ChatterBank0 min ago
Gender Pay Gap
http://
How is this survey a reflection on the gender pay gap? If a man and a woman are doing the same job, they are paid equally, it's the law. Calculating the average man's & woman's for one company and saying women are paid less is ridiculous. Was it Easyjet they were talking about on the news I think? Apparently they are one of the worst offenders. If you are comparing pilots (who are mostly men) wages with cabin staff who are mostly women they will be. Ridiculous.
How is this survey a reflection on the gender pay gap? If a man and a woman are doing the same job, they are paid equally, it's the law. Calculating the average man's & woman's for one company and saying women are paid less is ridiculous. Was it Easyjet they were talking about on the news I think? Apparently they are one of the worst offenders. If you are comparing pilots (who are mostly men) wages with cabin staff who are mostly women they will be. Ridiculous.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
If woman are paid less than men on average it still represents a gender pay gap of sorts. For example, as you noted with with Easyjet, the pay gap arises because most pilots are men and pilots are understandably paid more. Still, one might wonder why there are markedly fewer women pilots, or why cabin staff are typically women. It's not particularly clear why the different sexes should be naturally suited to one job or the other, so the pay gap that does result is a sign that something else is going on. Regardless of what, whether it's some kind of failure at the recruitment stage or because women are more interested in cabin crew duties and less interested in becoming pilots, it's a question worth considering.
That's the point.
That's the point.
-- answer removed --
It's not about comparing the wages of different jobs, though. The argument isn't that cabin crew deserve the same wage as pilots, but that there ought not be such a stark gender imbalance in these two professions.
You might disagree with this last assertion, and be happy with the idea that women are better suited to being cabin crew than they are to be pilots (and men vice versa). Or you might feel that there's no reason for the gender divide to be so remarkable, and therefore isn't that a good reason for wondering why women don't seem to go for piloting jobs so much? Is it lack of ability? Are they discouraged for some other reason? Maybe even there is some level of the "S" word creeping in at some stage or other.
Regardless of the answer, it's a question worth asking.
You might disagree with this last assertion, and be happy with the idea that women are better suited to being cabin crew than they are to be pilots (and men vice versa). Or you might feel that there's no reason for the gender divide to be so remarkable, and therefore isn't that a good reason for wondering why women don't seem to go for piloting jobs so much? Is it lack of ability? Are they discouraged for some other reason? Maybe even there is some level of the "S" word creeping in at some stage or other.
Regardless of the answer, it's a question worth asking.
-- answer removed --
>Regardless of gender, you can't compare the pay for one job with the pay for an entirely different one.
I'm not sure that's right, Naomi.
Whils we need to treat the statistics with caution we should be able to compare different jobs in some way- eh through a jov evaluation scheme to ensure jobs of equal value receive the same pay, but we should also look more closely at why certain higher paid jobs (eg pilots, tube train drivers, board members and perhaps hospital consultants and barristers) are predominantly filled by men, whereas lower paid jobs such as air cabin staff, nurses and careworkers are much more likely to be women. I think that was jim's point.
It's a very complex issue though, I'd agree, and it maybe that it will always exist to some extent because of maternity leave career breaks and because of nature (and maybe some social pressures) mothers choosing to take a career break to bring up children and thereby miss out on career opportunities.
I'm not sure that's right, Naomi.
Whils we need to treat the statistics with caution we should be able to compare different jobs in some way- eh through a jov evaluation scheme to ensure jobs of equal value receive the same pay, but we should also look more closely at why certain higher paid jobs (eg pilots, tube train drivers, board members and perhaps hospital consultants and barristers) are predominantly filled by men, whereas lower paid jobs such as air cabin staff, nurses and careworkers are much more likely to be women. I think that was jim's point.
It's a very complex issue though, I'd agree, and it maybe that it will always exist to some extent because of maternity leave career breaks and because of nature (and maybe some social pressures) mothers choosing to take a career break to bring up children and thereby miss out on career opportunities.
Jim, //The argument isn't that cabin crew deserve the same wage as pilots//
Where did that come from? I didn't suggest it.
You seem to be saying it isn't about a gender pay gap at all ... but it is. Why fewer women train to be pilots and more train to become cabin crew is a different issue altogether and nothing whatsoever to do with a gender pay gap. A gender pay gap to my mind relates to an imbalance between genders for doing the same job. If jobs don't compare, then neither can pay.
Where did that come from? I didn't suggest it.
You seem to be saying it isn't about a gender pay gap at all ... but it is. Why fewer women train to be pilots and more train to become cabin crew is a different issue altogether and nothing whatsoever to do with a gender pay gap. A gender pay gap to my mind relates to an imbalance between genders for doing the same job. If jobs don't compare, then neither can pay.
It was and is my opinion that such a crude comparison means next to nothing. Low paid jobs in a company or industry have low pay, high pay jobs have high pay. At best you have a crude indication on how the different genders choose their job with regards to pay. No one is really entitled to be an authority on which jobs are of equal worth, the market sorts that out. At a certain level folk negotiate their own salary anyway. I'm all for fairness but this sort of thing seems to be just high profile irrelevance.
It's certainly true that there are, if you like, two gender pay gaps, and this set of statistics is, at least mainly, referring to the second kind.
I don't think there can be any argument any more that two people working the same job with the same hours should be given the same salary, and that is the (illegal) first kind of "gender pay gap". But the second kind is still important to understand because it exposes the divides in representation in any given job, and then -- which is, again, the only point I am trying to make here -- that raises questions about why these divides exist.
As a technical term, then, this is *still* a gender pay gap. If you can take a given woman and be reasonably confident that, on average, she will earn only something like 80%* of any given man, then that's a gender pay gap. It may arise because of multiple issues -- such as maternity leave impacting job prospects and promotion chances -- but regardless of the reasons, it's important to understand them. That way, if there are not justifiable, then they can be properly addressed.
*This figure is about the right unadjusted gender pay gap for the US; I don't have the UK figure to hand right now, although I think the pay gap in the same metric is rather smaller over here.
I don't think there can be any argument any more that two people working the same job with the same hours should be given the same salary, and that is the (illegal) first kind of "gender pay gap". But the second kind is still important to understand because it exposes the divides in representation in any given job, and then -- which is, again, the only point I am trying to make here -- that raises questions about why these divides exist.
As a technical term, then, this is *still* a gender pay gap. If you can take a given woman and be reasonably confident that, on average, she will earn only something like 80%* of any given man, then that's a gender pay gap. It may arise because of multiple issues -- such as maternity leave impacting job prospects and promotion chances -- but regardless of the reasons, it's important to understand them. That way, if there are not justifiable, then they can be properly addressed.
*This figure is about the right unadjusted gender pay gap for the US; I don't have the UK figure to hand right now, although I think the pay gap in the same metric is rather smaller over here.
One of the few times I agree with Jim. There will be a difference in pay with pilots and cabin crew. And is a little misleading to try to directly make out it is a real pay imbalance.
The 'inequality' if you like is the predominant gender of the respective jobs. Why?
At its basic pilots are glorified bus drivers and cabin crew waitresses. (But there is more to them than that obviously lol)
The 'inequality' if you like is the predominant gender of the respective jobs. Why?
At its basic pilots are glorified bus drivers and cabin crew waitresses. (But there is more to them than that obviously lol)
I disagree that the info is pointles, O_G. It's a useful starting point though in that it indicates the scale of the issue (or issues) and should lead onto further questions/analysis to find out why As jim says there will be two aspects - we need to know if and why men receive more than women for doing the same job (and even that can be complex and not be in breach of any laws) and also why some jobs attract mainly men and others mainly women and finally why some jobs are paid so differently to others (eg why do train frivers earn so much more than nurses). There may be other issues/aspects too.
I recall when i started work their were two pay scales for the same job- a man's scale and a woman's scale. Hopefully things have at least progressed a bit
I recall when i started work their were two pay scales for the same job- a man's scale and a woman's scale. Hopefully things have at least progressed a bit
fiction-factory, If someone is doing a job requiring fewer qualifications, less training, and demanding less responsibility, then it stands to reason that they will earn less. In those circumstances there is no ‘gender’ pay gap. Regardless of gender the job should pay whatever its worth. The fact that women and men on the whole choose different career paths is another subject entirely.
