Women in the Workplace - Pay Equity? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

A couple of interesting articles have appeared in the smh over the last couple days about women's level of income in the workplace. So I thought that it would be interesting to see what boser's thought of it.

Is pay equity a concern? If not why not? If so how could it be addressed?

Here Jessica Irvine discusses whether the issue is to do with female behaviours, check out the article for some interesting data from expriments.

Explanations for the persistent gap between men and women's wages boil down into roughly three categories: a) the loss of work experience and income associated with child bearing, b) outright discrimination, and c) that perhaps there is something about women's behaviour that holds them back.

While the first explanation appears most powerful, the last offers easy avenues for change.

While not true for every woman, academic studies have consistently shown that under test conditions, women on average exhibit behaviour that is less competitive and more risk averse than men. This can have a very direct impact on wages. Less competitive people are less likely to put themselves forward for promotion which might stretch them and enable them to learn new skills. Being risk averse may also deter a person from pushing for an overdue pay rise. It was a man, and a small one at that, who coined the phrase "Show me the money".

Meanwhile here Adele Horin discusses the findings of research using a sample of 3850 managers drawn from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey (the biggest continuing study of Australian households).

Dr Watson found at least 60 per cent of the gender gap in managerial pay was due to being a woman. The pay discrimination, he said, was not blatant. Men and women at the same level were not paid vastly different amounts. But women faced greater hurdles moving into the more senior management ranks.

And providing some solid data is AMP and NATSEM at the University of Canberra in the form of their April Report, a 44 page document, She Works Hard for the Money: Australian Women and the Gender Divide, for a shorter version check out the media release available here.

 

[Iron]

women's lib, satan's fib

 

[B_B_J]

I blame Islam

 

[Riet]

If they do the same work, they should get the same pay. I have seen often that they don't do as much work though, tbh.

 

[loquasagacious]

If they do the same work, they should get the same pay. I have seen often that they don't do as much work though, tbh.

Which really goes to the heart of the behaviours argument. Women tend to work less overtime, take more holidays, be less outspoken in meetings and display a host of other non-workaholic tendencies.

The underlying argument then being that women are adding less value to their employers and are therefore recieving lower salaries, but is this true?

 

[Serius]

We talked a bit about this in one of my 3rd yr psych classes. Whilst there is a pay gap, i dont think any of it is overt sexism, women arent being payed less because they are women, they are being payed less because on average they dont work as hard, or as long, they take more hollidays, they have huge gaps in the middle of their careers for babby, and even if they return, taking a year or two out of work means they cant possibly catch up to the pay rate of their male co-workers who didnt take any time off.

Women also tend to be less competitive than males and less "desperate" or "hungry" for that extra $1000 a year, or really pushing and badgering management to force them into a promotion.

Women when applying for a job also tend to accept their first pay offer, because hey, $50k is plenty and it would pay off all their debts and everything...where as men will push for a starting salary of $53k because they want they higher status associated with the higher income.

 

[Silver Persian]

Which really goes to the heart of the behaviours argument. Women tend to work less overtime, take more holidays, be less outspoken in meetings and display a host of other non-workaholic tendencies.

The underlying argument then being that women are adding less value to their employers and are therefore recieving lower salaries, but is this true?

If this is true, we'd also need to ask why women don't display these workaholic tendencies. Is it a choice that women are consciously making to be less invested in their work, or is it something to do with the way women are raised ion our society?

 

[loquasagacious]

If this is true, we'd also need to ask why women don't display these workaholic tendencies. Is it a choice that women are consciously making to be less invested in their work, or is it something to do with the way women are raised ion our society?

And hanging off that is the question of whether women should be workaholics? If they shouldn't then perhaps we should be paying them as much as men to reflect the otherwise unpaid contribution that they make to family life? Or is that contribution already being paid for through men's salaries?

From recollection the AMP/NATSEM report had some interesting statistics which looked at the comparitive total hours worked by men and women. Where total hours = work + domestic duties.

 

[Serius]

If this is true, we'd also need to ask why women don't display these workaholic tendencies. Is it a choice that women are consciously making to be less invested in their work, or is it something to do with the way women are raised ion our society?

probably a combination of both.

Men are raised to be highly competitive, aggressive negotiators, failure or substandard pay is not acceptable and your entire worth as a man is based upon your status and earning potential. Women are raised to be more cooperative, that its ok to make mistakes and that your worth isnt based on your job and income.

Women also make some concious choices in the workplace [which are also partly influenced by how they were raised] such as not to rock the boat [when a more aggressive, outspoken stance tends to get you promoted faster], to not overwork themselves, to put their family first [instead of men who often might work 80hr weeks and neglect their kids] especially because society often judges the worth of a woman based on how she raises her kids.

