The average female board director took home £178,246 in salary, bonuses, benefits and pension contributions in the 2008-09 financial year, while the average male director received £357,358.
So they\’re getting 66% of men\’s pay, or 50% less than men.
I think we can all draw up the list of the usual suspects who will blare this little statistics around the country, can\’t we?
And I think we can also draw up the little list of those who will fail to note the next point:
The Reward Technology Forum (RTF) which compiled the study claimed that part of the explanation was that the majority of women on company boards were non-executive directors who are paid less than executives.
Of the 218 female board members in the FTSE 350, 83pc or 181 of them are non-executives.
\”Executive director\” and \”non-executive director\” are two entirely different jobs. The former is a full time insider in hte company, running at the very least a division of the company plus sitting on the board. The latter is a part time outsider, brought in to provide some oversight on the board. They\’re really not comparable in any manner.
For men and women doing the same jobs:
RTF said the average salary for female finance directors last year was £357,588, whereas male FDs were paid £353,044 on average. Similarly, female chief executives had an average salary of £612,000, compared with £563,968 for men.
Quite, our humongous gap disappears (aslthough there is a further discrepancy in favour of men in the allied benefits packages).
Liklihood of point 1) appearing in CiF or Polly or the like, near 100% I would think. Of 2), under 50% and of 3) near zero.