Don't Read This If You Are An Easily Offended Chauvinist! (Male and Female Pay Differentials)

Member Name: splodgethecat

Product:	Male and Female Pay Differentials
Date:	03/08/01 (74 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: None for women

Disadvantages: Men get the cream - as usual

Compare these; Wall washer £5.20 an hour / Floor washer £3.70 an hour. ~ NVQ level 3 electrician £996 per month for a 37 hour week / NVQ level 3 ancillary £580 per month for a 39 hour week. ~ NHS joiner £19,100 per year plus overtime at time and a half / NHS D grade nurse £13.900 per year, no overtime only extra time in lieu.

~~~

What is striking about all these comparisons is that the former in each comparison is 99% likely to be a male and the latter 99% likely to be a female. The jobs are all on a par for expertise and qualification level but yet notice the *striking* differentials in the pay of each pair. The above examples are all workers working in the NHS, however you might be surprised to hear that there are the same discrepancies in the professions too.

~~~

A recent statement issued by the Association of University Teachers said that the pay gap between male and female academics had widened over the past five years to a ‘shocking level’. Female lecturers earned 16% less than their male counterparts in the year 2000. In Wales and Scotland the gap is worse with women earning an average of 19% less than their male colleagues.

~~~

Now, I’m not saying I have an answer to all this, because I don’t. Unfortunately, like it or not, even taking into consideration the sexual discriminations act, it is still a patriarchal society. Men, on the whole, still make the rules ….and they make them in their own favour. They have always done this, but they are having to make even more of an effort these days to *keep* it this way, because they have a sneeking suspicion that women are, in fact, far more competent than they are in almost every respect. It is now common knowledge that rather than being the weaker sex, girls consistently do better at school than boys, they get more qualifications, and are far more competent at multi-tasking.

~~~

After reading s
ome of the, frankly, outdated ramblings of a couple of the other opinions, I had to put in my twopennorth here. All this about women having babies and taking maternity leave all the time is a complete red herring. What about women who are single, who are just as qualified as men, or who are *more* qualified than their male counterparts, who go back to work after having children, those who *never* have children, those who have had their children and won’t be having any more? All the women in these instances will have to endure the same differential in pay to the men. Why? They are only going to be ‘out of action’ so to speak for an extremely small chunk of their working lives anyway, if at all.

~~~

Plus, it takes two to tango! Why should women be discriminated against because of a biological function that it actually takes a female AND a male to set into action? There is, in my opinion, no moral justification for these differentials. In the large majority of cases, women have to work twice as hard to get half as far and it’s *all wrong*. Add to this, the fact that the odds are invisibly stacked against them anyway in the first place. No wonder it’s so hard for women to get to the top. Sometimes it’s just not worth the effort.

~~~

Back to the NHS examples. Apparently, a number of test discrimination cases are being brought against the NHS by the union Unison. This means that the NHS might be ‘crippled’ by having to pay these women thousands of pounds of back pay for all the years they were being paid less than their male colleagues. Someone mentioned on one of the ops how this is wrong, because it would damage the NHS. Well, I‘m sorry, but I feel that if the women hadn’t have been discriminated against in the first place, these actions wouldn’t have been taken. Would there be such a hoo-ha if it were men bringing the claims. I think probably not.

~~~ r>
Anyway, I think it is clear to see the way I look at things. I know there will be plenty of men posting comments to this, but in my opinion, there should be NO pay discrimination on the grounds of sex. Differentials should, by right only come into operation on the grounds of merit – or non merit. The trouble then though would be that women might get paid far in excess of men, and you can’t be having that now boys can you?