Inequality in Britain

[Loz]

I thought you'd approve. Most IT companies have a terrible male/female ratio and it's not good. I was an interviewer for our grad scheme. We didn't let anyone in that couldn't do the job, just decent female grads were very welcome. It's helped that we no longer look for Comp Science type degrees exclusively any more.

And it's certainly not to say our female staff are token. By a strange quirk (considering said ratio) probably 70% of my immediate bosses have been female over the years. Most have been brilliant. Only one has been useless. Can't ask for better than that.

(Of the men, most were also brilliant. Only one I wanted to beat around the head repeatedly with a heavy object for being a prize arse, messing up badly and trying to pin it on me. He failed.)

[DJKillaQueen]

That also begs another question as to why some predominently male sectors and in turn some predominently female sectors reamin so.....and in some cases, in spite of employers, careers advisors etc trying to redress the balance.

[Loz]

I think in some cases there are moves to address the balance, some successful, most not. Even though a lot of good publicity has been done, only about 3% of UK firefighters are women. Male nurses are no longer seen as an affront to nature, but numbers there are still not high. In just about every company, HR departments are stuffed to the rafters with women, even in the most male-dominated companies. As we noted earlier, the public sector is about 70% female and I still haven't worked out why that is!

On the other hand, I think there is still a large barrier to males entering childcare as some parents just plain outright distrust men being in that sector. Women in the armed forces are still, I believe, treated as an annoyance to be put up with. Crappy dirty outside jobs are mainly male and crappy, dirty inside jobs are mainly female.

Bizarre, really.

[Laddy Muck]

Loz Wrote:

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

> I thought you'd approve.

Well, I do...in general...your HR people/policies sound unusual. As you say, the IT industry has a poor record in terms of gender composition (hubby is in IT too). The "tutts" were specifically aimed at the phrase "half decent", but I guess you could argue all the more reason to approve. Anyway, good on your company.

Out of interest, if you no longer looked for Computer Science degrees - what else did you go by? If you were interviewing graduates, my guess is that many of the applicants (though not all, I grant you) would have been relatively young and hence without relevant practical experience?

[Laddy Muck]

Loz Wrote:

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

> As we noted earlier,

> the public sector is about 70% female and I still

> haven't worked out why that is!

Could Undisputedtruth have hit on the reason earlier when he said:

"...50% of Public Sectors employees earns less than ?21000 pa and it could be argued that women forms a higher proportion of low income earners."?

Now, also throw into the ring DJKQ's point vis a vis women's lack of negotiating skills when it come to pay (and therefore the willingness to accept the offered salary). Is it not possible then, that in a sector where the Government holds the purse strings and, where - perhaps - this might mean less scope for negotiation, that this situation could be lending itself better to the female population? Whereas their (more assertive) male counterparts - after being told that there is no more money in the kitty - might simply vote with their feet in the direction of the private sector? Dunno.

*scratches head*

[Undisputedtruth]

Three other points:

1) The public sector have policies that embraces work-life balance while the private sector is playing catch-up

2) Private Sector, I've been told, has a macho orientated approach where it's all about working long hours

3) The Civil Service have a disproportionate ethnicity representation in the lower grades

[sagatelsagouni]

UDT, your taking class, it was needed.

[Laddy Muck]

Eh?

[sagatelsagouni]

Eh ? Er ! just pointing out that UDT points are absolutely on the money.

I can see where you are going LM, but I absolutely do not agree with this idea of un assertive women in the workplace. Its just not fact. I imagine to earn a larger amount in the public sector you have to be a full on career proffesional, that in itself is easier for men than women. In the private sector theer is a lot more scope for flexible working, child support in the form of exra payments for having children etc etc. I know several very large public sector workplaces that have for the past 24months put a complete freeze on flexible working.

[Laddy Muck]

sagatelsagouni Wrote:

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

> I can see where you are going LM...

You can? Well, I wish you'd tell me LOL...I haven't a clue myself.

[Loz]

Laddy Muck Wrote:

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

> Out of interest, if you no longer looked for

> Computer Science degrees - what else did you go

> by? If you were interviewing graduates, my guess

> is that many of the applicants (though not all, I

> grant you) would have been relatively young and

> hence without relevant practical experience?

Mainly a change in roles to fill - less pure coding and more client facing consultant/analyst roles. These don't need the pure code spoddie type, so other degrees like sciences, business, etc, were needed. I think I even saw a couple of arts degrees come through. The day consisted of some tests (individual and group) and an interview. It was a pretty good way of separating the wheat from the chaff. The group test was especially interesting - seeing which one's led the group, which were the analytical thinkers, which were the documenters and which were the non-contributors.

