Equal Pay Day 2018 - Hey there people of all genders 👋
All companies with more than 250 employees in Great Britain were required to report their gender pay gap by 4 April 2018.
Using this calendar, you can instantly find the point of year women in a particular company effectively start working for free.
By 21st April, 6 companies in the UK have effectively stopped paying women for that year!!!!!! 👿
By the 16th June, 80 companies in the UK have effectively stopped paying women for that year.
Saturday 10th November is Equal Pay Day in the UK
Read these amazing threads from other TSR users:
BBC has 'failed' on equal pay
BBC Panorama - Britain's Equal Pay Scandal
Why the gender pay gap is a myth
Gender pay gap
Get involved and tell us what you think...
Using this calendar, you can instantly find the point of year women in a particular company effectively start working for free.
By 21st April, 6 companies in the UK have effectively stopped paying women for that year!!!!!! 👿
By the 16th June, 80 companies in the UK have effectively stopped paying women for that year.
Saturday 10th November is Equal Pay Day in the UK
Read these amazing threads from other TSR users:
BBC has 'failed' on equal pay
BBC Panorama - Britain's Equal Pay Scandal
Why the gender pay gap is a myth
Gender pay gap
Get involved and tell us what you think...
Scroll to see replies
What ilem says ∆∆∆∆∆∆
The pay gap is like narnia. Non existent
Original post by ilem
Please don't peddle this disproven, decades old nonsense. The 'pay gap' boils down to choices that people make due to innate sexual differences, not some sort of intentional, systemic discrimination against women.
Ah yes, "innate characteristics". Nothing to do with socialization, with motherhood penalty, with men taking credit for women's work, with proven statistics that show once a profession has an increasing share of women the salary drops.
No, it's all "innate".
Tell you what we think? I'll tell you what I think. I think you should stop spreading this thoroughly debunked propaganda about women being paid less than men for the same work. They aren't. We've been over this again and again. Different hours + different career choices + babies = different average earnings. The gap between men and women becomes utterly insignificant even when the most obvious, basic variables are taken into account.
I think I want an equal pay calendar with myself against top footballers and actors.
I'm pretty sure they would have stopped paying me for the year half way through the first day of January.
---
I remember when the reports from some of the largest companies came out. you had people like ryan air being repported with a 70% paygap.. or sony with a 25% paygap but a 70% bonus gap.
It all looks awful, until you look at how they define the pay gap - which is the median earnings of all female to all male employees.
This is the slippery arguement here - people used to hear the 'pay-gap' and presume it meant equal pay for equal work.. but you can't assume that based on these results. All you can take away from these results are:
A, more men get to higher positions in companies
B, higher positions in companies pay higher bonuses.
---
That doesn't mean that you can't try and adress this, and you can't make it a target to get more women into leadership/management. But then don't brand it as a pay-gap. Call it a 'achievement-gap' or a 'progress-gap'
Its a distraction, and its not helpful to the actual issues at play. One of the biggest feminist pay-related arguements that I actually 100% get behind, is the idea that traditionally 'female' roles are undervalued. Careers, teachers, nursery workers, nurses, etc. It is true that jobs that are dominated by women - earn less. That is an area that I would 100% support action against.. and if the market is not delivering what we need, then intervention should be an option.
But all this nonsense about pay-gaps that aren't actually pay-gaps just distracts away from the important issues.
I'm pretty sure they would have stopped paying me for the year half way through the first day of January.
---
I remember when the reports from some of the largest companies came out. you had people like ryan air being repported with a 70% paygap.. or sony with a 25% paygap but a 70% bonus gap.
It all looks awful, until you look at how they define the pay gap - which is the median earnings of all female to all male employees.
This is the slippery arguement here - people used to hear the 'pay-gap' and presume it meant equal pay for equal work.. but you can't assume that based on these results. All you can take away from these results are:
A, more men get to higher positions in companies
B, higher positions in companies pay higher bonuses.
---
That doesn't mean that you can't try and adress this, and you can't make it a target to get more women into leadership/management. But then don't brand it as a pay-gap. Call it a 'achievement-gap' or a 'progress-gap'
Its a distraction, and its not helpful to the actual issues at play. One of the biggest feminist pay-related arguements that I actually 100% get behind, is the idea that traditionally 'female' roles are undervalued. Careers, teachers, nursery workers, nurses, etc. It is true that jobs that are dominated by women - earn less. That is an area that I would 100% support action against.. and if the market is not delivering what we need, then intervention should be an option.
