Gender Bending

[Ringwraith]

Saw the following article and wondered if this is a big issue on the IOM?

 

LINK

 

Our place pays the same for men and women, and I can't think of anywhere I have worked where this was not the case.

[TheScope]

Same where I work, if anything theres more females than males in supervisory/managerial roles, and they're all on the same pay scale.

 

Not sure where they get these figures from, but as Mark Twain said "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

[Roger Smelly]

Give women more i say and us lot can let them go to work and we can stay at home and lounge about.

 

Equal pay i say Naa give them more.

[LoneWolf]

Same where I work, if anything theres more females than males in supervisory/managerial roles, and they're all on the same pay scale.

 

Not sure where they get these figures from, but as Mark Twain said "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

 

There is a large gap between male and female earnings on the Island.

The difference in earnings tends not to be in situations where a male and a female are doing exactly the same job.

Women seem to be disproportionately employed in low paid jobs such as assembly line work at company's like Strix or in retailing. That is one reason.

The other main reason is traditional "female" jobs such as nursing tend not to be valued as highly as traditionally male jobs even when the work might reasonably be judged as having equal value. There are two reasons for this. First it is notoriously difficult to judge equal value. There have been notable exceptions to this rule. For example canteen cooks at Cammell Laird won a landmark case when comparing for equal value against welders and electricians.

The second reason is the job market itself in traditional female areas. In nursing, for example, there is only a minority of men entrants to the market with expectations of higher pay. The main competition for jobs comes from women and it is not entirely unexpected that the work should continue to be undervalued.

 

Its little short of ridiculous to suggest the statistics are lies or are mistaken. Inequality of pay between males and females is a fact.

[TheScope]

The difference in earnings tends not to be in situations where a male and a female are doing exactly the same job.

 

So its the actual jobs that are underpaid, rather than the inequality being down to the sex of the worker?

[LoneWolf]

The difference in earnings tends not to be in situations where a male and a female are doing exactly the same job.

 

So its the actual jobs that are underpaid, rather than the inequality being down to the sex of the worker?

 

Thats mostly the reason for inequality in pay. The jobs are undervalued and they tend to be traditional female type work. The Island doesnt address equal value in its legislation but the UK does.

In practice, and with one or two exceptions, it has been not an easy task to prove equal value.

[TheScope]

Therefore the inequality isnt between males and females, its in the way different jobs are valued. Thats what need to be addressed then.

 

Until that happens, the woman that wants higher pay should seek work in areas that arent "tradionally female". I know that sounds a simplistic view, and there are many factors to consider, but its what it boils down to at the end of the day.

[LoneWolf]

Therefore the inequality isnt between males and females, its in the way different jobs are valued. Thats what need to be addressed then.

 

No you arent quite right in your assessment.

Prior to the introduction of equal pay legislation in the UK it was usual for two employees doing exactly the same work to be paid different rates of pay based on their gender. Employers fought the legislation tooth and nail and the situation persisted for several years.

 

Where two people are doing different work of equal value it has proved remarkably difficult to prove the equal value. There is little doubt the pay inequality runs along lines of gender. Employers continue to fight the legislation and it is difficult to see much progress being made in the short term.

An interesting tactic used by some major employers when the legislation was new involved a slight reorganisation so that women employees were relocated and allocated slighty different tasks to male colleagues. This, it was argued, was sufficient to continue the unfair allocation of salaries.

 

So what needs to be addressed is a way of proving equal value between different jobs because it is this which is now the main reason for inequality between female and male pay.

 

To suggest it is for women to seek out different types of work is, you are correct, a little simplistic. Indeed it almost sounds like victim blaming to me ! There is a good old British tradition of blaming the victims. I wish it was something we hadnt imported to the IoM. We have enough of our own eccentricities !

[TheScope]

Therefore the inequality isnt between males and females, its in the way different jobs are valued. Thats what need to be addressed then.

So what needs to be addressed is a way of proving equal value between different jobs because it is this which is now the main reason for inequality between female and male pay.

 

Where is the difference between what you say and what I say? To me the above two quotes look identical, other than that the words are in a different order.

 

Therefore my assessment is entirely correct.

 

And as for "victim blaming", I refute that entirely. Its common sense that if you want higher earnings which simply arent available in your chosen profession, then you change jobs i.e. get a job in an office. Office work is not skilled work, and pay is the same regardless of gender (in the vast majority of companies).

[LoneWolf]

Therefore my assessment is entirely correct.

