-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
Crime figures in Scotland are significantly lower than in England as a whole (and would be even lower without Glasgow's sectarian violence). Same for Wales & NI. There are levels of deprivation in the heart of the two main Scottish cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, but nothing compared to London, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham...
I'll have to take your word for that; it's not what I've heard.
Quote:
What, someone puts a gun to their head and insists they have a child? I'm not talking about those who simply work and have children, I'm talking about those who work all day, go out with their friends every evening, spend the weekends playing golf, and leave their child almost totally in the hands of the nanny. There are also a high number of fathers who do all this while leaving their wife/partner alone with the child all the time. Again, if they have so little interest in the kid, why did they bother?
I can understand your frustration there, but we won't be able to afford a nanny. No golfing weekends or nights on the lash for us.
Quote:
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all, and I certainly don't believe that. What I'm saying is that society now expects women to work as well as having children, so that as much as it used to be the case that women had no choice but to not work, they now have no choice but to work. I object to the characterisation of women who do stay at home with their children as being somehow inferior to women who go back to work: stay-at-home-mum versus supermum.
There is immense pressure on women to both stay home and go back to work. The SAHMs say you're a bad mother if you work. The working girls think you're a wimp or lazy if you don't, and most of the time you don't have a choice anyway; you have to work to pay the bills, particularly if your husband/partner decides he's had enough of responsibility and runs off with another woman, and we get stuck with the kids. Most men who walk out don't want custody; they're happy with alternating weekends of visitation. You can't win no matter what you do. Men don't, can't, and will never understand it. Being a woman sucks.
Quote:
It's certainly not a level playing field: you get paid allowances for childcare if you go back to work, but get nothing if you stay at home. Even if there's a full-time mother involved, young children still need a full range of activities like playschools and nurseries, which need to be paid for. Why does a family with two incomes get state subsidies for this when a family with one income has to fund it all themselves?
Hahahaha, my company doesn't pay mothers anything after their obligatory period of maternity pay. Allowances for childcare? From who? Since when? I don't know anyone with kids who isn't paying full whack for daycare, and that's £130 per child per week at the CHEAPEST places. When you're on £200 a week like some of them are, you wonder why it's worth it. If I had 2 kids, more than half my paycheck would be gobbled up in childcare costs every week. State subsidies? I don't know anybody who gets a thin dime from Grabbing Gordon Brown. I guess my friends aren't poor enough. The middle class in this country are punished severely for working in my opinion! We're being bled dry.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
No wonder you can't afford children! :p
Har har har. :lol:
If I had kids I wouldn't be smoking, obviously.
-
Re: UK failing its children
I was about to post and say that i'm suprised that the US wasn't listed last. Then i clicked the article and see we were 20th. :lol: i guess all is right in the world after all.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Hahahaha, my company doesn't pay mothers anything after their obligatory period of maternity pay. Allowances for childcare? From who? Since when? I don't know anyone with kids who isn't paying full whack for daycare, and that's £130 per child per week at the CHEAPEST places. When you're on £200 a week like some of them are, you wonder why it's worth it. If I had 2 kids, more than half my paycheck would be gobbled up in childcare costs every week. State subsidies? I don't know anybody who gets a thin dime from Grabbing Gordon Brown. I guess my friends aren't poor enough. The middle class in this country are punished severely for working in my opinion! We're being bled dry.
There are definitely childcare allowances when there are two working parents, although I don't know how much or how worthwhile they are. I remember being extremely annoyed when they were announced, as it just seemed to be another attempt to turn every woman in the country into Cherie Blair.
Like you, we don't get any benefits or any help with anything. It's always puzzled me that Gordon Brown seems able to look at my financial/employment/family situation, and adjust his policies specifically to ensure that I pay him as much as possible while getting nothing in return. I swear it's personal.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
There are definitely childcare allowances when there are two working parents, although I don't know how much or how worthwhile they are. I remember being extremely annoyed when they were announced, as it just seemed to be another attempt to turn every woman in the country into Cherie Blair.
