Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8


650 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 156


  Reply # 1481599 30-Jan-2016 07:59
Send private message

MikeB4:
MaxLV:

 

BarTender:

 

 

 

UHD:

 

 

 

BarTender: Talk with anyone who works in payroll and you will know the gender pay gap is real.

 

 

 

I work with several large HR teams and have discussed this very issue at great length. Their conclusions: no pay gap for the same or very similar roles and experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, speaking with someone who works at the coal face who noticed that with similar skills the starting salaries tended to be lower for women. Often because the men who went for similar roles asked for more and got it. So perhaps it's the fault of women for not demanding more pay?

 

 

 

I think if there was more transparency on what people earn then there would be less to argue about. However strangely enough people get very worked about what they earn.

 

 

 

I thought the Midwives vs Prison officers argument last year was a pretty fair argument about disparate jobs in male vs female dominated areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just maybe the women need to ask for more as well then. Instead of just accepting what they offered, and then saying there's a male enforced gender pay gap, and expecting that (perceived gap) needs to be corrected simply because they're *female*.

 

 

 

As to the 'argument' that a 'female dominated' profession should have equality of pay to a 'male dominated' profession irrespective of how different the actual professions are is the perfect example of how irrelevant feminism has become today for women.

 

 

 

Why do women need to justify the pay they should receive in their profession based on what men get? Why not just ask for what they believe they should be paid because of what *they* do. You know like men do and have always had to do. After all the pay you get shouldn't be based on what sex you are should it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



They should not need to ask for the same, it should never be an issue. Gender should have no bearing on employment.

 

That's what I say. (reread my post)

 

Women and 'womens advocates' should stop making it a ' gender issue' and ask for what they're actually worth to their employer.

 

Using the ' false argument' that men get paid more just because they're male and part of the privileged patriarchy'  *is* making it a gender issue, and it's whole basis of the 'gender pay gap'. (Shouldn't have to tell you that)

 

We end up with stupid things like professional female tennis players getting the same prize money as men but only having to 'play' two thirds of the tennis match men have to play for their 'equal pay'.  Or that nurses should get paid the same as policemen.

 

 


12604 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5916

Trusted

  Reply # 1481600 30-Jan-2016 08:07
Send private message

Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


UHD

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 280


  Reply # 1481636 30-Jan-2016 10:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.

 

 

 

Nurses and nurses, police and police, and account clerks and account clerks are paid the same though (assuming similar levels of experience, negotiation, and seniority) so anyone bleating about a gender pay gap there is wrong and they cannot back it up with any evidence. The prize for winning Wimbledon depends on television subscriber/viewership numbers more than a person's gender since a massive amount of the event income is derived from advertising. This is why top NBA players are paid mountains more cash than top WNBA players.

 

 

 

The fact that this is being discussed here does not mean there is an issue at all. It is entirely possible to discuss something like this and be shown that your perceived notions are incorrect. :)


6655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 568

Trusted

  Reply # 1481652 30-Jan-2016 10:33
Send private message

If there are actual blocks, preventing woman from reaching the higher positions in companies, then that's an issue.

 

Same job, same experience, but different pay rates for men and woman, then that's an issue.

 

 

 

But more woman working in lower paying professions, such as nursing, and earning the same as men also working in those positions, does not contribute a valid argument to the 'gender pay gap'.

 

 

 

 


1221 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 1481703 30-Jan-2016 12:10
Send private message

UHD:

 

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.

 

 

 

Nurses and nurses, police and police, and account clerks and account clerks are paid the same though (assuming similar levels of experience, negotiation, and seniority) so anyone bleating about a gender pay gap there is wrong and they cannot back it up with any evidence. The prize for winning Wimbledon depends on television subscriber/viewership numbers more than a person's gender since a massive amount of the event income is derived from advertising. This is why top NBA players are paid mountains more cash than top WNBA players.

 

 

 

The fact that this is being discussed here does not mean there is an issue at all. It is entirely possible to discuss something like this and be shown that your perceived notions are incorrect. :)

 

 

This is part of what the issue is - the blind faith belief by some people that there isn't an issue, backed up by no other evidence than personal opinion and hearsay. There are quite a lot of people that disagree and they are backed up having taken the time to do the research and produce the information so they can raise it as an issue with a higher level of credibility. Some of the earlier posts in this thread indicated that the research must be wrong because they [the posters] didn't agree with it.

 

As to equality in sport due to advertising revenue - this would be true if it is an equal playing field. In many countries, women are simply not allowed to play some sports and even if they do, they are prevented from taking it to any profession level.  On top of that, many professional teams have their funding withheld and are deliberately not given TV air time.

 

I might suggest to you that two of NZs more successful teams in overseas competitions are the silver ferns and the football ferns - yet we hardly see it at all on TV. In the US the forth most popular team sport is soccer yet the TV air time given is disproportional -with the exception of their world cup win which shattered TV viwing records - an indication that people are interested.  (edit: I removed the numbers because they were incorrect - I used the wrong column)





Software Engineer

 


600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 109


  Reply # 1481713 30-Jan-2016 12:41
Send private message

TwoSeven:

In the US the forth most popular team sport is soccer with 332m women playing it versus 205m men yet the TV air time given is disproportional -with the exception of their world cup win which shattered TV viwing records - an indication that people are interested.  The second most populous game is basketball with 349m women and 351m men - you might see this as near equal and yet how much TV air time do you think the women's game gets compared to the men (and consider the same in pay). The most popular game in the US has  249M men playing an 0M women - why is that?



I cannot fathom how female tennis players aren't playing five sets in majors. Surely it can't be a fitness thing. I wonder if it is a time restraint with TV?
Nonetheless the problem with TV coverage of women's sport is a chicken and egg argument. If more was shown, would the viewers (those who are paying) become more equal in a gender breakdown. At the moment I assume that support viewing is heavily male biased. And generally if there is a choice between watching men or women play a sport then most are going to watch the men. By virtue of the fact that men are usually playing it a higher level. Take golf, not that I've watched much in the last year despite buying the app, but I only watch women's golf when Lydia Ko is playing. The level is simply not the same as men.
And the same could be said for nearly all sports. So unless you increase the numbers of viewers who want to watch a lower tier version of the sport, nothing will change.

1221 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 1481718 30-Jan-2016 13:23
Send private message

mudguard:
TwoSeven:

 

In the US the forth most popular team sport is soccer with 332m women playing it versus 205m men yet the TV air time given is disproportional -with the exception of their world cup win which shattered TV viwing records - an indication that people are interested.  The second most populous game is basketball with 349m women and 351m men - you might see this as near equal and yet how much TV air time do you think the women's game gets compared to the men (and consider the same in pay). The most popular game in the US has  249M men playing an 0M women - why is that?

 



I cannot fathom how female tennis players aren't playing five sets in majors. Surely it can't be a fitness thing. I wonder if it is a time restraint with TV?
Nonetheless the problem with TV coverage of women's sport is a chicken and egg argument. If more was shown, would the viewers (those who are paying) become more equal in a gender breakdown. At the moment I assume that support viewing is heavily male biased. And generally if there is a choice between watching men or women play a sport then most are going to watch the men. By virtue of the fact that men are usually playing it a higher level. Take golf, not that I've watched much in the last year despite buying the app, but I only watch women's golf when Lydia Ko is playing. The level is simply not the same as men.
And the same could be said for nearly all sports. So unless you increase the numbers of viewers who want to watch a lower tier version of the sport, nothing will change.

 

I edited my original post as I mistook those numbers for population but they are actually just number of teams (otherwise there would be more people playing the sports that live in the US). The numbers quoted above are (I believe) the number of teams in each sport.  But the point I was making is there is inequality in sport (and sport broadcasting) as well as in the workplace.  I find it hard to see that if women make up 50% of the worlds population, of those that like to watch sport, the majority only want to watch men's games.

 

While a bloke might only watch a woman's game because a personality is playing, what do the younger women have to watch that may be interested in those sports - what opportunity is there  to see role models/personalities that they can relate to.  I think we need to put effort into promoting sports and sports personalities equality regardless of gender, so they get the public recognition that creates the demand so that companies want to sponsor them.  As we get more people into sports we have a better chance of finding more stars that can go on to represent their country. We cant do that if we exclude sports based on gender because of the perception that no-one wants to watch it.

 

 





Software Engineer

 


12604 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5916

Trusted

  Reply # 1481773 30-Jan-2016 14:15
Send private message

UHD:

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.


 


Nurses and nurses, police and police, and account clerks and account clerks are paid the same though (assuming similar levels of experience, negotiation, and seniority) so anyone bleating about a gender pay gap there is wrong and they cannot back it up with any evidence. The prize for winning Wimbledon depends on television subscriber/viewership numbers more than a person's gender since a massive amount of the event income is derived from advertising. This is why top NBA players are paid mountains more cash than top WNBA players.


 


The fact that this is being discussed here does not mean there is an issue at all. It is entirely possible to discuss something like this and be shown that your perceived notions are incorrect. :)



Not perceived I worked for an organisation where it was a requirement to know this information and to work to resolve these issues for people




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


UHD

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 280


  Reply # 1481856 30-Jan-2016 15:48
Send private message

TwoSeven:

 

UHD:

 

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.

