We know this Ritchie

I wanted to cringe, the comment is so desperate. Doesn’t he realise that this is the whole issue the data is meant to reveal? The debate about equal pay for equal work was meant to be have been resolved in 1970. We all know it has not been, but highlighting data on that issue was not the purpose of this new data. The issue now is about precisely why women are not offered the same job opportunities as men, and so are paid less as a result.

More women than men decide to become primary child carer.

And that’s it, that’s the whole and entire explanation. We really don’t need companies to be reporting the gender pay gap to know that.

17 thoughts on “We know this Ritchie”

  1. Not only that, but women tend to choose to work in different type of employment environments to men. There’s a reason the State sector is dominated by women – they like the guaranteed nature of the employment, whereas men are more likely to take a punt on a better paid (but maybe more transient) jobs in the private sector. Plus women have zero inclination to work in dangerous or dirty environments, which again cuts out some very well paid jobs.

    Is it any surprise if you choose (as a gender) jobs that are ‘safe’ (both practically and financially) that you will end up being paid less?

  2. So, we know the solution. Make sure that becoming the primary carer for children has no negative effect on your earnings in the short or long term. And we are measuring how well employers are achieving that.

  3. Richard Gadsden

    Or to rephrase:

    “Make sure that choosing to be less productive has no effect on your earnings.”

  4. @richard garden

    What then will be the incentive to do dirty, dangerous, difficult or risky work? If your solution is that the easier and safer jobs earn the same?

    Well done you. A nation where everyone is special. Which means no-one is.

  5. The solution they’re aiming for is not to make the easier jobs earn the same, but to make the easier jobs pay the same.

  6. The aim is to set a precedent for redistributing wealth from high earners to low earners based purely on how much they earn. They don’t care about women, per se. They don’t care about whether pay differences are justified. It’s just part of the general campaign on ‘inequality’. Meaning equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.

  7. “I think Richard Gadsden was extracting the urine. Or, possibly, forecasting the next tactic for the terminally deluded.”

    Poe’s Law applies I guess……..I also couldn’t ascertain whether he was taking the P, predicting the next step by the nutters, or advocating those steps himself…….

  8. “Richard Gadsden
    March 30, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    So, we know the solution. Make sure that becoming the primary carer for children has no negative effect on your earnings in the short or long term. And we are measuring how well employers are achieving that.”

    And we’re seeing that that is impossible to do.

    If we ensure that being the primary care-giver has no negative effect on your earnings then we’re forcing someone to subsidize you and that leads to employers being less likely to hire you, leading to your earnings decreasing.

    We would, literally, have to set up nationwide employment boards as the only place employers could hire employees from – and that would have to take what they were given and keep these people on the payroll unless given permission by that board to let them go.

  9. One thing I am wondering – how do we force women to work full time with no more than a few weeks off for giving birth at a time?
    How do we force them to take jobs that involve travel, overnight stays, heavy lifting, assignments to different parts of the country?
    How do we force them to go for promotion? How do we force them to take unpopular shifts?
    How do we force them to skill up to get promotion? How do we force them to stay late in jobs to show they can do the work?

    As they are not voluntarily doing what is necessary to get rid of the pay gap then its obvious they should be forced to do so.

  10. @Martin: you’re getting it all wrong. What is being sought is that the people who do all the things you mention (who may be men or women) will have their earning reduced and given to those who don’t (if they are women, not men of course, if a man has a poorly paid job that entirely his own fault!). No-one is daring to suggest that if women want to earn more they should actually DO more………

  11. I can’t wait for the final stage:
    We has X of teh wimmings, Y of teh browns, Z of teh peepuls wot dont kno is a boy or gurl*, reeports is oll dun by ofis cat as is blak an wite both an has no bits so wins at bullshit bingo an is now boss.

    * is joke NiV, not to get nikkers in twist or cat visit!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *