One up for equality???

[daltonr]

Quotas in elections are just a plain stupid idea. I don't care if it's a man or a woman suggesting it. When stupidity presents itself we need to point a finger and call it like it is.

Engineering democracy to ensure that half of dail seats go to women means one thing.... Two Elections, one for Men, One for women. The inference from it is, we've given women a chance to compete with men in elections and they can't cut it so we'll give them their own election.

If one of the reasons for the lower representation of women is a public perception, then giving them their own election makes matters worse, not better.

The women who have been elected are among the most capable, most outspoken and most effective of all the dail representatives. We can't have TD's as effective as these operating under the cloud of having won their seat by virtue of a handicap system. They deserve better.
If we are to have equality in only one area of society, it must be in how we elect our leaders.

If the political parties are unable to convince enough women to run, or if the members are too blind at convention time to put more women forward then tackle that.

There may be many reasons that we don't even understand why women
aren't elected in equal numbers to men. Perhaps they have more sense than to get involved in politics. Perhaps women in general are less aggressive in the pursuit of power. Perhaps there are societal issues that mitigate against it.

What we can say for sure is the the current system doesn't prevent women reaching high political office. The extent to which they are discouraged or opt out is the only point worth debating.

If any womans organisation believes that there is a public demand for 50% women that is untapped by the existing political parties then let them run candidates themselves. If the public want 50% women in the Dail then then a party that can make up the current shortfall will have enough TD's to be the larger partner in a government.

Let's have no more talk of Gender Quotas. General elections aren't golf courses. You don't get to move the Tee a little closer to the hole to make it easier to compete with the men.

Unlike sports there are no physical limitations in the female that put her at a disadvantage in the political sphere. Wheather there are psycological factors that make her choose to abstain we don't know.

-Rd

 

[daltonr]

I should add. If people want a quota system then I'll accept it, but only if it's representative.

We should also reflect the proportion of the population that are Disabled, Legal Immigrents, Asylum Seekers, Unemployed, PAYE, Self Employed.

Hell... Let's go further, Let's get a representative proportion of Farmers, IT Workers, Catholics, Protestants, Other Religions and None.

Or let's just cop ourselves on and accept that in any democracy there will be people who are not directly represented by their own kind, but who's views deserve to be represented by whoever is elected. If that means a Lawyer campaigning for a farmers rights, an athiest campaigning for a catholics rights, or a man campaigning for a woman's rights then so be it. That's democracy.

-Rd

 

[Purple]

well said Rd.

 

[RainyDay]

Even if I accidentally find out other guys salaries - wouldn't show good character to say to the boss:
"Hey xxxx is on €€€, why aren't I earning the same?"

The first thing the boss would ask is: "How do you know this?"...

Then what?

You tell him quite quickly that it doesn't matter how you know, what matters is that he is breaking the law - and his options are to fix the problem himself by negotiation, or to face an expensive legal process and a pile of negative publicity.

 

[icantbelieve]

Rainyday, can you clarify, in the example given by soc are you saying that the employer breaking the law irrespective of whether the employee making the complaint is a man or a woman, as I never realised that employers have to, by law, pay the same amount to all employees doing the same job.
Often a discrepancy in pay between employees doing the same job means that the employer sees potential in one employee over the others and doesn't want to risk losing that person.

 

[RainyDay]

I'm saying that an employer can't use sex as a factor in deciding salary - performance and value to the business is a different matter entirely.

 

[icantbelieve]

ah right, so as I suspected equality law is only for women, who obviously are not able to voice their discontent or leave for another job in the same manner as their male counterparts, although given that they're equal in capability (the foundation of the legislation) you'd have to wonder why.

 

[daltonr]

You tell him quite quickly that it doesn't matter how you know, what matters is that he is breaking the law

And the boss (who might be male or female) will say "no I'm not. I'd only be breaking the law if my reason for paying you less was because you are a woman. But since my reason for paying you less is that I value you less, it's all perfectly legal.

At various points in my life I've been paid more than people who do more work than me, and less than people who do less work than me. Was it fair? Of course it was fair. Those people were better or worse at marketing themselves

It's a fact of life. You live with it or you move on. Being a man I don't have the luxury of blaming it on my gender.