 

 

 

Nurses and nurses, police and police, and account clerks and account clerks are paid the same though (assuming similar levels of experience, negotiation, and seniority) so anyone bleating about a gender pay gap there is wrong and they cannot back it up with any evidence. The prize for winning Wimbledon depends on television subscriber/viewership numbers more than a person's gender since a massive amount of the event income is derived from advertising. This is why top NBA players are paid mountains more cash than top WNBA players.

 

 

 

The fact that this is being discussed here does not mean there is an issue at all. It is entirely possible to discuss something like this and be shown that your perceived notions are incorrect. :)

 

 

This is part of what the issue is - the blind faith belief by some people that there isn't an issue, backed up by no other evidence than personal opinion and hearsay. There are quite a lot of people that disagree and they are backed up having taken the time to do the research and produce the information so they can raise it as an issue with a higher level of credibility. Some of the earlier posts in this thread indicated that the research must be wrong because they [the posters] didn't agree with it.

 

As to equality in sport due to advertising revenue - this would be true if it is an equal playing field. In many countries, women are simply not allowed to play some sports and even if they do, they are prevented from taking it to any profession level.  On top of that, many professional teams have their funding withheld and are deliberately not given TV air time.

 

I might suggest to you that two of NZs more successful teams in overseas competitions are the silver ferns and the football ferns - yet we hardly see it at all on TV. In the US the forth most popular team sport is soccer yet the TV air time given is disproportional -with the exception of their world cup win which shattered TV viwing records - an indication that people are interested.  (edit: I removed the numbers because they were incorrect - I used the wrong column)

 

 

 

 

Actually, that blind faith backed up by nothing but opinion and hearsay is what seems to fuel those who argue for a gender pay gap. Not a shred of evidence is provided with those claims that has not been debunked several times in the preceding decades since it was originally asserted.

 

Which western countries (we're comparing apples with apples, right?) prevent women from playing certain sports? The only reason certain sports aren't aired on television is that other sport is more popular and will generate more money.

 

I'm curious about your suggestion, it would seem to me that the All Blacks and Black Caps are currently more successful than the Silver Ferns and Football Ferns and I do seem to see a bit of netball on television regardless. Football isn't really shown on television a lot (male or female) so there is no surprise that the Football Ferns aren't shown more commonly.


UHD

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 280


  Reply # 1481861 30-Jan-2016 16:18
Send private message

TwoSeven:

 

[snip]

 

I find it hard to see that if women make up 50% of the worlds population, of those that like to watch sport, the majority only want to watch men's games.

 

While a bloke might only watch a woman's game because a personality is playing, what do the younger women have to watch that may be interested in those sports - what opportunity is there  to see role models/personalities that they can relate to.  I think we need to put effort into promoting sports and sports personalities equality regardless of gender, so they get the public recognition that creates the demand so that companies want to sponsor them.  As we get more people into sports we have a better chance of finding more stars that can go on to represent their country. We cant do that if we exclude sports based on gender because of the perception that no-one wants to watch it.

 

 

 

 

This is an interesting point of view, you seem to infer that women would want to watch women's sport purely because it is being played by women. I think you will find professional sports fans (regardless of gender) enjoy sport because of the high level of skill and competition on display. It is an undisputed fact that the skill and level of competition in men's sport is at a higher level than that of women. I think most women would find your position offensive, especially those who are fans of professional sport.


UHD

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 280


  Reply # 1481863 30-Jan-2016 16:20
Send private message

MikeB4:
UHD:

 

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nurses and nurses, police and police, and account clerks and account clerks are paid the same though (assuming similar levels of experience, negotiation, and seniority) so anyone bleating about a gender pay gap there is wrong and they cannot back it up with any evidence. The prize for winning Wimbledon depends on television subscriber/viewership numbers more than a person's gender since a massive amount of the event income is derived from advertising. This is why top NBA players are paid mountains more cash than top WNBA players.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that this is being discussed here does not mean there is an issue at all. It is entirely possible to discuss something like this and be shown that your perceived notions are incorrect. :)

 



Not perceived I worked for an organisation where it was a requirement to know this information and to work to resolve these issues for people

 

 

 

You worked for a law firm who handled employment disputes?


4551 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1824


  Reply # 1482642 1-Feb-2016 10:38
Send private message

Nurses (public health) and police officers are subject to collective employment agreements that specify remuneration bands.

 

These agreements do not differentiate between males and females.  Where is pay inequity creeping in?

 

E.g. Biased promotion?  Biased performance appraisal?

