Should women earn as much as men? Watch

oppossum
Badges: 0
#81
Report 10 years ago
#81
This question is unnecessary and the OP is a sexist pig.
0
reply
Sprout_hair
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#82
Report 10 years ago
#82
YES! What a stupid question?!
Okay.. providing they work the same hours etc..
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#83
Report 10 years ago
#83
Anyway as much as I have enjoyed my slow decline into feminism initiated by the bigoted views of a few very narrow-minded gentlemen, I must go to bed so I can get up for work tomorrow where (thank God!) I get paid the same as my male counterparts.

Oh and subtle negging by the way I'd neg back but I'm not petty enough to neg over a "debate" where you're meant to disagree.

And well done to all the new-age men who don't spout about women being stupid baby-makers. Kudos
0
reply
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 10 years ago
#84
(Original post by Reblet)
And well done to all the new-age men who don't spout about women being stupid baby-makers. Kudos
It's a womans job to have children. How would society function otherwise?
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 10 years ago
#85
(Original post by WithFlyingColours)
My argument has to do with the very breach of contract that cost the company money in the form of productivity. The optionof being put on a part time conract is a perk designed to attract people to the company and is there to be earned, hence the 7 years rule. You're trying to say that not all women would do the same as the woman I'm talking about. Why should the company care? As far as they're concerned any woman could do this, whereas no man could do this as they don't have the same laws applied to them with regards to looking after young children (this is what the ruling was based on). Would I blame any company for learning from BA's costly mistake of hiring a woman? No.

You see, it's all about risk and cost benefit comparisons. Again, perhaps you can't see this because your imagination is more powerful than your logic.

(Bed waits for one more post)

Okay I will try ONE MORE TIME to explain this.

The contact could easily have been breached by a MAN for whatever reason (i.e. sickness, marriage difficulties, unfair dismissal) so would you say it's fair to tar all men with the same brush? Could I also point out that the breach of contract found in her favour? So oviously there was something wrong with it in the first place which hopefully they would resolve later on. But I think the important moral we still need to take away from this story is... Women are not all the same. Got that? One woman breached her contract. This does not mean all women would. A company cannot assume that one woman out of how many hundreds of co-pilots will set the trend for every other woman! My example of one Muslim crashing a plane is a perfect analogy which has clearly gone over your head. But fear not; I will explain again. Women are not all the same. Getting it? We don't all want to screw our employers over. We don't all want kids. We don't all do Sociology. We don't all go around doing no work. Women are not all the same...

I wonder whether that has sunk in... If not, then maybe when you're older and know a few more women you'll find out for yourself.
0
reply
Galatea
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#86
Report 10 years ago
#86
I'm really taken aback by some of the responses in this thread; for me, there's no debate; of course women should be paid the same as men if they're doing the same job; even though this is law, because of wide ranging pay brackets and so on, this doesn't currently happen. As for the 'risk factor' of maternity leave, are people really saying women should have to make a choice between having successful well paid careers and having a family?

It's all very well taking the expedient line that maternity leave doesn't contribute to productivity, etc, but it goes without saying that women having children is an absolute necessity (I'm not saying it's necessary for every women, but you know what I mean), and surely society at large, and this includes individual businesses and corporations, should be bending over backwards to accommodate these women?

(Original post by Bornstubborn)
The level of bigotry of someone is not a value of intelligence. There are very many bigoted intelligent people.

I do not think you are out performing anyone. I do like you pretty pink writing though

I think it is clear that men do a lot more over time than women. Do you debate this?

Psychology and English lit are both soft subjects. I am sorry if this upsets you. I expect you study English lit?

Science and engineering are very difficult subjects with lots of maths. I believe it was you claiming women are out performing men at university, i think that is a worthless assumption without putting value to the course's men and women are taking.

I am not sure about the amount of women in medecine and law. However when i was recently at the hospital i was being treated by lots of male doctors from other countries. Not exactly a good sign huh?

You can pray and hope you don't meet me. Maybe i would give you terrible nightmare's huh? A horrible person like me? Don't be so dramatic its embarrasing.
I think this post could win an award for having so much ******** in pretty much every line. Of course there is no credible or neurological evidence to suggest men are cleverer than women; as Reblet said, women are now academically outperforming men in a wide raft of subjects at GCSE, A level, and undergraduate level, and certainly not just in 'soft subjects', as you claim (Btw, only an idiot would think English lit is a soft subject; you clearly have no idea what the discipline even involves, though I am of course not undermining how difficult subjects like maths and engineering are). As for medicine, I remember being told that at Cambridge university for example, in both Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, female students quite substantially outnumber male students, though obviously, your isolated hostpital example proves me completely wrong.

I don't really know what you mean by 'men do a lot more over time than women'. Does having and raising children not count as 'doing something'? And those women who chose not to, in what way are they generally 'doing less' than men?

And it's all very well saying there can be bigoted and intelligent people, but it's still not exactly something to be proud of.
0
reply
DoMakeSayThink
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#87
Report 10 years ago
#87
:sucks:

All the men posting frequently in this thread are giving my gender an awful reputation. I'm hoping those reading will be kind enough not to attribute the attitudes of the likes of Bornstubborn to the rest of us men folk.

WithFlyingColours, some of what you're saying is bordering on sense, which is why I think it's so dangerous. Even so, surely you don't think that BA are going to stop hiring female employees after one law suit? That would be incredibly short sighted of them.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#88
Report 10 years ago
#88
(Original post by Seven_Three)
It's a womans right to have children. How would society function otherwise?
You're right, society wouldn't function without women... I wonder why birth rates are dropping...
0
reply
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#89
Report 10 years ago
#89
(Original post by Reblet)

(Bed waits for one more post)

Okay I will try ONE MORE TIME to explain this.

The contact could easily have been breached by a MAN for whatever reason (i.e. sickness, marriage difficulties, unfair dismissal) so would you say it's fair to tar all men with the same brush? Could I also point out that the breach of contract found in her favour? So oviously there was something wrong with it in the first place which hopefully they would resolve later on. But I think the important moral we still need to take away from this story is... Women are not all the same. Got that? One woman breached her contract. This does not mean all women would. A company cannot assume that one woman out of how many hundreds of co-pilots will set the trend for every other woman! My example of one Muslim crashing a plane is a perfect analogy which has clearly gone over your head. But fear not; I will explain again. Women are not all the same. Getting it? We don't all want to screw our employers over. We don't all want kids. We don't all do Sociology. We don't all go around doing no work. Women are not all the same...

I wonder whether that has sunk in... If not, then maybe when you're older and know a few more women you'll find out for yourself.
This isn't a valid comparison. Insurance companies charge different rates to different people only on statistical likely hood of an accident happening, this is his argument.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#90
Report 10 years ago
#90
THE ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT INSURANCE!!!!

*hits head against the wall*

BA got screwed over by one nasty woman. Boo hoo. If they stop hiring women on the basis they may screw them over again then they are idiotic and sexist.

My God, I had forgotten how adament men can be about arguments when the make no sense/are wrong.

Goodnight all. I still just about have faith in humanity.
0
reply
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report 10 years ago
#91
(Original post by Reblet)
You're right, society wouldn't function without women... I wonder why birth rates are dropping...
I'd say it is her duty to have children. I personnally think we should be encouraging women to have children with monetary incentives and through cultural/social change. It is cruel that women are expected to work like men and rear children at the same time.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#92
Report 10 years ago
#92
Women want to work... Why is this a surprise to people? Amazingly enough jobs are quite fulfilling especially when they're in areas one goes in for because of the enjoyment not the money...

And the financial incentive is maternity leave. If I got married and was expected to have kids with no maternity leave I'd get my tubes tied. No chance I will throw my life away just because society expects me to have kids.

P.S. OP you know that social pressure you were saying didn't exist earlier? Welcome!
0
reply
WithFlyingColours
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#93
Report 10 years ago
#93
An economist in a big corporate company are you then? Pray tell me more about how they calculate wages! Women will take the lower salaries they are offered as companies know they can get away with offering lower wages. It makes sense! How do they guess people's output before they even start at a company? How do you measure output in all businesses?
You don't seem to understand how companies or economics works. As I've said before, money paid from a company to a man costs the same as money paid to a woman. Both eat into the companies bottom line equally. A company will never pay above the market rate to ANYONE. If they do, they wouldn't stay in business too long as their costs would be far too high and they'd struggle in a competitive market. Now, if your claims that two equally qualified people (one male one female), who get offered a job, get paid differently for the same job, then that's because the market rate for males is higher than the market rate for females. There could be many reasons for this, but it is down to how demand and supply of workers interact to find an equilibrium wage. To properly understand it, you will have to learn some economics.

What I'm saying is that companies work out wages using economic theory. The way in which companies work are based on economics. Unless you can question the economics of wages, your argument is dumbfounded. Things don't work how the Daily Mail and BBC would have you believe.

