What looks like another piece of poorly thought out legislation

[gman]

All of these arguments are subjective, a pilot may have flown for 30 years and never have experienced freak weather, whereas another may experience it on their first day, that is why the training covers this

But now you are individualising it, which is why I said "from a general and broad point of view". I think it is generally accepted that a person with far more experience will have encountered and dealt with more situations than someone without, regardless of training which cannot always substitute for the real thing. Speaking of which, will they not have both reveived the same amount of training? It could even be assumed that a more experienced pilot will have received even more training throughout their career than a less experienced pilot.

I don't think we are going completely off the initial scope as we are highlighting examples as to why there may be differences in pay between employees - which may just happen to be a male and a female, so legislation may be misleading and actually having a detrimental effect. But the bullet points you make I completely agree with and I'm sure they are all covered under equality laws, but the real problem is how to enforce it to ensure equal opportunities for all?

On a lighter note, I do recall an interview I watched where it was argued that if women really are being paid less than men for doing exactly the same job then why aren't workplaces filled with women instead of men? lol

 

[cambsno]

All of these arguments are subjective, a pilot may have flown for 30 years and never have experienced freak weather, whereas another may experience it on their first day, that is why the training covers this. It is no good saying, well I crashed the aircraft because I had never experienced turbulence like that before. This thread has gone completely off the initial scope, which I think was to highlight the fact that saying women earn less than men on the whole is unfair. Well to me it is quite simple....

• If either a woman or man earns more money than the other when carrying out the same role with equal levels of competence, that is unfair
• If a woman or man is not allowed the same development opportunities because of their gender, then this is unfair (lets not get into the other equality strands in this thread pleeeaaase)
• If a woman or man is overlooked for promotion because of their gender, this is unfair
• If a woman or man is excluded from a job opportunity this is unfair

There are probably many more I could go into, but it's bedtime for me now. But i think you can see the pattern.

Without having read this in detail, I'd say most of it is covered in here.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/65/pdfs/ukpga_19750065_en.pdf

Agree but would argue against the first part about earning more money. If there is a salary band and I offer both people the same and one accepts while the other asks for 2k more then convinced me I should pay that then what’s the problem. Do I refuse and look for someone else or do I then go back to the other person and give them an extra 2k?

 

[munch]

I think as much as anything else there needs to be transparency in what people are payed.

If we use pilots as an example it should be relatively easy to set out what they get paid. Newly qualified pilot gets paid x amount. Once they have done so many hours "in type" they get paid y amount etc.

Our company is currently having the "he gets paid more than I do" problem. It has been caused in part by what Simon has said. The "ideal" candidate turns up say I'll take the job but I want x amount of money. We take them on at that agreed amount. When it then turns out they are getting paid more than there colleagues, that's when you start to get resentment. What I find interesting is sometimes people have left for more money only to find there replacement is getting paid more than they where.

 

[rick448]

Agree but would argue against the first part about earning more money. If there is a salary band and I offer both people the same and one accepts while the other asks for 2k more then convinced me I should pay that then what’s the problem. Do I refuse and look for someone else or do I then go back to the other person and give them an extra 2k?

There is nothing wrong with that, as it is based on skills and experience, in fact I do this regularly when I employ new people. Eventually though they can all earn the same salary. This will differ if a job has a bonus related element, but as long as they all have the same opportunity to make the same bonus then that's fine surely. Though that one is much harder to check.

 

[Tringa]

I also don't see why it only has to be companies with over 250 employees. Why not all companies? Equality laws apply to everyone surely? Regardless of size, it's a five minute calculation unless the company is using a very, very, very bad payroll system.

Agreed but a similar thing happened with the legislation about single use plastic carrier bags.

In Scotland and Wales all retailers have to charge 5p for these bags. In England the charge applies only to retailers with 250 employees or more. I know the pieces of legislation were from different legislative bodies but I can't see the reason for not applying the 'all retailers' to England.

Dave

 

[cambsno]

I think as much as anything else there needs to be transparency in what people are payed.

If we use pilots as an example it should be relatively easy to set out what they get paid. Newly qualified pilot gets paid x amount. Once they have done so many hours "in type" they get paid y amount etc.

Our company is currently having the "he gets paid more than I do" problem. It has been caused in part by what Simon has said. The "ideal" candidate turns up say I'll take the job but I want x amount of money. We take them on at that agreed amount. When it then turns out they are getting paid more than there colleagues, that's when you start to get resentment. What I find interesting is sometimes people have left for more money only to find there replacement is getting paid more than they where.

Generally when I have been recruiting there will also be a general new starter salary which may be say £25k. After a year someone may get a 3% increase but any new recruits will probably be on £25k still. You also have regional variance. The manager in the north found it easy to get good people on a 25/26 base whereas I struggled in London for 30/32 to even get an average person. Which really makes these sort of salary comparisons pretty pointless.

 

[gman]

Does regional variance have an impact on gender though? Generally speaking that is, obviously there will be extremes.

 

[nilagin]

What about two mechanics both doing exactly the same job but one with two years experience and one with twenty years experience? Surely from a general and broad point of view you would expect the latter to be able to diagnose and repair quicker and to a more reliable standard of workmanship?

In dealership terms. A mechanic with just 2yrs experience will be called a technician. One with 20yrs experience will be called a master technician. The latter will be given more complex jobs, will probably assist or advise a technician and will also likely train apprentices in the workshop. If the mechanic hasn't earnt themself the master technician title, then they won't be earning much more than the mechanic with just 2yrs experience and will likely be carrying out similar jobs and not the more complex jobs.
At Ford (the manufacturer not a dealership) regardless of whether hourly paid or salaried everyone's job falls into a grade title. I am a grade 5 which is the highest grade band for hourly paid. This band is for skilled people regardless of sex or experience. If a grade 5 has to take on extra skills to perform an extra task above their basic job title then they are rewarded accordingly. I am a prototype mechanic. If I was building the engines I would get the basic grade 5 wage. But where I work in testing the engines we have to test diagnose and repair faulty engine looms and had to do an extra course to be able to do this so i get 5% extra.
Salaried employees are also in grade bands. There are merit bands within each of those grades which are performance related. Each year your performance is reviewed by your manager. If you have performed well you move onto the next increment within your band. If you haven't performed well you are likely to stay on the same increment. But everyone has the potential to earn the same money.

Admittedly there is one pay demarcation between employees but it has nothing to do with experience or gender. In 2012 in the wage negotiations Ford proposed that all new employees hired after a certain date would earn 10% less which was agreed by the then current workforce. This would ensure that the wage bill would gradually be reduced as people retired. As our work is in competition with other Ford facilities around the world where costs are cheaper this has gone a long way to securing what jobs and facilities Ford still have in the UK. It will take around 40yrs before all of us on the higher tier are gone, but I am in my 38th year of Ford employment so I hope that those that have joined since 2013 will also get the opportunity for such a long service. As far as my work colleagues on the lower tier are concerned is that some of my colleagues on the higher tier are lazy and sometimes don't even do enough and are getting paid more. But they don't have a problem with the majority of the tier1 employees. If they can get a salaried job however and get their yearly merit raises over the top of whatever yearly increase everyone gets then they should be able to earn more than the lazy under performers.

 

[nilagin]

Generally when I have been recruiting there will also be a general new starter salary which may be say £25k. After a year someone may get a 3% increase but any new recruits will probably be on £25k still. You also have regional variance. The manager in the north found it easy to get good people on a 25/26 base whereas I struggled in London for 30/32 to even get an average person. Which really makes these sort of salary comparisons pretty pointless.

We don't have any regional variance. So if you are in an area where house prices or rents are lower, then you're on a winner. Basically the wage offered is set in stone. There is no negotiation for more. You want more then you apply for promotion after you get the initial job. If you have the academic qualifications for the promotion you then stand the exact same chances as everyone else in the interview and selection process.

 

[Nod]

Not even remotely.

Compared to footballers, they are. The closest I could think of in terms of role importance was in Titanic. Male was paid 2.5M, female 2M. For Manchester City, male new signing, £65k/week, women's CAPTAIN, £65k /YEAR.

 

[Marc]

For Manchester City, male new signing, £65k/week, women's CAPTAIN, £65k /YEAR

This has already been answered but I'll try again. Footballers' wages are commensurate with the value they bring to those who pay their wages, surely it's not difficult to understand.

It's a shame that a discussion about gender equality seems to have been hijacked by the "footballers are paid too much" brigade!

 

[Phil V]

Compared to footballers, they are. The closest I could think of in terms of role importance was in Titanic. Male was paid 2.5M, female 2M. ...

Well the football points been answered several times.

But if you think that a male actor being paid 25% more for the same film is ‘close’ you’re bats.

Manchester City ladies team are an excellent example of something else though. They wouldn’t exist at all without the male team who subsidise them completely. They were even allowed to buy a place in the top flight, not having to qualify from the lower leagues. Talk about corruption

 

[viv1969]

Compared to footballers, they are. The closest I could think of in terms of role importance was in Titanic. Male was paid 2.5M, female 2M. For Manchester City, male new signing, £65k/week, women's CAPTAIN, £65k /YEAR.

Given both of their lack of real box office draw at the time, wholly unacceptable both then and now.

 

[beyond the blue]

I can't imagine many people paying to go and watch someone empty the bins.

Got to be better than watching Lukaku at the moment!

 

[StewartR]

I also don't see why it only has to be companies with over 250 employees. Why not all companies? Equality laws apply to everyone surely? Regardless of size, it's a five minute calculation unless the company is using a very, very, very bad payroll system.

Do you know how many businesses there are in this country? Nearly 6 million. What would be the point in requiring all of them to publish these pointless statistics, and what would you do with the data?

Plus, there's a privacy issue with small companies. I have four staff of whom one is female. If I were to publish the average male and female salaries, everybody would know exactly how much she is paid. That's clearly not acceptable.

 

[nilagin]

Plus, there's a privacy issue with small companies. I have four staff of whom one is female. If I were to publish the average male and female salaries, everybody would know exactly how much she is paid. That's clearly not acceptable.

Why? I am aware how much my colleagues earn. The only differences would be how much overtime each respective person does and that is all out in the open too so not hard to work out.

 

[Marc]

Why? I am aware how much my colleagues earn. The only differences would be how much overtime each respective person does and that is all out in the open too so not hard to work out.

Not every company has a rigid pay structure like Ford. In my current role, the starting salary was less than I was earning in my previous job so they agreed to match it. These sort of negotiations are commonplace and to publish peoples' salaries would only breed resentment. End of the day, how much I earn is nobody's business but mine.

 

[cambsno]

Does regional variance have an impact on gender though? Generally speaking that is, obviously there will be extremes.

No but you could have 10 admins all femal in the north earning less than 10 males in London (or vice versus) but that would look on the face of it that one gender is being preferred.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Why? I am aware how much my colleagues earn. The only differences would be how much overtime each respective person does and that is all out in the open too so not hard to work out.

For some, they are happy for world to know their income, but for others it is a matter of privacy and they wish no-one else to know. Big companies often have relatively transparent pay systems because the size of the business makes pay impersonal, but small companies usually make pay confidential: I worked for one business where revealing your salary to another employee was a disciplinable offense and considered a breach of confidentiality.

 

[viv1969]

Do you know how many businesses there are in this country? Nearly 6 million. What would be the point in requiring all of them to publish these pointless statistics, and what would you do with the data?

Plus, there's a privacy issue with small companies. I have four staff of whom one is female. If I were to publish the average male and female salaries, everybody would know exactly how much she is paid. That's clearly not acceptable.

Why, when she in turn would know exactly how much the men are paid?

 

[cambsno]

We don't have any regional variance. So if you are in an area where house prices or rents are lower, then you're on a winner. Basically the wage offered is set in stone. There is no negotiation for more. You want more then you apply for promotion after you get the initial job. If you have the academic qualifications for the promotion you then stand the exact same chances as everyone else in the interview and selection process.

Companies I have worked don’t have official regional variations but it’s supply and demand. If we were not flexible and stuck to the same salary we would have to take on someone we don’t think will do a good job.

 

[rick448]

No but you could have 10 admins all femal in the north earning less than 10 males in London (or vice versus) but that would look on the face of it that one gender is being preferred.

True, but that’s because the whole thing is flawed. Just more wasteful buerocrocy from yet another government. In my experience a large proportion of the waste in public sector organisations is because of stupid rules and targets. In particular around procurement, but also in recruitment.

Now I work in the private sector the freedom to spend your budget more efficiently is a breath of fresh air. I just wish I had a budget anywhere near my old one!

 

[StewartR]

Why, when she in turn would know exactly how much the men are paid?

No she wouldn't. There are three male employees and she would know the average but not the figures for each individual. Plus, since one of the three is me, there's at least a possibility that my salary is atypical (either significantly higher or significantly lower than the average) for some reason, so the average wouldn't really tell her anything about the salaries of the other two.

But it's not just that. This information would be in the public domain. So everybody who knows her, and who knows who she works for, would then know exactly how much she was paid. You might say that's no big deal, but I think it's not a situation which our society in general considers to be acceptable.

 

[gman]

Do you know how many businesses there are in this country? Nearly 6 million. What would be the point in requiring all of them to publish these pointless statistics, and what would you do with the data?

Plus, there's a privacy issue with small companies. I have four staff of whom one is female. If I were to publish the average male and female salaries, everybody would know exactly how much she is paid. That's clearly not acceptable.

