Female directors at the UK’s biggest companies are still being paid a fraction of the amount their male counterparts receive, new research shows, underlining the pay gap that still exists between men and women in Britain’s boardrooms.
The average pay for FTSE 100 female directors stands at just £237,000 which is only slightly more than a quarter of the £875,900 paid to their male counterparts, according to research by New Street Consulting Group.
With female directors paid 73% less, the figures show the gender pay gap at blue-chip companies is far worse than the overall population, with women paid 15.5% less than men in the broader jobs market, based on official data.
The large pay gap at board level is mainly due to the majority of female directors at FTSE 100 companies holding non-executive jobs which attract lower salaries than executive ones.
Astonishing, isn’t it?
What amuses me is that the explanation sprang to mind immediately on reading the headline.
May I point out that my daughter is a clever lass with executive experience in an international corporation: she would make an ideal non-exec. Queue here to sign her up!
What, you are actually going to appoint daughters, sisters, lovers, and wives of old pals? Say it ain’t so.
There is a clear gender imbalance between exec and non exec positions. There seem to be too many non exec roles reserved for women.
Funny how they’ve stopped caring about dinner ladies and carers, and it’s all about high earners in big corporations now. Almost as if they’ve spied a big juicy soft target in woke corporations, and are milking it for all that it’s worth.
The LORD hears the cry of the poor:
The average pay for FTSE 100 female directors stands at just £237,000
Just. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
But how do you know the fatcats are male? Isn’t assuming their gender (which may well have changed since breakfast) a microaggression or something? Educate yourselves, bigots.
Anyway. Men in business: How can we make shotloads of money?
Women in business:
The number of female directors at FTSE 100 firms has increased sharply in the last five years, said New Street Consulting Group director Claire Carter, but the research showed there is “much more to do”.
“Focusing solely on the percentages of directors that are women is not enough when trying to approach equality,” she said.
I’m not sexist or nothing, but I think we all agree that allowing them to vote, own property, and wear clothes was a mistake.
They compared non-execs with execs? A pointless, or perhaps disingenuous, exercise.
I’m not too au fait with the terminology, but aren’t they comparing the pay for doing stuff with the pay for not doing stuff?
The solution: STOP COMPLAINING!!!!!! Loads of people would scratch your eyes out to be paid that much for not doing anything.
Steve, some of ’em NEED to wear clothes.
Philip: “There seem to be too many non exec roles reserved for women.”
HRM has its tampon strings everywhere…
Wait a minute…I must be getting my math twisted. I’m also working in a non-executive role at my company, and I make way less than £237,000…But I’m a MAN!
I have a job AND a penis. What went wrong?
The last paragraph should have been the first. Readers then could have moved on without troubling the rest of the article.