-Rd

 

[RainyDay]

ah right, so as I suspected equality law is only for women, who obviously are not able to voice their discontent or leave for another job in the same manner as their male counterparts, although given that they're equal in capability (the foundation of the legislation) you'd have to wonder why.

Being a man I don't have the luxury of blaming it on my gender.

Rubbish - the legislation applies equally to men & women, and indeed there have been .

And the boss (who might be male or female) will say "no I'm not. I'd only be breaking the law if my reason for paying you less was because you are a woman. But since my reason for paying you less is that I value you less, it's all perfectly legal.

At various points in my life I've been paid more than people who do more work than me, and less than people who do less work than me. Was it fair? Of course it was fair. Those people were better or worse at marketing themselves

It's a fact of life. You live with it or you move on.

You can of course opt to live with it or move on. Or you can choose to make a claim against your employer under the existing legislation. It's your choice.

 

[icantbelieve]

So a proponent of ridicuous "positive discrimination" legislation also advocates "claim culture", suing someone else because life isn't fair and you're too lazy to do anything about it.
I can also choose to make a claim against someone if my kids arm is broken in the schoolyard because another kid ran into her, but I wouldn't. Bad things sometimes happen but this culture of always looking for someone to blame snowballs and makes life worse for everyone. A burglar can also choose to make a claim against me for defending myself and my family from his intrusion, probably another example of not compromising his/her rights as an individual.
I speak as someone with whom not too many people would choose to swap lives with but on the opposite side of a lot of crappy things that happened to my family, none of which were as a result of choices we made or actions we took, are a lot of good things that by focusing on which allows us to get through life.
So when I say that life isn't fair and that it's not meant to be, its about the struggle and how the struggle moulds you and defines you, I'm not talking as some wet behind the years life idealist who thinks everyone is equal.
Real inequality exists in the treatment of the disabled at the hands of the state, in the logic that assumes by default that a child is better off with its mother, in the way that philipino nurses who prop up our health service are not allowed visas for their families, in the way that state sector employees can under perform with immunity (funny how they only wanted their pay to be comparable with the private sector and not the rest of their terms and conditions). However finding inequality in a sector where women, like men, are paid different rates for the same job, where women, like men, can leave and go elsewhere is really a bit much.

BTW I find it hard to believe that you're actually on this side of the debate Rainday. I've been reading your postings for quite sometime now and feel that sometimes you're a devil's advocate for AAM who teases out the debate in order to advance it.

 

[RainyDay]

You know, as I typed the words 'make a claim', I had a little nagging doubt that this would be misconstrued, but I wen't ahead anyway. I was right.

This is nothing to do with compo culture, burglars or Filipino nurses. I didn't realise we were having an ethical debate. I was just trying to clarify the fact that it is illegal to discriminate salary based on sex. That's all.

 

[icantbelieve]

Misconstrued nothing, there's not much room for misinterpretation in the words "make a claim", also, how could a debate on equality issues not be ethical (among many other things).
The fact is that statistics show that in general men are more productive workers than women and that's why employers decide either not to employ or to adjust the salary of women. It's a generalisation and isn't going to be true of everyone but just in the same manner as insurance companies are allowed to discriminate against men (and rightly so) companies, especially small business operating on tight margins, should be allowed to choose you they want to employ and who they don't. The market place is a different animal to general society, there is racial discrimination that isn't based on hatred but on business sense, would a chinese shop owner selling chinese goods to chinese people be right not to employ a white irish person, of course he would, the decision isn't base on dislike of race but an recognition of the fact that in order to sell chinese goods to chinese people he's more likely to succeed if he employs chinese staff at the counter. Like so many arguments on AAM with people who say "it's the law" the fact is that the law is black and white whereas real life is any and every colour.

 

[RainyDay]

So now that we've established the fact that it is against current legislation to set salary based on sex, you are of course welcome to post your opinion of how legislation/society should work. To be honest, I just couldn't be bothered entering into this debate, but I will ask you to show the statistics which support this little nugget;

The fact is that statistics show that in general men are more productive workers than women

 

[icantbelieve]

Given that you don't want to further the debate I won't either as it's stopped being a debate, nobody has come forward to contest the points of my argument. Only today a request has come forward from women's for 1 years paid maternity leave, what percentage of women have children and how can having a child not affect the productivity of a working woman. Don't ask for statistics (a tried and trusted argument quashing method on AAM as very few people have access to such statistics or the inclination to go looking for them) when common sense makes it clearly obvious.
But as you say, this has stopped being a debate so I'll leave this lie too.

28/6/2005
Just noticed that I can no longer participate in this debate as new rules for this section prohibit it. I could simply keep reediting posts but rules are rules and despite the assertion by Rainyday and its afirmation by Purple that there are no points in my argument, strangley enough purple and daltonr have been arguing my points for me.

 

[RainyDay]

Given that you don't want to further the debate I won't either as it's stopped being a debate, nobody has come forward to contest the points of my argument.

Presumably because most people (including me) didn't see any points in your argument.

Only today a request has come forward from women's for 1 years paid maternity leave,

And does your company policy support 1 years paid maternity leave? If so, this is extremely generous and non-typical. I guess whoever sets the policy highly values their female employees.

how can having a child not affect the productivity of a working woman.

Are you including time on maternity leave in your productivity calculations? That would be a little strange, given that there is no mandatory cost to the employer arising from maternity leave. Of course, many enlightened employers opt to supplement the state's minimal cover with a part or full paid period, but they are under no obligation to do so. Such policies simply come from a recognition of the value of female employees and the importance of retaining female employees of childbearing age.

Don't ask for statistics (a tried and trusted argument quashing method on AAM as very few people have access to such statistics or the inclination to go looking for them) when common sense makes it clearly obvious.

I'm confused now. You said that 'the fact is that statistics show'. Surely if you had seen such statistics you would remember which august institution published this important paper? Could it have been IBEC, or maybe IMI, or possibly the HR Directors team of Portmarnock Golf Club? Wouldn't these important findings have got press coverage right round the world? Are you now saying that you haven't actually seen statistics which support your claim? If such statistics existed, I reckon I'd find them with Google in less than 15 minutes. But I just don't believe they exist - and in your heart, you know they don't exist either.

 

[MOB]

"Rubbish - the legislation applies equally to men & women, and indeed there have been claims from men seeking equal pay to female counterparts."

Not to be petty, but the link which you posted was to a report of an unsuccesful gender discrimination claim by a man.

I can't remember ever seeing any successful gender discrimination claims brought by men in this country, but I would love to hear about such claims.

Anybody?

 

[RainyDay]

I can't remember ever seeing any successful gender discrimination claims brought by men in this country, but I would love to hear about such claims.

The [broken link removed] for equal pay with female switchboard operators succeeded in the High Court, but got bounced back to the Labour Court by the wigs on the Supreme Court. But I guess that's all part of the massive female mafia conspiracy to downtrod us males, given that there was a bloody woman sitting on the Supreme Court case. Why wasn't she at home minding her babies and cooking her husband's dinner? That's what I want to know.

I suppose the chances of the lack of male claims for equal pay having anything to do with the men are on average paid 15% more than women aren't realistic - right?

 

[Purple]

In general terms I agree with icantbelieves comments above. In the real world people are seldom motivated by only one factor in making a decision. For example if you knew that your five employees in a small business had strong racist views would you employ a black person to work with them and suffer the problems that would result including the case that would be brought against you by the EA and the strong possibility that you would loose key staff or would you just not employ a black person?
As for rainyday’s statement that

there is no mandatory cost to the employer arising from maternity leave

. That is simply not true. Employers have to allow their pregnant employee to take maternity leave. The result of that is that a replacement has to be hired, at temp rates of pay, and that person has to be trained in on someone else’s time. There is a real cost in that, especially for a small business. If the employee in question is in a key managerial position the real cost will be much higher.

