[mcoops]

I had my head in my hands after reading this. There is absolutely an issue in this country with the gender pay gap. However this sort of thing seems totally counter-productive, assuming I have read it right:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48364081

How can someone newly-promoted to a role with no performance track-record in that role expect to be paid the same as someone who has been doing it (presumably well) for years? By the same logic, she could not expect any performance-related pay rises until she gets promoted again?

[Oceanic]

Don't try and apply logic to the feminist agenda, the gender pay gap has been proven multiple times not to exist. Just bitches bitching, it's what they do.

[RobUK]

I'd agree, and while I don't know all the details about the case in hand it does appear on the face of it that she was playing the gender card when she didn't have as much experience as the bloke.

I am all for people being paid the same when doing the same job to the same level of performance. If one does the job less well than the other then there's a case for paying that person less, regardless of what gender they are.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Oceanic

Don't try and apply logic to the feminist agenda, the gender pay gap has been proven multiple times not to exist. Just bitches bitching, it's what they do.

Definitely exists where I work, and good on anyone who bitches about it. But I don't think the example above is one of those cases.

[Wills2]

The gender pay gap exists but not for the reasons certain people would have you believe (see Jordan Peterson for details he explains it well)

I read that story today and TBH I think she is right, I believe in paying for the role not the person, if the role attracts XXXXX amount and I employ you then that's what you get, anything else tells me you're not good enough so why am I giving you the role.

If the company rate for an a/c manager is £XXk basic salary then that's what I offer, I don't beat people down on experience, I've interviewed you I think you can do the job I want you to do the job, I back my decisions.

I also do not believe in performance related pay rises, you're doing a good job well done I expect you to, I'll pay a bonus related to performance in the given year, but not bake that bonus into salary as it might not happen again and I end up paying for performance that isn't there.

As for not paying someone because they're not experienced enough, what are you doing offering the role to someone you feel isn't experienced enough to do it? These roles are not apprenticeships.

I once had a new manager come to me saying he was only offering 75% of the salary to a candidate in the job offer he was making, I asked why? He said he wasn't sure about them, I said then don't offer them the role, go and start the process again oh and I'll sit in on the interviews.

[JustChris]

She'll probably be off soon having kids, so yeah, you have to factor in that really annoying maternity year.







Too soon?

[inkiboo]

There is far more a having children pay gap than a gender pay gap.

This of course affects women more because they have the superpower of being able to host the creation of a brand new human.

[zofinger]

I know I get paid less than my, also, male counterparts even though I have similar if not more experirence. Unfortunately I need to move companies and get rises rather than being 'loyal' as I have. That's a fact I know but i've chosen to move roles within the company and therefore have slipped behind market value. And I can't play the gender card but if i was a woman, I reckon i'd get the uplift I need to be on equal pay. Maybe a change is needed....

[Cero ceto]

The gender pay gap doesn’t exist by my employer and I totally agree that someone should be paid x amount for a specific job and it shouldn’t matter if they are male, female, transgender, gay, black, white or anywhere in between. What’s important is that the best person should get the job and the employer shouldn't be driven by numbers of diverse employees! It’s political correctness etc gone made.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by inkiboo

There is far more a having children pay gap than a gender pay gap.

This of course affects women more because they have the superpower of being able to host the creation of a brand new human.

This explains why a woman might not be paid the same or be at the same level of seniority as a man the same age (because they've had a break to have/raise kids). But it doesn't explain a pay gap for the same level of experience in the same role?

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by mcoops

This explains why a woman might not be paid the same or be at the same level of seniority as a man the same age (because they've had a break to have/raise kids). But it doesn't explain a pay gap for the same level of experience in the same role?

That often comes down to negotiation and it seems women dont like to haggle as much....

Its pay for a role for me, and I will obviously have a range that I can give, where on that range I settle depends on the individual, how much I think is needed to get them in and to be happy but also trying to look after the company and not pay more than I need to....

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The gender pay gap exists but not for the reasons certain people would have you believe (see Jordan Peterson for details he explains it well)

I read that story today and TBH I think she is right, I believe in paying for the role not the person, if the role attracts XXXXX amount and I employ you then that's what you get, anything else tells me you're not good enough so why am I giving you the role.

If the company rate for an a/c manager is £XXk basic salary then that's what I offer, I don't beat people down on experience, I've interviewed you I think you can do the job I want you to do the job, I back my decisions.

