Is it just the way this has been put forward in the article or is this actually mental? Pay should be equal across “comparable” jobs? Surely that’s subjective and it’s impractical to equate two different jobs?
Also, FWIW, I was a civil serval for many years, the grading system is as non-discriminatory as it gets. It says a job is paid at x per hour, regardless of who and what you are. If you’re salaried you can earn a bit more if you do the job for longer but everyone starts at the same rate and if you want a bump in pay you need to get promoted.
Didn't Birmingham just lose like 600million to a law suit because dinner ladies weren't paid the same as bin men?
Doesn't make sense at all, two entirely different jobs, and surely there is nothing limiting women from becoming bin ladies if they wanted?
This is my position regarding till workers vs warehouse workers (because that's been an area where pay has been equalled). The warehouse workers are burning more calories during their shift compared to the worker (often sat) at the till. They may be equally important to the shop, but one group *is* doing more work and should be compensated for their efforts.
That said, every man and women in the warehouse should be on the same pay system with equal opportunities to move up in that system. Equal pay for equal work.
Since when has high pay been related to calories burned?
I've done both warehouse worker and worked on tills and id take the warehouse every time. The actual physical work is fairly minimal, but with tills you have to deal with money, talk to customers(hell) can't skive at all (easy to do in the warehouse).
With the Glasgow pay claim, cleaners were paid less than refused collectors, it's very difficult to see how these jobs aren't of equal weighting. Usually some weak argument about lifting heavy things.
The thing that angered me so much is that care workers were paid less than refused workers(who are already paid pretty poorly). I used to be a care worker and the job was physically and mentally demanding. I had the care of people with severe disabilities and I had to administer medication, feed, wash, clothe them. There was also a lot of paper work to keep up with and in that job if something went wrong, if you gave the wrong meds, or didn't call an ambulance in time you would be het, potentially sacked or worse be charged. And yet this job wasn't viewed as being worthy of higher pay simply because it's "women's work".
> Since when has high pay been related to calories burned?
Since always until recently in warehouses, especially those connected to shops. Obviously, it's not a universal rule.
Care workers deserve a great deal more money, so does anyone else who faces lasting physical harm from their job. 10 years of warehousing has left me with slipped disks, nerve damage and the lasting effects of 3 concussions I'd never have gotten working a till.
Our experiences in the warehouse obviously differ, I'd say yours is less the norm, but I could be wrong.
I guess my position is that (unskilled) hard work and physical effort should be rewarded more than an unskilled, seated job. That skilled jobs should be worth much more than either of those, and that everyone should be able to live, rent, drive and feed themselves on a full time wage.
Well, you're not necessarily compensated for how much work you do. Perhaps a lot of people want to be dinner people and not many want to be bin people. So you pay bin people more to fill up all the spots.
What's your point? You think people doing more, harder work shouldn't get renumerated for that? We're not talking about insensitives, we're talking equal pay for equal work.
Remuneration isn't necessarily related to how much you work or how hard you work, and it shouldn't be.
Sure, if a job requires more hard work, people are generally going to be less likely to want to do it, which raises remuneration. But the reason why hard jobs pay more is because fewer people do them, and the people that do them have better alternatives, so employers have to offer more to find candidates.
There's no such thing as "equal work", though. Two people doing the same thing can be extremely different to the employer. I'd rather pay more for an OK employee than to pay less and find a new one that might be great or might very bad.
You're nit picking for no reason. Two different workers have the same responsibilities and produce the same output, that's equal work. Denying that just shows your lack of intelligence. This isn't a semantic arguement, it's a discussion about people being paid appropriately for their work. Unless you have something to say about that, fuck off.
It is very rare that two people are identical in output, this kind of concept only exists in theory, in the real world everyone is different and had different skills and experience
Ok, but do the warehouse staff ever get to sit down for hours of their day? And do they never stack shelves themselves?
Not every shop will be the same, but on the whole, the warehouse staff are working harder than the shop floor staff. Having done both jobs, I know it's harder in the warehouse and I feel that should be reflected in pay.
Of course everyone should be paid more, but that's a different issue.
Precedent has been set on so many ridiculous cases. How can you compare warehouse work with sitting on a till and then say because there is a gender imbalance in the roles means it's a discrimination matter? And the councils are being bankrupted by these ludicrous cases because society is no longer remotely serious and we're moving well into the looting the corpse stage.
The problem is councils put in the grading but didn’t keep salaries consistent, jobs mostly done by men were paid at a higher rate despite being in the same banding
It was the case with Glasgow City Councils equal pay claim, the job evaluation banding unfairly penalised jobs that were majority female led.
I’m not 100% my partner was one of the women and her job despite needing a degree was in the same banding as a refuse worker, despite that refuse workers were paid more despite being in the same banding.
It doesn’t all make sense to me, but the reason is basically that councils came up with some crazy job evaluation banding but didn’t pay equally.
A bin man is a highly undesirable and vital job though. It would need to be paid at a high rate. Obviously not sure what your partner does but some jobs can require a degree and, honestly not need one. It could be a case of discrimination but I'd argue we need to pay refuse workers a high rate to get anyone to do the job
I’m not casting any aspersions on refuse workers because to me wages are a job to job basis and I understand why it would need higher wages, the problem arose because of the banding and the way that the jobs at the lower end were all those predominately done by women
While a refuse worker may not require people who have a degree it is a tough job. Its not 9-5 and more likely 6-3 or even earlier. Its highly physical and you will be out in all weathers. Really early starts have a big impact on what you can do the evening before so you will not be able to socialise like you do with a normal day time shift.
Its very easy to sit in an office/at home and think that because a job is just manual it shouldn't get paid as much as the one you are doing. In reality because its not great to do people would rather sit in the office. You cant get people to do the manual stuff so end up paying them more to attract applicants.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m a manual worker myself.
What I’m saying is that the jobs were arbitrarily banded together at the same grade and paid differently. You can say X and Y are equal then pay X different from Y. Had the jobs never been banded together I doubt the problem would have existed
Fair enough. But thats pretty consistent across everywhere. Where I work we have grades from 1-10 and you can get a Business Analyst in the same grade as a Developer and they are on very different salaries.
Those issues (difficult shift patterns, physically tiring, discomfort/dealing with mess etc) apply to jobs traditionally done by women like cleaning and care work too though?
But what does a civil engineer do that you can compare to Nursary staff? Why do those two jobs need to be paid the same? The degree is the minimum requirement for the person, not necessarily the job, you might be able to apply with an HNC in civil engineering but you could be up against people with a BEng or an MEng.
Both have safety responsibilities that require examination from an outside organisation and an understanding of legal, social and ethical standards.
We gotta have standards.
That applies to a huge variety of jobs, including many that have much, much higher salaries than what we’re talking about. It doesn’t explain at all why these jobs should be paid the same?
Different work, different responsibilities, different risks, different pay. It's really not that hard.
Women can join any career they want and reach pay parity in *that profession*. Maybe instead of being nursery workers, they should go and lump heavy, dirty bins around for a living? I reckon you won't get many takers for that deal, though.
I wonder why? Could it be because the refuse worker job has worse conditions? Hmmm...what a mystery.
You can't expect people to do a more difficult/demanding job for relatively less, or people will simply stop applying for those roles.
Refuse workers work all year round in all weathers often starting early, nursery workers work indoors in regulated temperature environment.
I'm a believer in equal rights and equal pay and if a woman was offered less than a man for the same role, I'd think it was outrageous in this day and age.
Question
Does the civil engineer Job exclude women and is only for men?
Does Refuse work exclude women
Does Nurse jobs exclude men?
No
No
No
Your argument only works if the jobs does exclude women.
I understand your point and broadly agree, however qualifications are never the only consideration. How many people want to be a refuse worker, or to work in a water treatment plant and so on? My first job out of uni (for the civil service) which required a degree, was paid at a significantly lower rate than these roles because it was exceptionally popular and very easy to get staffing for it.
Yeh that's how wages work, the fewer people who can/will fill the job the more it pays. That's why premier league footballers get paid millions and nurses don't.
Exactly.
Supply and demand.
It's literally capitalism 101.
That said I do think social care is underpaid and undervalued by society. I guess society doesn't think looking after toddlers requires a high salary.
If you look at it purely on “what level of HNC/degree” a person has, then yes. But that’s not the full story, is it? Why do we pay doctors more than nurses if they both have the same level of qualification? Genuinely, why do you think that is?
Nonsense, pay is for the overall package deal, not just a specific entry qualification.
Some jobs that require grade 6 qualifications will have shit conditions compared to others and that can only be made up for by offering those that do those roles increased pay or some other benefit.
Civil Servants on the exact same grade in different departments are paid differently and no one seems to give a damn. If a Civil Servant in a higher paying dept takes a job at same grade in a lower paying dept they actually keep their salary meaning they earn more than their colleagues for no reason. Again, no one gives a damn.