 

No, your assessment is not quite right. If I could elaborate just a little. The reason there is a difference in earnings between traditionally female type work and traditionally male type work is entirely because it is generally women who do one type of these jobs and generally men who do the other. There is a fascinating history behind all this and it is well worth reading.

 

And as for "victim blaming", I refute that entirely. Its common sense that if you want higher earnings which simply arent available in your chosen profession, then you change jobs i.e. get a job in an office. Office work is not skilled work, and pay is the same regardless of gender (in the vast majority of companies).

 

The office work is an interesting example. However, we need first to refute your suggestion that office work isnt skilled. Some of it is highly skilled. For example market analysts, accountants, lawyers ..should I continue ?

Nevertheless, your example provides an interesting insight to the lengths some employers have resorted to in order to preserve inequality of pay between women and men. The banks and large insurance company's initially thought that by merely changing the job titles of women who were doing exactly the same work as men they would be complying with the legislation.

This was tested in the employment tribunals.

The same employers then resorted to reorganising their workforces (office workers) along the lines of gender. This too was tested in the tribunals with the result that consultants were employed to reallocate the work along the lines of gender so men and women werent doing exactly the same work. This has proved a very effective tactic and it is only in the last 5 years or so that Trade Unions have had any success in proving the practice doesnt comply with legislation.

There is still a problem in the UK with this sort of practice. However, as you say, where men and women are doing exactly the same work pay rates are the same regardless of gender.

However,there are numerous reasons that women find themselves in traditional female type jobs such as retail such as assembly line work, etc. Again this is fascinating stuff and well worth doing some research on.

It is these jobs which tend to be less well paid than traditional male jobs of equal value.

You might also check out the disproportionate amount of women who work part time, possibly because of family commitments and wonder why part time staff are paid less (pro rata) than full time staff.

Im afraid its over simplistic to say women should seek out alternative employment. There are numerous reasons why they may not be able to. Anyhow, the whole point is that they shouldnt have to. to suggest otherwise seems remarkably like victim blaming to me.

I do, however, accept your argument that, in your case you arent victim blaming.

Not intentionally anyhow

[catchy]

Problems like this are not helped by the tradition of being shy about your wages and never ever discussing them with your collegues. That we are at all is down to firms wanting to pay the least they can get away with to all employees, they have successfully brainwashed us all into not wanting to discuss our pay packets, that way we are less likely to come knocking on the bossess door complaining that others are doing the same job as us with higher remuneration.

Thescope cannot be serious, gender based inequality is rife everywhere, not least amongst pay packets. It is one of the few remaining discriminations still made by many, ignored by more and hense seen as accepatable even in this day and age. Our foremothers would weep.

[Mr. Sausages]

Twice in my life I've discovered the salary of colleagues during drunken conversations. Both were female, doing the same job as me, with fewer qualifications, and both were earning more than me. So I don't buy it.

 

In fact, the only time I've heard specifics about it happening is when company execs in the city go to court because they only got a 400k bonus when their male colleagues got 700k. Boo hoo.

[catchy]

males find it easier to remain in denial than face up to the prejudices they are almost all guilty of

[sideways]

Problems like this are not helped by the tradition of being shy about your wages and never ever discussing them with your collegues. That we are at all is down to firms wanting to pay the least they can get away with to all employees, they have successfully brainwashed us all into not wanting to discuss our pay packets, that way we are less likely to come knocking on the bossess door complaining that others are doing the same job as us with higher remuneration.

Thescope cannot be serious, gender based inequality is rife everywhere, not least amongst pay packets. It is one of the few remaining discriminations still made by many, ignored by more and hense seen as accepatable even in this day and age. Our foremothers would weep.

 

 

males find it easier to remain in denial than face up to the prejudices they are almost all guilty of

 

What a load of dross ,in my experience the lower paid people (totally immaterial of sex) are paid less because they are not as good at their job.

 

This equality thing in my opinion is total rubbish, the people who shout about it are usually crap at what they do and that is why the employer pays them less.

 

You hear this sort of rubbish day in day out….

“I am a cross gender person who has blue skin “that is the reason that I am not paid as much as Jim.(or Jane)

 

Could it be the fact that Jim(or Jane) is better at what he does than you, so the employer pays him more?

 

People are paid what they are worth to the company they are working for, if you think you are worth more threaten to leave… you will soon see if you are being undervalued.

 

Pay rise or bye bye…

 

edit to add jane before the pc brigade start

[Dontlookbehindyou]

males find it easier to remain in denial than face up to the prejudices they are almost all guilty of

 

 

Exactly