Like you, we don't get any benefits or any help with anything. It's always puzzled me that Gordon Brown seems able to look at my financial/employment/family situation, and adjust his policies specifically to ensure that I pay him as much as possible while getting nothing in return. I swear it's personal.
Hahaha, I know exactly what you mean.
What do you make of the road pricing schemes?
-
Re: UK failing its children
The problem is we're trapped in a vicious cycle. Dinky (Dual Income No Kids Yet) families can afford higher prices for houses, services, groceries etc -> inflation -> families with kids must send both parents out to work in order to have a decent life style -> inflation -> round and round we go. That's why I said earlier that we need to give a real financial incentive to a) get parents to marry each other (or at the very least, stay together) and b) get one of them to stay at home. Won't be cheap but IMO our society is going to continue to go down the pan until we start encouraging the right conditions to bring up a child in.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
What do you make of the road pricing schemes?
I'm in two minds about that. Firstly, we know that no matter what they say about using this to replace other forms of road taxation (road tax, petrol tax etc), it will actually be used in addition. Secondly, it strikes me as a little harsh to attempt to price people off the road without giving a decent alternative. We don't have a good enough public transport infrastructure to get around reasonably. I take the train to work in London, but because it leaves at 6:50am, I have to drive the ten miles to the station as there are no buses at that time. Now, if they came up with a pricing scheme that meant I was paying less because I travel when there's no traffic, fine, but I don't think they would. It's also worth bearing in mind that most people don't have a choice about when they travel. They can't tell their boss that they won't be in until 11:00 because they can't afford to travel during the rush hour...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The problem is we're trapped in a vicious cycle. Dinky (Dual Income No Kids Yet) families can afford higher prices for houses, services, groceries etc -> inflation -> families with kids must send both parents out to work in order to have a decent life style -> inflation -> round and round we go. That's why I said earlier that we need to give a real financial incentive to a) get parents to marry each other (or at the very least, stay together) and b) get one of them to stay at home. Won't be cheap but IMO our society is going to continue to go down the pan until we start encouraging the right conditions to bring up a child in.
That's not going to happen all the while the likes of Cherie Blair are held up as the model all women should aspire to. We all know that children are better off when brought up by a parent who can give them the attention, love and stimulation they need (well, I've never seen a report that contradicts this, although there are still people who argue the point), but the fact remains that in our society, those mothers who work are referred to as "supermums", and women are constantly told that they should aspire to have children and a full-time career - "women who have it all!!!". Even those who can afford to have one parent stay at home are often put off by the media- and politically-inspired view that this would somehow make them less of a whole person.
This isn't a gender thing, of course, and women are as entitled to have a child and career as their menfolk are (I can't find a way to phrase that that doesn't sound patronising, but it's not meant that way). Where this happens, the husband should stay at home to look after the children, but unfortunately, househusbands get an even worse rap than housewives...
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The problem is we're trapped in a vicious cycle. Dinky (Dual Income No Kids Yet) families can afford higher prices for houses, services, groceries etc -> inflation -> families with kids must send both parents out to work in order to have a decent life style -> inflation -> round and round we go. That's why I said earlier that we need to give a real financial incentive to a) get parents to marry each other (or at the very least, stay together) and b) get one of them to stay at home. Won't be cheap but IMO our society is going to continue to go down the pan until we start encouraging the right conditions to bring up a child in.
That assumes that women want to stay home with their kids, though. Some don't.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
I'm in two minds about that. Firstly, we know that no matter what they say about using this to replace other forms of road taxation (road tax, petrol tax etc), it will actually be used in addition. Secondly, it strikes me as a little harsh to attempt to price people off the road without giving a decent alternative. We don't have a good enough public transport infrastructure to get around reasonably. I take the train to work in London, but because it leaves at 6:50am, I have to drive the ten miles to the station as there are no buses at that time. Now, if they came up with a pricing scheme that meant I was paying less because I travel when there's no traffic, fine, but I don't think they would. It's also worth bearing in mind that most people don't have a choice about when they travel. They can't tell their boss that they won't be in until 11:00 because they can't afford to travel during the rush hour...
Too true; and if you think public transport is deficient in London, just think about how bad it is outside the M25. I think the government thinks that the UK is just some little universe that exists only inside the M25, and I get so sick of that. Our bus service in York is a joke; First keeps raising fares to the point where they're ridiculous. A day pass on our buses costs 3.50, which is obscene when you consider how small this city is both population-wise and geography-wise. A return ticket from our house to the city center costs a whopping 2.80, takes 35-40 minutes, but only travels 3.5 miles. You can buy weekly and monthly passes, but they only save you a little bit and we worked out that it's cheaper for us to take the car to work than it is for both of us to get on the bus. My fare would be 2.80, hubby's 3.50. Even with weekly passes totalling 27 pounds between the two of us, it's cheaper to take the car even considering the cost of ownership. (Our car is paid off.) This is all assuming that the bus actually shows up, of course. It often doesn't, and when it does it's usually late. Sometimes it's only 5 minutes late, other times it's half an hour late.
Quote:
That's not going to happen all the while the likes of Cherie Blair are held up as the model all women should aspire to. We all know that children are better off when brought up by a parent who can give them the attention, love and stimulation they need (well, I've never seen a report that contradicts this, although there are still people who argue the point), but the fact remains that in our society, those mothers who work are referred to as "supermums", and women are constantly told that they should aspire to have children and a full-time career - "women who have it all!!!". Even those who can afford to have one parent stay at home are often put off by the media- and politically-inspired view that this would somehow make them less of a whole person.
Most working mothers I know go to work because they have to, not because the media tells them to. They don't have a choice. We won't when we have kids, not even in America.
Quote:
This isn't a gender thing, of course, and women are as entitled to have a child and career as their menfolk are (I can't find a way to phrase that that doesn't sound patronising, but it's not meant that way). Where this happens, the husband should stay at home to look after the children, but unfortunately, househusbands get an even worse rap than housewives...
My husband says he wouldn't mind staying home to look after the nippers, but realistically he should be the one to earn a living, not me, if there's only going to be one of us working. As long as women earn less than men, men are going to have to go earn the bread. When we get equal work for equal pay, we can talk about deciding who gets to stay home.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
As long as women earn less than men, men are going to have to go earn the bread. When we get equal work for equal pay, we can talk about deciding who gets to stay home.
Sorry to tell ya but women on average are always going to make less money than men, simpley because women can do less entry level jobs than men. And before anyone getts all in an uproar about that sexist statement. Tell me how many chicks you know that can throw cinderblocks or pack lumber or move concrete or hold on to a jackhammer or work in extremly unsanitary conditions all day 5 days a week? That eliminates women from more than half of the work forces management positions because there is no entry level for them. Sorry, guys who busted their arse as a manual laborer and worked their way up the chain are not going to work for someone who skipped the hard part and came in to a high paying position without bustin their ballz. That is why women aren't hired and whe they are they make less. Make the company less money because of a unmotivated team, you get paid less.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Sorry to tell ya but women on average are always going to make less money than men, simpley because women can do less entry level jobs than men. And before anyone getts all in an uproar about that sexist statement. Tell me how many chicks you know that can throw cinderblocks or pack lumber or move concrete or hold on to a jackhammer or work in extremly unsanitary conditions all day 5 days a week? That eliminates women from more than half of the work forces management positions because there is no entry level for them. Sorry, guys who busted their arse as a manual laborer and worked their way up the chain are not going to work for someone who skipped the hard part and came in to a high paying position without bustin their ballz. That is why women aren't hired and whe they are they make less. Make the company less money because of a unmotivated team, you get paid less.
Pffft, ridiculous. Women make less than men do in all sectors and in practically every position. In I.T., this is especially true. Tell me, how does having a vagina put me at a disadvantage when it comes to programming a database?
You cannot honestly be serious when you say that it's OK for women to make less in general simply because they don't often take jobs in construction.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Pffft, ridiculous. Women make less than men do in all sectors and in practically every position. In I.T., this is especially true. Tell me, how does having a vagina put me at a disadvantage when it comes to programming a database?
