Equal Pay - Gender Discrimination

stator

Interestingly there used to be a lot more females in IT. That was before it became a 'profession'. People who are 45+ years old often worked for a company in a different capacity and then became involved in their IT systems and moved onto jobs like programming. People who are 30-45 are more likely to have studied IT at university and for some reason there weren't many girls choosing these courses (I think only 2 out of 100 on my course) so in this age range in IT there is a big male dominance. I believe in current university courses it's not such a big gap anymore.

Comms69

tenchy wrote: »

So why are there many more female nurses, teachers, hairdressers and so on? Come on. What's your explanation?

Might I suggest a different approach.


Because I suspect the answer you get will be because society forces them to be. Which is ofcourse a non-sense.


Everyone makes different choices, but there are consequences to those. Society cannot function in such a way as to protect every possible combination of protected characteristic, or otherwise for that matter, from a mythical patriarchy which controls everything we do.


For most people a trend emerges when children come into play. Childcare is often too expensive and so one parent must forego employment to raise their offspring.


Yes typically this is the mother - and there is a whole list of reasons why. (trust me lots of men would rather spend time with their child, but instead go to work, often sacrificing opportunities themselves for the safety net that long term employment brings.)


Once the child reaches school age, the mothers return slowly into the workforce once more. Careers which are open to them often either fit around school hours, or around split care with a partner. Raising a child for 5 years enhances skills which accommodate themselves well into teaching and carer giving (and often many other skills e.g. financial management)


This may at least in some respect explain why those professions are dominated by women.

KittenChops

tenchy wrote: »

So why are there many more female nurses, teachers, hairdressers and so on? Come on. What's your explanation?

Perhaps if society stopped reinforcing certain stereotypes, there wouldn't be.


There was a great program on telly a few months ago. One thing they did was to dress toddlers as the opposite sex, and put them amidst a variety of toys, some 'typically' boy things (cars, building blocks etc) and some 'typically' girl things (dolls, tea sets etc). Then someone else was introduced to the scene (a primary school teacher or similar) and without fail, each of them tried to encourage the 'girls' to play with dolls and the 'boys' to play with cars.

This is what we need to tackle. For example, if girls are steered away from playing with Lego then the likelihood of that girl becoming an engineer diminishes. Conversely, stopping a boy from playing with dolls could prevent him from being a midwife.

I was lucky as a child in that having both an older brother and sister, I had a choice of what to play with and my parents eventually gave up trying to get me to be interested in that horrid Tiny Tears!

Comms69

KittenChops wrote: »

Perhaps if society stopped reinforcing certain stereotypes, there wouldn't be.


There was a great program on telly a few months ago. One thing they did was to dress toddlers as the opposite sex, and put them amidst a variety of toys, some 'typically' boy things (cars, building blocks etc) and some 'typically' girl things (dolls, tea sets etc). Then someone else was introduced to the scene (a primary school teacher or similar) and without fail, each of them tried to encourage the 'girls' to play with dolls and the 'boys' to play with cars.

This is what we need to tackle. For example, if girls are steered away from playing with Lego then the likelihood of that girl becoming an engineer diminishes. Conversely, stopping a boy from playing with dolls could prevent him from being a midwife.

I was lucky as a child in that having both an older brother and sister, I had a choice of what to play with and my parents eventually gave up trying to get me to be interested in that horrid Tiny Tears!

Is this backed up by anything, or just an opinion?

steampowered

I find some of the comments made on this thread a bit depressing to be honest.

People shouldn't be put into a box based only on their gender. That is just one tiny part of what makes up a person.

If a boy wants to become a nurse that should be encouraged, as should a girl who wants to work in IT.

The Op came to us with what - on the face of it - sounds like a situation where there may well be gender discrimination. If the employer has a good reason for paying the men more, then that's fine. But if there is no good reason, it needs to be challenged.

FBaby

He has refused and said there is no budget for any increases.

So could it be that it has nothing to do with being sexist but with circumstances? Ie. the role was expected to demand more responsibility when the first male was hired so the job was deemed worth £31K. Then they realised that the job wasn't as intensive, only worth £24K but they were not prepared to go through the loop of revising the male's salary but decided to try to see if they could recruit a good analyst on £24K. The succeeded with you. They then had to replace you, discussed a strategy and decided to offer a bit more to make up for the fact that it would be harder to recruit someone on a temporary basis. As it is, they could have had him for cheaper, but the budget was agreed, so it didn't matter.

