The latest lies from the Remain campaign
Earlier today Harriet Harman gave a speech explaining why the EU is good for women (based on what has happened rather than what is going to happen, funnily enough). The thumbnail when shared gives three reasons and they are:
Paid Parental Leave
Equal Pay
Anti-Discrimination laws
The thing is, it is not hard to find Acts of Parliament showing this to be bogus. There is equal pay not because the EU (or its predecessors) declared it to be so and we did so, in fact we have had it as part of UK law since the Equal Pay Act 1970 (now Equalities Act 2010, with the 1970 Act mostly repealed).
And on the matter of anti-discrimination law we most notably have the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (again, replaced with the Equalities Act 2010).
And the whole thing is wrapped up with the usual "If we leave an evil Tory government will commit electoral suicide and repeal everything"
Paid Parental Leave
Equal Pay
Anti-Discrimination laws
The thing is, it is not hard to find Acts of Parliament showing this to be bogus. There is equal pay not because the EU (or its predecessors) declared it to be so and we did so, in fact we have had it as part of UK law since the Equal Pay Act 1970 (now Equalities Act 2010, with the 1970 Act mostly repealed).
And on the matter of anti-discrimination law we most notably have the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (again, replaced with the Equalities Act 2010).
And the whole thing is wrapped up with the usual "If we leave an evil Tory government will commit electoral suicide and repeal everything"
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ivybridge
Women's rights are not a big issue anymore, focus on the actual problems for everyone and jump off the fixated bandwagon.
Do you really think that a pay gap of 20% 30 years after the law on equal pay was passed is not a big deal?
Original post by ByEeek
Do you really think that a pay gap of 20% 30 years after the law on equal pay was passed is not a big deal?
I do think it is a big deal but things are being worked towards. It is not relevant to the Referendum; we should stop pretending that this means heaps for small groups. What comes out of it will be nationwide things. That's all I mean. I am a feminist myself, I just believe we need to learn when to stop for a while.
Original post by Jammy Duel
The thing is, it is not hard to find Acts of Parliament showing this to be bogus. There is equal pay not because the EU (or its predecessors) declared it to be so and we did so, in fact we have had it as part of UK law since the Equal Pay Act 1970 (now Equalities Act 2010, with the 1970 Act mostly repealed).
I don't get why people on the left seem to think the EU is some sort of guarantor of their social protections. We have, after all, had a centre-right EU administration for the last 17 years.
I'm all for the EU, but to suggest that it is only as a result of it that we have employment legislation, anti-discrimination laws and whatever else it is credited with in this area is absolute nonsense. It is also a rather strange stance from the Labour Party to suggest that British people would not vote for such policies domestically if we were out of the EU: if so, why should we vote now for the EU to defend them?
The EU is a trading block and some harmonisation of rules and regulation is a positive thing. But let's not forget that the UK government approved EU legislation on all of these things too.
Original post by ByEeek
Do you really think that a pay gap of 20% 30 years after the law on equal pay was passed is not a big deal?
I certainly don't think it is a problem at all. It is virtually unheard of for a women in the same job at the same level as a man to be paid less.
What we have is the influence of other factors. The most obvious is that there is a gender bias in seeking employment. There remain certain sectors dominated by one gender - and it's not because of discrimination, but because of choice. Yes, we would benefit from more women in certain jobs - but equally we would benefit from more men in others.
The second point is, of course, motherhood and the choice of couples over who will take on primary caring responsibilities. Salaries are pretty evenly matched by younger people - it is only when children come into the equation that the gender pay gap really exists.
Original post by L i b
I don't get why people on the left seem to think the EU is some sort of guarantor of their social protections. We have, after all, had a centre-right EU administration for the last 17 years.
I'm all for the EU, but to suggest that it is only as a result of it that we have employment legislation, anti-discrimination laws and whatever else it is credited with in this area is absolute nonsense. It is also a rather strange stance from the Labour Party to suggest that British people would not vote for such policies domestically if we were out of the EU: if so, why should we vote now for the EU to defend them?
The EU is a trading block and some harmonisation of rules and regulation is a positive thing. But let's not forget that the UK government approved EU legislation on all of these things too.