You cannot honestly be serious when you say that it's OK for women to make less in general simply because they don't often take jobs in construction.
No, I did not say construction. I said physical labor jobs and related jobs. Those jobs make up a large enough portion of the job market to skew the average towards men even if women make 1/3 more in the white collar sector. In IT this is not especially true, and if it is what you have been exposed to then you are working for the wrong company or there is something wrong with you. I would say letting emotions take control and spouthing off about your vagina rather that reading what I wrote and taking an open minded objective look at it is why you make less. I have been in the IT industry for over ten years and every company that I have been exposed to the women and male counterparts make equivalant $$
I will also add out of 53 resume's I recieved while hiring a developer recently, only 2 were from women.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
No, I did not say construction. I said physical labor jobs and related jobs. Those jobs make up a large enough portion of the job market to skew the average towards men even if women make 1/3 more in the white collar sector. In IT this is not especially true, and if it is what you have been exposed to then you are working for the wrong company or there is something wrong with you. I would say letting emotions take control and spouthing off about your vagina rather that reading what I wrote and taking an open minded objective look at it is why you make less. I have been in the IT industry for over ten years and every company that I have been exposed to the women and male counterparts make equivalant $$
I will also add out of 53 resume's I recieved while hiring a developer recently, only 2 were from women.
You've been lucky, then; I've never worked for a company that paid equally for equal work.
I don't buy the manual labor argument...sorry.
-
Re: UK failing its children
I can see it, although I don't know if it's enough to tip the scale. I work in a small factory, many people here have worked their way up through the ranks. A female wouldn't be able to because the actual work is too physically demanding.
You need rugged men like me for that :pounds chest:
-
Re: UK failing its children
-
Re: UK failing its children
Fair enough, Hilary Swank could do it. :thumb::thumb:
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
i noticed we're not even on the list .. LOL
otherwise i might comment more .. :D
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
You've been lucky, then; I've never worked for a company that paid equally for equal work.
I don't buy the manual labor argument...sorry.
I've never worked at a company that paid equally for equal work either. However, they all paid by position and ,say, a mid level programmer "position" pays mid programmer salary regardless of the sex of the employee currently filling that position. All of the companies I've worked for do their resource funds allocation by position, not by Sex. I know personally when I am working out my quarterly budgets and allocate funds to add another position, the thought process is, "I have 50,000 to pay a junior programmer so I will add a new position to my staff, not " I have 40,000 to pay a junior female programmer and 50,000 to pay a junior male programmer". 99% of the time in my experience, the allocation of funds for a position is set at least 2-4 months before that position is even filled, and at the time the position is created no one usually knows who the hell is going to fill that position let alone weather or not they are male or female.
You can choose to not by the manual labor argument but it is a statistical fact. There is sexual discrimination(for good reason mind you) in the labor sector and the labor sector is large enough to skew the numbers of male to female income to always point to males making a higher income.
Also, if you are not making as much as your male counterparts, find another job. Descrimination in the white collar world is not the norm any more and your working for asholes.
-
Re: UK failing its children
I agree with about half of what MB said (everything in that last post), but I'm curious about that "working their way through the ranks" bit. Now, I realize that I've lived the cushy intellectual life, but I was wondering how many people worked their way up from blue collar? I know of only one person in our agency who did that. As for the rest of us, we generally did some kind of odd physical job for summer work while we were in school, but we were all focused on science as a career. Once out of college or grad school, we got jobs as techs or biologists (I'm a fish squeezer, in case anybody didn't know). While the jobs I have had have included tough manual labor in tough conditions, they couldn't be considered blue collar (perhaps....wet collar...or muddy collar).
In grad school the ratio was slanted towards female (and they're all hot, by the way, this is an AWESOME field), and in my first job out of grad school, the ratio was roughly even. Now that I'm with a hook and bullet agency, the staff is predominantly male, but I don't know why that is.
We do hire by position, though, and everybody gets paid by their title, so there's no discrepancy: pay sucks for all, which is ok, because the job is well above average.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
how does having a vagina put me at a disadvantage when it comes to programming a database?