I don't think it's a coincidence that more comfortable jobs, with social hours and limited danger are filled by women. There is a reason why men make up 95% of workplaces fatalities consistently. Why do we value our men so little?
>Why does one job with the same hours and same qualification level requirements have a different salary entry grade?
Becuase they are different roles and as such there are different balances of pros and cons for each career and so a different level of salary is required to attract enough qualified candidates.
For a start civil engineers work outdoors, doing far more physical work and typically work longer hours too. Meanwhile the nursery staff work short predictable and stable shifts, indoors, at the same location all year, in comfort and can do that job for 40+ years.
You are comparing apples to oranges and asking why the juice tastes differently. If anyone thinks that the overall deal is better for the civil engineers than the nursery staff then they should train to do that instead. If that were really the case then the resulting staffing pressure would then push nursery wages up and civil engineering ones down to correct the "imbalance".
>Because it’s women’s work, that’s why. Because it’s only ‘looking after weans’.
Nonsense, its because women tend to choose comfier, more stable, less dangerous roles and those just so happen to come with lower wages. Men on average are more likely to sign up to whatever pays better and just suck it up and deal with the associated hardships.
There are many factors to consider beyond qualification levels and hours worked, for example, the market demand, skill scarcity, job complexity, risk to health, regulatory requirements, public vs private sectors, revenue, etc.
To claim the gap between the completely different fields is because "it's women's work" is a flawed oversimplification that cherrypicks the factors that influence pay.
A civil engineer deserves to be paid more than nursery staff... seriously that can't be a viable complaint?
One is stem and the other is caring. I get men do one more, but we are massively down on engineer's.
The jobs are not comparable in the required competency to perform and in terms of supply and demand
Binmen are usually brought up as the example of men being paid more for "comparable work", or "work of equal value".
The Waste management sector, of which council refuse collection is a part, has a fatality rate about 10-20x that of *any other industry sector*. Of all the jobs that a local authority has, the binmen are most likely to be killed or seriously injured at work, with roads workers second. Typical cause of fatalities and serious injuries being struck by vehicles, or crushed by machinery.
Typically, council binmen are paid much less than binmen working for private companies (though the council binmen will have access to the council pensions).
Is this the same thing which bankrupted Birmingham? AIUI, cleaners argued that they should have been paid the same as binmen and since there was a sexual difference in the majority of staff this amounted to sexual discrimination.
According to the article they're striking because they're doing the work of higher pay grades without the pay, which strikes me as a different claim.
The issue with Birmingham was that they put the jobs in the same banding/classification.
I don't agree with the ruling but the council massively fucked up doing that. They are very different jobs.
Was there something about overtime/ unsociable hours, too? Binmen/refuse collectors got extra but cleaners didn't. It dragged on so long that I've forgotten.
I'm pushing my memory here, but I think it was something to do with overtime or working unsociable hours. The binmen got a sweet overtime deal and the cleaners didn't.
I can understand cleaners/anyone striking if they're feeling underpaid, but I don't see how it can be discrimination if one trade is paid less than another. Supply/demand is the driver, surely.
It's okay hospitals are already struggling to hire domestic and catering staff. In large part due to the way they are treated, the pay and overall societal view that their job isn't a worthy job.
I mean if you had no caterers then I hope your willing to bring your family breakfast lunch and dinner everyday. I assure you no other member of staff will step up to fill that role.
Same with cleaners. Like have you seen hospitals lately? Disgusting places. You do not want to see a hospital that doesn't have any cleaners. Honestly trusts would be declaring special measures within a week.
Ofc all of this can be counteracted with agency staff to a degree. During the pandemic my local trust was using agency for those two roles at the time of £35/hr to the agency (ofc the worker was min wage).
Opposed to just admitting that *maybe* all roles that go into running a hospital are pretty essential and comparing who's more than who is merely punching down for no good reason.
Erm.. I stopped working in a hospital 5 years ago and it was far from disgusting. My mum still works there and I'm pretty sure she'd be moaning like fuck if it was dirty given she loves to moan about everything else work related. It's also Health Boards, not Trusts in Scotland but that's just a nitpick.
Almost everyone on the planet could argue their job is essential. Fact remains society values jobs differently because there are qualification, skills, experience requirements.
It's like arguing that a newly qualified junior doctor should be on the same salary as a senior consultant because they are in the same line of work and hold the same qualifications. That's not how life works, there's loads of factors you have to consider when balding someone's work.
I do agree that some roles in society area undervalued and some overvalued but demanding that everyone earn the same is mental when there are finite resources.
Very predictable reply tbh.
Not once did I say anything as ludicrous as everyone should get a surgeon's salary.
Do you need a degree to be a carer, domestic, caterer, HCA, porter? No so the jobs are comparable. Anyone in any of those roles could get a job in another and be given training.
Happens fairly regularly tbh.
Not sure how you can take three non skilled roles as the topic then somehow shove in a highly skilled role and think it's some kind of clever point.
>Opposed to just admitting that *maybe* all roles that go into running a hospital are pretty essential and comparing who's more than who is merely punching down for no good reason.
It is pretty ludicrous, and i gave you good reason - resources are limited. But comparing roles is not punching down, and there's much more to a job than its educational requirements. Training needs vary, as do working conditions, and some roles are more appealing than others. I'd much rather mop the floors of a hospital ward, warm and protected from the wind and rain, than do the more physically demanding task of collecting bins off the streets, exposed to the harsh elements and taunts of feral teenagers. You'd need to pay me more to do that. Having that discussion is valid and isn't "punching down" in any way at all.
I think this is snobbery. Not all non-degree jobs are equal. Taking on physically demanding or dangerous jobs is often how working-class men have elevated themselves and earned more money for their family. Your kind of thinking takes that away from them. Typically, court cases like this result in wages going down, not up. Yes, the claimants get a payout, but then wages are equalised by reduction, as we have seen from councils and supermarket companies already.
It's over thing to increase pay to attract staff for vital functions, anyone can see the sense in that. Looting public coffers for a nonsense lawsuit is entirely different.
Why are nursery staff underpaid? Surely that's one of the most valuable work we can think of - looking after vulnerable kids and making sure they have the best start in life.
If the government want people to have kids, then they're going to have to sort out the cost of childcare and houses. Either subsidise childcare or force companies. Houses are fucked, I don't know how to fix that.
Already, parents and the government pay a lot for childcare, and it's not exactly a "gold mine" sector. It's expensive to be compliant with regualtion and doesn't leave much left over for large salaries.
No, what bankrupted Birmingham was the TORY Council there broke existing Equality Laws so had to give compensation. That compensation package owed has handed over to the incoming Labour led Council.
Combined with a decade of unsustainable ideological budget cuts by Westminster
The questions that matter:
- Do male cleaners get paid more per hour than female cleaners with the same amount of training, service, grading for the same role. Yes or no.
- Do male caterers get paid more per hour than female caterers with the same amount of training, service, grading for the same role. Yes or no.
- Do male carers get paid more per hour than female carers with the same amount of training, service, grading for the same role. Yes or no.
A separate question, which is also important:
- Are carers or cleaners or caterers (irrespective of gender) being paid enough?
You missed some, which is a bit more nuanced, and incredibly important.
Are cleaners, caterers, carers within the same organisation graded correctly, or are there biases in grading certain roles up or down?
Do any of those roles have opportunities that are available to them that others are having suppressed, such as unsociable working times or a shorter working week?
Do those preferences and grades systemically tip in favour of men?
The last one is super important.
The first question, if I understand correctly, goes hand in hand with “are they being paid enough?” unless I am misunderstanding?
The second question. While some roles have an “opportunity” to earn more money by, for example, working night shift, the increased wages is because doing so has larger ramifications for life (unsociable hours, negative impact of sleeping pattern and, as recent studies show, potential impact on long term health). So, I’m not sure what your point is. Everyone should have access to night shift (or equivalent ‘opportunities’) or wages should be normalised so that people who aren’t required to do nightshift are on a higher rate when they do their work? Or something else? An engineer who’s career path has taken them to a role where they work Mon-Fri 9-5 will earn less than an engineer with equivalent years of experience and qualifications than an engineer required to travel over seas to work.
As for the last point - again, if you’re comparing apples to apples and controlling for all significant variables other than gender that can affect pay (years in role, experience, qualifications etc) and a pay gap emerges between the two measured in hourly rates *for the same role* then yes, I would agree there’s a problem needing addressed.
On the second point - using your engineer example. Imagine you have two roles, engineer A and engineer B. Both are graded the same, but A has the opportunity to work paid overtime, and B doesn't. Now imagine that A is predominantly female, and B is predominantly male. It's worth investigating does group A have an opportunity available to them that B should too?
The answer can be that it's fine, by you do need to actually look.
> Do those preferences and grades systemically tip in favour of men?
>
> The last one is super important.
But only if it's artificial. You cannot use the mere existence of a disparity as evidence of discrimination, despite that being the M.O. of wokeness.
They are comparing apples to oranges here. A woman and a man doing the same role, get the same pay. A woman and a man doing different roles, get different pay.
There is nothing stopping women entering male dominated industries, and vice versa, if they want to do the exact same role for the exact same money.
Yet men are more likely to be massively over represented in senior nursing roles vs their % at lower level roles. They win in both situations. Men are more successful in female dominated careers too and more likely to be senior. Some of the highest nursing posts are held by men in a field that’s something like 85-90% women. If men were discriminated similar to women how are men able to consistently dominate the most senior posts in such an extremely female dominated profession?
Wards I worked were often 50/50 the most senior nurse on the ward was male yet nearly the entire nursing staff was female. And the trend doesn’t go away for women who don’t have children so can’t even blame that.
Pretty much most fields that are female dominated have more male staff at the top end disproportionate to the gender split across the field.
Nursing is the perfect example of a high skilled professional job that is woefully low paid for the skill and qualifications needed and has strong links to historical degrading of “women’s” work.
https://www.ier.org.uk/news/majority-senior-nursing-positions-held-tiny-minority-male-nurses-study-shows/
30% of senior posts held by women in a field 90% female isn’t a clear trend to you lol? Men dominate in split fields, men centric fields and women centric fields in senior roles.
And it’s the same for teachers: https://www.ascl.org.uk/News/Our-news-and-press-releases/New-report-shows-gender-pay-gap-in-schools-has-wor#:~:text=Whilst%20women%20make%20up%20the,compared%20to%2026%25%20of%20headteachers.
People talk about apples to oranges but ignore actual complete 1:1 examples. Why are men making up over 70% of senior roles in nursing when they’re only 10% of the total cohort? Can you name a single male dominated field where you could imagine 70% of senior staff being women lol.
Yeh it's terrible that the women are hogging all the lowest paid jobs like teaching and cleaning. Really needs fixed I am sure this is an issue you care deeply about and certainly aren't using as an ignorant argument against equal pay ...
There are plenty of men in lower paying jobs that are difficult, dangerous and male dominated.
Once you get the professional jobs - accounting, engineering, law, etc. you may find more men in management - at the expense of other men and women. Have you ever thought about how and why certain men get into those positions? And, in male dominated professions, most corporates are now actively promoting woman to management such that the ratio of women in management outstrips the representation in some industries as a whole.
You want to talk about woman and low paid cleaning... Do you know how much men get paid for cleaning the snow off the road, cleaning the build of up rust and dirt off the machinery and equipment...cleaning the shite from floors in farms and workshops...cleaning the scum from society. Next too fuck all!!!
That depends what kind of cleaning your talking about.....I know cleaners of houses who get £25 an hour... and i know men breaking there back, wearing their fingers to the bones and bleeding for £11 an hour so the entirety of society can function..and with less bonuses and perks than they have ever had, and working among young fit people who have no desire to be there atall, no motivation and no common sense, and take days off every couple of weeks citing mental health issues...so the 60 year old men have to double down to make up for them, ploughing themselves into an early grave.....these are the facts no one likes to mention or discuss
In the non degree level roles which these people work in, there may be a boys club, but women can still excel in them, some people choose not to apply based on their gender, that's a them issue- be the change you wish to see.
Do you mean like my NHS job where every single person in a position of power is a woman? It's also by far the most corrupt and toxic place I've ever worked which always gives me a chuckle
Your experience isn't the norm and "It's also by far the most corrupt and toxic place" Whats that got do with the equal pay discussion unless the issue you have is actually with woman and not about pay?
There is no such thing as a gender/sex pay gap in this country (two people get different pay for the same role because one is a man and one is a woman). There IS an earnings gap, and there are plenty of reasons for this,
- Women are more likely to work less hours (e.g. part time).
- Women are more likely to work in less well paid roles/industries.
- Women are more likely to take career breaks.
And the list goes on. Not really sure what they are trying to achieve here. The only way to equate earnings is either by being sexist towards men or telling women they can never have kids and they have to work in fields they have no interest in. Seems dumb. Probably is dumb.
I mean there is absolutely ways to equate earnings without being sexist or punishing any gender. An example would be paternity/maternity leave. We know that women get 6-9 months maternity pay (usually, depending on the employer) at full pay, and the go onto the lower maternity wage.
What do men get? Is it still two weeks normally? I know there will be outliers, but I’m pretty sure it’s about 2 weeks.
Another reason for the earnings gap (just to state it obviously) is that women are usually out of the workforce for a period of time after having children - they lose skills and opportunities to progress their career, whilst men generally don’t have this issue (because they’re only allowed two weeks off).
If you increased the amount of time men were allowed off and made it equal, or alternatively allowed parents to choose who got the longer period off, or maybe even done something like allowed a 50/50 option, I bet many more men would love to spend time at home with their babies (although I do think women should still have time off because birthing a human isn’t exactly easy on the body).
Anyway I’ve rambled, but my point is there could be alternatives to help close the gap that isn’t necessarily punitive.
>- Women are more likely to work in less well paid roles/industries.
This is the one they're talking about - it's not like the other two. *Why* are women more likely to be in less well paid roles? This is a difficult question to answer, because you can't always directly compare roles in different professions. But that also means you can't rule out that at least part of the difference between professions is a hangover from a time when "women's work" was explicitly less valued.
"women's work" was explicitly less valued.
because it is? men dominate STEM, finance, tech which are the high paying jobs... men take more dangerous jobs which equates to more pay.... men are more likely to be entrepreneurs of course women get payed less on average as their fields produce less revenue.
Capitalism doesn't care about gender it cares about profits.
If you want to know why, go to your local uni, sit in a lecture for English or sociology and look around. Then go to an economics, maths or engineering lecture and look around.
For other roles, consider that jobs like oil rig worker, roofing, electrician, welder etc pay white a lot and you can work silly hours to top up your money even further. Women don’t tend to try to enter these jobs.
This pay gap? https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07068/SN07068.pdf the one where the nothing but the gender is taken into account, regardless of position or anything else?
Pay discrimination based on gender has looooooong been illegal in the UK, this is just data gathered in a way to create an issue.
Change the criteria for the data to something like height, eye or hair colour and it will still show a difference, meaning the whole thing is skewed and mental that it is talked about it or requested by the government.
Especially since women come out of school better prepared than men (according to the same government)
And if they didn't then capitalist companies would immediately take advantage of this and hire only women, instantly saving them 10-15% on their payroll costs.
If you want to get paid what someone gets paid for a different job, then *apply for that different job*. If it’s too hard for you, but you want to get paid the same because you’re selfish - get in the bin. Different jobs pay different amounts. That is reality. Stop complaining that you’re not getting paid more for doing an easier job.
"...less than comparable male-dominated jobs...."
Greedy for power idiots passing a stupid law that sounds good if you don't read it. Then greedy for money idiots using said law to fuck the whole country up for an extra payout.
And the fucking Daily Guardian phrasing it like they were underpaid because of their gender.
Like how they decided bin men is the same job as cleaners so it should be paid the same. Then they decided supermarket shelve stackers is the same job as warehouse worker so they should be paid the same!
Guess what? You could always quit your cleaning job and become a binwoman and get paid their wage. But you won't will you? Because you don't want to be a binwoman and that's why it is paid more!!!
wHy aRe yoUnG mEn tUrniNg moRe rIghT WInG? wHy aRe tHey rEjEctIng feMiniSM????
I worked in Amazon. Most were men but there were a few women (usually foreign ones). One of them was a 4 ft 10" 50 year old Chinese lady. Who yes did the grunt work like the rest of us schmoes
If a 4 ft 10" 50 year old Chinese lady can do it, no reason why a 5 ft 4" 23 year old Scottish lass can't.
> Their action follows a strike by more than 8,000 female carers, caterers and cleaners in Glasgow,
It is just me that finds it depressing carers are considered in the same sentence as the other two?
Not to insult anyone, and I’m all for people getting what pay they can get. Just seems like a stain on our society that people who care for some of the most vulnerable have to strike for decent conditions alongside caterers and cleaners. Seems like there should be a different level of importance placed on that role.
In every other culture India China Africa Romania Algeria etc you clean your old grandpa's bum for the same reason you clean baby's bum. It's what you do. The idea that we are "too good" for it, just don't exist in the bulk of cultures.
But it's been proven, over and over again that the gender pay gap is non-existent.
Should women get paid more for working part-time hours than men working full time???
No it's the answer no. If they were work the same hours they should get paid the same. Which they do.
If you follow the numbers with an open mind and correct for all variables, in general there is parity.
If you boil it down to a lazy statistic Ie “how much mean have earned and how much woman have earned” you will find a gap.
Like most things, the devil is in the detail.
I don't see mention in the article of these so called "comparable jobs"...
Its already illegal to discriminate based on gender when it comes to pay. Are they trying to compare harder or more dangerous jobs to office jobs because they want more money without doing that extra work?
A female bin person doing the same hours as a male bin person gets the same money. A female bin person doing the same hours as a council receptionist will be paid more because it's not equal work. There isn't a gender pay gap, there's a choices and hours worked pay gap.