I'm all for the EU, but to suggest that it is only as a result of it that we have employment legislation, anti-discrimination laws and whatever else it is credited with in this area is absolute nonsense. It is also a rather strange stance from the Labour Party to suggest that British people would not vote for such policies domestically if we were out of the EU: if so, why should we vote now for the EU to defend them?
The EU is a trading block and some harmonisation of rules and regulation is a positive thing. But let's not forget that the UK government approved EU legislation on all of these things too.
"The left" don't. I am centre-left and I don't disagree 100%.
I do with your second post but I'm not responding to that.
Original post by ByEeek
Do you really think that a pay gap of 20% 30 years after the law on equal pay was passed is not a big deal?
Ummm, we don't have a gender pay gap? The Equal Pay Act established equal pay for equal work, it did not establish equal pay for unequal work and I hope no act ever will. Of you want women to earn more on average make them stop having children, make them work full time more often, and make them do STEM or Law rather than gender studies and history of art. It's as simple as that.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
The thing is, it is not hard to find Acts of Parliament showing this to be bogus. There is equal pay not because the EU (or its predecessors) declared it to be so and we did so, in fact we have had it as part of UK law since the Equal Pay Act 1970 (now Equalities Act 2010, with the 1970 Act mostly repealed).
And on the matter of anti-discrimination law we most notably have the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (again, replaced with the Equalities Act 2010).
And the whole thing is wrapped up with the usual "If we leave an evil Tory government will commit electoral suicide and repeal everything"
And on the matter of anti-discrimination law we most notably have the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (again, replaced with the Equalities Act 2010).
And the whole thing is wrapped up with the usual "If we leave an evil Tory government will commit electoral suicide and repeal everything"
While you are on the right track with this, you have got it wrong. Do you really think that an experienced politician like Harriet Harman would go out and say these things when they have no basis in fact? I know we expect that from Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson (ie to spout the first nonsense that comes into their heads) - but Harriet is a little more serious than any of them.
Anyway, the point you are missing is that, while there may have been prior legislation in the UK, there is also EU legislation that has influenced the revision of the UK legislation and its interpretation. One good example of this is equal pay.
What has changed about UK about interpretation is that it now encompasses "equal pay for work of equal value". Previously employers could largely get around the equal pay rules because they had discrete groups of workers who were largely divided along gender lines. Men being mechanics or dustbin men, and women being administrators or cleaners. Thus the women in the second group could be paid less because there were not many men doing the same roles.
When the courts looked at the "equal value" aspect of his they found that this was a form of discrimination, and forced the employers to increase the wages of those women affected (plus compensation). This provision stems directly from EU law, art 157:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT
In fact you can read here, at Wikipedia, that the Equal Pay Act was a requirement for the UK entering the EU in the first place:
A trigger cause for the introduction of the legislation was the 1968 Ford sewing machinists strike,[4] though the legislation also paved the way for the UK's entry to the European Community, helping to bring it towards conformity with Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome, which says that 'each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.'.[5][6] The Act came into force on 29 December 1975. The term pay is interpreted in a broad sense to include, on top of wages, things like holidays, pension rights, company perks and some kinds of bonuses. The legislation has been amended on a number of recent occasions to incorporate a simplified approach under European Union law that is common to all member states. The 1970 Act only dealt with equal pay for the same work but in 1975 the EU directive on Equal Pay was passed based on article 119.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1970
You can see it stated here that there was no "equal work" concept in the 1970 Act.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
While you are on the right track with this, you have got it wrong. Do you really think that an experienced politician like Harriet Harman would go out and say these things when they have no basis in fact? I know we expect that from Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson (ie to spout the first nonsense that comes into their heads) - but Harriet is a little more serious than any of them.
Anyway, the point you are missing is that, while there may have been prior legislation in the UK, there is also EU legislation that has influenced the revision of the UK legislation and its interpretation. One good example of this is equal pay.
What has changed about UK about interpretation is that it now encompasses "equal pay for work of equal value". Previously employers could largely get around the equal pay rules because they had discrete groups of workers who were largely divided along gender lines. Men being mechanics or dustbin men, and women being administrators or cleaners. Thus the women in the second group could be paid less because there were not many men doing the same roles.