Well, it's bound to be a bit of a distraction, isn't it? Frankly, I'm surprised the ladies can get any work done at all. :bigyello:
Quote:
I'm a fish squeezer
Errm, I almost afraid to ask but what does that involve?
There's alot of studies that confirm that women are still earning less than Men but I suspect it's less to do with being paid less for the same position as not being able to get into the same positions. Particularly in 'City' jobs like finance and investments which are traditionally very well paid. If you look at the statistics for the number of people working on the boards or investment departments of banks (or the boards of any other companies) you'll see only a tiny proprtion of female employees.
Strangely (and I really can't explain this) women also seem to be far less successful at setting up companies that go on to become industry giants, it always seems to be men who do that. The businesses women set up generally seem to top out as cottage industries (with a few notable exceptions).
Quote:
Now, if they came up with a pricing scheme that meant I was paying less because I travel when there's no traffic, fine,
I think that is actually part of the plan. You're going to be paying more if you travel in the rush hour. I suspect this will tend to lead to more staggered working hours as some companies move there day forward or back an hour or so to relieve the pressure on their employees. It might actually work quite well. Alot of it depends on whether the government introduce complimentary measures such as public transport improvements, though. And the cynical part of of me says they won't because public transports a cost while road pricing is an income. I strongly suspect it will quickly become just another revenue stream.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I've never worked at a company that paid equally for equal work either. However, they all paid by position and ,say, a mid level programmer "position" pays mid programmer salary regardless of the sex of the employee currently filling that position. All of the companies I've worked for do their resource funds allocation by position, not by Sex. I know personally when I am working out my quarterly budgets and allocate funds to add another position, the thought process is, "I have 50,000 to pay a junior programmer so I will add a new position to my staff, not " I have 40,000 to pay a junior female programmer and 50,000 to pay a junior male programmer". 99% of the time in my experience, the allocation of funds for a position is set at least 2-4 months before that position is even filled, and at the time the position is created no one usually knows who the hell is going to fill that position let alone weather or not they are male or female.
That may be how you do business, but it's not how everyone does it. You may allocate a certain amount of money to pay a programmer, but what you've allocated and what you actually offer them aren't always the same thing, and when it comes to raises and promotions men scramble to the top on our backs.
Quote:
You can choose to not by the manual labor argument but it is a statistical fact. There is sexual discrimination(for good reason mind you) in the labor sector and the labor sector is large enough to skew the numbers of male to female income to always point to males making a higher income.
Again, I don't buy it. I want hard data. This is the first time I've ever heard this argument before.
Quote:
Also, if you are not making as much as your male counterparts, find another job. Descrimination in the white collar world is not the norm any more and your working for asholes.
I guess everyone's an ashole. The pay gap in the UK is larger than it is in the US last time I checked, and there's no sign of it closing. I bet even if you took out the manual labor sector the gap would not close by much.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
That may be how you do business, but it's not how everyone does it. You may allocate a certain amount of money to pay a programmer, but what you've allocated and what you actually offer them aren't always the same thing, and when it comes to raises and promotions men scramble to the top on our backs.
In our case, everybody gets paid the bottom of the wage category, so all do get paid the same. However, promotions are a different matter. I don't think there is any favoritism in this agency, but we are so wildly skewed to begin with that it hardly matters, and that skewing of the population seems to come from job interest. By that I mean that female biologists seem to go for different types of jobs than these, but I could just be making that up.
FD: If you don't know what a fish squeezer is, you probably are better off.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
In our case, everybody gets paid the bottom of the wage category, so all do get paid the same. However, promotions are a different matter. I don't think there is any favoritism in this agency, but we are so wildly skewed to begin with that it hardly matters, and that skewing of the population seems to come from job interest. By that I mean that female biologists seem to go for different types of jobs than these, but I could just be making that up.
FD: If you don't know what a fish squeezer is, you probably are better off.
Men are always full of excuses for the pay gap; they're very quick to dismiss it and to blame it all on us.