Likei said before, they also make concious decisions that men never do, like to end their career in favour of raising kids, or to take a few years off for pregnancy.

 

[Bacilli]

it's difficult to allocate responsibilty to a female... because doing so only limits your chance of getting laid... bitchz were designed to look at, like a piece of meat... to be used, abused and finally, given to next man...

anyway, good day

 

[loquasagacious]

Some additional research based on the HILDA data-set has just been released which shows a correlation between the income of a woman and the amount of housework done.

THE more women contribute to the household finances compared with their male partners, the less housework they do, research shows - but only up to a point.

This happy relationship comes unstuck when women earn a lot more than their husbands and partners.

Women who contribute 70 per cent or more of the weekly income start doing more housework rather than less, the study shows. They put in a little more time cleaning and cooking than a woman who contributes half to the family finances.

The study, by Janeen Baxter and Belinda Hewitt, of the University of Queensland, shows that women gain more leverage over who does the housework as their earnings increase compared with their husbands'.

.....

Women wages inequality

 

[blue_chameleon]

And hanging off that is the question of whether women should be workaholics? If they shouldn't then perhaps we should be paying them as much as men to reflect the otherwise unpaid contribution that they make to family life? Or is that contribution already being paid for through men's salaries?

Imo the notion that women are the homemakers and men are the bread winners is slowly evolving, across certain sections of society. It's undeniable that society's expectations upon the role of women have changed over the past 50 years, however how much they have changed is still debatable I guess.

Throwing the above consideration into the mix; should men be paid less and women be paid more if the husband were the homemaker and the woman the bread winner of the household? To me, there's certainly more prevalence of this 'role reversal' occurring throughout the past decade, and I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to boot.

In reality, I believe a lot of the so-called pay inequity comes down to conditioning. Men are conditioned from early on that they have a lifetime of work, and women are conditioned that they are to have children and raise them. I think until this conditioning shifts, the 'inequity' will remain.

Answering the original question though, if women are consciously making the decision that they will have children, as most do, hence mentally preparing themselves (even if subconsciously) for the fact that their children will take more importance over their career, then I think it's fair to factor this into salaries in the business environment.

Edit: I just realised that so far only men have contributed to the discussion. Girls, any opinions?

 

[Tully B.]

This is a total sausagefest, especially for such a topic as this.
Where the women at?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

This is a total sausagefest, especially for such a topic as this.
Where the women at?

Out having a life. It's a forum full of nerds dude.

 

[loquasagacious]

Out having a life. It's a forum full of nerds dude.

Mildy amusing for a forum which is moderated by a woman.

That aside some more research on the HILDA data was released yesterday No power trips for the nice blokes

The basic drive being that "People who aren't very nice are more likely to become managers," while the data doesn't support this as being the sole reason that women aren't in the higher echelons and earning as much it does somewhat reinforce the idea that women aren't there because they don't want to be and they don't behave in the cut throat way that gets them there.

 

[Gosford]

I blame Islam

lol
EPIC FAIL

women definately deserve equal pay for equal jobs!
I have no problem with it

...kind of suggests the hypocrisy of Western civilisation- equality, yea sure


On a side note. I am opposed to equal pay for Grand Slam Tennis.
Not the same job...males spend a lot more time on the court- bring on the female 5 setters (lol)

 

[loquasagacious]

lol
EPIC FAIL

women definately deserve equal pay for equal jobs!
I have no problem with it

...kind of suggests the hypocrisy of Western civilisation- equality, yea sure


On a side note. I am opposed to equal pay for Grand Slam Tennis.
Not the same job...males spend a lot more time on the court- bring on the female 5 setters (lol)

But are women working equal jobs if they work less overtime and take longer holidays?

 

[Riet]

I have to say I agree about tennis.

 

[loquasagacious]

I have to say I agree about tennis.

Hours worked is just a correlate for value-added to the business. A pretty good one for many different types of work but not as useful for professional sports.

IMO if a female tennis player can add the same amount of value to the business that a male player does then they should be paid the same (and more if more). Regardless of the number of sets that they play.

A better measure of value-added would be the number of TV viewers who watch the games.

 

[Gosford]

Hours worked is just a correlate for value-added to the business. A pretty good one for many different types of work but not as useful for professional sports.

IMO if a female tennis player can add the same amount of value to the business that a male player does then they should be paid the same (and more if more). Regardless of the number of sets that they play.

A better measure of value-added would be the number of TV viewers who watch the games.

i am a very strong anti-equal pay in tennis
but you actually have made some good points there!


however (no proof)- I do believe more people watch Mens...
Perhaps I am wrong...

Also- i think even beofre equal pay in grand slams- 'star' female players eg. the sharapova's, kournakova, maybe hingis etc. had better earning potential due to endorsements...
then again Federer endorses everything these days (gilette, the watch? etc.)