But all this nonsense about pay-gaps that aren't actually pay-gaps just distracts away from the important issues.
(edited 5 years ago)
I don't know about the UK's current situation, but I can say in the US the "pay gap" has been debunked and disproven many times.
I am a person of all genders are you talking to me
Brutal replies on this thread 
I think you'd have to be a statistically illiterate moron to believe the myth of the "gender pay gap".
(Also worth noting that there is always a delay in societal change...
it takes effect slowly, generation by generation...
for example:
The young workforce (where women are highly succesfull - were raised under our modern ideals of equality
The middle-managment workforce, largely 30-50, were raised under somewhat progressive, but still highly traditional ideas of gender
The top end of the workforce 50-70, were raised under very traiditional gender roles.
It takes time for these people to filter through. You can't start an equality movement, and then expect the number of female CEOs to increase in 2 years. A CEO takes 40-50 years on average to get to where they were.. if you start your education program aimed at young girls now, you need to wait half a century before you can see the full results.
it takes effect slowly, generation by generation...
for example:
The young workforce (where women are highly succesfull - were raised under our modern ideals of equality
The middle-managment workforce, largely 30-50, were raised under somewhat progressive, but still highly traditional ideas of gender
The top end of the workforce 50-70, were raised under very traiditional gender roles.
It takes time for these people to filter through. You can't start an equality movement, and then expect the number of female CEOs to increase in 2 years. A CEO takes 40-50 years on average to get to where they were.. if you start your education program aimed at young girls now, you need to wait half a century before you can see the full results.
Original post by fallen_acorns
(Also worth noting that there is always a delay in societal change...
it takes effect slowly, generation by generation...
for example:
The young workforce (where women are highly succesfull - were raised under our modern ideals of equality
The middle-managment workforce, largely 30-50, were raised under somewhat progressive, but still highly traditional ideas of gender
The top end of the workforce 50-70, were raised under very traiditional gender roles.
It takes time for these people to filter through. You can't start an equality movement, and then expect the number of female CEOs to increase in 2 years. A CEO takes 40-50 years on average to get to where they were.. if you start your education program aimed at young girls now, you need to wait half a century before you can see the full results.
it takes effect slowly, generation by generation...
for example:
The young workforce (where women are highly succesfull - were raised under our modern ideals of equality
The middle-managment workforce, largely 30-50, were raised under somewhat progressive, but still highly traditional ideas of gender
The top end of the workforce 50-70, were raised under very traiditional gender roles.
It takes time for these people to filter through. You can't start an equality movement, and then expect the number of female CEOs to increase in 2 years. A CEO takes 40-50 years on average to get to where they were.. if you start your education program aimed at young girls now, you need to wait half a century before you can see the full results.
They won't filter through. Just look at Google. When women are young they get treated nice. The older they get and the more of a men's club it becomes at the top, when they get children. All these things put barriers in place.
This is worth a read. The highlights are
What do you think the solutions are?
•
The mean gender pay gap for women working full-time is 14.1%
•
Progress in closing the gap has stalled. There is no guarantee that the gap will close over time – it needs significant action from Government, businesses, and society.
•
There’s no one cause of the gap – important factors are discrimination, undervaluing roles predominantly done by women, dominance of men in best paid positions and unequal caring responsibilities.
•
The gap is wider for older women, BAME women, women in certain occupational sectors (e.g. skilled trades) and women on higher earnings.
What do you think the solutions are?
It barely exists, it's just due to differences in hours worked and education (women choose 'softer', lower paying career paths e.g. psychology as opposed to engineering or computer science). Women are also less likely to push for a pay rise, take much more time off during periods such as childbirth, and so on.
You can't fail to argue for your own pay increase relative to your fellow male workers and then blame the system, when in fact it is your own shortcoming. You also can't choose an easier path of education and then expect to be paid the same as harder working male counterparts.
The actual gender pay gap is tiny.
Have a look at this video if you doubt my logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs&t=0s&list=LLbuJiwuJ8mpXn5_3QYkTd_Q&index=3
You can't fail to argue for your own pay increase relative to your fellow male workers and then blame the system, when in fact it is your own shortcoming. You also can't choose an easier path of education and then expect to be paid the same as harder working male counterparts.
The actual gender pay gap is tiny.
Have a look at this video if you doubt my logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs&t=0s&list=LLbuJiwuJ8mpXn5_3QYkTd_Q&index=3
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Spirithorse
There’s no one cause of the gap – important factors are discrimination, undervaluing roles predominantly done by women, dominance of men in best paid positions and unequal caring responsibilities.
Yet you don't mention the biggest single cause: that women, taken as a group, have different motivations and goals to men, taken as a group.
This is funny - I opened this thread in my university study/break space, right with a book of The Guardian's Top 300 UK Companies to work for.
I barely have to go far into the book to see why the gender pay gap supposedly exists (it does not):
Guardians UK 300 has surveyed 73 517 students in Sept 17-Jan 18. 63% were female and 37% were male (there's also only two genders, but thats a different topic) and thus we can assume a rate of 63-37 would mean equality between genders in job choices.
Except that's not what we see. On page 13 of the 2018 book..
Here are the top 10 employers that surveyed Males say they are aiming to work for:
1) Google 2) Amazon 3) Jaguar Land Rover
4) MI6 5) Rolls-Royce 6) J.P. Morgan
7) Microsoft 8) Airbus 9) GSK 10) Goldman Sachs
Now the women..
1) Google 2) Cancer Research UK 3) NHS Academy
4) Channel 4 5) MI6 6) GSK
7) MI5 8) British Airways 9) Amazon 10) Penguin Random House
Now - I am not going to make fun of people's choices. Wishing to contribute to the eradication of cancer, helping people in the NHS and in a publisher is a noble cause.
But it really does not take a genius to see how the disparity between female and male wages comes to exist. It's very obvious which one of those two demographics will end up in higher wage jobs, purely due to where their interests lie. We live in a market economy - the market determines wages. The demand and skills required to work in Penguin Random House are several steps lower than working in Goldman Sachs. Is it any wonder women are "paid less"?
On page 47 we have the Banking/Insurance/Financial industry. The split between men and women is 40/60, which means men are more likely to enter given the respondents were 37/63. This is a typically higher paid industry than average, and women already don't want to enter. Which, given the fact that men are disadvantaged here because banks like J.P Morgan bend over to women with several female-only events, insights and even an internship program, makes this all the more ridiculous.
On page 49 we have Charity and not-for-profits. The split? 86% female and 14% male. This is a ridiculous split. If you want to dedicate your life to a noble cause, don't expect high wages as a result. It's just stupidity. Women are several times more likely to want to have a career in charity than men. Why is this? I'd say biological/psychological factors, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Page 51 .. construction and engineering. 54% male to 46% female. Relatively high paid industry. Males about 60% more likely to enter.
Again .. consulting on page 53 ... males 44%, outdoing their share of the responses. Energy and utilities 53% male. Engineering 56% male. Hospitality and tourism ...... 83% female.... Investment banking 52% male. IT 47% male. Law mostly female-inclined (above 67% for barrister/solicitors). Media 77% female. Public sector 70% female.
The point here is - women already at university level choose to aim for careers that are lower paid to public knowledge. It is a conscious choice. Why make that choice if you care about salary? Women, according to Guardian's Top 300, are far less likely to agree with the statement "a high starting salary is very important to me." .... if that is the case, what's all the fuss about?
The whole thing is a misnomer. It is a misnomer in the same way that a second referendum is a "People's Vote" - what was the first? A vote by cats and dogs?
A pay gap insinuates that women are paid less for doing the same job. It has never been proven that a male and female going into the same graduate job (same skills, same position) will end up with a lower salary. Because it's pretty simple - we live in a market economy. If businesses could pay women less, they would only hire women. All businesses strive to keep costs down, why on earth would businesses hire men if they cost more?
The amount of mental gymnastics you have to go through to attempt to argue that a pay gap is real should disqualify you from the label 'rational' and definitely question your position in government/civil service or academia. It is intellectual dishonesty.
I barely have to go far into the book to see why the gender pay gap supposedly exists (it does not):
Guardians UK 300 has surveyed 73 517 students in Sept 17-Jan 18. 63% were female and 37% were male (there's also only two genders, but thats a different topic) and thus we can assume a rate of 63-37 would mean equality between genders in job choices.
Except that's not what we see. On page 13 of the 2018 book..