Makes you sort of weep for the future, eh? I don't think we're going to get any further ahead until we're in charge, and the way things are going that'll take a while.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
I don't think we're going to get any further ahead until we're in charge, and the way things are going that'll take a while.
The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. After all, you'll be much cheaper. ;)
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. After all, you'll be much cheaper. ;)
First thing we'll do is sack people who make jokes like that. ;)
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
That may be how you do business, but it's not how everyone does it. You may allocate a certain amount of money to pay a programmer, but what you've allocated and what you actually offer them aren't always the same thing, and when it comes to raises and promotions men scramble to the top on our backs.
Like I said, This is how I and the majority of comapanies are doing business, and if you work for someone who does not do it this way, get another job.
Quote:
Again, I don't buy it. I want hard data. This is the first time I've ever heard this argument before.
If you can not grasp that 63% of the work force is manual labor and a large percentage of those jobs a female can not perform or are discriminated against then I can't help you. It's math, you should be familliar with it. You are a database programmer right?
Quote:
I guess everyone's an ashole. The pay gap in the UK is larger than it is in the US last time I checked, and there's no sign of it closing. I bet even if you took out the manual labor sector the gap would not close by much.
Yeah a 63% change in your base statistic would have no effect whatsoever on that figure :rolleyes:
BTW 63% came from the Department of Labor, It was a couple years old so there may be an error margin of a few points.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Men are always full of excuses for the pay gap; they're very quick to dismiss it and to blame it all on us.
What? You "choose" to continue to be employed by a company who pays your male counterparts more than they pay you and you're blaming men? :lol: Like I said the problem is with you. No one holds a gun to your head and makes you clock in every morning for an unfair salary. You do that on your own. If you want to make a fair salary, find someplace that pays a fair salary or demand more money from your current company. If you are worth it, they will pay up. It is cheaper to pay you the xtra x% than to rehire and retrain anyway.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Men are always full of excuses for the pay gap; they're very quick to dismiss it and to blame it all on us.
Makes you sort of weep for the future, eh? I don't think we're going to get any further ahead until we're in charge, and the way things are going that'll take a while.
Actually, what I was saying that there is no pay gap here for the women who are here. However, the ratio of males to females in this field was much higher in grad school, and in my first job than it is in my current job. I don't believe that is caused by discrimination, but rather choice. There are a wide variety of job choices available to biologists: government, private industry, non-profit, etc. Some focus more on research, some on regulation, others on selling your soul for a company line, etc. It seems to me that women choose private or non-profit at a higher rate than government, though I have no clear idea why that would be.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
What? You "choose" to continue to be employed by a company who pays your male counterparts more than they pay you and you're blaming men? :lol: Like I said the problem is with you. No one holds a gun to your head and makes you clock in every morning for an unfair salary. You do that on your own. If you want to make a fair salary, find someplace that pays a fair salary or demand more money from your current company. If you are worth it, they will pay up. It is cheaper to pay you the xtra x% than to rehire and retrain anyway.
Not much choice around here, this is the only thing going in this city! :lol: If I were in a big city with multiple opportunities, I'd agree with you 100%...but I'm not. Unless I want to commute 3-4 hours a day via public transport, this is it. :thumb:
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Actually, what I was saying that there is no pay gap here for the women who are here. However, the ratio of males to females in this field was much higher in grad school, and in my first job than it is in my current job. I don't believe that is caused by discrimination, but rather choice. There are a wide variety of job choices available to biologists: government, private industry, non-profit, etc. Some focus more on research, some on regulation, others on selling your soul for a company line, etc. It seems to me that women choose private or non-profit at a higher rate than government, though I have no clear idea why that would be.
I'm not talking about comparing teachers to CEOs, nurses to surgeons, etc. I'm talking about like-for-like. Equal qualifications. Equal skills. Equal ability to do the job. Even in situations where men and women are equally qualified and equally capable of doing a job, men on average are paid more and there isn't any way that anyone can persuade me that that is justifiable.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Well, I believe what you are saying is true, and it doesn't surprise me, though I don't agree with it. However, there are a few places that are actually fair, and I happen to work for one.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
talking about like-for-like. Equal qualifications. Equal skills. Equal ability to do the job. Even in situations where men and women are equally qualified and equally capable of doing a job, men on average are paid more and there isn't any way that anyone can persuade me that that is justifiable.