So now that we've established the fact that it is against current legislation to set salary based on sex, you are of course welcome to post your opinion of how legislation/society should work

That's a very condescending comment rainyday and well below your usual standard.

Presumably because most people (including me) didn't see any points in your argument.

Ditto that one.

I suppose the chances of the lack of male claims for equal pay having anything to do with the men are on average paid 15% more than women aren't realistic - right?

The link goes to the judgement to bounce the high court judgement back to the Labour Court. As for your point that Men are paid 15% more than women (the substance of which is not invalidated by the lack of a link to back it up); I'm sure you are aware that statistics are worthless without all of the relevant background contextual information.

 

[podgerodge]

Most of the women that work with me accept that the reason they earn less and are at a lower level of the organisation is because they chose to have children and find it easier to go home earlier, not work bank holidays etc and not go forward for promotions. Therefore they earn less than me. Are these lower wages part of these statistics being quoted? If so, it shows how statistics can imply that things are unfair when in fact they are perfectly.

 

[daltonr]

but I will ask you to show the statistics which support this little nugget;

Originally Posted by icantbelieve
The fact is that statistics show that in general men are more productive workers than women

Actually Rainyday icantbelieve is right in his claim that Men are considered to be more productive than women. The research in this areas seems to have moved on to why this is the case, rather than if this is the case.

[broken link removed]
(Google 2 minutes, but we can search further if you like)

Of course the definition of productive can then be quibbled about.
But we can also quibble about how the wage statistics are calculated.

If the average woman's salary in a particular industry is 15% lower than mens in the same industry then we need to see why. If the womans average was dragged down by a portion of women opting to be less devoted to work so as to devote more time to family, then that does not mean that a given woman who chooses to devote the same effort as a man to her job will automatically earn 15% less. She may earn the same or more depending on her talent.

The only valid comparison is a Man and a Woman with the same abilities and puting in the same effort, and with the same homelife. If the woman finds it harder to have a spouse to take on the family responsibilities then I agree that's a problem with society, but it's not the woman's employers fault.

By definition no couple can have two people both fully devoted to work and paying no regard to home and family. Somebody has to clean the house, pay the bills, walk the dog, do the washing, look after the kids. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a man or a woman, but whoever chooses to be the one who sacrafices work for home will pay a price in work and will never earn as much as someone (man or woman) who does not make the sacrafice.

if the couple perfectly divide the home commitments equally then they will both devote slightly less to their work than someone 100% devoted to work. Both careers will suffer relative to that benchmark, but both may in themselves be happier.

I'd agree that society has traditionally forced that sacrafice on the woman more often than the man. I think that's changing but I don't think it will ever be 50,50. To try to create legislation that somehow negates the work sacrafice so that you get the same career path as someone who doens't make the sacrafice is wrong and will never work.

So now that we've established the fact that it is against current legislation to set salary based on sex, you are of course welcome to post your opinion of how legislation/society should work.

That isn't in doubt and isn't what's being debated. There are very few jobs left where two people can be directly compared. Jobs like that are vanishing all the time. In the real world where the rest of us live there are so many factors that might contribute to a difference in pay that the legislation is essentially useless.

Q. Why do you pay is female programmer less than this male programmer?
Their coding is virtually identical. They seem to have roughly the same number of Defects per LOC?

A. I find he comes up with more original ideas in solving design problems.
A. I find he is more willing to speak up at meetings and provide input.
A. I find that clients seem react better to him.

These are all very difficult things to prove or disprove. Is the court going to undertake a qualitative study of a programmers original ideas and raport with clients? A study that would by it's nature change the behaviour.

True equality means that women and men should get equal reward for equal effort and risk. Not equal reward regardless. As long as Mary and John but in the same work, take the same time off, work the same overtime, go on the same training course, promote themselves as effectively etc. Then they WILL be equally rewarded.

But if either Mary or John take 6 months off to raise a child, or travel the world, or spend time with their sick family member, or go for medical treatment themnselves or any of the other things that cause people to step off the threadmill for a period, then they loose out.

It's life. Sometimes it's not nice, sometimes it's great, sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're unlucky. But more often than not life is brutally fair.

-Rd