WithFlyingColours, some of what you're saying is bordering on sense, which is why I think it's so dangerous. Even so, surely you don't think that BA are going to stop hiring female employees after one law suit? That would be incredibly short sighted of them.
Don't worry buddy, they still hire women. More so than in the past actually. Despite what some reading my posts may think, I think this is a good thing. All pilots are on the same pay-scale irregardless of sex, and as the airline industry is the one I'm most familiar with, I'm skeptical that this policy isn't used in other industries.

The contact could easily have been breached by a MAN for whatever reason
No, it couldn't have and never has. To fly professionally you need to hold a class one medical. If you lose that you get fired and lose your licence. So no, a man (or a woman) couldn't go part time because of a sickness serious enough to stop you working full time. There aren't any other valid reasons you give. As far as BA are concerned, it has happened with a woman, it hasn't happened with a man. So as Seven_Three says, like an insurace company, BA are going to think about the likelihood of something like this happening.

Could I also point out that the breach of contract found in her favour?
You may point that out, I knew I should have addressed it more clearly in the original post. The woman won because of a law that can only apply to new mothers and jobs that involve being away from home for a certain amount of time. The law doesn't apply to men - so the fact that she won is irrelevant to your argument.
0
reply
_Hayko
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#94
Report 10 years ago
#94
Those suggesting that fathers can look after their children whilst the mother goes to work need to look up what Paternity Leave amounts to.
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 10 years ago
#95
(Original post by WithFlyingColours)
You don't seem to understand how companies or economics works. As I've said before, money paid from a company to a man costs the same as money paid to a woman. Both eat into the companies bottom line equally. A company will never pay above the market rate to ANYONE. If they do, they wouldn't stay in business too long as their costs would be far too high and they'd struggle in a competitive market. Now, if your claims that two equally qualified people (one male one female), who get offered a job, get paid differently for the same job, then that's because the market rate for males is higher than the market rate for females. There could be many reasons for this, but it is down to how demand and supply of workers interact to find an equilibrium wage. To properly understand it, you will have to learn some economics.

What I'm saying is that companies work out wages using economic theory. The way in which companies work are based on economics. Unless you can question the economics of wages, your argument is dumbfounded. Things don't work how the Daily Mail and BBC would have you believe.
I understand how it works. I understand that it's down to risk assessment, value added etc. and that because of maternity leave/women going part time/women leaving jobs/early retirement companies will get more out of men. BUT morally you must see this is unfair. I personally want to work hard for as much of my life as I can but I will be treated as someone likely to go off on 6 months paid leave and go part-time at 40. It basically comes down to the expectation that women want babies, men will want the women to take care of said babies and that once a woman has had babies her career is effectively over. :rolleyes:
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#96
Report 10 years ago
#96
(Original post by _Hayko)
Those suggesting that fathers can look after their children whilst the mother goes to work need to look up what Paternity Pay amounts to.
Sadly nobody seems to suggest that as it's the "woman's role".
0
reply
Absinth
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#97
Report 10 years ago
#97
(Original post by Bornstubborn)
Consider the idea of maternity leave from the view of an employer.... As an employer you will be paying someone to essentially do nothing that benefits the company, for a small business this is impossible and even in a large business it makes the company less comeptitive to have many high paid female staff taking maternity leave.
Should we get rid of 'sick pay' and 'disabled pension' then?
0
reply
Reblet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#98
Report 10 years ago
#98
Apparently the employer will be paying someone to benefit society with maternity leave. So very beneficial for employer and society For women MUST HAVE BABIES for society declares it so.

In fact I'm off to have one now. Au revoir!
0
reply
WithFlyingColours
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#99
Report 10 years ago
#99
Apparently the employer will be paying someone to benefit society with maternity leave. So very beneficial for employer and society For women MUST HAVE BABIES for society declares it so.
Make no mistake that if the company could get away with not paying it, they would. It benefits society, but it doesn't benefit the employer much.

Sick pay can be paid to men and women, so is irrelevant. Paternity pay is rarely taken and lasts for less time, so is less of a factor than maternity pay.

Read my edited post above Reblet, I've addressed some of your comments
0
reply
Absinth
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#100
Report 10 years ago
#100
(Original post by WithFlyingColours)
Sick pay can be paid to men and women, so is irrelevant. Paternity pay is rarely taken and lasts for less time, so is less of a factor than maternity pay.
I think you missed my point.
Maternity leave is paid to employees who 'essentially do nothing to benefit the company'. Sick leave/disabled pension is also paid to employees who 'essentially do nothing to benefit the company'. Therefore, I'd have thought the OP was against sick pay and disabled pension, if he was against maternity leave.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (502)
37.6%
No - but I will (103)
7.72%
No - I don't want to (92)
6.89%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (638)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All