When the courts looked at the "equal value" aspect of his they found that this was a form of discrimination, and forced the employers to increase the wages of those women affected (plus compensation). This provision stems directly from EU law, art 157:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT
In fact you can read here, at Wikipedia, that the Equal Pay Act was a requirement for the UK entering the EU in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1970
You can see it stated here that there was no "equal work" concept in the 1970 Act.
Anyway, the point you are missing is that, while there may have been prior legislation in the UK, there is also EU legislation that has influenced the revision of the UK legislation and its interpretation. One good example of this is equal pay.
What has changed about UK about interpretation is that it now encompasses "equal pay for work of equal value". Previously employers could largely get around the equal pay rules because they had discrete groups of workers who were largely divided along gender lines. Men being mechanics or dustbin men, and women being administrators or cleaners. Thus the women in the second group could be paid less because there were not many men doing the same roles.
When the courts looked at the "equal value" aspect of his they found that this was a form of discrimination, and forced the employers to increase the wages of those women affected (plus compensation). This provision stems directly from EU law, art 157:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT
In fact you can read here, at Wikipedia, that the Equal Pay Act was a requirement for the UK entering the EU in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1970
You can see it stated here that there was no "equal work" concept in the 1970 Act.
Do I think Harman would do that? Yes, there is no politician that I don't believe would. We also get the matter of being careful in my wording.
As for it being a requirement for joining, the obvious implication in what you are saying is that it was enacted primarily BECAUSE we wanted to join, although if you look at your own source it implies this is a "benefit" that came on the side and the primary cause was domestic
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Ummm, we don't have a gender pay gap? The Equal Pay Act established equal pay for equal work, it did not establish equal pay for unequal work and I hope no act ever will. Of you want women to earn more on average make them stop having children, make them work full time more often, and make them do STEM or Law rather than gender studies and history of art. It's as simple as that.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you must have got your head stuck in the sand. From this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573
Pay gap is around 20%. Only a year or so ago councils had to compensate women who were earning less than their male counterparts. There is no excuse for discrimination of pay based on pay just as there is no excuse for discrimination on colour or asexual orientation.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Ummm, we don't have a gender pay gap? The Equal Pay Act established equal pay for equal work…
No, it did not. It established equal pay for the same work. The "equal work" provision is a revision, due to EU law.
Take a look at the original Act here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/41/pdfs/ukpga_19700041_en.pdf
In particular s1(5) and s1(6). These are much narrower definitions of "equal work" (in fact it uses the term "equivalent", where in the Equality Act 2010 the term "equal work" is used directly).
Original post by ByEeek
I think you must have got your head stuck in the sand. From this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573
Pay gap is around 20%. Only a year or so ago councils had to compensate women who were earning less than their male counterparts. There is no excuse for discrimination of pay based on pay just as there is no excuse for discrimination on colour or asexual orientation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573
Pay gap is around 20%. Only a year or so ago councils had to compensate women who were earning less than their male counterparts. There is no excuse for discrimination of pay based on pay just as there is no excuse for discrimination on colour or asexual orientation.
There is a distinct difference net unequal pay for equal work and unequal pay for unequal work. Did you know that there is a pay gap between cleaners and executives? Shocking isn't it. How about the total wages of part time and full to!e workers? Yep, gap there. The ONS does this wonderful thing where it analyses pay based on gender and position etc, and shock horror, they come to the conclusion that there is no gap in the way the radicals like to put it forwards. Where does the gap come from? Different values work and different hours.
As I said, want to get rid of the gap? Study stem rather than women's studies and work full time not part time. Maybe you will then find women being paid the same per hour on average because the average work is higher valued, and paid more total because they work longer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
As for it being a requirement for joining, the obvious implication in what you are saying is that it was enacted primarily BECAUSE we wanted to join, although if you look at your own source it implies this is a "benefit" that came on the side and the primary cause was domestic.
It was a requirement to enact this legislation in order to join the EEC. You can spin it whatever way you like (your original post has already been proven to be wrong), but it seems strange indeed that it is introduced directly in the run-up to the UK joining the EEC, and the Wikipedia article directly cites the EEC Treaty article (at that time 141).