Here are the top 10 employers that surveyed Males say they are aiming to work for:
1) Google 2) Amazon 3) Jaguar Land Rover
4) MI6 5) Rolls-Royce 6) J.P. Morgan
7) Microsoft 8) Airbus 9) GSK 10) Goldman Sachs
Now the women..
1) Google 2) Cancer Research UK 3) NHS Academy
4) Channel 4 5) MI6 6) GSK
7) MI5 8) British Airways 9) Amazon 10) Penguin Random House
Now - I am not going to make fun of people's choices. Wishing to contribute to the eradication of cancer, helping people in the NHS and in a publisher is a noble cause.
But it really does not take a genius to see how the disparity between female and male wages comes to exist. It's very obvious which one of those two demographics will end up in higher wage jobs, purely due to where their interests lie. We live in a market economy - the market determines wages. The demand and skills required to work in Penguin Random House are several steps lower than working in Goldman Sachs. Is it any wonder women are "paid less"?
On page 47 we have the Banking/Insurance/Financial industry. The split between men and women is 40/60, which means men are more likely to enter given the respondents were 37/63. This is a typically higher paid industry than average, and women already don't want to enter. Which, given the fact that men are disadvantaged here because banks like J.P Morgan bend over to women with several female-only events, insights and even an internship program, makes this all the more ridiculous.
On page 49 we have Charity and not-for-profits. The split? 86% female and 14% male. This is a ridiculous split. If you want to dedicate your life to a noble cause, don't expect high wages as a result. It's just stupidity. Women are several times more likely to want to have a career in charity than men. Why is this? I'd say biological/psychological factors, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Page 51 .. construction and engineering. 54% male to 46% female. Relatively high paid industry. Males about 60% more likely to enter.
Again .. consulting on page 53 ... males 44%, outdoing their share of the responses. Energy and utilities 53% male. Engineering 56% male. Hospitality and tourism ...... 83% female.... Investment banking 52% male. IT 47% male. Law mostly female-inclined (above 67% for barrister/solicitors). Media 77% female. Public sector 70% female.
The point here is - women already at university level choose to aim for careers that are lower paid to public knowledge. It is a conscious choice. Why make that choice if you care about salary? Women, according to Guardian's Top 300, are far less likely to agree with the statement "a high starting salary is very important to me." .... if that is the case, what's all the fuss about?
The whole thing is a misnomer. It is a misnomer in the same way that a second referendum is a "People's Vote" - what was the first? A vote by cats and dogs?
A pay gap insinuates that women are paid less for doing the same job. It has never been proven that a male and female going into the same graduate job (same skills, same position) will end up with a lower salary. Because it's pretty simple - we live in a market economy. If businesses could pay women less, they would only hire women. All businesses strive to keep costs down, why on earth would businesses hire men if they cost more?
The amount of mental gymnastics you have to go through to attempt to argue that a pay gap is real should disqualify you from the label 'rational' and definitely question your position in government/civil service or academia. It is intellectual dishonesty.
Lefties want to force equality of outcome regardless of whether anyone wants it or not.
"We are NPC. You will be assimilated!"
"We are NPC. You will be assimilated!"
I think it is also important to remember that the available data don't actually support the notion that sexist social conditioning is causing women to choose lower-paying careers. Approximately, the more liberal, egalitarian and "feminist" the society, the greater the personality and career differences between men and women become. This can be seen when comparing places like Algeria and China to Scandinavia and Canada. There are more women in STEM in these deeply patriarchal, unequal societies than there are in places where women are more liberated.
The notion that gendered social conditioning makes women work fewer hours and avoid STEM and management is not only unverified, but the data often indicate the opposite.
The notion that gendered social conditioning makes women work fewer hours and avoid STEM and management is not only unverified, but the data often indicate the opposite.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Exeter vs Surrey vs Sussex for Biological ScienceLast reply 1 minute ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2802
Last reply 1 minute ago
Name a girl's name which starts with the last letter of the above nameForum games
4592
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Is getting a 3rd class honours in interior architecture and design bad?Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1016
Last reply 3 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 4 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Does Sutton Trust actually guarantee an offer? For St andrewsLast reply 4 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Software Engineering Degree Apprenticeship | Digital & Technology Solutions Level 6Last reply 6 minutes ago
PWC fly start degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
Travel to campus from Uni of Sheffield Ranmoor/Endcliffe accommodationLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