I also do not believe in performance related pay rises, you're doing a good job well done I expect you to, I'll pay a bonus related to performance in the given year, but not bake that bonus into salary as it might not happen again and I end up paying for performance that isn't there.

As for not paying someone because they're not experienced enough, what are you doing offering the role to someone you feel isn't experienced enough to do it? These roles are not apprenticeships.

I once had a new manager come to me saying he was only offering 75% of the salary to a candidate in the job offer he was making, I asked why? He said he wasn't sure about them, I said then don't offer them the role, go and start the process again oh and I'll sit in on the interviews.

I guess this would make recruitment and people management much simpler! But I don't think I could work this way. It feels too binary and transactional to me. People don't simply either perform or not. Some people achieve their objectives but leave a trail of destruction. Some achieve their objectives but never do more, while others try to exceed them or innovate. Some people try to better themselves and some don't. And yes, some people are more effective because they had more practice, or know how to get things done in that organisation.


I get that you can theoretically address some of this through bonuses. But I'm competing for talent with other organisations who will have a more rounded approach to reward. There has to be some role for company culture where people decide to stay because they are not valued in an exclusively transactional way.

[Oceanic]

I watched a hilarious video the other day with a load of Women suggesting that employers should vary their workload depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle for the month, so they expect normal workloads when they're feeling fine but it should be reduced when the decorators are in, it was comedy gold, if there was a gender pay gap ladies this may explain why there is one, by self admission you say not to able to perform like Men for a certain time period of the month. I think it may have been Sweden which is the most known loony feminist country in the World.

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by mcoops

I had my head in my hands after reading this. There is absolutely an issue in this country with the gender pay gap. However this sort of thing seems totally counter-productive, assuming I have read it right:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48364081

How can someone newly-promoted to a role with no performance track-record in that role expect to be paid the same as someone who has been doing it (presumably well) for years? By the same logic, she could not expect any performance-related pay rises until she gets promoted again?

Because the job is the same and (presumably) the grade is the same...

By inference, offering a person a job means that the company assesses they are capable of doing that job and so, regardless of experience, they should be paid the same as any other person in that role... If you argue that there is a case for paying the more experienced person more, then there is an argument that they are not doing the same job, so maybe the grade or job is different... In this case, two people filled two positions that were the same...

This is a gender neutral equality issue, rather than gender specific.. and is the root cause of things like favouritism etc in companies...

There are plenty of mechanisms by which folk with more experience etc can be rewarded that do not endanger equality.

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by RobUK

I'd agree, and while I don't know all the details about the case in hand it does appear on the face of it that she was playing the gender card when she didn't have as much experience as the bloke.

I am all for people being paid the same when doing the same job to the same level of performance. If one does the job less well than the other then there's a case for paying that person less, regardless of what gender they are.

This would be a grading issue, rather than a job requirement issue...

Anybody doing a particular job is measured simply against the requirements of the job... If you can do it, you can do it...

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The gender pay gap exists but not for the reasons certain people would have you believe (see Jordan Peterson for details he explains it well)

I read that story today and TBH I think she is right, I believe in paying for the role not the person, if the role attracts XXXXX amount and I employ you then that's what you get, anything else tells me you're not good enough so why am I giving you the role.

If the company rate for an a/c manager is £XXk basic salary then that's what I offer, I don't beat people down on experience, I've interviewed you I think you can do the job I want you to do the job, I back my decisions.

I also do not believe in performance related pay rises, you're doing a good job well done I expect you to, I'll pay a bonus related to performance in the given year, but not bake that bonus into salary as it might not happen again and I end up paying for performance that isn't there.

As for not paying someone because they're not experienced enough, what are you doing offering the role to someone you feel isn't experienced enough to do it? These roles are not apprenticeships.

I once had a new manager come to me saying he was only offering 75% of the salary to a candidate in the job offer he was making, I asked why? He said he wasn't sure about them, I said then don't offer them the role, go and start the process again oh and I'll sit in on the interviews.

Yes, this whole excuse that a more experienced person would do the job better does not apply… The job is the job and you can do it or you cannot… The employer sets the job requirements and assesses, before offering the post to somebody, that they meet the standards required… at that point, the pay is the pay…

I agree with all of your arguments…

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by zofinger

I know I get paid less than my, also, male counterparts even though I have similar if not more experirence. Unfortunately I need to move companies and get rises rather than being 'loyal' as I have. That's a fact I know but i've chosen to move roles within the company and therefore have slipped behind market value. And I can't play the gender card but if i was a woman, I reckon i'd get the uplift I need to be on equal pay. Maybe a change is needed....

Your position is just the example I was making when I was suggesting that there is a wider issue about equal pay and that, really, there should be a massive rethink...

People who do the same job should be paid the same. If you think some folks do the same job better then they are actually doing different jobs....

Your company presumably pays these folk coming in what they think they need to pay them to secure their services... and whilst I might concede there are some, rare, cases when you might wish to do that, the real question is why will not these folks come work for you unless you pay them more... and also they create internal disharmony...

Seriously, I'd want folk who want to work for the company regardless.

If the only reason somebody comes to you is because you will pay them more then you have to ask how motivated they would be to leave when the next company comes along with £££

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Its pay for a role for me, and I will obviously have a range that I can give, where on that range I settle depends on the individual, how much I think is needed to get them in and to be happy but also trying to look after the company and not pay more than I need to....

Having grades within a role is fine because we all understand that different folk have different capabilities within a role... sales grade 1, sales grade 2 etc... Just you need one salary for each grade to be fair to all...

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by mcoops

I guess this would make recruitment and people management much simpler! But I don't think I could work this way. It feels too binary and transactional to me. People don't simply either perform or not. Some people achieve their objectives but leave a trail of destruction. Some achieve their objectives but never do more, while others try to exceed them or innovate. Some people try to better themselves and some don't. And yes, some people are more effective because they had more practice, or know how to get things done in that organisation.

I think the way to address this being as fair as possible to everybody is to have clearly defined roles and grades and move folk to the most appropriate role/grade... Each role/grade would have clearly defined requirements...

I appreciate this is more complicated for less clear cut types of role but, fundamentally, I think not enough has been done by business to tackle this and that is why examples like the BBC one are being highlighted...

[Wolfus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by JustChris

She'll probably be off soon having kids, so yeah, you have to factor in that really annoying maternity year.


Too soon?

And more than likely, she won't come back after her leave is over. She'll have discovered that it's a lot easier, in terms of slogging to work every day and back home, dealing with bosses, etc., to stay at home. (I know being a new parent is taxing. But it's easier if you don't have to go out every day for work.)

It's why notorious feminist Simone de Beauvoir proclaimed that women should not even be given the choice to stay at home vs. working, because, as she said (I'm paraphrasing), too many women will choose the homemaker role.

Excuse me for dropping in on your discussion; I'm not in the UK. But it was nice to see the discussion be so rational and sensible.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by DaveA

Having grades within a role is fine because we all understand that different folk have different capabilities within a role... sales grade 1, sales grade 2 etc... Just you need one salary for each grade to be fair to all...

Nope, I can recruit an M3 or an M4 and be able to pay anywhere between 60k ish and about 100k (subject to HRD and CEO approval). So it will vary according to whether i think you are at bottom end of job spec and will grow into it, or top end, fully capable and ready to deliver and likely to be banging on my door in a few months looking for more responsibility, tasks, a new role or whatever. It will also be influences by what you currently earn - if you are on 50k and I can give you £60k and you be ectstatic, why would I give you £75k to match someone else who I had to give that to to prise them away from current employer?

I dont even notice what gender, sexual orientation or race you are - its a commercial decision to get the right people, the best for the role at a price that fits commercially on both sides.

PS I'm the lowest paid at my grade on the exec, but that's OK as I probably have the least stress...

[Wolfus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

. . . It will also be influences by what you currently earn - if you are on 50k and I can give you £60k and you be ectstatic, why would I give you £75k to match someone else who I had to give that to to prise them away from current employer? . . .

That reminds me of the recent flap caused by American actress Michelle Williams, who complained she was only paid about $1000 US for some needed reshoots on a film, while her costar Mark Wahlberg made over a million US for his reshoots.

Wahlberg's contract said nothing about post-production re-shoots, which required him to renegotiate his own fees to handle his late-in-time work. There was also that not-so-insignificant Forbes article that hailed Wahlberg as the highest paid actor of 2017.

Uh, Michelle, I love ya, but you need to negotiate better, or get a new agent. And the same thing has probably happened to countless male workers in many many fields -- but nobody makes a fuss about them.

And I point out the detail that none of these "pay gap" people bring up. If women actually earned 80% or whatever of what a man earns -- employers would hire nothing but women and immediately save 20% on their labor costs. Since they don't do that, it's obvious that this "gap" is the product of overheated minds.