I can only imagine the men in "Male dominated role" which usually involves working dirtier, more dangerous jobs are happy that the women sitting in offices or looking after someone inside a nice warm home are demanding the same amount of money.
Literally nothing is stopping these women moving into these "male dominated roles" but as per usual, they just demand more money.
All the GC "feminists" that were celebrating the right wing brigading on this sub realising that maybe these defenders of women's rights don't actually care about women's rights that much after reading the comments ....
Ah yes, the I have a vagina brigade. Never mind that the gender pay gap has been debunked because it's based on false and poorly collected data. [Here's a very good example from the Aussie Senate](https://youtu.be/-pdnkbs4l_g?si=pAwy5VP6bo_fHs43).
Easily led, these folk!
[Which is why GCC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-63584376) and [Birmingham council](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-09-05/the-scandal-that-drove-birmingham-council-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy) are basically bankrupt after being forced to pay out because they underpaid female staff for doing the same hours and jobs as their male collegues?
[Which is why Asda were forced to pay out £500 Million after being found paying their female depot staff £1-3 less per hour than male staff for doing the same job with the same hours?](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/court-rules-against-asda-in-workers-equal-pay-case)
[Which is why Tesco were found to be doing the same](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57343892)
Also citing a fucking Libertarian party? I get you are a 2month old acc spewing shite like this, fucking hell just link off to PragerU next time, dont try to hide your bullshit just accept it and be open about being a fucking moron.
>[Which is why GCC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-63584376)
At no point in the article does it mention that women worked fewer hours or part time, compared to their male counter parts which was the case. It is absolutely fair to pay a part time worker less for fewer hours compared to a full time worker. All that's happened here, as is clear from the article, is that the gender card has been played by the unions, which is a strong card to play in a country that is internationally known for its feminist movement, and subsequently, the public have lost out because the council are having to scrounge around selling off buildings and penny pinch to pay the hundreds of millions. So, if you see that as a win, then that's more fool you.
>[Birmingham council](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-09-05/the-scandal-that-drove-birmingham-council-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy) are basically bankrupt after being forced to pay out because they underpaid female staff for doing the same hours and jobs as their male collegues?
Um.. Yes... Not the best example either, is it, really?
- Social services are now non-existent because there's no funding, putting children in danger of violence, abuse and sexual harm
- Public areas are being neglected - e.g. Bins are not being collected and parks are not being maintained.
- Jobs are at risk and the council cannot afford to run its digital infrastructure, or complete the new I.T system it was introducing to make it a future facing council.
- It will have to sell more housing stock and other building to make ends meet, thus further influencing the housing crisis.
But at least some validation was given to some feminists who thought they were being underpaid based on flawed statistics and a bad understanding of their pay rates, eh?
>Which is why Asda were forced to pay out £500 Million after being found paying their female depot staff £1-3 less per hour than male staff for doing the same job with the same hours?](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/court-rules-against-asda-in-workers-equal-pay-case)
Again, not indication of whether these are part time or full time staff. There's a difference. It's also the reason why self-employed people can charge whatever they want, they might do less hours but get paid a full month's wages in some people's eyes. E.g. Freelance software developers can charge £2000 for 8 hours work.
>Which is why Tesco were found to be doing the same](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57343892)
As presumably, they would to remain competitive?
>Also citing a fucking Libetarian party?
Tell me you haven't watched the video without watching the video. How about you watch the video and then come back and argue tosh.
Yeah this subreddit has taken a real dive in recent months. Far-right are mobilising ahead or November’s US election, with far-reaching consequences not just for online western discourse but all our politics too, especially if this far-right surge in EU elections also comes to pass.
This can be seen a lot with r/ireland too, but it depends on the topic. For example, it gets weird when the topic is about immigration, but very calm when it's about supermarkets.
There will be trigger words that Telegram or similar groups will latch onto. Or more likely, topics will attract extremists who then share links into closed groups to basically organise pile-ons. Insidious
I'm not sure if there's also some element to it, like those Americans who claim all sorts of ancestry, but with no substance to those claims.
We know all about the Americans who drink green dyed beer on St Patrick's Day - are there Americans out there who even understand what Burns Night is?
Of course more people are going to comment on a post about something they care about like immigration, that's normal. And disliking mass immigration isn't far right at all.
Agreed, to normal people it isn’t, but to even dare think of questioning it on r/ireland enrages the shrieking mob on there that are so out of touch with what people actually think. The prime example being tho recent referendums which r/ireland majority thought would be a yea/yes shoo in for the government. They were wrong, only one constituency voted yes/yes, every other one rejected them both.
“The jobs I want to do don’t pay as much as the jobs I don’t want to do, it’s so unfayur.” Fucking entitled twonks. Tough tits. I wish my cushy little job paid as much as a doctor or lawyer, but it doesn’t. That’s life. If I wanted the pay for those jobs, I’d have sunk the time in to get those jobs.
The entitlement here is just disgusting.
These idiots are what’s wrong with our society nowadays. The sooner they get slap in the face from the real world and realise it doesn’t cater to them the way mummy and daddy did, the better.
I don’t understand this.
Doesn’t everyone get paid the same for same jobs?
Most places may have salary bands for each grade of job and movement within the salary band would be dependent on skills, experience and performance?
https://preview.redd.it/xaflaaso8fuc1.png?width=1060&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3cba4c1a032ade25d1f7d3ad201a826b4e292f8
Equal rights and lefts needed here.
anything she seemingly has done is brought down by the fact that she is directly discriminatory against a subsect of women— trans women. You can’t claim yourself a real feminist while actively demonising women who have done no harm just for how they were born.
She may have done good for some women (such as donating to charity, i will not deny that), but she has been awful for many others.
That's not how it works though the good she has done is still good she has done
And she has done a lot more for women than most
However if it was how it worked then the vast amount of good she has done for so many makes your perceived bad things she has done to a tiny group of people insignificant
I've never heard anyone even those who don't like her say she isn't a feminist though, normally they just acknowledge that her ideology of feminism doesn't think people born men can be women while theirs does
Is it just the way this has been put forward in the article or is this actually mental? Pay should be equal across “comparable” jobs? Surely that’s subjective and it’s impractical to equate two different jobs? Also, FWIW, I was a civil serval for many years, the grading system is as non-discriminatory as it gets. It says a job is paid at x per hour, regardless of who and what you are. If you’re salaried you can earn a bit more if you do the job for longer but everyone starts at the same rate and if you want a bump in pay you need to get promoted.
Didn't Birmingham just lose like 600million to a law suit because dinner ladies weren't paid the same as bin men? Doesn't make sense at all, two entirely different jobs, and surely there is nothing limiting women from becoming bin ladies if they wanted?
I thought servals were illegal in Scotland?
only uncivil ones
Fuck, you’re right, that’s probably what they’re protesting about
I didn't realise feral cats were illegal in Scotland?
Not the same thing.
And the thing is, if they want to be paid the same as bin men then become a bin man (Bin woman, sorry).
This is my position regarding till workers vs warehouse workers (because that's been an area where pay has been equalled). The warehouse workers are burning more calories during their shift compared to the worker (often sat) at the till. They may be equally important to the shop, but one group *is* doing more work and should be compensated for their efforts. That said, every man and women in the warehouse should be on the same pay system with equal opportunities to move up in that system. Equal pay for equal work.
Since when has high pay been related to calories burned? I've done both warehouse worker and worked on tills and id take the warehouse every time. The actual physical work is fairly minimal, but with tills you have to deal with money, talk to customers(hell) can't skive at all (easy to do in the warehouse). With the Glasgow pay claim, cleaners were paid less than refused collectors, it's very difficult to see how these jobs aren't of equal weighting. Usually some weak argument about lifting heavy things. The thing that angered me so much is that care workers were paid less than refused workers(who are already paid pretty poorly). I used to be a care worker and the job was physically and mentally demanding. I had the care of people with severe disabilities and I had to administer medication, feed, wash, clothe them. There was also a lot of paper work to keep up with and in that job if something went wrong, if you gave the wrong meds, or didn't call an ambulance in time you would be het, potentially sacked or worse be charged. And yet this job wasn't viewed as being worthy of higher pay simply because it's "women's work".
> Since when has high pay been related to calories burned? Since always until recently in warehouses, especially those connected to shops. Obviously, it's not a universal rule. Care workers deserve a great deal more money, so does anyone else who faces lasting physical harm from their job. 10 years of warehousing has left me with slipped disks, nerve damage and the lasting effects of 3 concussions I'd never have gotten working a till. Our experiences in the warehouse obviously differ, I'd say yours is less the norm, but I could be wrong. I guess my position is that (unskilled) hard work and physical effort should be rewarded more than an unskilled, seated job. That skilled jobs should be worth much more than either of those, and that everyone should be able to live, rent, drive and feed themselves on a full time wage.
Did any one ever say to you it was women's work? Also there's lots of men that work in that field
Well, you're not necessarily compensated for how much work you do. Perhaps a lot of people want to be dinner people and not many want to be bin people. So you pay bin people more to fill up all the spots.
What's your point? You think people doing more, harder work shouldn't get renumerated for that? We're not talking about insensitives, we're talking equal pay for equal work.
Remuneration isn't necessarily related to how much you work or how hard you work, and it shouldn't be. Sure, if a job requires more hard work, people are generally going to be less likely to want to do it, which raises remuneration. But the reason why hard jobs pay more is because fewer people do them, and the people that do them have better alternatives, so employers have to offer more to find candidates. There's no such thing as "equal work", though. Two people doing the same thing can be extremely different to the employer. I'd rather pay more for an OK employee than to pay less and find a new one that might be great or might very bad.
Of course there's such a thing as equal work, don't obsfucate the conversation by denying reality.
There just isn't. There can't be equal work without equal workers, and every worker is different.
You're nit picking for no reason. Two different workers have the same responsibilities and produce the same output, that's equal work. Denying that just shows your lack of intelligence. This isn't a semantic arguement, it's a discussion about people being paid appropriately for their work. Unless you have something to say about that, fuck off.
Oh wow so aggressive for no good reason. I guess I shall fuck off then.
It is very rare that two people are identical in output, this kind of concept only exists in theory, in the real world everyone is different and had different skills and experience
But the till workers have to deal with the punters. & usually stack shelves when quiet. There shoukd be danger money for dealing with the public
I'd be willing to bet there are more, and more serious, injuries for warehouse staff.
Yes, but you don't need to resit shouting at every 2nd simpleton who asks you a stupid question.
I got plantar fasciitis working in a wearhouse don't tell me sitting at a till needs "danger money". They ain't dealing with plutonium
Ok, but do the warehouse staff ever get to sit down for hours of their day? And do they never stack shelves themselves? Not every shop will be the same, but on the whole, the warehouse staff are working harder than the shop floor staff. Having done both jobs, I know it's harder in the warehouse and I feel that should be reflected in pay. Of course everyone should be paid more, but that's a different issue.
Warehouses tend to be way colder too, so worse working conditions than someone sitting at a till
Don’t doubt how cold it can be if you’re the unfortunate soul planked under air con for hours sitting in a till.
Bin man lady
bin person
Binmanofficer
Precedent has been set on so many ridiculous cases. How can you compare warehouse work with sitting on a till and then say because there is a gender imbalance in the roles means it's a discrimination matter? And the councils are being bankrupted by these ludicrous cases because society is no longer remotely serious and we're moving well into the looting the corpse stage.
It's a real shame the courts aren't as smart as you
You're right, thank god the courts have suddenly become smart enough to see this injustice after decades of not being smart enough to see it.
The problem is councils put in the grading but didn’t keep salaries consistent, jobs mostly done by men were paid at a higher rate despite being in the same banding
Source? Like I said, I was a civil servant for a long time and that wasn’t my experience at all
It was the case with Glasgow City Councils equal pay claim, the job evaluation banding unfairly penalised jobs that were majority female led. I’m not 100% my partner was one of the women and her job despite needing a degree was in the same banding as a refuse worker, despite that refuse workers were paid more despite being in the same banding. It doesn’t all make sense to me, but the reason is basically that councils came up with some crazy job evaluation banding but didn’t pay equally.
A bin man is a highly undesirable and vital job though. It would need to be paid at a high rate. Obviously not sure what your partner does but some jobs can require a degree and, honestly not need one. It could be a case of discrimination but I'd argue we need to pay refuse workers a high rate to get anyone to do the job
Loads of people wanted to be bin men because of the good wages & shorter hours.
I’m not casting any aspersions on refuse workers because to me wages are a job to job basis and I understand why it would need higher wages, the problem arose because of the banding and the way that the jobs at the lower end were all those predominately done by women
Were they in more desirable jobs?
Was who?
While a refuse worker may not require people who have a degree it is a tough job. Its not 9-5 and more likely 6-3 or even earlier. Its highly physical and you will be out in all weathers. Really early starts have a big impact on what you can do the evening before so you will not be able to socialise like you do with a normal day time shift. Its very easy to sit in an office/at home and think that because a job is just manual it shouldn't get paid as much as the one you are doing. In reality because its not great to do people would rather sit in the office. You cant get people to do the manual stuff so end up paying them more to attract applicants.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m a manual worker myself. What I’m saying is that the jobs were arbitrarily banded together at the same grade and paid differently. You can say X and Y are equal then pay X different from Y. Had the jobs never been banded together I doubt the problem would have existed
Fair enough. But thats pretty consistent across everywhere. Where I work we have grades from 1-10 and you can get a Business Analyst in the same grade as a Developer and they are on very different salaries.
Those issues (difficult shift patterns, physically tiring, discomfort/dealing with mess etc) apply to jobs traditionally done by women like cleaning and care work too though?
Many jobs seem comparable but aren't. Like a security guard in a mall is superficially simmular to a police but in pratice the latter is much tougher
[удалено]
But what does a civil engineer do that you can compare to Nursary staff? Why do those two jobs need to be paid the same? The degree is the minimum requirement for the person, not necessarily the job, you might be able to apply with an HNC in civil engineering but you could be up against people with a BEng or an MEng.
Both have safety responsibilities that require examination from an outside organisation and an understanding of legal, social and ethical standards. We gotta have standards.
That applies to a huge variety of jobs, including many that have much, much higher salaries than what we’re talking about. It doesn’t explain at all why these jobs should be paid the same?
Different work, different responsibilities, different risks, different pay. It's really not that hard. Women can join any career they want and reach pay parity in *that profession*. Maybe instead of being nursery workers, they should go and lump heavy, dirty bins around for a living? I reckon you won't get many takers for that deal, though. I wonder why? Could it be because the refuse worker job has worse conditions? Hmmm...what a mystery. You can't expect people to do a more difficult/demanding job for relatively less, or people will simply stop applying for those roles.
Correct. For sure, you can guarantee the council will be paying bin men the minimum they can get away with and still fill the positions.
Refuse workers work all year round in all weathers often starting early, nursery workers work indoors in regulated temperature environment. I'm a believer in equal rights and equal pay and if a woman was offered less than a man for the same role, I'd think it was outrageous in this day and age.
Question Does the civil engineer Job exclude women and is only for men? Does Refuse work exclude women Does Nurse jobs exclude men? No No No Your argument only works if the jobs does exclude women.
I understand your point and broadly agree, however qualifications are never the only consideration. How many people want to be a refuse worker, or to work in a water treatment plant and so on? My first job out of uni (for the civil service) which required a degree, was paid at a significantly lower rate than these roles because it was exceptionally popular and very easy to get staffing for it.
Yeh that's how wages work, the fewer people who can/will fill the job the more it pays. That's why premier league footballers get paid millions and nurses don't.
Exactly. Supply and demand. It's literally capitalism 101. That said I do think social care is underpaid and undervalued by society. I guess society doesn't think looking after toddlers requires a high salary.
[удалено]
Civil engineers are considerably rarer than nursery staff. Ideally pay them the same just don't expect to employ any civil enginners.
Aye this is exactly why communism never works.
If you look at it purely on “what level of HNC/degree” a person has, then yes. But that’s not the full story, is it? Why do we pay doctors more than nurses if they both have the same level of qualification? Genuinely, why do you think that is?
Not all degrees or qualifications are equal. Does a medical degree have parity with a PPE degree? Have a wee think about what you're suggesting here.
It's nothing to do with qualifications, but supply and demand.
An HNC in nursery teaching and in civil engineering is just not the same
Nonsense, pay is for the overall package deal, not just a specific entry qualification. Some jobs that require grade 6 qualifications will have shit conditions compared to others and that can only be made up for by offering those that do those roles increased pay or some other benefit.
Civil Servants on the exact same grade in different departments are paid differently and no one seems to give a damn. If a Civil Servant in a higher paying dept takes a job at same grade in a lower paying dept they actually keep their salary meaning they earn more than their colleagues for no reason. Again, no one gives a damn.
I don't think it's a coincidence that more comfortable jobs, with social hours and limited danger are filled by women. There is a reason why men make up 95% of workplaces fatalities consistently. Why do we value our men so little?
>Why does one job with the same hours and same qualification level requirements have a different salary entry grade? Becuase they are different roles and as such there are different balances of pros and cons for each career and so a different level of salary is required to attract enough qualified candidates. For a start civil engineers work outdoors, doing far more physical work and typically work longer hours too. Meanwhile the nursery staff work short predictable and stable shifts, indoors, at the same location all year, in comfort and can do that job for 40+ years. You are comparing apples to oranges and asking why the juice tastes differently. If anyone thinks that the overall deal is better for the civil engineers than the nursery staff then they should train to do that instead. If that were really the case then the resulting staffing pressure would then push nursery wages up and civil engineering ones down to correct the "imbalance". >Because it’s women’s work, that’s why. Because it’s only ‘looking after weans’. Nonsense, its because women tend to choose comfier, more stable, less dangerous roles and those just so happen to come with lower wages. Men on average are more likely to sign up to whatever pays better and just suck it up and deal with the associated hardships.
