The latest lies from the Remain campaign

Scroll to see replies

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.

Indeed. Except whenever a figure is used, it's not for equal work.

Reply 21

username1799249

Original post by Little Toy Gun

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.

Please Google gender pay gap and understand that it is, and always has been about paying men and women different pay rates for the same work. It is currently around 20% difference. I am guessing the fact that so many are arguing the toss with me is because it seems so abhorrent that such discrimination is happening in this day and age. I agree. It is shocking and unbelievable and is happening all around us.

Reply 22

illegaltobepoor

If we leave the EU you can bet the Tories will come down harder on the disabled. Recently Stephen Crabb anounced that there will be further cuts to disability benefits and the Tories will exceed the 12 billion mark set out by George Osborne.

Reply 23

El Salvador

Original post by ByEeek

Please learn English. In the BBC news article, it says:

"Latest figures suggest that women in the UK still earn on average 20% less than men."

In the graph:

It is very clear that this is all men against all women. This means a male doctor working 40 hours a week is compared to a waitress who works 2 hours a week.

---

Indeed, if you know how to google you will find out that the gender pay 'gap' does not take into account of job type, work hours, work experience, education, skills, or level. I'm earned less than most of my female colleagues, doing the same job, working the same hours (in some cases work a bit more) despite being male - this is because they have more work experience than I do. Nothing to do with me being male and their being female.

http://inequality.stanford.edu/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

These, for example, tell you some of the reasons why women on average earn less than men do - gaps in employment is a major reason.

It should be the case that the pay gap to be measured by comparing equal jobs, except that is never the case. It has always been the case that the 'gap' exists because they are comparing unequal jobs - in the medical field, doctors are more men and nurses are more women = men earn more women. Among doctors, men tend to be specialists, women tend to the GPs = men earn more than women. Among specialists or GPs, men work longer hours = men earn more than women.

The gender pay gap exists only when unequal jobs are compared: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/gender-pay-gap-does-not-exist-between-men-and-women-doing-the-sa/ The gap does not exist between men and women doing the same job.

Another study demonstrates the same when people are of the same background:

"For recently minted Ph.D. scientists, having children and the choice of field to study play crucial roles in the very real gender pay gap, a new study finds. A year after receiving their doctorates, the women in the study earned nearly a third less than the men. When the researchers controlled for the field of study, the difference shrank to 11%, and when they controlled for gender, marriage, and parenthood, it vanished, with childless women matching men in income. "

You can argue that it's not fair because it's biological. You can argue that women should be given more leadership roles. You can argue that there being more women in higher education is a good leveller.

But you cannot argue that in the same job, women are paid less than men because that is simply not true.

I will repeat:

Gender pay gap between equal jobs does not exist.

Gender pay gap between equal jobs does not exist.

Gender pay gap between equal jobs does not exist.

Don't believe me, the scientists, and all the studies? Give me a study that suggests a pay gap and I will point to you the fact that it's comparing all men against all women, just as it was the case in the BBC news article.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 24

KimKallstrom

Even as somebody who is voting to remain, I've got to say that the notion that the EU = human rights and no EU = less rights is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that the UK has long been a forerunner in these matters. It's a massive red herring by the remain campaign and it's annoying having to be associated with such retards who perpetuate this crap (along with some other things) when debating Brexiters.

There's enough legitimate arguements for the remain case. No need to parrot stupid nonsense like this and to base the campaign on scaremongering (let's face it, that's like 80% at least of the campaign. It's dumb but there's no need for it).

Reply 25

typonaut

Original post by KimKallstrom

Even as somebody who is voting to remain, I've got to say that the notion that the EU = human rights and no EU = less rights is ludicrous…

While I accept that the position is not black and white, ie it isn't the case that all our rights stem from Europe, and it is possible that some or all of them may have come about in the UK by other means if they had not been implied by international treaty.

At the same time it is clear that leaving the EU does present a threat to these rights in their interpretation and enforcement. The reason I say this is that there is a definite move in the current government to abolish the Human Rights Act (been stated by Theresa May on a number of occasions) and to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Michael Gove is currently working on a UK Bill of Rights to replace both of these.

While the ECHR is external to the EU, being a signatory to the ECHR is a condition of being a member of the EU. So, the UK no longer being a member of the EU removes a barrier to exiting the ECHR.

It is important that we are members of the ECHR because it sends a positive signal to other member states (EU and ECHR), or would-be member states, and it provides some kind of neutral oversight of UK government actions.

Here is an article about Theresa May's stance on the ECHR:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Reply 26

typonaut

Original post by Jammy Duel

I get particular in my wording, which bit specifically are you referring to,

This part, in particular, and the entire original post, is wrong:

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).

It was a requirement of EEC membership that this legislation was completed. You can spin that whatever way you want, but at the end of the day the EEC/EC/EU had an influence in the way this was draughted. In addition the EU has had an influence in the way this law has been interpreted because cases involving this legislation have been referred to the ECJ/CJEU and the results of these cases have been used as interpretation aids in UK courts.

…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.

This is just sophistry. The influence from the EU is ongoing, because any decision on this law has to be in compliance with EU legislation and ultimately can be reviewed by the CJEU. This means that exit from the EU can make a distinct difference in the interpretation of these laws.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 27

username878267

Original post by KimKallstrom

I haven't really seen too much of human rights stuff. Far more on worker's rights. The human rights mentions tend to be far more associated with the ECHR. The EU is not a human rights body.

Meanwhile we have David Cameron predicting war if we leave and Boris Johnson arguing the EU is achieving Hitler's aims of we stay.

Reply 28

L i b

Original post by typonaut

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.

The EU doesn't have the authority to "demand" anything from the UK Government except where the UK Government has expressly granted that authority.

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.

In a great many areas, that's precisely what it did.

Reply 29

typonaut

Original post by L i b

The EU doesn't have the authority to "demand" anything from the UK Government except where the UK Government has expressly granted that authority.

This statement is an oxymoron. The EU has the right to demand that potential members meet certain conditions before they qualify for membership. That's exactly what we are discussing in this point. Additionally, as you write, the EU can demand certain actions of the member states where the states have agreed the EU has competence.

The UK has agreed that the EU has competence in this area. QED.

In a great many areas, that's precisely what it did.

Some examples would be nice.

Reply 30

nulli tertius

Original post by typonaut

Some examples would be nice.

Racial discrimination in the labour market and the provision of services. UK=1965 EU =2000

Restrictive trade practices UK=1956 EU=1962

Closed shop outlawed UK=1990/92 EU=not yet, though ECtHR declared Danish closed shop breach of human rights in 2006

Reply 31

typonaut

Original post by nulli tertius

Racial discrimination in the labour market and the provision of services. UK=1965 EU =2000

Anti-discrimination is a core EU value, this is a matter of interpretation.

Restrictive trade practices UK=1956 EU=1962

Closed shop outlawed UK=1990/92 EU=not yet, though ECtHR declared Danish closed shop breach of human rights in 2006

ECtHR is not an EU institution.

Apart from that, even if I accept your point, this is but three pieces of legislation, compared to dozens, possibly hundreds, that have originated in the EU.

The original poster wrote "a great many".

Reply 32

L i b

Original post by ivybridge

"The left" don't. I am centre-left and I don't disagree 100%.

I think it's a fairly common theme among left-wing pro-EU supporters.

Reply 33

ivybridge

Original post by L i b

I think it's a fairly common theme among left-wing pro-EU supporters.

Then say that instead of being so cock-sure.

Reply 34

L i b

Original post by ivybridge

Then say that instead of being so cock-sure.

Oh do piss off. What I said was entirely accurate from my viewpoint and I entirely stand by it. If you want to drone on with some pernickety clap-trap about precisely how it was phrased, I really couldn't care less.

Reply 35

ivybridge

Original post by L i b

Then don't reply in such an irate way :smile:

Reply 36

nulli tertius

Original post by typonaut

Anti-discrimination is a core EU value, this is a matter of interpretation.

Only on grounds of nationality not race,

Here is the Treaty of Rome in English translation. Article 48 is the relevant article.

http://www.cvce.eu/obj/treaty_establishing_the_european_economic_community_rome_25_march_1957-en-cca6ba28-0bf3-4ce6-8a76-6b0b3252696e.html

Why are there no provisions regarding racial discrimination? Because Algeria isn't a French colony; it is part of Metropolitan France and Arabs in Algeria don't have the same rights as Europeans in Algeria.

ECtHR is not an EU institution.

Which is why I said that the EU hasn't prohibited the practice yet.

The original poster wrote "a great many".

But you wrote "Some examples would be nice" and I gave you three.

Reply 37

theDanIdentity

Original post by Little Toy Gun

Please learn English. In the BBC news article, it says:

"Latest figures suggest that women in the UK still earn on average 20% less than men."

In the graph:

G.O.A.T

Based Dad.

Reply 38

typonaut

Original post by nulli tertius

Only on grounds of nationality not race,

Art 119, prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of sex.
Art 7, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

If you apply a little thought to it what the treaty says is that there can be no discrimination against other EU nationals, regardless of their race or gender. This is a de facto anti-discrimination measure. I admit that it may not be effective within a state in support of the nationals of that state - but that is generally not the EU's competence.

I'm not sure that it should be too surprising that a treaty governing the actions of overwhelmingly white (in the 1950s), Northern European states would not have direct provisions for racial discrimination.

Why are there no provisions regarding racial discrimination? Because Algeria isn't a French colony; it is part of Metropolitan France and Arabs in Algeria don't have the same rights as Europeans in Algeria.

I think you are reading too much into the absence of a specific provision.

Which is why I said that the EU hasn't prohibited the practice yet.

Probably because it is dealt with indirectly, and on a national level it is outside the competence of the EU.

But you wrote "Some examples would be nice" and I gave you three.

Great. So, I can outdo that on at least a ten-to-one basis, and if I try hard enough probably a 100-to-one basis. It doesn't make the original statement true.

Reply 39

nulli tertius

Original post by typonaut

That isn't correct. Any EEC member could discriminate on racial grounds (European/non-European) provided it did so regardless of EEC nationality.

I'm not sure that it should be too surprising that a treaty governing the actions of overwhelmingly white (in the 1950s), Northern European states would not have direct provisions for racial discrimination.

Four of the six founding members of the EU were or, in the case of Italy, had only recently ceased to be colonial powers with substantial numbers of immigrants from those colonies; the exceptions being Luxembourg and Germany (where there was no domestic legacy of its historic colonies).

Belgium does not penalise racial discrimination until 1981; the Netherlands makes it unconstitutional in 1983.