 

Evidence please ...

 

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.





Mike

4551 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1824


  Reply # 1482677 1-Feb-2016 11:20
Send private message

Netball ... the Silver Ferns games are broadcast live on free to air TV (I watch most of them).  They have a larger potential audience for live broadcast than the ABs games are.

 

Sport spectator-ship is a free-market.  People watch what they want.  What people want broadcasts more and pays better. It's no different to music - where females are doing very well (Adele, Pink, Beyonce, Taylor Swift ...).

 

There is of course an obvious and simple solution: For men and women to compete in the same competition.  With the exception of tackle varieties of football and fighting based sports, it's feasible and safe for men and women to compete as equals. 

 

Why not?

 

 

 

TwoSeven:

 

snip

 

I might suggest to you that two of NZs more successful teams in overseas competitions are the silver ferns and the football ferns - yet we hardly see it at all on TV. In the US the forth most popular team sport is soccer yet the TV air time given is disproportional -with the exception of their world cup win which shattered TV viwing records - an indication that people are interested.  (edit: I removed the numbers because they were incorrect - I used the wrong column)

 





Mike

1221 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 1484713 3-Feb-2016 18:51
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Nurses (public health) and police officers are subject to collective employment agreements that specify remuneration bands.

 

These agreements do not differentiate between males and females.  Where is pay inequity creeping in?

 

E.g. Biased promotion?  Biased performance appraisal?

 

Evidence please ...

 

MikeB4: Nurses and police should not be paid the same but nurses and nurses, police and police should. The same with accounts clerk and Accounts clerk should be paid. The prize for winning Wimbledon should be the same for both.

The fact that this is being discussed here and other venues shows there is an issue. Why should women stop saying its a gender issue when their remuneration is being determined having regard to their gender? It's like saying a person subject to racism should not refer to it being a race issue.

 

 

I think this is a generic statement and not justifiable - that a collective agreement (or any agreement) automatically means the problem doesn't exist. While not being able to comment on any of the particular organisations, often with pay scales, those that are at the receiving end of inequality often show up when the detail is analysed. For example, you may find a group of people being at the bottom of a particular pay range rather than in the middle, or they might not have received the training or type of work that would put them up into the next pay scale etc.   When it comes to gender equality the bias is based on the perception that a person of a given gender is not suitable for role that gives them the opportunity to take on the responsibility to move up the 'ladder' as compared to a person of a different gender - whereas in an equal world the opportunities are presented based on skills and merit and ability "regardless" of gender.

 

As an example, an organisation might have a collective agreement for making cars, except they tend not to hire women into the role in the first place, or the women are given office jobs rather than mechanical jobs.





Software Engineer

 


418 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25


  Reply # 1484796 3-Feb-2016 21:17
Send private message

 See let's examine the _idea_ of comparing men's pay with womens, for equal work, and skill.

 

Okay first you have to get all the jobs in the world, and then, in a massive database of numbers compare skill levels and work levels for those jobs. That task alone is more subjective than drug harm studies. Any quantification of those idea's is bound to be imprecise. 

 

Second, you have to compare anything in a study to a control, or like versus like, controlling the variables. But men and women are hugely different. Women like to have children. Men tend to maintain their work even if they do, and as a general rule, be more career driven. Men and women also have different skill dispositions. Women tend to be good at multi-tasking, creative and social tasks, men tend to be better at spacial logic, cool reason, and strength tasks. 

 

There is nothing to suggest that you can fairly compare men and women, in terms of their equivilance within the workplace. They have on average different skill dispositions, and different career priorities. They also tend to choose different jobs from men on average.

 

Add that to the highly subjective nature of quantifying 'like skill and work' across all of commerce, and I personally am left with the feeling, that this isn't really good science. 

 

It would be better to compare a single profession, that men and women are equally attracted to and equally skilled at in the sense of gender skill biases, eliminating all parents - to eliminate all the variables that prevent it from being good science.

 

I think if we did that, we'd find men and women are paid exactly the same. 





Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Hawaiki Transpacific cable ready-for-service
Posted 20-Jul-2018 11:29


Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central launches
Posted 10-Jul-2018 10:40


Spark completes first milestone in voice platform upgrade
Posted 10-Jul-2018 09:36


Microsoft ices heated developers
Posted 6-Jul-2018 20:16


PB Technologies charged for its extended warranties and warned for bait advertising
Posted 3-Jul-2018 15:45


Almost 20,000 people claim credits from Spark
Posted 29-Jun-2018 10:40


Cove sells NZ's first insurance policy via chatbot
Posted 25-Jun-2018 10:04


N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.