|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 22, 2018 15:43:34 GMT
This is getting a bit silly, within weeks of the disclosure being required.
There's a headline on BBC today that "Women at Barclays earn 43.5% less than men". There were similar splashes about TUI and EasyJet. However, when you look behind the figures it is based on the median salary earned by a man or woman in the company.
So, if you are at EasyJet where there a re a lot of highly paid roles - pilots - that are predominantly filled by men the gap between the average pay is massively distorted.
It's going to cause a lot of annoyance but they really should be reporting like-for-like roles, not average across the whole firm pay rates  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 15:55:09 GMT
The Beeb's was actually a headline as men and women doing similar roles were in some instances being paid significantly differing amounts. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but Barclays says it pays men and women in the same roles the same amounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Feb 22, 2018 16:12:01 GMT
Anything for a headline. The last thing the press wants is the truth - that's boring!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 22, 2018 16:14:58 GMT
It would probably also be fair to say that women, especially those with a young family, are more likely to be in part time or flexible roles such as, in Barclays case, a cashier in a high street branch.
There’s so many companies where similar situations exist that could easily lead to a great headline statement that points towards a company being sexist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Feb 22, 2018 16:29:39 GMT
The Beeb's was actually a headline as men and women doing similar roles were in some instances being paid significantly differing amounts. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but Barclays says it pays men and women in the same roles the same amounts. Just looked at my payslip, and the gap from max-min of my pay scale is £6594, a difference of 23% of the top rate.
Mental health nursing in my experience tends to be not as biased in the number of female practitioners as you may think, but still it seems men are slightly more likely to be promoted to the higher echelons and hence higher salaries. Whether this skews the numbers significantly or not I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 22, 2018 16:39:09 GMT
The Beeb's was actually a headline as men and women doing similar roles were in some instances being paid significantly differing amounts. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but Barclays says it pays men and women in the same roles the same amounts. Just looked at my payslip, and the gap from max-min of my pay scale is £6594, a difference of 23% of the top rate.
Mental health nursing in my experience tends to be not as biased in the number of female practitioners as you may think, but still it seems men are slightly more likely to be promoted to the higher echelons and hence higher salaries. Whether this skews the numbers significantly or not I don't know.
Using your figure as an example though if you're at the top of your grade and an inexperienced female gets taken on at the bottom of the grade then I wonder how those figures would get reported, because there should be a difference to account for experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 22, 2018 17:29:00 GMT
there should be a difference to account for experience.
A large part of this is that women take time out of work in order to have children and therefore do not accrue experience during this time. Despite incredibly generous maternity regulations with regards to work this reality is still, I'm told, not fair. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 22, 2018 17:42:48 GMT
Let's not beat around the bush. There is no smoke without a fire. Evidently the practice of paying women less than men has historically been quite widespread for whatever reason.
Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would ever think it appropriate to pay a woman less than a man just because she's female. It would never occur to me not to offer a female candidate exactly the same terms as a male candidate for the same role, assuming both candidates were equivalently skilled, qualified and competent, and working the same hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Feb 22, 2018 18:01:19 GMT
Let's not beat around the bush. There is no smoke without a fire. Evidently the practice of paying women less than men has historically been quite widespread for whatever reason. Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would ever think it appropriate to pay a woman less than a man just because she's female. It would never occur to me not to offer a female candidate exactly the same terms as a male candidate for the same role, assuming both candidates were equivalently skilled, qualified and competent, and working the same hours. Absolutely. We have clear salary bands and pay within those bands is based on breadth/size of responsibility, nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by PG on Feb 22, 2018 18:35:25 GMT
Let's not beat around the bush. There is no smoke without a fire. Evidently the practice of paying women less than men has historically been quite widespread for whatever reason. Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would ever think it appropriate to pay a woman less than a man just because she's female. It would never occur to me not to offer a female candidate exactly the same terms as a male candidate for the same role, assuming both candidates were equivalently skilled, qualified and competent, and working the same hours. Absolutely. We have clear salary bands and pay within those bands is based on breadth/size of responsibility, nothing else. Quite. Equal pay for equal work has been the way in the computer industry for ages. . |
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Feb 22, 2018 18:44:33 GMT
Just looked at my payslip, and the gap from max-min of my pay scale is £6594, a difference of 23% of the top rate.