We also had quite a few people coming through the grad programme on second careers. It was a good win/win situation - they got a second chance at a career and we got people with a bit more life experience at a graddie rate.

[Laddy Muck]

Thanks Loz. Interesting.

[Laddy Muck]

sagatelsagouni Wrote:

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

> ...but I absolutely

> do not agree with this idea of un assertive women

> in the workplace. Its just not fact.

Here, for you, sagatelsagouni.

[Undisputedtruth]

I used to work for a female manager who earnt a lot more than her male line manager.

[Loz]

Laddy Muck Wrote:

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

> Could Undisputedtruth have hit on the reason earlier when he said:

>

> "...50% of Public Sectors employees earns less than ?21000 pa and it could be argued that women

> forms a higher proportion of low income earners."?

>

> Now, also throw into the ring DJKQ's point vis a vis women's lack of negotiating skills when it

> come to pay (and therefore the willingness to accept the offered salary). Is it not possible

> then, that in a sector where the Government holds the purse strings and, where - perhaps - this

> might mean less scope for negotiation, that this situation could be lending itself better to the

> female population? Whereas their (more assertive) male counterparts - after being told that there is

> no more money in the kitty - might simply vote with their feet in the direction of the private

> sector? Dunno.

>

> *scratches head*

Possibly. The structured pay award rates at the lower to mid ranges of PS pay scales would be more likely to attract the non-negotiating type. At higher pay grades the structure breaks down a bit, so even the PS high flyers would need to negotiate their own pay sooner or later. Would this explain some of DJKQ's stats showing that the 'gender' gap is just as applicable in the PS? My job has meant I have dealt with a lot of government departments over the years and it's not hard to notice that the higher up you go, the more male it gets.

I suspect that an unofficial positive discrimination policy goes on a bit at entry level, though. PS types tend to stay that way as a career choice, so over the years this has probably been magnified to the point where it is so obvious today.

Which brings us nicely back to my original point - is a PS job cutting programme 'unfairly impacting' a gender that is disproportionately benefiting?

[Undisputedtruth]

Yes, the PS job cutting programme does unfairly impact on the female gender and concur with your observation.

[Loz]

Actually my original point was that it doesn't if you look at the whole. But I think you knew that already.

[Undisputedtruth]

I guess it depends on how you define the parameters.

[Laddy Muck]

Actually Loz, when I first read your question, I thought (by virtue of having placed the words "unfairly impacting" within inverted commas and having followed that with the words "disproportionately benefiting") that you were being tongue in cheek - almost verging on trolling. Was I mistaken?

Anyway, I'll bite now. Yes, of course, if women are dominating the public sector, then any job cuts within that sector are clearly going to impinge on them to a greater degree. Is that impact unfair given that there are more of them in these public sector positions in the first instance? I think yes. Just because they happen to be employed by the government in greater numbers than men doesn't neccessarily mean that the job losses are not going to result in injustice. Many of these women's jobs are those which are traditionally done by women (and, I suspect, which many men might prefer not to do) - e.g. teaching, nursing etc. - at a rate of pay which, in all probability, many men might be less keen to accept (see previous posts). Moreover, again, as this thread has highlighted, female employees generally suffer greater discrimination on grounds of sex than men. So, any suggestion that all might be perfectly satisfactory because they were "disproportionately benefiting" in the first place, would, in my humble opinion, at the very least, be a little ungracious.

[Jeremy]

Laddy Muck Wrote:

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

> the IT industry has a poor record in terms of gender composition

Actually I think it's more that women have a poor record of entering the IT industry.

Most women just aren't interested.

[Laddy Muck]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Most women just aren't interested.

You may well be right. I can find little on the subject, except for this (slightly old) article.

[katie1997]

sagatelsagouni Wrote:

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

> UDT, your taking class, it was needed.

?

Are you both the same person? Certainly seems like it....

[Undisputedtruth]

No, I don't indulge in multiple accounts unlike some.

[katie1997]

Gosh, what insight into the forum from someone who is relatively new. Been 'lurking' long then?

Personally, I only bother to read ????, Marmora Man and Loz in the DR. Most others are boring and I cannot be ar5ed to read their splenetic ramblings 'backed up' by Wikipedia. OK gross generalisation and off topic, sorry Chair.

[Laddy Muck]

katie1997 Wrote:

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

> Personally, I only bother to read ????, Marmora

> Man and Loz in the DR. Most others are boring and

> I cannot be ar5ed to read their splenetic

> ramblings 'backed up' by Wikipedia.

*quickly logs off Wikiwotsit*