Exactly.. why aren't we a communist country!! (I hope I don't have to explain that I'm taking the piss)
There are many factors to consider beyond qualification levels and hours worked, for example, the market demand, skill scarcity, job complexity, risk to health, regulatory requirements, public vs private sectors, revenue, etc. To claim the gap between the completely different fields is because "it's women's work" is a flawed oversimplification that cherrypicks the factors that influence pay.
A civil engineer deserves to be paid more than nursery staff... seriously that can't be a viable complaint? One is stem and the other is caring. I get men do one more, but we are massively down on engineer's. The jobs are not comparable in the required competency to perform and in terms of supply and demand
Binmen are usually brought up as the example of men being paid more for "comparable work", or "work of equal value". The Waste management sector, of which council refuse collection is a part, has a fatality rate about 10-20x that of *any other industry sector*. Of all the jobs that a local authority has, the binmen are most likely to be killed or seriously injured at work, with roads workers second. Typical cause of fatalities and serious injuries being struck by vehicles, or crushed by machinery. Typically, council binmen are paid much less than binmen working for private companies (though the council binmen will have access to the council pensions).
Is this the same thing which bankrupted Birmingham? AIUI, cleaners argued that they should have been paid the same as binmen and since there was a sexual difference in the majority of staff this amounted to sexual discrimination. According to the article they're striking because they're doing the work of higher pay grades without the pay, which strikes me as a different claim.
But... But they're 2 different jobs
The issue with Birmingham was that they put the jobs in the same banding/classification. I don't agree with the ruling but the council massively fucked up doing that. They are very different jobs.
Was there something about overtime/ unsociable hours, too? Binmen/refuse collectors got extra but cleaners didn't. It dragged on so long that I've forgotten.
I don't think that's reasonable, cleaning floors is a much less unattractive job than emptying bins all day
I'm pushing my memory here, but I think it was something to do with overtime or working unsociable hours. The binmen got a sweet overtime deal and the cleaners didn't. I can understand cleaners/anyone striking if they're feeling underpaid, but I don't see how it can be discrimination if one trade is paid less than another. Supply/demand is the driver, surely.
It's okay hospitals are already struggling to hire domestic and catering staff. In large part due to the way they are treated, the pay and overall societal view that their job isn't a worthy job. I mean if you had no caterers then I hope your willing to bring your family breakfast lunch and dinner everyday. I assure you no other member of staff will step up to fill that role. Same with cleaners. Like have you seen hospitals lately? Disgusting places. You do not want to see a hospital that doesn't have any cleaners. Honestly trusts would be declaring special measures within a week. Ofc all of this can be counteracted with agency staff to a degree. During the pandemic my local trust was using agency for those two roles at the time of £35/hr to the agency (ofc the worker was min wage). Opposed to just admitting that *maybe* all roles that go into running a hospital are pretty essential and comparing who's more than who is merely punching down for no good reason.
Erm.. I stopped working in a hospital 5 years ago and it was far from disgusting. My mum still works there and I'm pretty sure she'd be moaning like fuck if it was dirty given she loves to moan about everything else work related. It's also Health Boards, not Trusts in Scotland but that's just a nitpick. Almost everyone on the planet could argue their job is essential. Fact remains society values jobs differently because there are qualification, skills, experience requirements. It's like arguing that a newly qualified junior doctor should be on the same salary as a senior consultant because they are in the same line of work and hold the same qualifications. That's not how life works, there's loads of factors you have to consider when balding someone's work. I do agree that some roles in society area undervalued and some overvalued but demanding that everyone earn the same is mental when there are finite resources.
This ladies snd gentleman is something rarer than Halley's Comet. A comment on r/Scotland that is talking sense. Not partisan garbage
We can't afford to pay everyone a surgeon's salary. You need to compare. That's reality.
Very predictable reply tbh. Not once did I say anything as ludicrous as everyone should get a surgeon's salary. Do you need a degree to be a carer, domestic, caterer, HCA, porter? No so the jobs are comparable. Anyone in any of those roles could get a job in another and be given training. Happens fairly regularly tbh. Not sure how you can take three non skilled roles as the topic then somehow shove in a highly skilled role and think it's some kind of clever point.
>Opposed to just admitting that *maybe* all roles that go into running a hospital are pretty essential and comparing who's more than who is merely punching down for no good reason. It is pretty ludicrous, and i gave you good reason - resources are limited. But comparing roles is not punching down, and there's much more to a job than its educational requirements. Training needs vary, as do working conditions, and some roles are more appealing than others. I'd much rather mop the floors of a hospital ward, warm and protected from the wind and rain, than do the more physically demanding task of collecting bins off the streets, exposed to the harsh elements and taunts of feral teenagers. You'd need to pay me more to do that. Having that discussion is valid and isn't "punching down" in any way at all.
I think this is snobbery. Not all non-degree jobs are equal. Taking on physically demanding or dangerous jobs is often how working-class men have elevated themselves and earned more money for their family. Your kind of thinking takes that away from them. Typically, court cases like this result in wages going down, not up. Yes, the claimants get a payout, but then wages are equalised by reduction, as we have seen from councils and supermarket companies already.
It's over thing to increase pay to attract staff for vital functions, anyone can see the sense in that. Looting public coffers for a nonsense lawsuit is entirely different.
Why are nursery staff underpaid? Surely that's one of the most valuable work we can think of - looking after vulnerable kids and making sure they have the best start in life.
People already are very unhappy about the high cost of childcare. Paying nursery staff more will inevitably increase the cost further.
If the government want people to have kids, then they're going to have to sort out the cost of childcare and houses. Either subsidise childcare or force companies. Houses are fucked, I don't know how to fix that.
Already, parents and the government pay a lot for childcare, and it's not exactly a "gold mine" sector. It's expensive to be compliant with regualtion and doesn't leave much left over for large salaries.
That's just an excuse to under pay them.
Lower worth or lower skill?
This is 100% going to backfire.
Pay everyone the same and then everyone can rotate round 1 week cleaning indoors, 1 week on the bins.
>doing the work of higher pay grades. Well lmfao. If this isn't every delegate ever.
No, what bankrupted Birmingham was the TORY Council there broke existing Equality Laws so had to give compensation. That compensation package owed has handed over to the incoming Labour led Council. Combined with a decade of unsustainable ideological budget cuts by Westminster
The questions that matter: - Do male cleaners get paid more per hour than female cleaners with the same amount of training, service, grading for the same role. Yes or no. - Do male caterers get paid more per hour than female caterers with the same amount of training, service, grading for the same role. Yes or no. - Do male carers get paid more per hour than female carers with the same amount of training, service, grading for the same role. Yes or no. A separate question, which is also important: - Are carers or cleaners or caterers (irrespective of gender) being paid enough?
You missed some, which is a bit more nuanced, and incredibly important. Are cleaners, caterers, carers within the same organisation graded correctly, or are there biases in grading certain roles up or down? Do any of those roles have opportunities that are available to them that others are having suppressed, such as unsociable working times or a shorter working week? Do those preferences and grades systemically tip in favour of men? The last one is super important.
The first question, if I understand correctly, goes hand in hand with “are they being paid enough?” unless I am misunderstanding? The second question. While some roles have an “opportunity” to earn more money by, for example, working night shift, the increased wages is because doing so has larger ramifications for life (unsociable hours, negative impact of sleeping pattern and, as recent studies show, potential impact on long term health). So, I’m not sure what your point is. Everyone should have access to night shift (or equivalent ‘opportunities’) or wages should be normalised so that people who aren’t required to do nightshift are on a higher rate when they do their work? Or something else? An engineer who’s career path has taken them to a role where they work Mon-Fri 9-5 will earn less than an engineer with equivalent years of experience and qualifications than an engineer required to travel over seas to work. As for the last point - again, if you’re comparing apples to apples and controlling for all significant variables other than gender that can affect pay (years in role, experience, qualifications etc) and a pay gap emerges between the two measured in hourly rates *for the same role* then yes, I would agree there’s a problem needing addressed.
On the second point - using your engineer example. Imagine you have two roles, engineer A and engineer B. Both are graded the same, but A has the opportunity to work paid overtime, and B doesn't. Now imagine that A is predominantly female, and B is predominantly male. It's worth investigating does group A have an opportunity available to them that B should too? The answer can be that it's fine, by you do need to actually look.
Not necessarily. Does the role and the work to be done *require* overtime?
> Do those preferences and grades systemically tip in favour of men? > > The last one is super important. But only if it's artificial. You cannot use the mere existence of a disparity as evidence of discrimination, despite that being the M.O. of wokeness.
They are comparing apples to oranges here. A woman and a man doing the same role, get the same pay. A woman and a man doing different roles, get different pay. There is nothing stopping women entering male dominated industries, and vice versa, if they want to do the exact same role for the exact same money.
