Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Yes in the western world; it happens in the UK, America, the Netherlands, Canada, and pretty much everywhere. You should probably fact check before you try and argue. If you want stats BussinessInsider.com is pretty good
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EqualitySloth)
    The thing is, woman and men who do the same job aren’t always paid the same amount of money. Friends of my family who live in Dubai, worked at a stock market investment bank. They are married, and both qualified for the same job; they started working the same job at the investment bank at the same time but the man was paid far more than the woman. And he was given a promotion far quicker than she was just because he was a man (not because he worked harder)
    (Original post by Unkilled)
    Well, the academic system is controlled by women. There are more women involved in it. The environment is very feminine. Therefore it is a matriarchy since there is an underlying set of biases, right?

    Dude, there is no patriarchy. Its just called a competitive environment, mate. You need to be assertive, which less women are on average than men.
    There's actually a great discussion that highlights this:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harjot)
    There's actually a great discussion that highlights this:
    The academic system has more women in it because many men believe that the care of [younger] children is a feminine profession, and they feel that a woman’s role is the care of children
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    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
    I've been saying this the whole time
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EqualitySloth)
    The academic system has more women in it because many men believe that the care of [younger] children is a feminine profession, and they feel that a woman’s role is the care of children
    Well, couldn't you reverse that exact argument for male-dominated careers, such as carpentry, or becoming a builder?

    (I recommend watching the video, I get the feeling you did not)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harjot)
    Well, couldn't you reverse that exact argument for male-dominated careers, such as carpentry, or becoming a builder?

    (I recommend watching the video, I get the feeling you did not)
    And yes you could reverse the argument, but men and woman are taught from a young age what they should be. Men are taught to be manly and masculine because thats how society has always done it, and woman are discouraged from typically masculine things because its seen as unladylike. I believe that this way of thinking is wrong, if you discourage certain behaviours in children (such as boys waring to be beauticians or primary teachers, or girls wanting to join the military or be a builder)

    And no, as if yet i haven’t watched the video, i will try do it later but my broadband is very lousy at the moment so videos dont load
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    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
    How on earth does working in a warehouse require more skill? Strength perhaps but skill?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    How on earth does working in a warehouse require more skill? Strength perhaps but skill?
    Higher volume/amount of stacking to do, larger logistical effort as a result of warehouses almost always being larger than the average supermarket, driving forklift truck etc etc.

    Even if it was purely just more strength, wouldn't make a difference to the argument presented.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    THANK YOU. I'm a feminist but still 100% agree with everything you've said!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harjot)
    Higher volume/amount of stacking to do, larger logistical effort as a result of warehouses almost always being larger than the average supermarket, driving forklift truck etc etc.

    Even if it was purely just more strength, wouldn't make a difference to the argument presented.
    and you think that working on the shop floor only requires you to stack shelves?

    & Well it does make a difference because I fail to see how one requires more skill and therefore results in higher pay
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EqualitySloth)
    And yes you could reverse the argument, but men and woman are taught from a young age what they should be. Men are taught to be manly and masculine because thats how society has always done it, and woman are discouraged from typically masculine things because its seen as unladylike. I believe that this way of thinking is wrong, if you discourage certain behaviours in children (such as boys waring to be beauticians or primary teachers, or girls wanting to join the military or be a builder)

    And no, as if yet i haven’t watched the video, i will try do it later but my broadband is very lousy at the moment so videos dont load
    I won't address consider/this point, as Jordan B does a great job in dealing with the exact point you put forward, and there's no point me lousily paraphrasing that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I’ve proactively spoke against this pay gap theory but in reality it’s very difficult to prosecute someone for violating the law. It’s very difficult to prove you get paid more for having something in between your legs as it’s very easy for the company to write up a seemingly reasonable justification, even if you don’t feel there’s any difference between you and someone else
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    There’s so much more to pay than the job though. Experience plays a huge role. The more experienced you are, the more you are paid. Simples.

    I agree with your overall point, for example do people really think a boss will interview a man and a woman for a job (the same job) and then offer the man 22,000 pa and the woman 20,000 per annum? Of course not?
    100%, scared of 'experience' becoming nothing, ie pay not increasing due to experience because of snowflakes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    and you think that working on the shop floor only requires you to stack shelves?

    & Well it does make a difference because I fail to see how one requires more skill and therefore results in higher pay
    No point arguing about the semantics of shelf stacking on a shop floor vs warehouse.

    Well, if we take the strength argument, you end up disqualifying a large amount of the female population, and a small amount of the male population who may not be strong enough from the warehouse job. You can't surely be suggesting that jobs that have different requirements are paid the same?

    If you look at it from a simple supply and demand perspective too, you'll find that:
    1) The supply for warehouse stacking is much lower as a consequence of less people being able to do the job
    2) Therefore the warehouse job is worth more

    Either way, this is probably a silly point of contention to base the whole argument on.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harjot)
    No point arguing about the semantics of shelf stacking on a shop floor vs warehouse.

    Well, if we take the strength argument, you end up disqualifying a large amount of the female population, and a small amount of the male population who may not be strong enough from the warehouse job. You can't surely be suggesting that jobs that have different requirements are paid the same?

    If you look at it from a simple supply and demand perspective too, you'll find that:
    1) The supply for warehouse stacking is much lower as a consequence of less people being able to do the job
    2) Therefore the warehouse job is worth more

    Either way, this is probably a silly point of contention to base the whole argument on.
    Moderate strength is the only real requirement of a warehouse job. As long as you’re mobile with no medical conditions that make standing for long periods difficult, it won’t be difficult to secure the job so that whole ‘supply and demand’ point is kind of moot. There’s a reason why many warehouse workers are not British. (unless they’re managers/supervisors) I’ve worked in a warehouse for Amazon before (I’m female btw) and they didn’t even interview me. All they wanted was a copy of my passport, proof of address and NI and the job was mine. Don’t get me wrong, my colleagues were really lovely but many couldn’t speak English very well. I’m pretty sure that society would label these people as ‘low skilled immigrants’ yet you say that they use more skill than retail workers?

    I now work in a retail role and there’s no way they would employ you without an interview, adequate references, English and maths tests, scoring high in scenario based questions etc. And that’s just to get hired. The list of duties once you actually get the job are endless and extend much further than ‘shelf stacking’. I’d say that theres a lot more skill involved in what I do now than what I did in Amazon, and given that it’s clearly harder to be hired in a customer facing role, doesn’t the supply and demand argument apply better in this instance than the point you were making?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Moderate strength is the only real requirement of a warehouse job. As long as you’re mobile with no medical conditions that make standing for long periods difficult, it won’t be difficult to secure the job so that whole ‘supply and demand’ point is kind of moot. There’s a reason why many warehouse workers are not British. (unless they’re managers/supervisors) I’ve worked in a warehouse for Amazon before (I’m female btw) and they didn’t even interview me. All they wanted was a copy of my passport, proof of address and NI and the job was mine. Don’t get me wrong, my colleagues were really lovely but many couldn’t speak English very well. I’m pretty sure that society would label these people as ‘low skilled immigrants’ yet you say that they use more skill than retail workers?

    I now work in a retail role and there’s no way they would employ you without an interview, adequate references, English and maths tests, scoring high in scenario based questions etc. And that’s just to get hired. The list of duties once you actually get the job are endless and extend much further than ‘shelf stacking’. I’d say that theres a lot more skill involved in what I do now than what I did in Amazon, and given that it’s clearly harder to be hired in a customer facing role, doesn’t the supply and demand argument apply better in this instance than the point you were making?
    On a side note, I find it hard and interesting to believe that most retail roles require that much testing, unless you work at Aldi looool.

    Of course. But the original comparison was between shop-stackers (not customer-facing), and warehouse stackers, where those were the only roles. A "retail role" is a fair bit different, especially from what you described. Again, we're arguing over the semantics of what doing each of those jobs entails.

    The argument would still hold with the retail role being worth more than the warehouse role, on the proposition of skill alone. Gender still plays no part within the same role.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harjot)
    On a side note, I find it hard and interesting to believe that most retail roles require that much testing, unless you work at Aldi looool.

    Of course. But the original comparison was between shop-stackers (not customer-facing), and warehouse stackers, where those were the only roles. A "retail role" is a fair bit different, especially from what you described. Again, we're arguing over the semantics of what doing each of those jobs entails.

    The argument would still hold with the retail role being worth more than the warehouse role, on the proposition of skill alone. Gender still plays no part within the same role.
    No it’s not just Aldi. Online applications for roles involving interaction with customers often have the same format.

    What job description is solely confined to shelf stacking where there are no customers around? I know that people like to refer to supermarket workers as shelf stackers and fast food workers as burger flippers but as shocking as it may seem, that’s not all they do.

    I don’t know whether gender plays a part, I’m not even claiming that it does. All I was saying is that a warehouse job does not require more skill.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harjot)
    There's actually a great discussion that highlights this:
    All hail the lobster.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    All hail the lobster.
    For those who need further explanation:

    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Unkilled)
    Well, the academic system is controlled by women. There are more women involved in it. The environment is very feminine. Therefore it is a matriarchy since there is an underlying set of biases, right?
    Academic system isn't controlled by women for starters...


    Dude, there is no patriarchy. Its just called a competitive environment, mate. You need to be assertive, which less women are on average than men.
    Which is taught behaviour (remember, evopsych is 99% *******s, 1% nonsense) - doesn't really help your claim that women aren't presented with a longer road to run.

    (Original post by limetang)
    Okay, I’ll bite ... why would an employer WANT to pay men more than women? Why would an employer be looking for excuses to overpay their male staff and underpay their female staff?
    Valuing the men higher/undervaluing the women. The men in these scenarios aren't necessarily overpaid, their wage might be the going rate but the women are underpaid for some absurd reason (thinking here things like "they might get pregnant and take time out", which people trot out already over promotions)
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.