Mental health nursing in my experience tends to be not as biased in the number of female practitioners as you may think, but still it seems men are slightly more likely to be promoted to the higher echelons and hence higher salaries. Whether this skews the numbers significantly or not I don't know.
Using your figure as an example though if you're at the top of your grade and an inexperienced female gets taken on at the bottom of the grade then I wonder how those figures would get reported, because there should be a difference to account for experience. It would be interesting to see that, true. there should be a difference to account for experience.
A large part of this is that women take time out of work in order to have children and therefore do not accrue experience during this time. Despite incredibly generous maternity regulations with regards to work this reality is still, I'm told, not fair. In my team, there are seven Band 6s (including one O.T.) supervising (ha!) five Band 5 nurses and one Band 5 O.T. Oh, and two Band 3 HCAs. ALL the Band 6's are female, and all bar one have had children, whereas all five Band 5s are male. We're unique in that breakdown in our sector of the city and it will change soon when new staff are appointed, but the gender bias is completely the reverse to the "norm" in our tiny bit of the NHS. Incidentally, when I talked about 'higher echelons' I meant the likes of service managers (Band 8 or 8A) of which there are only two females out of eight. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 8:33:09 GMT
Let's not beat around the bush. There is no smoke without a fire. Evidently the practice of paying women less than men has historically been quite widespread for whatever reason. Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would ever think it appropriate to pay a woman less than a man just because she's female. It would never occur to me not to offer a female candidate exactly the same terms as a male candidate for the same role, assuming both candidates were equivalently skilled, qualified and competent, and working the same hours. I think that the real issue is that women don't get equal job and advancement opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 23, 2018 10:27:43 GMT
Let's not beat around the bush. There is no smoke without a fire. Evidently the practice of paying women less than men has historically been quite widespread for whatever reason. Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would ever think it appropriate to pay a woman less than a man just because she's female. It would never occur to me not to offer a female candidate exactly the same terms as a male candidate for the same role, assuming both candidates were equivalently skilled, qualified and competent, and working the same hours.
I agree with this entirely, it's just the figures are being (deliberately) misreported.
Looking around my own organisation the CEO (only 1 person can have that role!) is male and currently earns 2.2 times the salary of the highest paid female. So if they were the only employees and we reported it in the current fashion the headline would be "Women at XXXXX earn 55% less than men". Clearly completely misleading but a great headline.
Looking at our comparable salaries the highest paid female actually earns slightly more than her male equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 23, 2018 10:31:26 GMT
Let's not beat around the bush. There is no smoke without a fire. Evidently the practice of paying women less than men has historically been quite widespread for whatever reason. Personally I cannot fathom why anyone would ever think it appropriate to pay a woman less than a man just because she's female. It would never occur to me not to offer a female candidate exactly the same terms as a male candidate for the same role, assuming both candidates were equivalently skilled, qualified and competent, and working the same hours. I think that the real issue is that women don't get equal job and advancement opportunities. In what way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 10:34:57 GMT
I don't think they are viewed as being as capable in many sectors - based upon personal experience. Law might actually be more of a meritocracy, as I am not doubting what you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Feb 23, 2018 16:35:32 GMT
I don't think they are viewed as being as capable in many sectors - based upon personal experience. Law might actually be more of a meritocracy, as I am not doubting what you say. I wasn't being argumentative - it was a genuine question.
If the legal press is anything to go by in recent days, then law seems to be quite as culpable as many other an industry, despite the logical assumption that it might not be.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Feb 23, 2018 16:51:37 GMT
I think Jordan Peterson summed up the " pay gap " debate perfectly (you tube the C4 interview with Cathy Newman)
To add - larger and more diverse businesses have extremely wide bands at management grades (up to 100% in my experience).
Technical specialist, engineering manager, purchasing manager, plant manager, finance manager, etc, etc, etc - all technically the same grade with the same benefits, but with huge differentials in salary because the disciplines and skills gaps are so very different.
On the other side - exceptional people get paid exceptional salaries - my missus is paid 25% more than the nearest woman and 33% more than the nearest man at the same level. Purely because she is awesome at her job and because the company cannot afford to lose her.
|
|
