It's illegal to pay a man and a woman 2 different rates of pay for the same job

In my post I explained to you how two people can get paid different rates for the same job.

Your argument is begging the question: it is perfectly legal, moreover culturally de rigueur, that salaries may vary between individuals of nominally identical function, job-title and seniority depending on relative experience, prospects for advancement, and still more nebulous considerations at the sole discretion of upper management.

As such, while I don't claim definitive knowledge of whether women are indeed subjected to institutional persecution in such matters—not least because even identifying a potentially actionable case with respect to something so confidential and plausibly deniable is quite difficult enough at the best of times—cherry-picking the most blatantly frivolous allegations from lumpen jobsworths who would make up the dregs of any workforce in order to demonstrate your intellectually laughable hypothesis seems broadly analogous to arguing that because false accusations of rape exist, rape itself therefore does not exist.

In short: try harder.

Still not understanding what you're on about. Are you going through Microsoft Word thesaurus and changing everything to the most complicated word possible? Seems that way.

Still not understanding what you're on about. Are you going through Microsoft Word thesaurus and changing everything to the most complicated word possible? Seems that way.

This is the most absurd argument I have ever heard.

The idea that what you describe is some kind of dodge or trick.

If one person's job has more responsibility than another, that is a material difference in their job and an entirely reasonable rationale for one being paid more than the other.

He’s saying that, although it is technically illegal to pay someone more/less than another purely because of their gender, it’s very easy for employers to do it and get away with it anyway. They just have to make sure they’re not too blatant about it.

Whilst there are a few jobs which will have very standardised pay rates, many professions have wide salary ranges where total pay depends on very subjective factors like experience, performance, goodness of fit with the company etc. In these jobs, it’s easy for an employer to pay a woman less than a man without making it demonstrably obvious that gender is a deciding factor. They could always claim it’s for some other reason. Equally, an employer could pay men and women the same amount for the same job, but prefer to promote men to the higher paying jobs rather than women (again, without being obvious).

Just because you’ve found a few examples where pay differences are incorrectly alleged to be a result of gender, it doesn’t prove that genuine discrimination doesn’t happen elsewhere.

Ok, now I understand (thank you for putting it in clearly intelligable English).

A few points:

- first of all, like you say, these things are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to prove

- it wouldn't make logical sense for an employer to pay more to a woman with more experience, than to a man with less experience. Ability and experience trumps everything. It is in the employer's interest to hire the person who can do the job best and would be the least risk to the company.

- employers wouldn't discriminate just on purely on gender alone (that would be silly). They would discriminate on the negative aspects that are brought to the job as a result of gender. Hard to explain, so I'll give you an example:

a woman might be more likely to go on maternity leave, so employers would factor this into their hiring/wages decisions. If a man was just as likely to go on paternity leave (all other things being equal), they would also factor this into their decisions in an exactly equal way. But because men generally go on paternity leave far less, businesses don't need to factor this in so heavily for men as they do for women.

It's not the gender itself that's the problem, but any negative traits that could be associated with that gender. It's probably why you don't see as many men in social care roles for example, because in the whole men are less sensitive and caring for other people's problems (big generalisation there of course, but it's kind of true).

I agree that logically it’s in an employer’s interests not to discriminate based on irrelevant characteristics such as gender.

Regardless of that, people can easily suffer from unconscious bias. People an feel more of an emotional affinity towards hiring one person than another just because of the gut instinct that they might do a better job, even if it’s based on nothing other than their gender.

For example, I can admit that I’d automatically feel more uncomfortable hiring someone to babysit my infant children if they were male. Obviously that is illogical, because I should judge each individual on evidence of their ability to do the job well. Maybe a particular man is great with kids, better than most women even. But it wouldn’t change the fact that I’d still feel uncomfortable at the back of my mind.

It’s not hard to imagine that the same effect might work to the disadvantage of women in other jobs too.

That assumes they do actually take on extra responsibilities. I would have thought my point was rather obvious - that companies can easily pretend their pay gap is just coincidental...

Unconscious bias? I smell bullsh*t. Why isn't this kind of thing going on in nursing? I don't see low female employment rates there.

Of course you don’t. You see low male employment rates. Many people (both applicants and employers) are susceptible to the impression that women do a better job in caring professions. It’s probably even true on the whole - but that could be disadvantageous to a man who is exceptionally good at nursing and lead him to be overlooked.

In other professions, it might be women on the end of that disadvantage.

I don't think so. I think the vast majority of employers don't do this. In fact, the thing that just takes the biscuit with this "unconscious bias" thing is that its a buzzword with which to deflect your own failures.

Or maybe due to the personal life choices of their employees...

You are throwing logical arguments at illogical people who do not understand or care for logic and they are throwing unsubstantiated opinions at you most entirely made up of their own opinions.

This entire topic of what feminists call "the gender pay gap" has been debunked so many times ...scientists do not take it seriously its that comical...but its not about science or logic its just nonsense aimed at giving women victimhood status and this status allows women privileges in society. Promotions without merit. Jobs without merit. Higher grades, more money for working less. Its sexism. Its really important that people stand up to it. I commend you for doing that and doing a good job of it against people who could not care less for the truth. People who want free money and power without merit.

I know there's a lot of threads on feminism and the gender pay gap already, but I think we need to end this debate once and for all. Because the nonsense that is spouted by feminists on this subject makes me cringe.

Two workers. 1 male, 1 female. Both are working exactly the same job. They are paid the same rate (per hour). If they work the same number of hours, they receive the same annual wage. It is illegal to pay one more than the other.

I saw the news story yesterday about Tescos. Women were claiming that it's unfair for men in the warehouse to be paid ~£3/hour more than women stacking the shelves on the supermarket floor.

These are two different jobs, therefore the company has every right to have 2 different rates of pay. Yes there is some overlap in terms of skill set - but the warehouse job clearly requires more skill. The technical skills (such as operating a forklift truck) are vastly more complicated than putting a few loaves of bread onto a shelf. The warehouse itself is a hazardous environment, so it's right that they are paid a premium for this reason alone.

To me, I see no issue - the more skilled job (warehouse) is paid more than the less skilled job (shop floor stacking)

This is not a gender pay gap argument. This is an argument that one job is of equal skill level to a different job. There happens to be more men working in the warehouse, but this is totally irrelevant.

This also comes after the BBC editor Carrie Gracie was arguing that she should be paid the same as her male colleagues. Her males colleagues who happen to do a different job. This isn't a gender pay gap argument, this is again an argument that one job is of equal skill to a different job. It just so happens the male is in the higher skilled job (or at least what the BBC deems is higher skilled and more valued job), but again this is totally irrelevant.


So feminists - please tell me what I'm missing here? Women and men who do the same job, and work the same hours, are paid exactly the same. Women apparently earn "less" due to a variety of reasons, including:

- women choose to do lower skilled jobs
- women are more likely to work part time
- women take time off for maternity leave

The reason men get paid more in some jobs is because there worth more in labour jobs I know men and women should be paid the same for the same job but in something like tesco stack shelfing as you said men can carry heavier objects more objects usually reach higher so you can clearly see there labour is worth more I'm not saying this is every case and so if you had to men and one can carry more stuff and heavier stuff which one one you pay more? Just because your a woman you have to be paid the same? That doesn't sound fair!

Or maybe due to the personal life choices of their employees...