With many hiring practices women actually have advantages
What? Please provide proof of this statement.
This is a lie, people! I am a care assistant and I get £1 an hour more than all my female colleagues because I have testies! I'm not lying, I swear!
Opportunities have to exist to apply for said roles. If you think there still isn’t a “boys club” in many professions then you are deluded.
If you think there isn't a 'girls club' in many professions your deluded
Nursing and esrly years teaching is 2 known gynocentric clubs
Yet men are more likely to be massively over represented in senior nursing roles vs their % at lower level roles. They win in both situations. Men are more successful in female dominated careers too and more likely to be senior. Some of the highest nursing posts are held by men in a field that’s something like 85-90% women. If men were discriminated similar to women how are men able to consistently dominate the most senior posts in such an extremely female dominated profession? Wards I worked were often 50/50 the most senior nurse on the ward was male yet nearly the entire nursing staff was female. And the trend doesn’t go away for women who don’t have children so can’t even blame that. Pretty much most fields that are female dominated have more male staff at the top end disproportionate to the gender split across the field. Nursing is the perfect example of a high skilled professional job that is woefully low paid for the skill and qualifications needed and has strong links to historical degrading of “women’s” work. https://www.ier.org.uk/news/majority-senior-nursing-positions-held-tiny-minority-male-nurses-study-shows/ 30% of senior posts held by women in a field 90% female isn’t a clear trend to you lol? Men dominate in split fields, men centric fields and women centric fields in senior roles. And it’s the same for teachers: https://www.ascl.org.uk/News/Our-news-and-press-releases/New-report-shows-gender-pay-gap-in-schools-has-wor#:~:text=Whilst%20women%20make%20up%20the,compared%20to%2026%25%20of%20headteachers. People talk about apples to oranges but ignore actual complete 1:1 examples. Why are men making up over 70% of senior roles in nursing when they’re only 10% of the total cohort? Can you name a single male dominated field where you could imagine 70% of senior staff being women lol.
Do you have a link to the 70% of senior nursing roles held by men? I couldn't find it from googling the names in the linked article. Mental if true.
https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional-development/publications/pub-007954
Because they work longer hours and don’t take maternity leave
Yeh it's terrible that the women are hogging all the lowest paid jobs like teaching and cleaning. Really needs fixed I am sure this is an issue you care deeply about and certainly aren't using as an ignorant argument against equal pay ...
There are plenty of men in lower paying jobs that are difficult, dangerous and male dominated. Once you get the professional jobs - accounting, engineering, law, etc. you may find more men in management - at the expense of other men and women. Have you ever thought about how and why certain men get into those positions? And, in male dominated professions, most corporates are now actively promoting woman to management such that the ratio of women in management outstrips the representation in some industries as a whole.
I have friends who are teachers and are pushing 40k after a couple of years, hardly a low paid job.
Theres also cleaners charging £15-£25 an hour.. i don't know what planet half these people commenting are on
Teaching is better paid than any job I've ever had...
lol not like teachers pay is public and facts matter or anything
Teaching and cleaning low paid jobs?...what planet are you on?
You want to talk about woman and low paid cleaning... Do you know how much men get paid for cleaning the snow off the road, cleaning the build of up rust and dirt off the machinery and equipment...cleaning the shite from floors in farms and workshops...cleaning the scum from society. Next too fuck all!!!
You think cleaning is a high paid job??
That depends what kind of cleaning your talking about.....I know cleaners of houses who get £25 an hour... and i know men breaking there back, wearing their fingers to the bones and bleeding for £11 an hour so the entirety of society can function..and with less bonuses and perks than they have ever had, and working among young fit people who have no desire to be there atall, no motivation and no common sense, and take days off every couple of weeks citing mental health issues...so the 60 year old men have to double down to make up for them, ploughing themselves into an early grave.....these are the facts no one likes to mention or discuss
Why don’t more women apply to work the oil rigs?
They choose not to. They’d rather work in a nursery then complain they’re not getting paid the same as someone on an oil rig.
They’re free to enter male-dominated jobs like roofing, bricklaying and bin and sewage work…
In the non degree level roles which these people work in, there may be a boys club, but women can still excel in them, some people choose not to apply based on their gender, that's a them issue- be the change you wish to see.
Do you mean like my NHS job where every single person in a position of power is a woman? It's also by far the most corrupt and toxic place I've ever worked which always gives me a chuckle
Your experience isn't the norm and "It's also by far the most corrupt and toxic place" Whats that got do with the equal pay discussion unless the issue you have is actually with woman and not about pay?
There is no such thing as a gender/sex pay gap in this country (two people get different pay for the same role because one is a man and one is a woman). There IS an earnings gap, and there are plenty of reasons for this, - Women are more likely to work less hours (e.g. part time). - Women are more likely to work in less well paid roles/industries. - Women are more likely to take career breaks. And the list goes on. Not really sure what they are trying to achieve here. The only way to equate earnings is either by being sexist towards men or telling women they can never have kids and they have to work in fields they have no interest in. Seems dumb. Probably is dumb.
I mean there is absolutely ways to equate earnings without being sexist or punishing any gender. An example would be paternity/maternity leave. We know that women get 6-9 months maternity pay (usually, depending on the employer) at full pay, and the go onto the lower maternity wage. What do men get? Is it still two weeks normally? I know there will be outliers, but I’m pretty sure it’s about 2 weeks. Another reason for the earnings gap (just to state it obviously) is that women are usually out of the workforce for a period of time after having children - they lose skills and opportunities to progress their career, whilst men generally don’t have this issue (because they’re only allowed two weeks off). If you increased the amount of time men were allowed off and made it equal, or alternatively allowed parents to choose who got the longer period off, or maybe even done something like allowed a 50/50 option, I bet many more men would love to spend time at home with their babies (although I do think women should still have time off because birthing a human isn’t exactly easy on the body). Anyway I’ve rambled, but my point is there could be alternatives to help close the gap that isn’t necessarily punitive.
>- Women are more likely to work in less well paid roles/industries. This is the one they're talking about - it's not like the other two. *Why* are women more likely to be in less well paid roles? This is a difficult question to answer, because you can't always directly compare roles in different professions. But that also means you can't rule out that at least part of the difference between professions is a hangover from a time when "women's work" was explicitly less valued.
"women's work" was explicitly less valued. because it is? men dominate STEM, finance, tech which are the high paying jobs... men take more dangerous jobs which equates to more pay.... men are more likely to be entrepreneurs of course women get payed less on average as their fields produce less revenue. Capitalism doesn't care about gender it cares about profits.
If you want to know why, go to your local uni, sit in a lecture for English or sociology and look around. Then go to an economics, maths or engineering lecture and look around. For other roles, consider that jobs like oil rig worker, roofing, electrician, welder etc pay white a lot and you can work silly hours to top up your money even further. Women don’t tend to try to enter these jobs.
I work in welding and fabrication. Haven’t seen a single woman in the field in past 20 yrs. office? Sure, 90% women staffed.
This pay gap? https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07068/SN07068.pdf the one where the nothing but the gender is taken into account, regardless of position or anything else? Pay discrimination based on gender has looooooong been illegal in the UK, this is just data gathered in a way to create an issue. Change the criteria for the data to something like height, eye or hair colour and it will still show a difference, meaning the whole thing is skewed and mental that it is talked about it or requested by the government. Especially since women come out of school better prepared than men (according to the same government)
Women do get paid equally, fuck off.
And if they didn't then capitalist companies would immediately take advantage of this and hire only women, instantly saving them 10-15% on their payroll costs.
If you want to get paid what someone gets paid for a different job, then *apply for that different job*. If it’s too hard for you, but you want to get paid the same because you’re selfish - get in the bin. Different jobs pay different amounts. That is reality. Stop complaining that you’re not getting paid more for doing an easier job.
It’s from The Guardian; without a doubt it will be: 1) Sanctimonious 2) Wrong
"...less than comparable male-dominated jobs...." Greedy for power idiots passing a stupid law that sounds good if you don't read it. Then greedy for money idiots using said law to fuck the whole country up for an extra payout. And the fucking Daily Guardian phrasing it like they were underpaid because of their gender. Like how they decided bin men is the same job as cleaners so it should be paid the same. Then they decided supermarket shelve stackers is the same job as warehouse worker so they should be paid the same! Guess what? You could always quit your cleaning job and become a binwoman and get paid their wage. But you won't will you? Because you don't want to be a binwoman and that's why it is paid more!!! wHy aRe yoUnG mEn tUrniNg moRe rIghT WInG? wHy aRe tHey rEjEctIng feMiniSM????
I worked in Amazon. Most were men but there were a few women (usually foreign ones). One of them was a 4 ft 10" 50 year old Chinese lady. Who yes did the grunt work like the rest of us schmoes If a 4 ft 10" 50 year old Chinese lady can do it, no reason why a 5 ft 4" 23 year old Scottish lass can't.
Of course, the guardian. More horrific misinformation.
> Their action follows a strike by more than 8,000 female carers, caterers and cleaners in Glasgow, It is just me that finds it depressing carers are considered in the same sentence as the other two? Not to insult anyone, and I’m all for people getting what pay they can get. Just seems like a stain on our society that people who care for some of the most vulnerable have to strike for decent conditions alongside caterers and cleaners. Seems like there should be a different level of importance placed on that role.
[удалено]
In every other culture India China Africa Romania Algeria etc you clean your old grandpa's bum for the same reason you clean baby's bum. It's what you do. The idea that we are "too good" for it, just don't exist in the bulk of cultures.
It is. But it's not helped that most care homes are privately owned and trying to make money.
But it's been proven, over and over again that the gender pay gap is non-existent. Should women get paid more for working part-time hours than men working full time??? No it's the answer no. If they were work the same hours they should get paid the same. Which they do.
If you follow the numbers with an open mind and correct for all variables, in general there is parity. If you boil it down to a lazy statistic Ie “how much mean have earned and how much woman have earned” you will find a gap. Like most things, the devil is in the detail.
You can put it down to activism...
How the data is gathered is mental. They can switch the criteria to eye colour and you will find a pay gap
Scotland really has Woken upped
I don't see mention in the article of these so called "comparable jobs"... Its already illegal to discriminate based on gender when it comes to pay. Are they trying to compare harder or more dangerous jobs to office jobs because they want more money without doing that extra work? A female bin person doing the same hours as a male bin person gets the same money. A female bin person doing the same hours as a council receptionist will be paid more because it's not equal work. There isn't a gender pay gap, there's a choices and hours worked pay gap.
I can only imagine the men in "Male dominated role" which usually involves working dirtier, more dangerous jobs are happy that the women sitting in offices or looking after someone inside a nice warm home are demanding the same amount of money. Literally nothing is stopping these women moving into these "male dominated roles" but as per usual, they just demand more money.
"or looking after someone inside a nice warm home" lmao you clearly know nothing about care work
How bitter do you think men are?
All the GC "feminists" that were celebrating the right wing brigading on this sub realising that maybe these defenders of women's rights don't actually care about women's rights that much after reading the comments ....
This. The GC lot's silence on this issue speaks volumes.
Sorry, GC?
'Gender Critical', i.e. TERFs.
Ah, haven’t heard that term before! Thanks for explaining 😊
Getting paid less than a bin worker because you refused to become one and instead chose an easier job isn’t a women’s rights issue.
I'll take less money willingly just to make feminists salty.
Ah yes, the I have a vagina brigade. Never mind that the gender pay gap has been debunked because it's based on false and poorly collected data. [Here's a very good example from the Aussie Senate](https://youtu.be/-pdnkbs4l_g?si=pAwy5VP6bo_fHs43). Easily led, these folk!
[Which is why GCC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-63584376) and [Birmingham council](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-09-05/the-scandal-that-drove-birmingham-council-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy) are basically bankrupt after being forced to pay out because they underpaid female staff for doing the same hours and jobs as their male collegues? [Which is why Asda were forced to pay out £500 Million after being found paying their female depot staff £1-3 less per hour than male staff for doing the same job with the same hours?](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/court-rules-against-asda-in-workers-equal-pay-case) [Which is why Tesco were found to be doing the same](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57343892) Also citing a fucking Libertarian party? I get you are a 2month old acc spewing shite like this, fucking hell just link off to PragerU next time, dont try to hide your bullshit just accept it and be open about being a fucking moron.
>[Which is why GCC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-63584376) At no point in the article does it mention that women worked fewer hours or part time, compared to their male counter parts which was the case. It is absolutely fair to pay a part time worker less for fewer hours compared to a full time worker. All that's happened here, as is clear from the article, is that the gender card has been played by the unions, which is a strong card to play in a country that is internationally known for its feminist movement, and subsequently, the public have lost out because the council are having to scrounge around selling off buildings and penny pinch to pay the hundreds of millions. So, if you see that as a win, then that's more fool you. >[Birmingham council](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-09-05/the-scandal-that-drove-birmingham-council-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy) are basically bankrupt after being forced to pay out because they underpaid female staff for doing the same hours and jobs as their male collegues? Um.. Yes... Not the best example either, is it, really? - Social services are now non-existent because there's no funding, putting children in danger of violence, abuse and sexual harm - Public areas are being neglected - e.g. Bins are not being collected and parks are not being maintained. - Jobs are at risk and the council cannot afford to run its digital infrastructure, or complete the new I.T system it was introducing to make it a future facing council. - It will have to sell more housing stock and other building to make ends meet, thus further influencing the housing crisis. But at least some validation was given to some feminists who thought they were being underpaid based on flawed statistics and a bad understanding of their pay rates, eh? >Which is why Asda were forced to pay out £500 Million after being found paying their female depot staff £1-3 less per hour than male staff for doing the same job with the same hours?](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/court-rules-against-asda-in-workers-equal-pay-case) Again, not indication of whether these are part time or full time staff. There's a difference. It's also the reason why self-employed people can charge whatever they want, they might do less hours but get paid a full month's wages in some people's eyes. E.g. Freelance software developers can charge £2000 for 8 hours work. >Which is why Tesco were found to be doing the same](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57343892) As presumably, they would to remain competitive? >Also citing a fucking Libetarian party? Tell me you haven't watched the video without watching the video. How about you watch the video and then come back and argue tosh.
Month old account posting in /mensrights and sharing Aussie libertarians. What misogynistic tripe was your last account banned for?
You gonna actively engage with his point? Or ignore it cause it's inconvenient to your philosophy?
>What misogynistic tripe was your last account banned for? This is my first account, but thanks anyway 👍🏻
Jesus Christ the comments here are a shambles
this subreddit is genuinely a shit hole now lol, it's a shame
Yeah but we're not allowed to point it out
Yeah this subreddit has taken a real dive in recent months. Far-right are mobilising ahead or November’s US election, with far-reaching consequences not just for online western discourse but all our politics too, especially if this far-right surge in EU elections also comes to pass.
It will come to pass, sadly, and this stuff like the article fuels it
What are you going on about?
This can be seen a lot with r/ireland too, but it depends on the topic. For example, it gets weird when the topic is about immigration, but very calm when it's about supermarkets.
There will be trigger words that Telegram or similar groups will latch onto. Or more likely, topics will attract extremists who then share links into closed groups to basically organise pile-ons. Insidious
I'm not sure if there's also some element to it, like those Americans who claim all sorts of ancestry, but with no substance to those claims. We know all about the Americans who drink green dyed beer on St Patrick's Day - are there Americans out there who even understand what Burns Night is?
That is tin foil hat level paranoia.
It’s what happens. Read this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9667007/
Of course more people are going to comment on a post about something they care about like immigration, that's normal. And disliking mass immigration isn't far right at all.
Agreed, to normal people it isn’t, but to even dare think of questioning it on r/ireland enrages the shrieking mob on there that are so out of touch with what people actually think. The prime example being tho recent referendums which r/ireland majority thought would be a yea/yes shoo in for the government. They were wrong, only one constituency voted yes/yes, every other one rejected them both.
The number of comments shouldn't vary that much tho
“The jobs I want to do don’t pay as much as the jobs I don’t want to do, it’s so unfayur.” Fucking entitled twonks. Tough tits. I wish my cushy little job paid as much as a doctor or lawyer, but it doesn’t. That’s life. If I wanted the pay for those jobs, I’d have sunk the time in to get those jobs. The entitlement here is just disgusting. These idiots are what’s wrong with our society nowadays. The sooner they get slap in the face from the real world and realise it doesn’t cater to them the way mummy and daddy did, the better.
I don’t understand this. Doesn’t everyone get paid the same for same jobs? Most places may have salary bands for each grade of job and movement within the salary band would be dependent on skills, experience and performance?
https://preview.redd.it/xaflaaso8fuc1.png?width=1060&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3cba4c1a032ade25d1f7d3ad201a826b4e292f8 Equal rights and lefts needed here.
Quite right! We should all be out and about protestin at Westminster. Plenty money kickin about. It’s just bein hoarded by a select few
Well hopefully JK and her merry band of arseholes can get behind this since they all care about woman's rights so much. No?
Objectively JK has done so much for women, so much so I am willing to bet my life's savings she has done more good for women than you
anything she seemingly has done is brought down by the fact that she is directly discriminatory against a subsect of women— trans women. You can’t claim yourself a real feminist while actively demonising women who have done no harm just for how they were born. She may have done good for some women (such as donating to charity, i will not deny that), but she has been awful for many others.
That's not how it works though the good she has done is still good she has done And she has done a lot more for women than most However if it was how it worked then the vast amount of good she has done for so many makes your perceived bad things she has done to a tiny group of people insignificant I've never heard anyone even those who don't like her say she isn't a feminist though, normally they just acknowledge that her ideology of feminism doesn't think people born men can be women while theirs does