that women on the whole somehow prevent dad's from taking more of a role in caring for children (except where there is a spearation in effect of course). There are many families where both parents work full time, because they have to and all the research shows it is still at least two thirds of women doing the childcare duties too.

For me there has to be a fundanemtal shift in attitudes, with the onus more on men, than it is women. And LM is absolutely right - how do you prove you were descriminated against because you are a woamn of child bearing age? (even if you wire yourself up with covert mic for the interviews).

[Laddy Muck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I couldn't risk

> writing an odd hastily-written note that could be

> misconstrued, especially as I used to scribble

> notes on the cv.

I can quite believe it. It happens a great deal, though not everyone is quite as honest about it. The only small consolation (for the person alleging unlawful discrimination) is that she may utilise a "discrimination questionnaire". This permits her to request information on matters which could elicit evidence of discrimination by the employer. Did you ever come across one of those, Loz? However, the main problem with the form is that the employer is under no legal obligation to respond to it - though failure to do so may be taken into account by the tribunal.

> (And I would note that men get discriminated

> against too. I'm always a bit perplexed when some

> small companies describe themselves as

> 'all-women'. Sounds like an invitation to a

> lawsuit.)

Of course men suffer discrimination on grounds of sex - I am sure most would agree with you on that. However, I don't believe that it is to the same degree. I am only mentioning women as (a) it is relevant to the debate and (b) I cannot be arsed to be politically correct and write "s/he, him/her etc". Don't forget, too, that employers may, quite legally, specify a particular sex where gender is a genuine occupational qualification for the position.

[Loz]

The only small consolation (for the person alleging unlawful discrimination) is that she may utilise a "discrimination questionnaire". This permits her to request information on matters which could elicit evidence of discrimination by the employer. Did you ever come across one of those, Loz?

Fortunately I never had any issue raised by my interviewees. Having seen some of the complaints made against others, I put that down to luck more than anything. Quite a few were trying it on, IMHO.

Mind you a gender complaint from a female was unlikely anyway. Being an IT company, we generally crawled across broken glass for a half-decent female employee.

[Laddy Muck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mind you a gender complaint from a female was

> unlikely anyway. Being an IT company, we

> generally crawled across broken glass for a

> half-decent female employee.

*shakes head and tutts twice*