Generally the more data you have the more accurate the results and gender equality applies to all not just the larger companies. But I also strongly support pay privacy so I definitely agree with your second point. Perhaps results for companies with less than 250 employees could be released as a combined block?

But it's all irrelevant anyway as I also agree that this legislation serves little positive purpose, although it does help to reveal the predictable....

Carolyn Harris, a Welsh Labour MP, said in a tweet that the findings were "astonishing" and "immoral":

I know what I find astonishing and immoral.

 

[Phil V]

Why, when she in turn would know exactly how much the men are paid?

She wouldn’t!

 

[viv1969]

She wouldn’t!

As has already been ably pointed out.
But, thanks!

 

[cambsno]

So I the interest of equality, should men get pensions a few years before women seeing as they live longer? The average woman will ‘earn’ more than the average man in terms of pension?

 

[Phil V]

As has already been ably pointed out.
But, thanks!

I posted without seeing Stewart’s response to you.

Why you couldn’t work it out yourself remains a mystery.

 

[Phil V]

So I the interest of equality, should men get pensions a few years before women seeing as they live longer? The average woman will ‘earn’ more than the average man in terms of pension?

Can open... worms everywhere.

There are women pensioners still alive who only have a state pension because of their husbands pension contributions, but apparently speeding up the equalisation of pension ages is an ‘attack on women’.

I’m not without sympathy, but we all have to wait longer for our state pensions than we had planned, there’s no better way of balancing the books.

 

[gman]

So I the interest of equality, should men get pensions a few years before women seeing as they live longer? The average woman will ‘earn’ more than the average man in terms of pension?

Ha ha, good luck with that one!

 

[viv1969]

I posted without seeing Stewart’s response to you.

Why you couldn’t work it out yourself remains a mystery.

Oh, forgive me.
If only we could all be more Phil.

 

[Nawty]

But it's not just that. This information would be in the public domain. So everybody who knows her, and who knows who she works for, would then know exactly how much she was paid. You might say that's no big deal, but I think it's not a situation which our society in general considers to be acceptable.

In Sweden EVERYONE's salary is on public record through tax returns so everyone knows what everyone else earns and they seem to cope fine.

But then they're Swedes and have a totally different mentality to us.

 

[ancient_mariner]

In Sweden EVERYONE's salary is on public record through tax returns so everyone knows what everyone else earns and they seem to cope fine.

But then they're Swedes and have a totally different mentality to us.

In much of Europe there was certainly a time when one of the first questions asked was "how much do you earn?" but that does not make placing the information in the public domain acceptable in this country. And while in Sweden everyone's salary may be on public record, that does not mean that co-workers would have the information effectively forced upon them, unlike in this particular situation.

 

[cambsno]

Ha ha, good luck with that one!

It was a little tongue in cheek!

 

[ancient_mariner]

In the light of the comments about some employees adding more value than others because of their names etc this is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42601477

I had previously heard of both Jon Sopel and Jeremy Bowen, but Carrie Gracie was unknown to me, possibly because I don't have a TV, possibly because she doesn't have the same background and history within broadcasting.

 

[jamesev]

Has this study just applied a generic formula to companies or looked into and normalised the results.

As has been stated many companies pay the same per grade, however the difference arises because there are not the same numbers at each grade. Is this really what the results show?

Surely normalisation should be based on

1) Male / Female population
2) Males / Females in work [FT/PT??] (although this could be challenged)
3) Considerations for career break periods
4) Roles that have historically been gender enticing (this is changing radically), as has been cited Female Airline pilots account for 6% of total. And I wonder how many refuse collectors are women. (although this would be counted in the overall council employee numbers

 

[StewartR]

Has this study just applied a generic formula to companies or looked into and normalised the results.

This isn't a "study". This is a new government requirement for all large firms to report certain data. The data are not normalised or mucked about with in any way.

As has been stated many companies pay the same per grade, however the difference arises because there are not the same numbers at each grade. Is this really what the results show?

The data don't really show anything meaningful.

 

[jamesev]

This isn't a "study". This is a new government requirement for all large firms to report certain data. The data are not normalised or mucked about with in any way.

The data don't really show anything meaningful.

Indeed seems a little flawed

 

[taxboy]

Indeed seems a little flawed

Like most things data on its own does not provide an answer but can decide if its worth asking questions

 

[jamesev]

Like most things data on its own does not provide an answer but can decide if its worth asking questions

I suspect most larger companies have equal pay scales because they wouldn't want the publicity of explaining why two people doing the same job level are paid differently.