Have they really done something this stupid?

Yes, they have.

The gender pay gap reporting requirements. All those companies reporting. They must include all employees, part and full time. But the statistics ombudsman insisted that we shouldn’t do it this way, because more women part timers and part timers get paid less per hour.

So, the law insists upon reporting in he manner in which the stats buys say it shouldn’t be. Seriously?

13 comments on “Have they really done something this stupid?

  1. Also, trolley dollies really must be paid the same as the pilots it seems.

    At least that’s another logical conclusion from this illogical statistic…

  2. They know it will support their argument and so it is a delibrate ruse to prove to the gullible that there is a pay gap. You can be sure there are plenty of gullible people out there.
    The company I work for has just published theirs and despite them being having no pay gap for the same roles surprise surprise it shows that there is and they are now going to prioritise recruiting women. I suggested we hire more men for the lower paid jobs and work at it that way and you would have thought I’d just killed some kids in front of them.

  3. But who the hell voted this into law – it’s the sort of crap you’d have expected between 97-10!’

  4. And stupid, becase the snowflakes are not going to vote for the Tories until they’re 40 anyway, simply because of the name of the Party. And in the mean time they’re fucking things up for the rest of us.

    Utter wankers.

  5. The only way to close the pay gap is to outlaw flexible working. You MUST work 9-5, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, every year between 20 and 60. Anybody taking time off is creating a gap between their pay and those people who don’t take any time off.

  6. But why do part timers earn less?

    Are less valuable jobs more likely to be part time? Probably.. the less critical a role is, the more likely it’s suited to flexible arrangements. No beef there. Is that what drives the disparity?

    Or are equal jobs paid less if they are part time? If so, is that fair? My own experience (one man’s observations, of course) is that part timers do lots of extra hours. More than most full timers (proportionally). All those women doing 2-4 days a week post-pregnancy who end up taking calls, answering emails, and ‘reading up’ on their days off. It’s endemic. I have just such a woman in my team and I make a point of not letting anyone abuse her days off. But I don’t think I’m typical.

    So maybe there is a problem with part time work not being valued equally with full time (pro-rata) and that disproportionally affects women. Even if it is a minority effect of the much-bleated-about gap.

  7. jgh said:
    “The only way to close the pay gap is to outlaw flexible working”

    Or to make it compulsory, which seems to be the preferred route. Everyone to work part-time and have a few years off for childcare, even if they don’t have any children.

    We can’t have some people earning more than others, so we have to drag everyone down. And then when the economy’s fucked, blame it on capitalism.

  8. So maybe there is a problem with part time work not being valued equally with full time (pro-rata) and that disproportionally affects women. Even if it is a minority effect of the much-bleated-about gap.

    This seems like one of those problems that the market should be able to solve, if it really exists. If mommies on flex-time are grossly underpaid, someone should be able to make a killing hiring them up, which will raise the market rate for their wages.

  9. If you’re a company that requires a high proportion of engineers in senior positions, you’ll not be able to get 50:50 female to male split given that females comprise only 5% of Chartered Engineers.

  10. @ JerryC

    I think there’s huge value in those people, and have worked for two business who’ve taken advantage of that. I think there’s too much ingrained prejudice and/or conservatism (i.e. reluctance to entertain part time options for lots of roles) for the market to raise wages and conditions to an equal level any time soon.

    But I don’t disagree that the market should be the answer, and is a better answer than anything else. In the meantime, I’m happy that I get to employ someone who’s much better value, per hour, than a FT worker would be. Not because we pay her less than we’d pay a FT worker, but because the lack of options she has for employment mean she’s a better caliber of worker than we’d get if we went FT.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.