I definitely wouldn't try to persuade you that that's justifiable - it simply isn't.
The only thing I would say is that I've rarely come across it myself. I have come across a disparity in opportunities but rarely in the pay awarded once the position if filled. If you're experiencing that then I really would urge you to do something about it (arguments about whether or not you should have to are academic - in pragmatic terms the only person whose going to fight your corner is you.)
The bluntest tool you've got is to switch jobs but if the opportunities aren't available in your area that may not be an option. If you can prove that male employees doing the same job to the same level of ability with the same qualifications etc are getting paid more then you have a very good case to take it to tribunal and you'd probably win. That kind of discrimination is illegal. It may not make you the most popular person in the company but if you're headed back to the States soon (and therefore changing companies, presumably), what have you got to lose?
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I definitely wouldn't try to persuade you that that's justifiable - it simply isn't.
Glad we cleared that up!
Quote:
The only thing I would say is that I've rarely come across it myself. I have come across a disparity in opportunities but rarely in the pay awarded once the position if filled. If you're experiencing that then I really would urge you to do something about it (arguments about whether or not you should have to are academic - in pragmatic terms the only person whose going to fight your corner is you.)
I think I'm sort of fairly compensated; I make £17 an hour, but my last company were jerks. No woman I know there got a raise in the three years I was there, but the men got raises. It was blatant and out in the open, but there was nothing I could do about it. Small company, no union, they sacked the last woman who complained. It took me from April 2005 to November 2005 to find another job, and the one I've got now isn't permanent.
Quote:
The bluntest tool you've got is to switch jobs but if the opportunities aren't available in your area that may not be an option. If you can prove that male employees doing the same job to the same level of ability with the same qualifications etc are getting paid more then you have a very good case to take it to tribunal and you'd probably win. That kind of discrimination is illegal. It may not make you the most popular person in the company but if you're headed back to the States soon (and therefore changing companies, presumably), what have you got to lose?
Tribunal? At my last company? Nobody bothered; nobody dared. I was harassed not only due to my gender but due to my nationality. I would have expected my black boss to sympathize since I'm sure he had experienced discrimination too, but no...he was always ready with a barrel full of excuses for it.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
I would have expected my black boss to sympathize since I'm sure he had experienced discrimination too, but no
It never seems to work that way. *******s beget *******s I'm afraid.
The thing about tribunals is that everyone's always afraid they'll make things worse by going to one but usually that's not the case. Companies know when they're out of line but it's usually politically easier for them to ignore the problem (and occasionally it may be deliberate) and take the path of least resistance (which usually involves creating a "that's just the way it is" culture). A culture then tends to build up of keeping heads down so as not to rock the boat or just quietly leaving.
But if you do go to a tribunal you gain a huge level of protection. If the company discriminates on the basis that you went to a tribunal before you simply go to a tribunal again, and the tribunal will nail a company to the wall for that. And remember, the vast majority of cases that are bought to tribunal are found in favour of the complainant.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
It never seems to work that way. *******s beget *******s I'm afraid.
The thing about tribunals is that everyone's always afraid they'll make things worse by going to one but usually that's not the case. Companies know when they're out of line but it's usually politically easier for them to ignore the problem (and occasionally it may be deliberate) and take the path of least resistance (which usually involves creating a "that's just the way it is" culture). A culture then tends to build up of keeping heads down so as not to rock the boat or just quietly leaving.
But if you do go to a tribunal you gain a huge level of protection. If the company discriminates on the basis that you went to a tribunal before you simply go to a tribunal again, and the tribunal will nail a company to the wall for that. And remember, the vast majority of cases that are bought to tribunal are found in favour of the complainant.