You are now back and the guy is staying (by the way, what was the pay of the person who's left?), you're back, but unfortunately, the company is not doing as well as last year and there is a freeze on increased above the 1%. Your manager think you are the best of the three, but again, he is not prepared to upset the cartwheel by reducing the pay of the two males to increase yours and at the moment, you haven't made enough waves to get him worried that you might leave, so he is happy to pretend all is fine.

Now your issue is that he's got you over a barrel with your pregnancy. It might very well that he's predicted might indeed get pregnant soon (age, married just a few years, a few words there and then about becoming a mum one day etc...), so knows that you are unlikely to leave anyway, and there is nothing you can do now if indeed you want to stay for the benefits. Remember, your colleagues won't get 6 months paid maternity leave like you will (or whatever you'll get).

What you've got to consider too though is that if he agreed to increase your salary to £26K to align with your new colleague, he could potentially then say that he thinks he deserves £31K, and then you could say the same.

Your salary is not a reflection on your worth but on circumstances. If you were not pregnant, you could try the 'It is time for me to look for a better job' and hope that indeed, they considered you worth enough not to take the chance to lose you, but pregnant, you're going to find it harder to negotiate.

Detroit

Comms69 wrote: »

Sorry that is only a contention for it seems people with a certain viewpoint.


If she is the best at the task, why should she not do it?


Genuinely if anyone in a team I managed refused to do this they would be on the list.


(I think you'd be foolish to not mention a sought after skill - but that's up to you.)

The person required to take the minutes typically contributes less to the discussion. There's also something of a message that your value is in noting what others have said rather than your own input if you are the person always selected. If there is no one whose job it is, it should be rotated.

I can't buy the idea that someone would be constantly selected to take minutes on the grounds they are best at this 'skilled' task. Not wishing to demean the tasks, which does require some skill, but I find it hard to accept that only the OP in a meeting of professionals would be capable of it.

OP you should consult your union. While it's not possible for anyone here to tell you you have or do not have a discrimination case, I certainly see that there is potential.

TBagpuss

tenchy wrote: »

So why are there many more female nurses, teachers, hairdressers and so on? Come on. What's your explanation?

There are a lot of complex reasons but a lot of them do come down to societal pressures, gender based assumptions and stereotypes etc.

For instance, boys who enjoy playing with dolls, doing the hair or make up of their doll,s styling their own and their friends hair are likely to be bullied and discouraged. Girls doing the same are very unlikely to have their parents, teachers or other adults in their lives actively try to discourage them. It's hardly surprising that boys are less likely to see hairdressing or beauty therapy as a career choice.

It's similar with other jobs - and with behaviours generally. Behaviours which in boys and men are characterised in positive ways are often characterised as negative in women. For instance, men may be seen as assertive / go getting / strong - all positive. Women behaving in exactly the same way are often perceived as bossy, aggressive, strident !!!!!y - all negative.

It's depressing to see who much deeply ingrained sexism there is on this thread.

Wyndham

TBagpuss wrote: »

There are a lot of complex reasons but a lot of them do come down to societal pressures, gender based assumptions and stereotypes etc.

For instance, boys who enjoy playing with dolls, doing the hair or make up of their doll,s styling their own and their friends hair are likely to be bullied and discouraged. Girls doing the same are very unlikely to have their parents, teachers or other adults in their lives actively try to discourage them. It's hardly surprising that boys are less likely to see hairdressing or beauty therapy as a career choice.

It's similar with other jobs - and with behaviours generally. Behaviours which in boys and men are characterised in positive ways are often characterised as negative in women. For instance, men may be seen as assertive / go getting / strong - all positive. Women behaving in exactly the same way are often perceived as bossy, aggressive, strident !!!!!y - all negative.

It's depressing to see who much deeply ingrained sexism there is on this thread.

If I could double thanks this post, I would. Thank you, it's excellent.

steampowered

FBaby wrote: »

So could it be that it has nothing to do with being sexist but with circumstances?

If a 'provision, criterion or practice' applied by an employer results in men and women being treated unequally, that is known as 'indirect discrimination'.

Indirect discrimination is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, unless the employer can prove that the discrimination is justified. 'Circumstances' is not really an acceptable justification.

If the employer's budgeting practices results in men and women being paid differently for the same job, it is starting to sound like there is a real risk of being hammered for discrimination.