Original post by Jammy Duel
There is a distinct difference net unequal pay for equal work and unequal pay for unequal work. Did you know that there is a pay gap between cleaners and executives? Shocking isn't it. How about the total wages of part time and full to!e workers? Yep, gap there. The ONS does this wonderful thing where it analyses pay based on gender and position etc, and shock horror, they come to the conclusion that there is no gap in the way the radicals like to put it forwards. Where does the gap come from? Different values work and different hours.
As I said, want to get rid of the gap? Study stem rather than women's studies and work full time not part time. Maybe you will then find women being paid the same per hour on average because the average work is higher valued, and paid more total because they work longer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
As I said, want to get rid of the gap? Study stem rather than women's studies and work full time not part time. Maybe you will then find women being paid the same per hour on average because the average work is higher valued, and paid more total because they work longer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Thanks for the patronising response, but the pay gap has always referred to unequal pay for equal work. In most private firms terms and conditions are negotiated on an individual basis. It is therefore easy to pay people whatever you like and discriminate at will. There is no transparency hence such a huge gap.
Original post by typonaut
It was a requirement to enact this legislation in order to join the EEC. You can spin it whatever way you like (your original post has already been proven to be wrong), but it seems strange indeed that it is introduced directly in the run-up to the UK joining the EEC, and the Wikipedia article directly cites the EEC Treaty article (at that time 141).
I get particular in my wording, which bit specifically are you referring to, as for the other post above, whether the revision was made due to the EU or not the fact is that it is on the statute book and the feminazi is talking about today, not 1975
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by L i b
I'm all for the EU, but to suggest that it is only as a result of it that we have employment legislation, anti-discrimination laws and whatever else it is credited with in this area is absolute nonsense…
There is a direct link between EU legislation and the equal rights/employment legislation enacted in UK law. This is not a coincidence, this is what the EU has demanded of UK governments.
Now, it may be your interpretation that these forms of legislation would have come about anyway. But the simple fact is that they did not. UK governments did not pre-empt the EU by passing its own legislation.
It is also true that the UK has been found not to have properly implemented EU legislation in this area. One example is the 13 week qualifying period for temporary workers to receive holiday pay - this was found to be illegal within the EU, and was subsequently amended.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Study stem rather than women's studies and work full time not part time…
Women are still discriminated against in this area: being given the menial lab-technician roles while men progress to management. You really are out of touch on this issue.
Original post by ByEeek
I think you must have got your head stuck in the sand. From this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573
Pay gap is around 20%. Only a year or so ago councils had to compensate women who were earning less than their male counterparts. There is no excuse for discrimination of pay based on pay just as there is no excuse for discrimination on colour or asexual orientation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573
Pay gap is around 20%. Only a year or so ago councils had to compensate women who were earning less than their male counterparts. There is no excuse for discrimination of pay based on pay just as there is no excuse for discrimination on colour or asexual orientation.
So a male doctor who works 40 hours a week should earn the same as a waitress who works 2 hours a week? Because this is what the 20% 'pay gap' is calculated from - on average, women earn 20% less, not controlling for age, skills, education, profession, work hours, or family status.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- tricky Maths question
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Future with a UK law degree
- DWP UC Case Review Officer Plymouth
- Digital Marketing
- University rankings
- Was I wrong fo reporting my situation?
- Help with my problem
- history epq
- Property Inspector and Researcher - Valuation office agency
- Btec level 3 extended business dimploma
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- BTEC Business Extended Diploma Grade Calculator
- Power and Conflict poetry
- There should be a GCSE in “grade boundaries”
- .
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments
- english languange gcse
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1121
Last reply 1 minute ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 3 minutes ago
TFL Apprenticeship Scheme 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Anyone else get an offer for a Rolls Royce degree apprenticeship in Derby (2024)?Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1254
Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 9 minutes ago
Civil Service Fast Stream 2024 - Applicants threadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 14 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
Fashion courses at University of Westminister Freshers 23' threadPosted 16 minutes ago
Economics at Edinburgh vs Manchester vs LSE (Ispp & E) for IBLast reply 17 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