Nobody ever won one when I was there; I knew the VP of strategy and he boasted that nobody had ever won in a tribunal against them. I wish I was making it up.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Nobody ever won one when I was there; I knew the VP of strategy and he boasted that nobody had ever won in a tribunal against them. I wish I was making it up.
Sounds like someone was feeding you a line of sheit just to cover their own arse. If you were harassed or discriminated against then a crime has been comitted. There are attorneys that exist who will take your case and at least evaluate if there is a case to begin with at no cost to you. I don't pretend to understand UK law but I'm sure there is a UK equiv to the US system. If, you've been harassed, report it to your supervisor, If you contine to get harassed, report it to an attorney who will report it to the proper authorities usually for no charge. They will make their money back off of whatever settlement you get.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Do you know if anyone had actually tried and failed. In all honesty the vast majority of claims succeed so either
1. No-one had ever tried because they were all too scared (quite possible)
2. The company was doing nothing wrong (unlikely from what you've said)
3. The stategy VP was just lying to discourage claim attempts (also quite possible)
4. The company has somehow been extremely lucky and/or clever (possible but statistically unlikely)
I've often found that when you dig into these things what you find is that everyone's simply been too scared to actually pursue a claim or there's a missplaced sense of loyalty (surprisingly common in small companies) so the company never gets tested and gets to carry on exploiting its employees with gay abandon. (which is not to imply that gay people should be exploited - please don't anyone take out a claim against me)
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Sounds like someone was feeding you a line of sheit just to cover their own arse. If you were harassed or discriminated against then a crime has been comitted. There are attorneys that exist who will take your case and at least evaluate if there is a case to begin with at no cost to you. I don't pretend to understand UK law but I'm sure there is a UK equiv to the US system. If, you've been harassed, report it to your supervisor, If you contine to get harassed, report it to an attorney who will report it to the proper authorities usually for no charge. They will make their money back off of whatever settlement you get.
I was too afraid at the time; they sacked people for minor infractions at that company even though technically you can't sack someone for a first offense unless it's gross misconduct, but they had a pretty wide definition of gross misconduct. I left that company nearly 2 years ago, so it's too late to do anything now. I can only console myself with the fact that they are in the cr@pper financially.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Do you know if anyone had actually tried and failed. In all honesty the vast majority of claims succeed so either
1. No-one had ever tried because they were all too scared (quite possible)
2. The company was doing nothing wrong (unlikely from what you've said)
3. The stategy VP was just lying to discourage claim attempts (also quite possible)
4. The company has somehow been extremely lucky and/or clever (possible but statistically unlikely)
I've often found that when you dig into these things what you find is that everyone's simply been too scared to actually pursue a claim or there's a missplaced sense of loyalty (surprisingly common in small companies) so the company never gets tested and gets to carry on exploiting its employees with gay abandon. (which is not to imply that gay people should be exploited - please don't anyone take out a claim against me)
You're probably right. The only thing that shocked me about that company was why I put up with it for so long. To be fair, I did start looking for another job after I'd been there for a year, but up in this part of the country it is very difficult to find I.T. work. I've been incredibly lucky with my current job in that I get to use some skills and acquire a few new ones, and even though the contract is ending soon (and I won't be seeking another one in the UK) it has been pretty good. Nobody has really treated me badly here.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
I can only console myself with the fact that they are in the cr@pper financially.
Hurrah, there is justice :bigyello:
I've found myself in quite bullying companies twice and I found that I just kept my head down too. The more recent time I didn't leave until they made me redundant either when I could have simply packed up and left. The most frightening thing I learned is that I'm actually, really, really easy to bully because I have a deep desire to do a good job and please my bosses. I suspect most people are like that.
-
Re: UK failing its children
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Hurrah, there is justice :bigyello:
I've found myself in quite bullying companies twice and I found that I just kept my head down too. The more recent time I didn't leave until they made me redundant either when I could have simply packed up and left. The most frightening thing I learned is that I'm actually, really, really easy to bully because I have a deep desire to do a good job and please my bosses. I suspect most people are like that.
Yep, I'm an easy target too. :blush:
