NationStates Jolt Archive

Government say firms must favour women and minorities

The Government was today outlining plans to promote equality at work, including plans to favour female and ethnic minority candidates if there is a tiebreak for a job vacancy.

The new Equalities Bill is expected to order public sector employers to disclose levels of pay to both sexes in their organisation, to cast light on the pay gap between men and women.

The Bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age, and give mothers the right to breastfeed their babies in public.

The measure likely to prove the most controversial encourages companies to favour female and ethnic minorities candidates if there is tiebreak for a job vacancy. Critics say that this will discriminate against white men - supporters of the measure say that the balance is already tipped in white men's favour.

“There might be controversy but you don’t get progress if there isn’t a bit of a push forward,” said Harriet Harman, the equality minister.

“Most women are going out to work and they are just as committed to their jobs. The money that they earn is important to the household budget so they should be paid fairly.

“Yet listen to this figure - if you are a woman working part-time you get 40 per cent less per hour on average than a man working full-time.

“Now either this is because women are not up to the job or else there is discrimination against them. You can’t challenge discrimination when it’s kept swept under the carpet.

“I think there’s a lot of resentment at the unfairness against women. They are not being given the facts.”

One section of the Bill aims to bring about a culture change to put ageism on a par with racism, outlawing age discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

At present, pensioners are routinely refused health, travel and car insurance. Many have complained of poor service in the NHS, being fobbed off by their doctors and denied treatment.

Doctors will still be able to refuse older patients treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reasons to do so, however, and the new legislation has exemptions for harmless age-related systems, such as free bus travel for the elderly and companies like Club 18-30 which only sell to customers of a certain age.

Ministers hope the Bill will promote a new era of openness on pay. Trade unions have been pressing for some time for mandatory pay audits to make sure women are not receiving less money than men for doing the same job.

The pay gap between men and women averages 17 per cent across all employees, rising to 45 per cent in the City of London. Individuals often find it impossible to tell if they are being paid less, however, due to a refusal to disclose pay levels. A quarter of all companies have a gagging clause in their contracts forbidding discussion of pay.

The Bill will however only require public sector organisations and companies doing business with the public sector to publish pay levels. Ms Harman has said that if this fails to sting the private sector into following suit, the Government will consider legislating again.

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat youth and equality spokeswoman, said that the Bill did not go far enough.

“If the Government genuinely wants to tackle equality it must do more to end the growing discrepancy between the rules on pay for the public and private sector. Without compulsory pay audits for the private sector these proposals will represent a very real victory for the hawks in the cabinet," she said.

“Public sector equality rights are fast becoming an ivory tower that private sector employees can only dream of. A few tick-box questionnaires for Government suppliers on their equality policy are going to do little to change the day-to-day opportunities for the 20 million people who work in the private sector.”

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4217376.ece)

'Scuse the lack of comment but I think the article speaks for itself.

In all honesty, I don't mind the law if it only really comes into action when there is a tiebreak of one or more applicants for a job.
In such a situation, the decision usually is made based on personal sympathies more than anything else, so why not tip that in favour of people who do find it harder through no fault of their own to find a job?

I think this is a step towards US style affirmative action which I don't think is needed.

The Government was today outlining plans to promote equality at work, including plans to favour female and ethnic minority candidates if there is a tiebreak for a job vacancy.
Screw that. I demand that when there is a "tiebreak" for a job vacancy between anyone, they must publicly roll dice to decide who gets it.

“Yet listen to this figure - if you are a woman working part-time you get 40 per cent less per hour on average than a man working full-time.

“Now either this is because women are not up to the job or else there is discrimination against them. You can’t challenge discrimination when it’s kept swept under the carpet.

I don't get this kind of comment. If someone is working part-time then you are contributing less to the company, so do not deserve as high a pay as someone working full-time. If more women choose to do part-time work than men, then that is not the company's problem.

Overall, I'm not sure how much this bill will help, employers already choose minority candidates in equal-qualification cases. Openness of pay scheme is a good thing, though.

this will make white men more sensitive! (seriously I tempted to go kick some single mothers teeth in now:eek:)

actually I think I will go sit in a battered womans home now...or maybe I will just go into education which oddly enough is dominated by women and also seems more fixed to give women degree's

if you are a woman working part-time you get 40 per cent less per hour on average than a man working full-time.

I'm confused...also this has nothing to do with women somehow earning less because of the evil inc dastardly plan its to do with women not going for traditionally male jobs and don't get me started on enforcing this

"Positive" discrimination is still discrimination. It's more abhorrent if it being forcibly turned into systematic discrimination.

That is all. :fluffle:

I don't get this kind of comment. If someone is working part-time then you are contributing less to the company, so do not deserve as high a pay as someone working full-time. If more women choose to do part-time work than men, then that is not the company's problem.

Overall, I'm not sure how much this bill will help, employers already choose minority candidates in equal-qualification cases. Openness of pay scheme is a good thing, though.

Yes, you clearly don't get it.
The issue is not that the earn 40% less. The issue is that their salary PER HOUR is 40% less.
If you choose to work less hours, there is no reason in the world why that should affect how much you actually get per hour.

I don't get this kind of comment. If someone is working part-time then you are contributing less to the company, so do not deserve as high a pay as someone working full-time. If more women choose to do part-time work than men, then that is not the company's problem.

Overall, I'm not sure how much this bill will help, employers already choose minority candidates in equal-qualification cases. Openness of pay scheme is a good thing, though.

The article says that part time working women get paid 40% less PER HOUR, for the same job. Thats not fair. Obviously someone working 3 days a week shouldnt get the same amount as someone working 5 days, but their hourly rate should be the same.

If you choose to work less hours, there is no reason in the world why that should affect how much you actually get per hour.

apart from the whole part about not being a full time employee

The government might look at itself first - how many women are MPs?

One can certainly say that, such is the historic nature of inequality, women may not consider politics as a vocation yet if inequality is to be seen anywhere it's in government.

Merely the cabinet, which is theoretically chosen not elected, shows a marked disparity.

Personally, I'm not against positive discrimination, role models are needed and, no matter why the job is obtained, as long as it doesn't preclude suitability, I'm happy for any minority to have fair representation.

apart from the whole part about not being a full time employee

For which you don't get the full time salary.
Why would that affect how much you get per hour?

Here's an idea. Lets shoot the Equalities minister. Then her laws can go to hell with her!

Yes, you clearly don't get it.
The issue is not that the earn 40% less. The issue is that their salary PER HOUR is 40% less.
If you choose to work less hours, there is no reason in the world why that should affect how much you actually get per hour.

Right, I misread. Though the patronising tone of your first sentence isn't really appreciated.

I'm not sure how employers could get to the position of paying people differently when doing the same job. How do the genders compare when both on part-time, or both full-time?

For which you don't get the full time salary.
Why would that affect how much you get per hour?

because their is a massive difference in terms of stress and all that jazz between working 4 hours and working 8

its a different job entirely if its full time

Right, I misread. Though the patronising tone of your first sentence isn't really appreciated.

I'm not sure how employers could get to the position of paying people differently when doing the same job. How do the genders compare when both on part-time?

Sorry about that... I let me work life interfere with my posting personality, I shouldn't do that.

And that question is interesting. Especially as the next question has to be what's the percentage of men working part time, and how does it compare to the percentage of women?

I think it might be fair to make the assumption that women working part time in most cases do so in order to find enough time to keep the house clean and raise the kids. Men working part time, on the other hand, while probably being much rarer to begin with, have a tendency to work part time just before retirement or once they've reached a salary level that allows them to work less and still make more than they can spend...

I've had an interesting conversation the other day with a friend of mine from Germany who went back to work full time after her maternity leave now, and is already fed up with the guilt trip handed to her by people constanly asking things like "How do you manage, working full time, with the baby?"
What makes her so furious is that nobody, but nobody, ever asked her husband that kind of question...

When it comes down to it, I'm a white man, and I object to the idea that an employer could not offer me a job baced on my race or gender, even as a tie breaker. If you need a tie breaker, look at past employment history, references, or if they're exactly identical, choose at random. Race just shouldn't be a factor, in my opinion.

Although I should add that the parts of the legislation trying to address the pay gap for women and ending discrimination based on age should be applauded, and not overshadowed by positive discrimination.

I think it might be fair to make the assumption that women working part time in most cases do so in order to find enough time to keep the house clean and raise the kids. Men working part time, on the other hand, while probably being much rarer to begin with, have a tendency to work part time just before retirement or once they've reached a salary level that allows them to work less and still make more than they can spend...

I'm not sure that is a fair assumption. I'd be interested as well to see actual figures.

I'd wonder at the amount of women in part time jobs because that's all on offer.

There's certainly discrepancy at the upper levels of work but when we get to the lower end of the pay scale, those jobs more traditionally employing men might have more opportunity for full time work as opposed to those for women, such as cleaning or even secretarial/PA, which are generally part-time hours.

Men may often go into sales where there's little other option and, although these are mostly commission based, they're still considered full time as opposed to contract work, which may be part time.

I'd also wonder at numbers of those who work at temp agencies, again, part time work over those who don't - I'd bet most temp agencies see women come through the door.

It may be that women choose to do part time work to account for children, overall I can see that being the case to some extent, yet often the actual numbers tell a different story.

The government might look at itself first - how many women are MPs?
Labour tried that by introducing all-women shortlists. Which, incidentially, went down like a lead balloon in one constituency, which elected the previous (male) Labour MP as an independent.

Thing is, this idea that there can be a tie break between two candidates is unrealistic, I think it's extremely rare that two candidates are as exactly as good as each other.

For which you don't get the full time salary.
Why would that affect how much you get per hour?

Who knows, but that's how it goes.
Thus, using a part-time woman's pay vs a full-time man's pay to prove women earn less is entirely disingenuous.

Labour tried that by introducing all-women shortlists. Which, incidentially, went down like a lead balloon in one constituency, which elected the previous (male) Labour MP as an independent.

Proving that people are not gimmick monkeys!!!!

Also, won't this violate the human rights act? Methinks the high court will have a field day with this one.

because their is a massive difference in terms of stress and all that jazz between working 4 hours and working 8

its a different job entirely if its full time

And why would the employer bother about that? As I understand, salary depends on the value of the work you do, not the level of stress you put yourself under.

Otherwise, you could easily justify paying more organised employee less than a more messy one who gets stressed anytime he has to find his desk...

Who knows, but that's how it goes.
Thus, using a part-time woman's pay vs a full-time man's pay to prove women earn less is entirely disingenuous.

What happened to good old "Equal pay for equal work"?
If both are doing the same job, their hourly wages have to be equal.

Labour tried that by introducing all-women shortlists. Which, incidentially, went down like a lead balloon in one constituency, which elected the previous (male) Labour MP as an independent.

Thanks, I vaguely remember that, good point - it speaks to the roles we expect genders to take at a societal level to some extent, can't say an all-woman shortlist is a good idea but I understand the attempt.

In all this, it's a sad fact that minorities have to fight harder to gain equality, people think they should be given no help but they should, it reflects on all of us.

Proving that people are not gimmick monkeys!!!!
Let's remember that that wasn't the only all-woman shortlist. Plenty of others were elected.

Also, won't this violate the human rights act? Methinks the high court will have a field day with this one.
The Human Rights Act is only statute, and other legislation isn't subordinate to it in the same way that US legislation is subordinate to the US Bill of Rights. The courts can't strike down legislation passed by Parliament, although if the Court of Appeal rules that the government must put the Lisbon Treaty to a vote, the precident could lead to a more active judiciary.

Plus, the Convention (which the HRA puts into UK law) states that "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

Which, in my books, doesn't forbid this kind of legislation.

Government-enforced employment practices do not improve race or gender relations. Rather, they make white suspicious every time a woman or minority is hired because we wonder whether it was skill and knowledge or bowing to an artificial quota that got them the job and it reduces our respect for legitimate accomplishment.

Thanks, I vaguely remember that, good point - it speaks to the roles we expect genders to take at a societal level to some extent, can't say an all-woman shortlist is a good idea but I understand the attempt.
Rather than all-women shortlists, I remember reading that PR systems tend to better represent women, which is something I could go for, not that all-women shortlists particulary grind my gears in any case.

In all this, it's a sad fact that minorities have to fight harder to gain equality, people think they should be given no help but they should, it reflects on all of us.
It depends on how one defines equality: equality of opportinuty, or equality of outcome. Rather than trying to deal with the symptoms, I'd much rather try and solve the problems which see women & minorities underrepresented in the first place, and the attempt to end the pay gap is a good step forward in that regard.

And why would the employer bother about that?

because full time employees want more pay as a result rather than part time who will be rather more exploitable :)

As I understand, salary depends on the value of the work you do

you know thats untrue

Otherwise, you could easily justify paying more organised employee less than a more messy one who gets stressed anytime he has to find his desk...

typically this is done with a bonus scheme due to hassle saving

Government-enforced employment practices do not improve race or gender relations. Rather, they make white suspicious every time a woman or minority is hired because we wonder whether it was skill and knowledge or bowing to an artificial quota that got them the job and it reduces our respect for legitimate accomplishment.

Yes, that's what they will wonder if the skills of the applicants have to be equal in order to get a preference for female or minority employees... :rolleyes:

you know thats untrue

Is it? Then why do bank managers get more than kindergarden teachers? Surely that's not down to the stress level involved...

Government-enforced employment practices do not improve race or gender relations. Rather, they make white suspicious every time a woman or minority is hired because we wonder whether it was skill and knowledge or bowing to an artificial quota that got them the job and it reduces our respect for legitimate accomplishment.
I remember a Panorama programme on institutional racism in the Met Police reporting on two police officers who claimed that minority candidates being 'fast-tracked' to promotion was a concern for most officers. The two officers in question, however, were racist pricks who dressed in KKK hoods for fun and admitted they would kill black & asian citizens if they knew that would get away with it, so I'm not sure how reliable they could be.

However, in deproved working class areas where there is acute pressure for jobs, among other things, this could be a problem. It will be taken up as a cause celebre by the BNP, without question, and exaggerated beyond proportion. Whether it is right to give up policy because the BNP might spin it, is a different question, however.

Yes, that's what they will wonder if the skills of the applicants have to be equal in order to get a preference for female or minority employees... :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, I doubt this point will be in the minds of a great many people after they read the headlines tomorrow.

Is it? Then why do bank managers get more than kindergarden teachers? Surely that's not down to the stress level involved...

hence why I mentioned all that jazz but regardless you can't honestly think that a a kindergarden teachers work is of less value than a bank manager can you?

Government-enforced employment practices do not improve race or gender relations. Rather, they make white suspicious every time a woman or minority is hired because we wonder whether it was skill and knowledge or bowing to an artificial quota that got them the job and it reduces our respect for legitimate accomplishment.

What's this "we" shit?

I dont know about the rest of this law, but I feel that allowing women to breastfeed in public is common sense.

What happened to good old "Equal pay for equal work"?
If both are doing the same job, their hourly wages have to be equal.
I think you are missing the point. Part-time wage and full-time wage differences are a completely different topic, separate from pay disparities between men and women. To try and mix and match in order to make women's problems seem even worse is disingenuous and hurts both arguments. But don't bother telling the gung-ho people that.

What's this "we" shit?

...and whether "we" think it or not, the implication is that the important aspect society should be concerned with is whether white man thinks that minorities gain their position through positive discrimination.

Gosh, if a minority doesn't gain the respect of white man, well all is lost because that's all they want no? Isn't that really the ultimate basis of the fight for equality?

The very statement implies the superiority of white man in making the judgement.

hence why I mentioned all that jazz but regardless you can't honestly think that a a kindergarden teachers work is of less value than a bank manager can you?

Well, no, but I tend to be part of that minority that doesn't equal value with the amount of money that can be extracted directly from said value...

In short, I believe the kindergarden teacher does a lot more for society, but society doesn't really value that. The bank manager does a lot for money, and that's what society calls "successful"...

What's this "we" shit?
It reminds me of Neesika's quote which I sigged ages ago:

I love how he feels totally qualified to speak on your behalf. I didn't know all you straight, white, Christian males were plugged into a hive-mind.

I think you are missing the point. Part-time wage and full-time wage differences are a completely different topic, separate from pay disparities between men and women. To try and mix and match in order to make women's problems seem even worse is disingenuous and hurts both arguments. But don't bother telling the gung-ho people that.

Which would bring us back to the question of how many men work part time, and how many women do.
I could be wrong, and I can't look up the numbers right now, but it would surprise me if the vast majority of part-time work wasn't done by women...

the law wont have any affect.

All the employer who still wants to hire the white male must do is declare he did better on the interview. something so completely subjective as an interview will make this law unenforceable.

Which would bring us back to the question of how many men work part time, and how many women do.
I could be wrong, and I can't look up the numbers right now, but it would surprise me if the vast majority of part-time work wasn't done by women...
That argument is highly irrelevant unless you can prove an active campaign to achieve that scenario.

That argument is highly irrelevant unless you can prove an active campaign to achieve that scenario.

"Active campaign" is misleading, it's more about societal prejudice about what type of work a woman should be doing and it speaks to Cabra's point about the female in a relationship being asked how she juggles her time as opposed to her husband.

I dont know about the rest of this law, but I feel that allowing women to breastfeed in public is common sense.

I must be reading that so wrong right now

In short, I believe the kindergarden teacher does a lot more for society, but society doesn't really value that. The bank manager does a lot for money, and that's what society calls "successful"..

have you ever talked to a bank manager? :D

Which would bring us back to the question of how many men work part time, and how many women do.
I could be wrong, and I can't look up the numbers right now, but it would surprise me if the vast majority of part-time work wasn't done by women...

The reason there is inequality in gender is pregnancy. And thats because when their male college fills in for them while they are on maternity leave he justly gets a raise and promotion for being willing to do twice the work load.
Studies of women who never have kids actually show them making 1% more on average then men. no need to get into part time Versus full time. (though part time is also because of the woman wanting to take care of family interest more).

Sorry about that... I let me work life interfere with my posting personality, I shouldn't do that.

No problem :)

And that question is interesting. Especially as the next question has to be what's the percentage of men working part time, and how does it compare to the percentage of women?

I think it might be fair to make the assumption that women working part time in most cases do so in order to find enough time to keep the house clean and raise the kids. Men working part time, on the other hand, while probably being much rarer to begin with, have a tendency to work part time just before retirement or once they've reached a salary level that allows them to work less and still make more than they can spend...

I've had an interesting conversation the other day with a friend of mine from Germany who went back to work full time after her maternity leave now, and is already fed up with the guilt trip handed to her by people constanly asking things like "How do you manage, working full time, with the baby?"
What makes her so furious is that nobody, but nobody, ever asked her husband that kind of question...

There is still the assumption that the woman will be the one doing part-time work to raise children while the father stays full-time. I think that they should share the time in part-time work between them, but that would be harder to organise between different employers.

Looking at these figures (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167), it seems it is only measured for full-time employees, so considering more women work less hours, it may not be completely reflective of the situation.

This datasheet (link (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=1383&All=Y&B2.x=107&B2.y=10)) gives percentages of people in different hours categories. From 2008:

Hours.....Men.....Women
<6.........0.6.......1.7
6-15......3.2.......10.3
16-30.....6.9......29.7
31-45.....60.8.....49.3
>45.......28.5......9.1

Clearly the average hours of female workers is a lot lower than males. Also a factor may be the tendency for men to stay in a job, or within a company, for a long period i.e. gaining promotions/salary increases/bonuses, that someone changing more often due to family priorities would not get.

Oh dear. As someone from an ethnic minority I am opposed to this. I don't want people thinking I got a job based on the colour of my skin instead of the work I have put in to be a candidate for the job.

The reason there is inequality in gender is pregnancy. And thats because when their male college fills in for them while they are on maternity leave he justly gets a raise and promotion for being willing to do twice the work load.
Studies of women who never have kids actually show them making 1% more on average then men. no need to get into part time Versus full time. (though part time is also because of the woman wanting to take care of family interest more).

No, this is about expectations. Generally reports say that not all pay discrepancies are about sexism, some can be due to the choice to raise a family but much is about the types of jobs women take, and that is about expectations, admittedly their own through either gender reinforcement or societal expectations, of what they should be doing.

Even where you discount choices, there's still about a quarter of jobs where there's blatant discrepancy in terms of pay and certainly a discrepancy in gender roles in terms of business roles.

It's not 'just' about pregnancy - to lay a complex problem on only one factor is wrong.

"Active campaign" is misleading, it's more about societal prejudice about what type of work a woman should be doing and it speaks to Cabra's point about the female in a relationship being asked how she juggles her time as opposed to her husband.
Companies can't be blamed for more women applying for part time jobs than men and less for full time jobs than men.
Active campaign is what I said and active campaign is what I meant.

Companies can't be blamed for more women applying for part time jobs than men and less for full time jobs than men.
Active campaign is what I said and active campaign is what I meant.

There doesn't need to be an active campaign for inequality to exist, the reasons why are important rather than overt attempts to maintain inequality.

inbuilt prejudice is as dangerous as overt prejudice.

There doesn't need to be an active campaign for inequality to exist, the reasons why are important rather than overt attempts to maintain inequality.

inbuilt prejudice is as dangerous as overt prejudice.
As I stated, companies can't be blamed for what positions people apply for.

The reason there is inequality in gender is pregnancy. And thats because when their male college fills in for them while they are on maternity leave he justly gets a raise and promotion for being willing to do twice the work load.
Studies of women who never have kids actually show them making 1% more on average then men. no need to get into part time Versus full time. (though part time is also because of the woman wanting to take care of family interest more).

Pregnancy lasts 9 month, and most women are well able to work for anytime up to maybe the last 2 weeks of it.

The problem is that it is expected that women not only birth the babies, but spend as much time as physically possible with them for years afterwards.
As I said, my friend's husband was never asked how he could handle a full time job AND a baby...

As I stated, companies can't be blamed for what positions people apply for.

Yet where the private sector accounts for 80% of employment in the UK, perhaps they should serve as a role model for society, we're the constituency of our parts.

This law isn't even asking for that, it's asking for open pay for companies that work with the public sector, so that people can see if there's a discrepancy.

Private sector jobs are not subject to this legislation except where they're working with the public sector.

Government is looking to serve as a role model, and to my first post, that is, for me, what a government should aim to do in terms of legislation.

Yes, you clearly don't get it.
The issue is not that the earn 40% less. The issue is that their salary PER HOUR is 40% less.
If you choose to work less hours, there is no reason in the world why that should affect how much you actually get per hour.

You would expect though a differance in the hourly rate between full and part time work. I don't see the gripe here.

You would expect though a differance in the hourly rate between full and part time work. I don't see the gripe here.

I don't see why that would be. What argument can be made for paying someone already working less hours a lower rate?

I don't see why that would be. What argument can be made for paying someone already working less hours a lower rate?

There are many reasons firms do this, including to encourage people to work full time instead.

Yet where the private sector accounts for 80% of employment in the UK, perhaps they should serve as a role model for society, we're the constituency of our parts.

This law isn't even asking for that, it's asking for open pay for companies that work with the public sector, so that people can see if there's a discrepancy.

Private sector jobs are not subject to this legislation except where they're working with the public sector.

Government is looking to serve as a role model, and to my first post, that is, for me, what a government should aim to do in terms of legislation.
Ok, the problem here is mixing up arguments.
I was berating the argument supposedly showing that women make less money in the work place because part-time women make less than full-time men. You are getting off on something else.

My point was you can berate the part-time vs full-time pay discrepancy or the male vs female/majority vs minority pay discrepancy, but you can't mix the two to get favourable results for your argument.

*Snip* (OP)

LOL...within this article it says that a women working part-time makes less then a man working full-time...really, are you sure cause I would totally expect a part-time worker to make more or equal that of a full-time worker...just cause they get a bit less in their wages per hour its not cause their a women its cause their working fucken PART-TIME, their kinda a useless tool of the company until they work full-time...I should know, I work part-time and get paid a little less but I can't complain...its not cause im a mexican, its cause I work less and do a little less when I work compared to the full-timers. I work with a white dude, white chick, a lebonnese (spelling?) man and all of us get paid the same...even the white man =P

Hooray! Now instead of SOME men being sexist against women, and SOME Caucasians being racist against minorities, the government has told employers that THEY have to be racist or sexist against caucasians and guys! Woo!

Hooray! Now instead of SOME men being sexist against women, and SOME Caucasians being racist against minorities, the government has told employers that THEY have to be racist or sexist against caucasians and guys! Woo!

Please tell me that was sarcasm!

This will do the government no favours.

Please tell me that was sarcasm!

This will do the government no favours.
That was sarcasm up to your neck. I hate affirmitive action in every form, no matter how mild.

That was sarcasm up to your neck. I hate affirmitive action in every form, no matter how mild.

Is that the thing aka "positive discrimination"?

If it is, I hate it too.

Is that the thing aka "positive discrimination"?

If it is, I hate it too.
Yeah, that's what they call it here in the USA. I've heard positive discrimination too, but what they don't realize is that that's an oxymoron.:D

Yeah, that's what they call it here in the USA. I've heard positive discrimination too, but what they don't realize is that that's an oxymoron.:D

That's why they love it in Norfolk!!!!!!!!!!!!! (UK)

Its not the 60s anymore. People aren't prejudiced anymore (hicks excluded) and so we don't need these laws.

Hooray! Now instead of SOME men being sexist against women, and SOME Caucasians being racist against minorities, the government has told employers that THEY have to be racist or sexist against caucasians and guys! Woo!

That's not what it does. Please learn what it does.

That's not what it does. Please learn what it does.

Yeah, in the cause of a tiebreaker that's what it forces upon Employers. Back when quotas were in (Are they still in? I think that they were struck down by the court, correct me if I'm wrong) that's what was forced ALL the time. Now it's only in a tiebreaker for a job.

People aren't prejudiced anymore

....

Are you shitting me?

That was sarcasm up to your neck. I hate affirmitive action in every form, no matter how mild.

Every form, eh?

So it was just evil for members of the Society of Women Engineers at my school to go help at after school math and science programs, right?

And it was really evil for members of the Chemistry Honors Society to do lab experiments with disadvantaged kids at a nearby daycare, trying to keep them interested in science?

Every form, eh?

So it was just evil for members of the Society of Women Engineers at my school to go help at after school math and science programs, right?

And it was really evil for members of the Chemistry Honors Society to do lab experiments with disadvantaged kids at a nearby daycare, trying to keep them interested in science?

absolutly. You should be be spending JUST as much time with rich white kids.

You fucking racist.

Pregnancy lasts 9 month, and most women are well able to work for anytime up to maybe the last 2 weeks of it.

The problem is that it is expected that women not only birth the babies, but spend as much time as physically possible with them for years afterwards.
As I said, my friend's husband was never asked how he could handle a full time job AND a baby...

2 weeks before. and don't forget the maternity leave after wards. normally 6 weeks to 6 months after(depending on your employer).
doubling your work load for 8 weeks to cover for a co worker giving birth normally merits a promotion/raise.

In family life one parent normally is the go to parent that handles the child. I fail to see how corporations are responsible and should have to pay for a womans choice.

Every form, eh?

So it was just evil for members of the Society of Women Engineers at my school to go help at after school math and science programs, right?

Not unless they exclusively helped the women and not the men at your school.
And it was really evil for members of the Chemistry Honors Society to do lab experiments with disadvantaged kids at a nearby daycare, trying to keep them interested in science?
Not unless the CHS used affirmative action to figure out who gets in their "Society".

Not unless they exclusively helped the women and not the men at your school.

Not unless the CHS used affirmative action to figure out who gets in their "Society".

(a) I don't think you understood what I was talking about. These were both groups on a college campus who had programs in which members would help at after school programs or daycares.

(b) Both of those things I described are affirmative action.

(a) I don't think you understood what I was talking about. These were both groups on a college campus who had programs in which members would help at after school programs or daycares.

(b) Both of those things I described are affirmative action.
A: I'm not quite sure I understand now. They were choosing to help people... And that's supposed to be AA?

...

What have I been missing?


B:
The term affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all racial groups) intended to promote access to education or employment.

A: I'm not quite sure I understand now. They were choosing to help people... And that's supposed to be AA?

...

What have I been missing?


B:

The definition of affirmative action and the many ways in which it might be carried out, apparently.

A large part of the goal of both programs (and a similar one run the National Society of Black Engineers) was to either get or keep interest in our fields among minority groups. The women in SWE provided a clear counter-example to the idea that engineering was a man's field. The black engineers in NSBE did the same thing for their ethnicity. CHS held their programs at disadvantaged - predominantly black - schools.

Affirmative action is not equal to quotas or even to tiebreaker programs like this, although the latter does fall under its umbrella.

Different day, same bullshit. White males 'round the world cry into their coffee cups.

Its not the 60s anymore. People aren't prejudiced anymore (hicks excluded) and so we don't need these laws.

Right, and... which planet do you live on again?

2 weeks before. and don't forget the maternity leave after wards. normally 6 weeks to 6 months after(depending on your employer).
doubling your work load for 8 weeks to cover for a co worker giving birth normally merits a promotion/raise.

In family life one parent normally is the go to parent that handles the child. I fail to see how corporations are responsible and should have to pay for a womans choice.

This is so much fail. You just completely restated Cabra's argument and somehow managed to miss the point entirely, which is that there's no reason the WOMAN should be expected to miss work and therefore be penalized just because she's the one who physically gives birth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Income_inequity_US.png

I certainly hope male Asians are not included in the "minority" aspect of this ruling, since otherwise it truly is an unjustificable bias.

Right, and... which planet do you live on again?



This is so much fail. You just completely restated Cabra's argument and somehow managed to miss the point entirely, which is that there's no reason the WOMAN should be expected to miss work and therefore be penalized just because she's the one who physically gives birth.

you missed my argument it is the woman's choice and the the employer should not be required suffer because of that choice even if society is the one pushing the woman to make that choice.

To my eternal shame, I first heard about this in one of the free papers. Basically, the government is saying

"If you have two people of the same skill, you must choose between them based upon their race"

Actually, I'd stand to benefit from this, but I still find it quite incredibly stupid. We are all citizens, we all have equal right to work, so why can't we have a equal/fair chance at a job which we are both entitled to do? If they are both absolutely equal them it should be chosen at random, though I think it would be extremely rare.

Stupid. Personally I think ethnic monitoring section on job applications should be eliminated, as should disability, sex and age information (except where they are directly related to the job being applied for). If you can't see this information, you can't discriminate based upon it...

you missed my argument it is the woman's choice and the the employer should not be required suffer because of that choice even if society is the one pushing the woman to make that choice.

Seconded.

because their is a massive difference in terms of stress and all that jazz between working 4 hours and working 8

its a different job entirely if its full time
As one who has worked both part-time and full-time in many jobs over many years, I am in a position to call BS on this. There is no hazard bonus for stress on any job, no matter how many hours one works at it.

Also, parents who work part-time in order to be available for children are a tiny minority of part-time workers. Much greater numbers of part-time workers work part-time because full-time is not available, and they also work more than one part-time job per day or week. Even women with children do this. It is very stressful, by the way.

because full time employees want more pay as a result rather than part time who will be rather more exploitable :)
HAHAHAHA!! As if wages are set by what the employees want! That's rich! That's hilarious!

I think you are missing the point. Part-time wage and full-time wage differences are a completely different topic, separate from pay disparities between men and women. To try and mix and match in order to make women's problems seem even worse is disingenuous and hurts both arguments. But don't bother telling the gung-ho people that.
You seem to be missing the point that there is no clear reason why two people doing the SAME JOB EACH HOUR should be paid differently PER HOUR just because one will do it for 20 hours in a week and the other will do it for 35 hours in a week. If they are doing the same thing within each hour, there is no reason to pay them differently per hour.

The reason there is inequality in gender is pregnancy. And thats because when their male college fills in for them while they are on maternity leave he justly gets a raise and promotion for being willing to do twice the work load.
Studies of women who never have kids actually show them making 1% more on average then men. no need to get into part time Versus full time. (though part time is also because of the woman wanting to take care of family interest more).
A) If there is inequality because of pregnancy, that is discrimination and it is wrong.

B) Female colleagues are just as able to fill in during maternity leaves as males are. In fact, my mom just finished covering for a co-worker during maternity leave.

C) Women who've never had kids generally make more than men? Really? Where? In the UK, maybe? Because in the US, although the wage gap is lessening among young men and women entering the work force recently, overall women still make less than 80% of what men get paid for the same work.

There are many reasons firms do this, including to encourage people to work full time instead.
Again, I don't know how things are in the UK, but in the US, the opposite is actually true. Many companies do not want to encourage people to work full time if they can get away with using part-timers, because part-timers are cheaper. For one thing, you don't have to give them health benefits or paid holidays or vacations.

you missed my argument it is the woman's choice and the the employer should not be required suffer because of that choice even if society is the one pushing the woman to make that choice.
And you miss the point that it is plain, old-fashioned discrimination if a company pays women less merely on the assumption that they're going to get pregnant and work less.

I would add that men and women should both have access to equivalent family leave after having a child. Both should be able to take that time to bond with their children.

And then the, "It's because they has babies!" argument would really be moot.

What happened to good old "Equal pay for equal work"?
If both are doing the same job, their hourly wages have to be equal.

They are not the same job ... one has a larger commitment and higher stress and often is more important to fill to a company.

Example in IT includes expected out of work learning, working towards certification, On call rotation and much MUCH larger long term projects that have a higher skill level and higher impact and priority because full timers have the hours at the office to get it done in a reasonable time frame

This translates to higher pay and better benifits

This is not unusual at all

This is why comparing the two is dis-ingenious at best

I would add that men and women should both have access to equivalent family leave after having a child. Both should be able to take that time to bond with their children.

And then the, "It's because they has babies!" argument would really be moot.

Not completely necessarily (maybe) but am willing to bet that there is some difference in the total amount claimed even if the max is offered to both

You seem to be missing the point that there is no clear reason why two people doing the SAME JOB EACH HOUR should be paid differently PER HOUR just because one will do it for 20 hours in a week and the other will do it for 35 hours in a week. If they are doing the same thing within each hour, there is no reason to pay them differently per hour.
Are you people just not reading what I am saying?
FULL TIME VS PART TIME DISPARITY IS NOT RELEVANT TO MINORITY VS MAJORITY DISPARITY.

Which would bring us back to the question of how many men work part time, and how many women do.
I could be wrong, and I can't look up the numbers right now, but it would surprise me if the vast majority of part-time work wasn't done by women...

Possible, but again that is different then adding the difference between them at least in a strait comparison (there are ways to take both into account statistically but it would be a bit more complicated)

The article does not appear to take that complexity into mind

You cant strait up compare it like that and have it actually mean anything

Snip


You seem to be missing the point that there is no clear reason why two people doing the SAME JOB EACH HOUR should be paid differently PER HOUR just because one will do it for 20 hours in a week and the other will do it for 35 hours in a week. If they are doing the same thing within each hour, there is no reason to pay them differently per hour.

Snip.

There are plenty of differences to pay them differently
1) Company's need to attract people to the position (supply and demand still rules here)
2) The fact that they are NOT doing the same job often
3) The stress level is higher and that forces more of number 1

In the end working 40 - 50 hours a week enables me to do more work and to do larger tougher and more time sensitive work as well as provides more real world learning

The article takes none of that into account and does not reflect on if they are actually doing the same job

It is stupid to use them in direct comparison without a lot more advanced comparison (for example 2+ way ANOVA)

Well why am I not surprised at hearing this?

At least the government is coming out and admitting what it has been wanting companies (some major companies do discriminate this way already) to do for years now.

Are you people just not reading what I am saying?
FULL TIME VS PART TIME DISPARITY IS NOT RELEVANT TO MINORITY VS MAJORITY DISPARITY.

The sad thing is is that people like to use that to prove that people are not being treated equally. Sometimes you will see 'studies' that show that a certain group isn't paid the same as another group, when in relaity they are paid less because they are in a part time job, this has nothing to do about their race or gender it is to do with the fact that they are in part time work and not full time work. Of course one obvious reason why people in part time work are paid less than those in full time work is the fact the those in full time work, work more hours than those in part time and so are paid more.

Thing is, this idea that there can be a tie break between two candidates is unrealistic, I think it's extremely rare that two candidates are as exactly as good as each other.

In practice, a "tie" will mean that the employer has no documented proof that one candidate is better than the other. For instance, if both are B.Sc. and have 1 year of experience.

In practice, a "tie" will mean that the employer has no documented proof that one candidate is better than the other. For instance, if both are B.Sc. and have 1 year of experience.

And they both tied for first of their class, and they both worked at the ame place for the same amount of time, and they both are the same age, and have the same personality...

For which you don't get the full time salary.
Why would that affect how much you get per hour?

I think the issue is this: so studies show that women make on average 40% less than men. Does any study show which jobs women on average do? For example: men might have a tendency towards part-time jobs like, say, networking support for a computer company (like a few male friends of mine), because (at least in my experience) men seem to be more inclined to technical jobs; and women might have a tendency towards part-time jobs like customer service or cashiering (like a few female friends of mine), because (at least in my experience) women seem to be more inclined to jobs that require a lot of interaction with other people. So the men would be paid more because they are more inclined to higher-paying jobs, not because they're men.

But that's all hypothetical, suggested as something to think about, not submitted as truth. The point is that I think the study may have a bias in that it does not take into account a possible difference in the kind of work men and women generally do.

They are not the same job ... one has a larger commitment and higher stress and often is more important to fill to a company.

Example in IT includes expected out of work learning, working towards certification, On call rotation and much MUCH larger long term projects that have a higher skill level and higher impact and priority because full timers have the hours at the office to get it done in a reasonable time frame

This translates to higher pay and better benifits

This is not unusual at all

This is why comparing the two is dis-ingenious at best
I don't know what hijinks employers in Minnesota get up to, but in New York, Vermont and Masschusetts (the US states I've lived in for the past 45 years), what you are describing would be a salaried job, not an hourly-paid one. There is, indeed, a world of difference salaried jobs and hourly jobs, but we're talking about hourly jobs here. With hourly-paid employment, such open-ended responsibility demands are rare because when you pay someone by the hour, you are more likely to have your state board of salaries and wages (usually an office of the state's labor department) ask you to justify the wage you are paying during one of their random site checks (those are fun). With salaried people, the wage-to-work ratio is much more flexible.

Because of wage standards, it is far more likely that hourly employees performing the same duties will be getting the same hourly wage regardless of how many hours each one of them works per week. The big exception to that is seniority, if the company is unionized or if it has a policy of rewarding people who stay in the job long term.

Oh, another fun thing about hourly employees is that an employer can switch them from full-time to part-time and back again whenever they like. (Just ask any Wal-mart slave.) But guess what? When they do switch a worker from full-time to part-time, they DON'T cut back on what they pay them per hour. Hm. Fancy that.

Now I admit I don't know much about how IT people get paid in general, but I personally have never met one who was on staff to a company and who was not salaried. The only IT people I've met who were paid by the hour were independent contractors. Ye gods, if IT people were paid by the hour, can you imagine how rich they'd be, with all the hours they put in at most corporate offices? Yeah, I'm guessing it's more common for them to be salaried.

Oh, and for the last time, grow up, people -- we DO NOT get paid more for our stress. Our bosses don't care if we're stressed. They don't care if we die.

Are you people just not reading what I am saying?
FULL TIME VS PART TIME DISPARITY IS NOT RELEVANT TO MINORITY VS MAJORITY DISPARITY.
Well, as quoted in the article, no, it isn't. The specific quoted statement was idiotic. But the question has been raised, and I'll raise it again for clarity -- What is the pay equity like between male part-timers and female part-timers and between male full-timers and female full-timers in the same jobs? And if the numbers of the genders in each of part-time and full-time jobs are so disparate that no wage comparison can be made within each set, why is that? In other words, if there are few to no male part-timers and few to no female full-timers, why is that?

There are plenty of differences to pay them differently
1) Company's need to attract people to the position (supply and demand still rules here)
A company does not need to pay hourly-paid part-timers less per hour to make hourly-paid full-time positions more attractive because most workers will opt for full-time anyway, because even if they are paid the same per hour, the full-timers will bring home more money because they work more hours.
2) The fact that they are NOT doing the same job often
Sigh. We have been talking about them doing the SAME job. You know, like in a retail store where some people work a part-time schedule and others work a full-time schedule but all are paid by the hour.

Now you want to start comparing apples to oranges? Yeah, no shit, different jobs get different pay. Wow, there's an insight.

But this side topic of the debate is about equal pay for equal work. Equal work -- as in doing the same job, not a different one.
3) The stress level is higher and that forces more of number 1
No, it doesn't. It really, really, really doesn't. The high stress of your full-time week does force a lot from you, but it doesn't force squat out of your employer.

And as I suggested in another post, I love this assumption that part-timers have it easier, as if millions of them aren't working two, sometimes three jobs at the same time -- and putting together a full-time schedule in the process, only for two or three companies and no benefits from any of them.

In the end working 40 - 50 hours a week enables me to do more work and to do larger tougher and more time sensitive work as well as provides more real world learning
If you work 50 hours a week, you should be getting overtime, but since you're an American, you probably don't. Not any more.

If you get paid the same if you work 50 hours/week as you do when you work 40 hours/week, then you're salaried, and this argument over equitable hourly wages does not apply to you.

And if you were paid by the hour, it is unlikely that you would be working 50 hours/week, because it is unlikely your employer would let you without prior authorization for the extra pay to come out of the department's payroll allocation.

The article takes none of that into account and does not reflect on if they are actually doing the same job
Perhaps the article didn't, but others in this thread have. Do you feel like talking to them, or do you just want to keep harping on the failings of the article?

It is stupid to use them in direct comparison without a lot more advanced comparison (for example 2+ way ANOVA)
Mm-hm.

And they both tied for first of their class, and they both worked at the ame place for the same amount of time, and they both are the same age, and have the same personality...
IRL, yes, complete ties virtually don't exist.

In the legal system, most likely, to prove it wasn't a tie, the employer will need something conclusive - which is qualifications and job exp. time.



You seem to be missing the point that there is no clear reason why two people doing the SAME JOB EACH HOUR should be paid differently PER HOUR just because one will do it for 20 hours in a week and the other will do it for 35 hours in a week.
There is a lot of clear reasons.
Part-timer works 4 hours a day - but you pay for his office space or uniform and other related expenses by day, not by hour.
A job done in 3 months is more valuable than a job done in 6 months.

Part-timers will always on the average have less job experience than full-timers.
They are also usually not staying in the company for long, and as such can't be assigned to critical tasks, and aren't subject to loyalty rewards.
Even if both have same number of years of experience, a 5-year part-timer has less experience than a 5-year full-timer.
A part-timer also has less time to bond with the team.

In other words, part-timers are less integrated into the company, less reliable, and, most importantly, less experienced.

I think the issue is this: so studies show that women make on average 40% less than men. Does any study show which jobs women on average do? For example: men might have a tendency towards part-time jobs like, say, networking support for a computer company (like a few male friends of mine), because (at least in my experience) men seem to be more inclined to technical jobs; and women might have a tendency towards part-time jobs like customer service or cashiering (like a few female friends of mine), because (at least in my experience) women seem to be more inclined to jobs that require a lot of interaction with other people. So the men would be paid more because they are more inclined to higher-paying jobs, not because they're men.

But that's all hypothetical, suggested as something to think about, not submitted as truth. The point is that I think the study may have a bias in that it does not take into account a possible difference in the kind of work men and women generally do.
The kind of work men and women are inclined towards, or the kind they are steered towards by the hiring decisions of companies?

Also, I will keep saying this as many times as it takes: The debate over pay equity is about what men and women and what minorities and majorities get paid when they are doing the SAME jobs, not different jobs. Equal pay for equal work is NOT about kindergarten teachers getting the same pay as IT technicians. It's about male teachers and female teachers getting the same pay for the same work. It's about black, latino, asian IT people getting the same pay as white IT people for the same work.

Every time someone starts going on about women typically ending up in jobs that pay less than other kinds of jobs, or about part-timers having less take-home pay than full-timers, they are completely missing the point of the pay equity debate.

In practice, a "tie" will mean that the employer has no documented proof that one candidate is better than the other. For instance, if both are B.Sc. and have 1 year of experience.

you forgetting about interviews. an employer can pretty much declare one candidate better over the other with an interview.
Also if it is a with in the company promotion the employer can say candidate X did better then candidate Y during during this year of service.

There is a lot of clear reasons.
Part-timer works 4 hours a day - but you pay for his office space or uniform and other related expenses by day, not by hour.
A job done in 3 months is more valuable than a job done in 6 months.

Part-timers will always on the average have less job experience than full-timers.
They are also usually not staying in the company for long, and as such can't be assigned to critical tasks, and aren't subject to loyalty rewards.
Even if both have same number of years of experience, a 5-year part-timer has less experience than a 5-year full-timer.
A part-timer also has less time to bond with the team.

In other words, part-timers are less integrated into the company, less reliable, and, most importantly, less experienced.
A lot of clearly made-up bullshit reasons, apparently.

A) Part-timers don't get offices. They might get desks, but since they are part-timers, they share them with someone else.

B) A job done in 3 months is more valuable than one done in 6? Really? Seriously? So if it takes 3 months for a part-time secretary to get caught up on a department's backlog of bill tracking, that's worth more to the company than if it takes 6 months for a full-time secretary to design and implement a new bill tracking system?

C) The two main reasons there is high turnover of part-timers is because they always have to be on the lookout for better paying jobs, and because the companies do not value them and will cut them first to save budget.

D) What dream world do you live in where every part-timer and every full-timer are working at their first and only job? How do you know that any given full-timer with five years at a company doesn't have ten years experience, or that any given part-timer with five years at a company doesn't have twenty years experience, most of it from when he/she was a full-timer? As an illustrative example: I signed up for part-time temp work for the summer (to supplement my art income). I signed up today with an agency I have never worked for before. I have zero experience with that company. My new boss told me, however, that she hired me and will have me starting a corporate assignment next week, over other people still waiting for assignments because of the 20 years of experience evident in my resume and skills testing. As she put it, "You've got the experience."

E) Bond? Team? Give me a break. When people say shit like this, it is clear to me that they have never worked either as or with part-timers.

I think the issue is this: so studies show that women make on average 40% less than men. Does any study show which jobs women on average do?

Of course not because that dosen't help what the study set out to prove.

Every time someone starts going on about women typically ending up in jobs that pay less than other kinds of jobs, or about part-timers having less take-home pay than full-timers, they are completely missing the point of the pay equity debate.

But some studies don't take that into consideration.

A lot of clearly made-up bullshit reasons, apparently.
Ah, I see. You're not the type that submits to reason.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm


Experience and qualification don't matter - everything must be equal.

Ah, I see. You're not the type that submits to reason.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm


Experience and qualification don't matter - everything must be equal.

I knew you'd say that. See the edit I was writing while you said it.

But some studies don't take that into consideration.
And?

The kind of work men and women are inclined towards, or the kind they are steered towards by the hiring decisions of companies?
An interesting question. I would suggest that it's a bit of both.

Also, I will keep saying this as many times as it takes: The debate over pay equity is about what men and women and what minorities and majorities get paid when they are doing the SAME jobs, not different jobs. Equal pay for equal work is NOT about kindergarten teachers getting the same pay as IT technicians. It's about male teachers and female teachers getting the same pay for the same work. It's about black, latino, asian IT people getting the same pay as white IT people for the same work.

But all the studies I've ever seen (which admittedly isn't many) just shows that women on average make less than men. I've yet to see a study that specifically stays within the scope of a single job. In every job I've had, women made the same as men, and were promoted (or fired) as often as not. Obviously I haven't worked everywhere, so I wouldn't try to speak for everywhere, but that has been my experience.

What is needed, I think, is a more definitive study.

Every time someone starts going on about women typically ending up in jobs that pay less than other kinds of jobs, or about part-timers having less take-home pay than full-timers, they are completely missing the point of the pay equity debate.

It's a legitimate question, though: if women are putting themselves in jobs that pay less than others, and men with those same jobs are making the same amount of money, then it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of changing the career habits of women. I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, only that it does merit thought and study: if it turns out women just choose lower-paying jobs, then mandating these advantages for women is not actually correcting a problem but creating one.

you missed my argument it is the woman's choice and the the employer should not be required suffer because of that choice even if society is the one pushing the woman to make that choice.

No, I didn't miss your argument, I just disagree with it. Yes, women can physically give birth. Why exactly does this mean that the mother of a child will miss more work and cause the company to lose more money than the father of a child? Is there some essential task in child-rearing that a man is unequipped to handle?

Here's fairly broad article but interesting nonetheless, as ever I'll abridge given clicking links is anathema to NSG: http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2287816,00.html

The real point is that expectations of what one can do plays heavily into the choices one makes. Legislation such as the one proposed aims to equal the balance in the workforce, making it easier for future generations to make open choices and easier for future employers to make balanced employment decisions.

Should companies be allowed to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority candidates? Yesterday, equality minister Harriet Harman said that they should, and that the result would be a more diverse workforce.

And she doesn't have to look far for evidence that something needs to be done: when Labour MP Dawn Butler won her Brent South seat in 2005, she became only the third black woman ever to sit in the House of Commons - particularly depressing when you consider that the first, Diane Abbott, won her seat more than 20 years ago.

Butler was in a members' lift when other occupants started complaining loudly, saying catering and cleaning staff shouldn't be in there, clearly referring to her. On yet another, a security guard at the Commons stopped Butler, who was with a white female MP, and asked to see her pass. She asked him why he didn't want to see both passes.

It only takes a glance at the country's top jobs to recognise that women from ethnic minorities are conspicuous by their absence. Combating the "old-boy network", which discriminates particularly strongly against ethnic minority women, is one of Harman's priorities in the new measures she has just outlined. As well as just two black women who are currently MPs, fewer than 1% of the directors of FTSE 100 companies are women of non-European descent and there is only one female high court judge from an ethnic minority.

...when she [actually someone else] was at school, teachers pushed her down a vocational route into nursing. Their view was, 'You need to become a nurse. That's what you do; what your people do.' Fortunately for me, my mother was as strong and determined as I am, and took me out of that school and put me in a college where I could do A-levels and they had high expectations of me. So I think there has been a problem, and probably still is, with educators."

No one is pretending this is an issue with a quick-fix solution, though Harman clearly hopes her measures will speed things along. Butler says the priority is to win hearts and minds: she is not opposed to all-black shortlists, but she doesn't think they are practical. "But by raising the issue, you are raising awareness. Yesterday, I had an email from a young black woman. She said she wanted to study politics and that everyone had told her not to; that she would never get anywhere in that world. But then a lot of my teachers didn't have high expectations of me".

And?

So, my friend when those studies dont take this into consideration but then claim that it proves that women are paid less, but these studies are flawed because they haven't taken this into consideration.

I think you knew and already.

There are many reasons firms do this, including to encourage people to work full time instead.

And why would employers be interested in that? After all, they can have two people doing the job for 40% less than 1 person... if I was an employer, I would try and get all my employees to go part time under those conditions.

2 weeks before. and don't forget the maternity leave after wards. normally 6 weeks to 6 months after(depending on your employer).
doubling your work load for 8 weeks to cover for a co worker giving birth normally merits a promotion/raise.

In family life one parent normally is the go to parent that handles the child. I fail to see how corporations are responsible and should have to pay for a womans choice.

I don't know about your workplace, but here the workload is shared to cover for anybody who's out sick or on maternity leave.
Plus, I don't think employers are forced to pay anything for maternity leave. Yes, you will be one person down for a few weeks, but how does that justify paying that person less to begin with?

you missed my argument it is the woman's choice and the the employer should not be required suffer because of that choice even if society is the one pushing the woman to make that choice.

Well, why should the employer assume then that she WILL make that choice?

See, I've been working for well over 10 years now, and haven't been out on maternity leave so far...

I don't know about your workplace, but here the workload is shared to cover for anybody who's out sick or on maternity leave.
Plus, I don't think employers are forced to pay anything for maternity leave. Yes, you will be one person down for a few weeks, but how does that justify paying that person less to begin with?

Yes in fact if you get rid of an employee than the work will still be done, some countries do force companies to pay their employees maternity leave depending on the situation paternity leave, however, is a different issue.

They are not the same job ... one has a larger commitment and higher stress and often is more important to fill to a company.

Example in IT includes expected out of work learning, working towards certification, On call rotation and much MUCH larger long term projects that have a higher skill level and higher impact and priority because full timers have the hours at the office to get it done in a reasonable time frame

This translates to higher pay and better benifits

This is not unusual at all

This is why comparing the two is dis-ingenious at best

We're not comparing different jobs, though. We're comparing the same job with different work hours.

And if they do the same job, their pay per hour should be the same.

Yes in fact if you get rid of an employee than the work will still be done, some countries do force companies to pay their employees maternity leave depending on the situation paternity leave, however, is a different issue.

That still doesn't justify an expectation that a female employee will get pregnant and will be out of work because of it, let alone go on maternity leave for an extended period.

And it's apparently this expectation which is the base of discrimination against women in the workplace...

We're not comparing different jobs, though. We're comparing the same job with different work hours.

And if they do the same job, their pay per hour should be the same.

And that should happen regardless of if it is a man doing less hours than another man, a man doing less hours then another woman, a woman doing less hours than another woman and a woman doing less hours than another man. But how many studies take this into account, and there are other things to take into account such as experience, previous performance amongst others.

That still doesn't justify an expectation that a female employee will get pregnant and will be out of work because of it, let alone go on maternity leave for an extended period.

And it's apparently this expectation which is the base of discrimination against women in the workplace...

I never said it was Cabra.

Is it? or is it what the other poster claimed?

I never said it was Cabra.

Is it? or is it what the other poster claimed?

Might have been what somebody else claimed, yes. ;)

However, I do believe that this has become the main argument used to discriminate against women. It used to be all about how they're just physically and mentally incapable of performing on the same level as men, and the more this notion became exposed as the bullshit it is, the more new excuses were thought up.

It annoys the hell out of me seeing how much more work there is for feminism, and at the same time women walking around proudly proclaiming they're not feminist, and there's no need for the idea any more... :(

We're not comparing different jobs, though. We're comparing the same job with different work hours.

And if they do the same job, their pay per hour should be the same.

No. If i am working 8 hours a day that means every day I gain twice the experience of someone working 4 hours a day.

Also companies are willing to pay more for an 8 hour day employee because they find them more beneficial to the corporation. less people they have to train, and they know I am at work all day. And I can be given a large project to complete in a day.

Well, why should the employer assume then that she WILL make that choice?

See, I've been working for well over 10 years now, and haven't been out on maternity leave so far...

they don't. as stated before women who work the same hours and don't have a child (take maternity leave) make 1% more then their male counterparts on average.
If you have a child and the father is the 1st person that will take off to take care of said child then the discrepancy in pay is most likely a performance issue.

they don't. as stated before women who work the same hours and don't have a child (take maternity leave) make 1% more then their male counterparts on average.
If you have a child and the father is the 1st person that will take off to take care of said child then the discrepancy in pay is most likely a performance issue.

Someone needs to ask, can you cite this?

There's a bunch of statistics here (http://www.tssa.org.uk/article-49.php3?id_article=1397) out of unrelated interest.

Someone needs to ask, can you cite this?

There's a bunch of statistics here (http://www.tssa.org.uk/article-49.php3?id_article=1397) out of unrelated interest.

a book i read awhile ago. I think it was from Rush Limbaugh's the way things ought to be. and he had it cited from somewhere. I will dig it up next time i visit my parents home.(read the book as a 12 yr old)

We're not comparing different jobs, though. We're comparing the same job with different work hours.

And if they do the same job, their pay per hour should be the same.

The difference between part-time and full-time is one of workforce.

If I have to hire two part-time employees to do the job of one full-time. Two employees cost more to the company in pension plan, insurances, corporate taxes, all those small deductions you have on your paycheck. Let's take pension: It usually cost a fee per head plus, say, 2% of your salary that the employer pay, then you add your part. Two persons cost more than one. NOt in the term of 2% of your salary but the flat fee of x amount per head.

Companies being companies, they will try to shift this extra cost on the employees. So they try to give a smaller salary. It would be the same if you were a men. Part-time employees get the shaft. And they don't complain about it as their job is always less secure and if they complain about their pay to the boss the boss's got a lot of argument to keep the part-time employee down as you can see from this thread.

But the real reason between men-women and part-time vs full-time discrepancies is that companies tried to give less to some and got away with it. It's that simple. I'm not condoning it, but it's there. It's a disgrace but this law is doing nothing to solve this.

So, my friend when those studies dont take this into consideration but then claim that it proves that women are paid less, but these studies are flawed because they haven't taken this into consideration.

I think you knew and already.
So, my friend who condescends before he thinks, you said "some studies" don't take that into account. That indicates that you know perfectly well that other studies do (possibly because I showed one to you the last time we argued about pay equity). So why do you prefer to rely on the bad studies that don't take all circumstances into account rather that the good ones that do? Is it because the good studies don't support your argument?

An interesting question. I would suggest that it's a bit of both.
What you base that suggestion on?

But all the studies I've ever seen (which admittedly isn't many) just shows that women on average make less than men. I've yet to see a study that specifically stays within the scope of a single job. In every job I've had, women made the same as men, and were promoted (or fired) as often as not. Obviously I haven't worked everywhere, so I wouldn't try to speak for everywhere, but that has been my experience.

What is needed, I think, is a more definitive study.
I am annoyed at myself because I failed to bookmark a chart taken from such a study that I found last time I argued this topic, and I haven't been able to find it again. It showed specifically comparisons between average wages of men and average wages of women in the same jobs during 2007 in the US. I am still looking for it and will post when found.


It's a legitimate question, though: if women are putting themselves in jobs that pay less than others, and men with those same jobs are making the same amount of money, then it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of changing the career habits of women. I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, only that it does merit thought and study: if it turns out women just choose lower-paying jobs, then mandating these advantages for women is not actually correcting a problem but creating one.
IF that's true, then yes, it would be true. However, it is not true in many, many jobs, including secretarial work, government office work, caregiver work, and other non-unionized employment. This was clearly shown in the chart that I'm looking for.

I think the problem is that I forgot which keywords I searched by, so I have to try some different combos.

Well, why should the employer assume then that she WILL make that choice?

See, I've been working for well over 10 years now, and haven't been out on maternity leave so far...
I've been working for about 30 years, and not one maternity leave yet, and the chances of me taking one get less every year.

And that should happen regardless of if it is a man doing less hours than another man, a man doing less hours then another woman, a woman doing less hours than another woman and a woman doing less hours than another man. But how many studies take this into account, and there are other things to take into account such as experience, previous performance amongst others.
Of course it should. If the work done per hour is the same but different people doing it get paid different wages for any reason other than seniority or one worker receiving merit raises or bonuses, then there is a problem that needs to be looked at. If the disparity in base wage is due to gender, ethnicity or age, then it is discrimination. If it is due to a worker being classed as a full-time or part-time employee then it is an unfair employment practice.

No. If i am working 8 hours a day that means every day I gain twice the experience of someone working 4 hours a day.

Also companies are willing to pay more for an 8 hour day employee because they find them more beneficial to the corporation. less people they have to train, and they know I am at work all day. And I can be given a large project to complete in a day.
No, it doesn't. I already addressed this. Why are you ignoring the points I raised?

a book i read awhile ago. I think it was from Rush Limbaugh's the way things ought to be. and he had it cited from somewhere. I will dig it up next time i visit my parents home.(read the book as a 12 yr old)
How not to gain credibility: Read a book by a radio shock-jock when you're a kid and then, years later, rely on it as a source of fact on international employment statistics just from memory.

The difference between part-time and full-time is one of workforce.

If I have to hire two part-time employees to do the job of one full-time. Two employees cost more to the company in pension plan, insurances, corporate taxes, all those small deductions you have on your paycheck. Let's take pension: It usually cost a fee per head plus, say, 2% of your salary that the employer pay, then you add your part. Two persons cost more than one. NOt in the term of 2% of your salary but the flat fee of x amount per head.

Companies being companies, they will try to shift this extra cost on the employees. So they try to give a smaller salary. It would be the same if you were a men. Part-time employees get the shaft. And they don't complain about it as their job is always less secure and if they complain about their pay to the boss the boss's got a lot of argument to keep the part-time employee down as you can see from this thread.
In the United States -- I cannot speak for any other country -- part-time employees DO NOT qualify for pension plans, 401K plans, inclusion in company health insurance plans (though if they work enough hours in a year, some companies will let them buy into the plan), or paid holidays. Because of this, part-time employees cost companies thousands of dollars LESS per year than full-time employees. This is why, in the US, there are millions of part-time workers, with more part-time jobs being added to the job market every year, while full-time jobs stagnate or go down.

But the real reason between men-women and part-time vs full-time discrepancies is that companies tried to give less to some and got away with it. It's that simple. I'm not condoning it, but it's there. It's a disgrace but this law is doing nothing to solve this.
I agree with this.

In the United States -- I cannot speak for any other country -- part-time employees DO NOT qualify for pension plans, 401K plans, inclusion in company health insurance plans (though if they work enough hours in a year, some companies will let them buy into the plan), or paid holidays. Because of this, part-time employees cost companies thousands of dollars LESS per year than full-time employees. This is why, in the US, there are millions of part-time workers, with more part-time jobs being added to the job market every year, while full-time jobs stagnate or go down.

In Canada, part-time employees qualify for a lot of those plus some socail safety nets like unemployment assistance that every worker pay for. So, in Canada, part-time isn't as big an advantage for companies than in the USA.

I agree with this.

So do I.

It's a legitimate question, though: if women are putting themselves in jobs that pay less than others, and men with those same jobs are making the same amount of money, then it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of changing the career habits of women. I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, only that it does merit thought and study: if it turns out women just choose lower-paying jobs, then mandating these advantages for women is not actually correcting a problem but creating one.

I remember years ago one of my professors making a very interesting comment:
She said that it's not so much that women pick jobs that are low paying. It's more that as soon as a job is performed in the majority by women, it loses social prestige and the wages go down.
If you want to take teaching as an example : A teacher in a grammar school in the first half of the 20th century wasn't exactly a rich man, but certainly well-off, and the job was rather prestigious. These days, some teachers are almost being paid less than the cleaners at the school.
Librarians would be another example. As long as it was a man's job, it was academic, highly-regarded and fairly well-paid. These days? Not so much any more.
It went that way for a lot of professions...

I remember years ago one of my professors making a very interesting comment:
She said that it's not so much that women pick jobs that are low paying. It's more that as soon as a job is performed in the majority by women, it loses social prestige and the wages go down.
If you want to take teaching as an example : A teacher in a grammar school in the first half of the 20th century wasn't exactly a rich man, but certainly well-off, and the job was rather prestigious. These days, some teachers are almost being paid less than the cleaners at the school.
Librarians would be another example. As long as it was a man's job, it was academic, highly-regarded and fairly well-paid. These days? Not so much any more.
It went that way for a lot of professions...
Hell, when we invented telephones only men were allowed to be operators - until the novelty wore off.

I remember years ago one of my professors making a very interesting comment:
She said that it's not so much that women pick jobs that are low paying. It's more that as soon as a job is performed in the majority by women, it loses social prestige and the wages go down.
If you want to take teaching as an example : A teacher in a grammar school in the first half of the 20th century wasn't exactly a rich man, but certainly well-off, and the job was rather prestigious. These days, some teachers are almost being paid less than the cleaners at the school.
Librarians would be another example. As long as it was a man's job, it was academic, highly-regarded and fairly well-paid. These days? Not so much any more.
It went that way for a lot of professions...

This seems to confuse correlation and causation. Librarians, to take your example, are paid less because of the changing nature of people's usage of books and their preference for the internet as a source of knowledge and entertainment. Accordingly, IT jobs are better paid and librarians are less so, this has nothing to do with which gender take the majority of those jobs but more so the changing nature of employment in those areas.

Well, as quoted in the article, no, it isn't. The specific quoted statement was idiotic. But the question has been raised, and I'll raise it again for clarity -- What is the pay equity like between male part-timers and female part-timers and between male full-timers and female full-timers in the same jobs? And if the numbers of the genders in each of part-time and full-time jobs are so disparate that no wage comparison can be made within each set, why is that? In other words, if there are few to no male part-timers and few to no female full-timers, why is that?
I don't know or care, but it isn't relevant to the topic of female vs male pay disparity.

OK, the AFL-CIO hooked me up. Go Labor! :)

For those asking for comparisons of men's wages and women's wages in the same jobs, the following figures were compiled by the US Department of Labor. They date from 2002. I am still looking for more recent numbers, though actually, 2002 isn't that long ago.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/ThePayGapByOccupation.cfm#a

Here are the supporting articles, in case you're interested:
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/EqualPaybyOccupation.cfm

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/

From the articles:
In 2007, women were paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Economist Evelyn Murphy, president and founder of The WAGE Project, estimates the wage gap costs the average full-time U.S. woman worker between $700,000 and $2 million over the course of her work life.

These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn only 72 cents and Latinas 60 cents for every dollar that men earn. Asian American and Pacific Islander American women earn less, too. Their pay inequality is less severe than for women as a whole, but they still earned only 88 cents for every dollar that men earned in 2000.
emphasis added.


For women lawyers, whose median weekly earnings are nearly $206 less than those of male attorneys, and for women in office and administrative support, who receive about $71 a week less than male administrative support;
For women doctors, whose median earnings are nearly $688 less each week than men's earnings, and for the 90 percent of nurses who are women but who earn $119 less each week than the 10 percent of nurses who are men;
For women professors, whose median pay is $233 less each week than men's pay, and for women elementary school teachers, who receive about $86 less a week than men;
For women food service supervisors, who are paid about $122 less each week than men in the same job, and for waitresses, whose weekly earnings are about $67 less than waiters' earnings.

The chart I was originally looking for showed 2007 numbers, and I will continue to look for it as well, but this should get you started.

I don't know or care, but it isn't relevant to the topic of female vs male pay disparity.

Why is it not relevant? The answer of why would point to whether or not there is gender discrimination in hiring practices. Are you saying that, if gender discrimination in hiring exists, that is unrelated to gender-based pay disparity?

Also, you rejected the comment from the article (still ignoring the comments from the thread, I see) on the basis that it was comparing different kinds of jobs. I just posted US figures comparing male/female wages in the same jobs. Enjoy.

OK, the AFL-CIO hooked me up. Go Labor! :)

snip

These figures give weekly earnings while making no mention of average hours worked.

EDIT: Page says "*These are median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers". Assuming equal job and work hours, I'm at a loss to understand how this occurs in the first place.

I fully support this move. I believe this puts me in a minority in this thread. In order to avoid me feeling discriminated against or harassed, a large number of those against the policy must leave the thread and hand control of their accounts to those of other minority opinions.

This seems to confuse correlation and causation. Librarians, to take your example, are paid less because of the changing nature of people's usage of books and their preference for the internet as a source of knowledge and entertainment. Accordingly, IT jobs are better paid and librarians are less so, this has nothing to do with which gender take the majority of those jobs but more so the changing nature of employment in those areas.

If that were so, the trend in wages would have been a recent development. However, you can see the wages drop sharply in most Western European countries during and after WW I... when the job became female mostly due to a lack of male employees.

If that were so, the trend in wages would have been a recent development. However, you can see the wages drop sharply in most Western European countries during and after WW I... when the job became female mostly due to a lack of male employees.

Sources, please.

This has probably already been discussed, but there's two issues that need to be firmly separated here; inequality of pay and affirmative action in the workplace.

Inequality of pay between the sexes (or indeed, between any two people doing the same job) is simply unacceptable. There is no cogent argument for supporting the view that two people, doing the same exact job with the exact same hours, should be paid differently due to their sex (or sexual orientation, skin colour, religion or lack of, etc.).

Affirmative action/positive discrimination, however, is a less straight-forward issue. I've always been slightly turned off from AA/PD, purely from the fact that if I was given job on the basis of my sex, skin colour, religious or ethnic background, etc., rather than on the basis of my abilities, I'd feel rather miffed. It's not, "welcome to the team, you'll be a valuable addition", but, "welcome to the team, you'll fill a quota".

That being said, I recognise that certain minorities have massive disadvantages in being able to get certain jobs in the first place. However, I'd prefer if we were tackling those factors that amount to said disadvantages (education, housing, welfare, etc.), rather than trying to 'fix' the disadvantages after the fact.

Why is it not relevant?
What size font do I need to use?

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS

You can't mix and match that crap to try and make your point, it may work, but only with idiots.

The answer of why would point to whether or not there is gender discrimination in hiring practices.
That's not how it works. You prove one, then the other, you don't mix and match on the fly to try to make two unrelated arguments. Like I said, you have to prove an active campaign by businesses to channel women into part-time jobs in order to pay them less. You can't say "women in part-time jobs make less than men in full-time jobs and thus women are discriminated against!" No, just no. That is a logical fallacy. You arn't proving jack squat. In order to say that, you have to prove that women are channeled towards those jobs actively - not that they just happen to take more part time jobs by choice, but that they are actively pushed towards or assigned those jobs.
Or.
You can prove that all part-time workers are paid less because there are more women in those jobs. But to do that, first you have to prove there are more women in part-time jobs than men and that there are more men in full-time jobs than women.

Are you saying that, if gender discrimination in hiring exists, that is unrelated to gender-based pay disparity?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Gender based hiring discrimination is not gender based pay disparity. They may be highly correlated but they are not the same thing.

I just posted US figures comparing male/female wages in the same jobs.
I never said pay disparity doesn't exist. Never. I said the women part-time vs male full-time pay proves pay disparity argument was bullshit. Which it is.

In Canada, part-time employees qualify for a lot of those plus some socail safety nets like unemployment assistance that every worker pay for. So, in Canada, part-time isn't as big an advantage for companies than in the USA.



So do I.
In the US, part-time employees also qualify for unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance tax must be paid by the employer for them, with a portion of it deducted from their pay, just like full-timers. However, depending on what state they are in and how many hours they worked per year/portion of year, part-timers often find they are told they don't qualify for the benefit after they get laid off and apply for it, because they didn't work enough hours. So in this sense, both the workers and the employers get screwed. However, in some states, such as Vermont where I had occasion to learn this, there is a charge for unemployment assistance charged to the employer only when an employee puts in a claim for it. This provides an incentive to employers to keep their part-time workers just below the necessary number of hours to qualify for the benefit.

Hey, it's the American way! Ain't it great?

Sources, please.

Will dig through my literature when I get home, I don't have the material with me.

These figures give weekly earnings while making no mention of average hours worked.

EDIT: Page says "*These are median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers". Assuming equal job and work hours, I'm at a loss to understand how this occurs in the first place.

OK, first you answered your own objection by quoting the footnote. Thanks. The comparison is between full-time jobs. Full-time = 40 hours/week. Are you under the impression that "full-time" means something different for women than for men? No, it doesn't. It's a legal standard set by the federal goverment.

Second, the answer to why it occurs is discrimination.

If that were so, the trend in wages would have been a recent development. However, you can see the wages drop sharply in most Western European countries during and after WW I... when the job became female mostly due to a lack of male employees.
No doubt but that is also when the jobs started being done by a brand new, unskilled work force due to all the skilled work force being moved out.

I hate to tell you this but unskilled and new workers are paid alot less than more experienced workers who have been on the job longer.
Didn't some one already chide you about mixing correlation and causation?

This has probably already been discussed, but there's two issues that need to be firmly separated here; inequality of pay and affirmative action in the workplace.

Inequality of pay between the sexes (or indeed, between any two people doing the same job) is simply unacceptable. There is no cogent argument for supporting the view that two people, doing the same exact job with the exact same hours, should be paid differently due to their sex (or sexual orientation, skin colour, religion or lack of, etc.).

Affirmative action/positive discrimination, however, is a less straight-forward issue. I've always been slightly turned off from AA/PD, purely from the fact that if I was given job on the basis of my sex, skin colour, religious or ethnic background, etc., rather than on the basis of my abilities, I'd feel rather miffed. It's not, "welcome to the team, you'll be a valuable addition", but, "welcome to the team, you'll fill a quota".

That being said, I recognise that certain minorities have massive disadvantages in being able to get certain jobs in the first place. However, I'd prefer if we were tackling those factors that amount to said disadvantages (education, housing, welfare, etc.), rather than trying to 'fix' the disadvantages after the fact.
I agree. Also, in regards to attacking the problem as it exists now, I would rather see less AA and more positive support for employee legal action against employers who treat them unfairly. For instance, one of the AFL-CIO articles mentions that the US Supreme Court recently ruled that, in order to prove gender discrimination in the workplace, a woman must file a complaint within 180 days of the discrimination occurring, which blatantly ignores the reality of how discrimination plays out and reveals itself in the real world.

No doubt but that is also when the jobs started being done by a brand new, unskilled work force due to all the skilled work force being moved out.

I hate to tell you this but unskilled and new workers are paid alot less than more experienced workers who have been on the job longer.
Didn't some one already chide you about mixing correlation and causation?

Dunno about where you are, but to become a librarian here you still have to put in 4 years at university, male or female...
I'd hardly call that unskilled.

Dunno about where you are, but to become a librarian here you still have to put in 4 years at university, male or female...
I'd hardly call that unskilled.
Which has what to do with the replacement work force in WWI which you brought up and what you quoted was in reply to?
I assume you realize you are losing the argument so are pulling unrelated counters out of dark orifices.

But more directly, school != experience. School doesn't even equal skill. School == schooling. And new people, male or female, are going to make less on a job than some one who has been there for years.

I fully support this move. I believe this puts me in a minority in this thread. In order to avoid me feeling discriminated against or harassed, a large number of those against the policy must leave the thread and hand control of their accounts to those of other minority opinions.

Harriet Harman please Stand Up!

What size font do I need to use?

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS

You can't mix and match that crap to try and make your point, it may work, but only with idiots.
You can write it as big as you like. You are still ignoring the points already raised in the thread in favor of bitching about a fault in the OP article. For instance, one of the points raised was the one where I said (several times over) that the quote from the article was confusing and "idiotic" and then went on to discuss real figures and real comparisons. But you go on talking about what you want to talk about, while the rest of us debate an actual topic.

That's not how it works. You prove one, then the other, you don't mix and match on the fly to try to make two unrelated arguments. Like I said, you have to prove an active campaign by businesses to channel women into part-time jobs in order to pay them less. You can't say "women in part-time jobs make less than men in full-time jobs and thus women are discriminated against!" No, just no. That is a logical fallacy. You arn't proving jack squat. In order to say that, you have to prove that women are channeled towards those jobs actively - not that they just happen to take more part time jobs by choice, but that they are actively pushed towards or assigned those jobs.
Or.
You can prove that all part-time workers are paid less because there are more women in those jobs. But to do that, first you have to prove there are more women in part-time jobs than men and that there are more men in full-time jobs than women.
Ya ya ya blah blah blah. Every single part of this point has already been addressed. More than once. If you bothered to read, you might find that no one is disagreeing with you. Except maybe you.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Gender based hiring discrimination is not gender based pay disparity. They may be highly correlated but they are not the same thing.
Then you're bullshitting. It defies reason to claim that, if a company discriminates by gender by only hiring women for jobs that pay less and only hiring men for jobs that pay more, that is not equivalent to paying women less just because they are women.

I never said pay disparity doesn't exist. Never. I said the women part-time vs male full-time pay proves pay disparity argument was bullshit. Which it is.
Yeah, right, uh-huh. You made a point that no one in the thread disagreed with, and then you proceeded to mangle it to the point where it became bull. Good work.

Which has what to do with the replacement work force in WWI which you brought up and what you quoted was in reply to?
I assume you realize you are losing the argument so are pulling unrelated counters out of dark orifices.

But more directly, school != experience. School doesn't even equal skill. School == schooling. And new people, male or female, are going to make less on a job than some one who has been there for years.

Even in WW I few if any unqualified personell would have been employed, but I can check that again.

However, that was 90 years ago. It's funny how those people never managed to get enough experience to get back to the previous wage levels, isn't it?

These figures give weekly earnings while making no mention of average hours worked.

EDIT: Page says "*These are median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers". Assuming equal job and work hours, I'm at a loss to understand how this occurs in the first place.

Speaking of that poll, who the fuck uses the *median* salalry? You should compare averages. The median means diddly-squat. If you hire or fire one more male of female lawyer and that statistic can be reversed.

I'm not saying the statistics are wrong but to use the *median* to drive your point across is just stupid. It's the same error than comparing part-time female wages with full-time male wages: It shows a bigger discrepancy, sure but it's disingenious.

Ya ya ya blah blah blah. Every single part of this point has already been addressed. More than once. If you bothered to read, you might find that no one is disagreeing with you. Except maybe you.
This is all regardless of the fact that you keep arguing it.


Then you're bullshitting. It defies reason to claim that, if a company discriminates by gender by only hiring women for jobs that pay less and only hiring men for jobs that pay more, that is not equivalent to paying women less just because they are women.
Nice job convoluting the argument.
Do I really need to quote myself. The part you quoted and went "blah blah blah." Why don't you go read it then don't come back telling me what my rationale is that you didn't bother reading.

Even in WW I few if any unqualified personell would have been employed, but I can check that again.
For more nerdiness, unskilled != unqualified.
I'm qualified for any number of IT jobs, whether I have the specific, job related skills is another matter. That's what training is for.

However, that was 90 years ago. It's funny how those people never managed to get enough experience to get back to the previous wage levels, isn't it?
Which is, again, a different argument. That was not the point you made. That was what you implied. Next time, instead of making bullshit implications that rely on mixing up causation and correlation that I, or some one else, will call you on, why don't you actually try stating your point.

No doubt but that is also when the jobs started being done by a brand new, unskilled work force due to all the skilled work force being moved out.

I hate to tell you this but unskilled and new workers are paid alot less than more experienced workers who have been on the job longer.
Didn't some one already chide you about mixing correlation and causation?
I see, so in your reality, a skilled job can be performed just as well by an unskilled worker, and you just have to pay them less.

So all those women in WW2 who riveted warships together, built airplanes, and assembled munitions, they were hired for those jobs despite not knowing how to do them, and in fact, they didn't have the skills and all those ships and planes and munitions didn't work when used. Right? Oh, wait, no....

And when women took over the job of phone operator from men, phone service plummeted because women lacked the skill to connect the calls, right? Oh, wait, that didn't happen, either.

Oh, I know! When librarian became a female-dominated job, it clearly was a situation of skilled workers being replaced by unskilled workers, as evidenced by the fact that libraries stopped requiring and universities stopped offering degrees in library science. Oh, um... Hm, OK, let me think...

How about this? Female lawyers lack skill, so the fact that they graduate law school with JDs and pass state bar exams to get licenses to practice just like men means nothing. And obviously, there's no such thing as a female lawyer who has ever won a case or closed a big deal or been elevated to a judgeship or, perish the thought, ever been a Justice on the Supreme Court. Female doctors clearly lack skill -- how else would they get those medical degrees and licenses to practice, let alone have any living patients? And female taxi drivers are obviously unskilled labor because everyone knows women can't drive.

You've been a big one for claiming that one statement in the OP article is bullshit, but your argument re skilled/unskilled labor outweighs it on the bullshit scale by a mile. There is absolutely no difference in the qualifications of men and women for these skilled jobs. The only difference is the average pay.

Which is, again, a different argument. That was not the point you made. That was what you implied. Next time, instead of making bullshit implications that rely on mixing up causation and correlation that I, or some one else, will call you on, why don't you actually try stating your point.

My point was that professions with mostly female workers get paid less, regardless of value produced, skill or qualification required, and that professions that change from being male dominated to being mostly female will start paying less as well.

I do apologise if it was too difficult for you to gather from my post, I will in future try and spell it out more clearly for your benefit.

This is all regardless of the fact that you keep arguing it.



Nice job convoluting the argument.
Do I really need to quote myself. The part you quoted and went "blah blah blah." Why don't you go read it then don't come back telling me what my rationale is that you didn't bother reading.

Instead of quoting yourself, why don't you try reading what others have posted? I did read the part of your post that I dismissed. That is how I knew it had already been addressed by me, Cabra, and others. And I'm not convoluting the argument. I am explaining MY argument.

But I am starting to get it that explaining things to you is a waste of time.

Again, I don't know how things are in the UK, but in the US, the opposite is actually true. Many companies do not want to encourage people to work full time if they can get away with using part-timers, because part-timers are cheaper. For one thing, you don't have to give them health benefits or paid holidays or vacations.


Well yes, you have to judge each case separately since it IS probably more likely that part timers are getting paid less for fiscal reasons rather than just for the hell of it, and the benefit may differ from firm to firm. For instance, some firms may be small and prefer a committed dedicated worker who cares about the firm, rather than someone who isn't on a secure contract and likely cares more about his salary, that's just one example.

Speaking of that poll, who the fuck uses the *median* salalry? You should compare averages. The median means diddly-squat. If you hire or fire one more male of female lawyer and that statistic can be reversed.

I'm not saying the statistics are wrong but to use the *median* to drive your point across is just stupid. It's the same error than comparing part-time female wages with full-time male wages: It shows a bigger discrepancy, sure but it's disingenious.
Are you joking?

Are you claiming that median numbers are never used in statistics?

Are you claiming that the US Department of Labor has a "point" to "drive across"?

Well yes, you have to judge each case separately since it IS probably more likely that part timers are getting paid less for fiscal reasons rather than just for the hell of it, and the benefit may differ from firm to firm. For instance, some firms may be small and prefer a committed dedicated worker who cares about the firm, rather than someone who isn't on a secure contract and likely cares more about his salary, that's just one example.
I really don't know how people manage to get through life without learning anything about it.

Employment is not contract work. When you are employed full-time, unless you have a signed contract, then you are employed "at will." That means you can quit or be fired for any reason at any time. There is no such thing as a "secure contract" for full-time employees unless they actually signed an employment contract.

Employers opt for full-time over part-time for jobs that cannot be broken up into shorter shifts, or that carry responsibility for the company, such as manager, or where a specific boss or supervisor desires continuity, such as a secretary being hired full time to work for one executive. Although I should point out that thousands of companies hire temporary workers through staffing firms, and keep those workers on assignment full-time for years. They relate to the client company just like in-house staffers, but they are not on the company's payroll and, sometimes don't even get full-time benefits from their actual employer (it depends on the staffing firm). It should also be pointed out, again, that most of such full-time jobs are salaried, not paid by the hour.

Also, why do you assume part-time workers do not care about their income?

Are you joking?

Are you claiming that median numbers are never used in statistics?

Are you claiming that the US Department of Labor has a "point" to "drive across"?

1, no.

2. No, but I sure claim it usually represent nothing significant. And I further claim that it's never used in that kind of analysis.

3. Yes. More specifically, the person who used the median number in that article had a point to drive across. It could have been just as easilly shown using the average. Or was the average too close between the male and female wages? Either way, using the median to show a discrepancies between two sets of data is a very bad way to do it.

For more nerdiness, unskilled != unqualified.
I'm qualified for any number of IT jobs, whether I have the specific, job related skills is another matter. That's what training is for.
Oh, now I know you're pulling our leg. Are you actually saying that people are qualified to do jobs they don't have the skills for? Wow, that means I'm qualified to fly planes for a living!! Wheee!!!

Which is, again, a different argument. That was not the point you made. That was what you implied. Next time, instead of making bullshit implications that rely on mixing up causation and correlation that I, or some one else, will call you on, why don't you actually try stating your point.
Would it really make a difference?

1, no.
Sorry to hear that.

2. No, but I sure claim it usually represent nothing significant. And I further claim that it's never used in that kind of analysis.
Clearly, you're wrong, since the US Department of Labor did use it in that way.

3. Yes. More specifically, the person who used the median number in that article had a point to drive across. It could have been just as easilly shown using the average. Or was the average too close between the male and female wages? Either way, using the median to show a discrepancies between two sets of data is a very bad way to do it.
The "person" "in the article" didn't use the median number at all. The US Dept of Labor used it, and they had nothing at all to do with the article.

I realize that you're Canadian, but you do realize that the US Department of Labor is not a special interest group, right?

Employment is not contract work. When you are employed full-time, unless you have a signed contract, then you are employed "at will." That means you can quit or be fired for any reason at any time. There is no such thing as a "secure contract" for full-time employees unless they actually signed an employment contract.


What makes you think I wasn't talking about contract work? I don't get it.


Employers opt for full-time over part-time for jobs that cannot be broken up into shorter shifts, or that carry responsibility for the company, such as manager, or where a specific boss or supervisor desires continuity, such as a secretary being hired full time to work for one executive.

Isn't that an answer to your own question then?


Although I should point out that thousands of companies hire temporary workers through staffing firms, and keep those workers on assignment full-time for years. They relate to the client company just like in-house staffers, but they are not on the company's payroll and, sometimes don't even get full-time benefits from their actual employer (it depends on the staffing firm). It should also be pointed out, again, that most of such full-time jobs are salaried, not paid by the hour.


What's your point?


Also, why do you assume part-time workers do not care about their income?

Where did I say that?

What makes you think I wasn't talking about contract work? I don't get it.
You talked about a full-time employee having "a secure contract." Your words. Contract workers do not work for standard wages. They work for wages they negotiate. Therefore, their pay scales are not comparable to employee wage scales. So if you were talking about contract work, you were wasting our time.


Isn't that an answer to your own question then?
No.


What's your point?
The point was explaining why the answer to the question above is "no."


Where did I say that?
You didn't say it. You implied it. You said companies might prefer a full-time employee who "cares more about his salary." Your words. "Cares more about his salary" than who? Than a part-time worker? That suggests the part-time worker cares less about his salary. That is what I challenged.

You talked about a full-time employee having "a secure contract." Your words.


That doesn't negate the possibility of full time employees not being on contract. I was just giving that as an example, I mean I must be insane to think that all full time work is contract work. Especially since I have been involved in many debates on here concerning the benefits of at will employment.


No.

The point was explaining why the answer to the question above is "no."


Right, I just don't see how it does that.


You didn't say it. You implied it. You said companies might prefer a full-time employee who "cares more about his salary." Your words. "Cares more about his salary" than who? Than a part-time worker? That suggests the part-time worker cares less about his salary. That is what I challenged.

Ahh I see the problem, I said: "rather than someone who isn't on a secure contract and likely cares more about his salary" this is referring to the part time worker.

My point was that professions with mostly female workers get paid less, regardless of value produced, skill or qualification required, and that professions that change from being male dominated to being mostly female will start paying less as well.

I do apologise if it was too difficult for you to gather from my post, I will in future try and spell it out more clearly for your benefit.

You can insult me all you want but if you try to make a point by implication using logical fallacy, I am going to call it as I see it - as bullshit.

Appropriately, I have to take a break to go to work now. But seriously, some of you folks need to go try out some more jobs yourselves. The arguments about why companies might pay part-timers less per hour than full-timers and the arguments about why jobs dominated by women pay less than jobs dominated by men, all show ignorance of how jobs actually work, how hiring decisions get made, and how wage scales are determined. If you can't get life experience, then please google something about it, at least.

For my own part, I realize that in the US, there are far fewer protections and benefits for workers than in Canada and Europe. I do not pretend to know anything at all about the cost of part-time versus full-time in those places, or about gender or ethnicity pay gaps in those places. But for the US, I do make the effort to keep up on it, because I am interested in getting the best possible pay for my work, whether I am working full or part time, salaried or hourly-waged. So I look this stuff up and I rely on government statistics because, regardless of whether you like them or not, those are what set the standards for government policy. It's really not that hard to learn this stuff.

Clearly, you're wrong, since the US Department of Labor did use it in that way.
oh, well then, that must be correct.

nevermind the fact that I'm disputing that very use from that very group. It's a bad way to use the data they collected and I don't care if it's the pope, the president, Statistics Canada of myself using it; The fact is that the median is the wrong statistical tool to use.


The "person" "in the article" didn't use the median number at all. The US Dept of Labor used it, and they had nothing at all to do with the article.

I realize that you're Canadian, but you do realize that the US Department of Labor is not a special interest group, right?
I am aware of that. I am also fairly certain the USDL did collect all the data and made the average, median and a slew of other statistics with the data. I am also fairly certain that the USDL has more to it than collecting statistics. Like, say, point out inequities.

With that in mind a person (yes, a person and not the whole USDL) used the median to show the papers a difference in wages. That person didn't use the average and that person certainly had a special interest in using the median instead of the average. Was that person working for the USDL? Did the USDL told her to use the median? Those are two questions which if answered yes, shows that the USDL did have a point to show and used the wrong data to show it.

Either way you cut it, the median is a shit-poor statistics to use in the best of times. In that particular instance, it's even worse. Hire a male lawyer at minimum wage and the medians are suddenly the same. It's a poor data to use and one must have to have a point to drive across to use it that way. I don't care who it is and for what reason.

The arguments about why companies might pay part-timers less per hour than full-timers ... all show ignorance of how jobs actually work

My argument is that in each case its likely for a fiscal purpose rather than just for the hell of it, how is that ignorant? I gave an example which you didn't like because it used the example of contract work (don't see why that is significant) and because you misread what I said about part time employers, but there could be millions of examples.

For my own part, I realize that in the US, there are far fewer protections and benefits for workers than in Canada and Europe.

Everyone who knows this topic is actually, or originally, about the UK raise their hand.

We're not comparing different jobs, though. We're comparing the same job with different work hours.

And if they do the same job, their pay per hour should be the same.

More hours allows for different projects

More hours is often more desirable so pay is adjusted to fill thoes positions

None of this is specified in the origional article how do you know they are doing the "same job"?

Now I admit I don't know much about how IT people get paid in general, but I personally have never met one who was on staff to a company and who was not salaried. The only IT people I've met who were paid by the hour were independent contractors. Ye gods, if IT people were paid by the hour, can you imagine how rich they'd be, with all the hours they put in at most corporate offices? Yeah, I'm guessing it's more common for them to be salaried.

I was hourly, after moving to salaried we were "non exempt salaried" meaning after 45 hours we still get OT

Oh, and for the last time, grow up, people -- we DO NOT get paid more for our stress. Our bosses don't care if we're stressed. They don't care if we die.

Mine does, which is why I made more then the part time hourly person hired even when I was hourly

They needed my position more then his even though we are in the same department with the same job discription


Well, as quoted in the article, no, it isn't. The specific quoted statement was idiotic. But the question has been raised, and I'll raise it again for clarity -- What is the pay equity like between male part-timers and female part-timers and between male full-timers and female full-timers in the same jobs? And if the numbers of the genders in each of part-time and full-time jobs are so disparate that no wage comparison can be made within each set, why is that? In other words, if there are few to no male part-timers and few to no female full-timers, why is that?

I agree with the first part ... they should have looked at pay comparison within job catagories rather then throwing two variables in the mix

as for the last part it is frigging unlikely not only was I a 2-3 Job part timer in my day but we have 3 in our office alone
A statistical comparison would only really require finding 200-300 of either and I sure as hell bet there is that many within a reasonable sample population that they choose

A company does not need to pay hourly-paid part-timers less per hour to make hourly-paid full-time positions more attractive because most workers will opt for full-time anyway, because even if they are paid the same per hour, the full-timers will bring home more money because they work more hours.

Yet they often do, I know for a fact the last 2 places I worked did so because having someone there that many hours was important for project work

Sigh. We have been talking about them doing the SAME job. You know, like in a retail store where some people work a part-time schedule and others work a full-time schedule but all are paid by the hour.

I am sure there are some fields where the jobs are almost of parody, too bad that appears to not have been taken into account by the article they left it way to broad and going into areas that may have a significant difference between the pay for position rather then just sex alone

Now you want to start comparing apples to oranges? Yeah, no shit, different jobs get different pay. Wow, there's an insight.

But this side topic of the debate is about equal pay for equal work. Equal work -- as in doing the same job, not a different one.

You may like to think that the stats origionally reflected that, I see no evidence that the pay comparison took that into account

No, it doesn't. It really, really, really doesn't. The high stress of your full-time week does force a lot from you, but it doesn't force squat out of your employer.

Sure it does, it has a big impact on what my employer gets from me. And how long I choose to stay with the job. Compensating for stress goes a long way to keep me from moving on to something less stressful.

A good example is a co-worker one of the best server guys I have ever met, great to work with. He is purposely choosing to move to an position on the call center that has 0 off hours work schedule because the amount of compensation for the job was not enough

And as I suggested in another post, I love this assumption that part-timers have it easier, as if millions of them aren't working two, sometimes three jobs at the same time -- and putting together a full-time schedule in the process, only for two or three companies and no benefits from any of them.

I worked 2-3 part time jobs for 6 years to pay for school at the same time ... an average of 70 hours a week with no benifits, it was much easier to just replace me with more part time college workers then pay me more or give me benifits.

The full time jobs sense have been way more stressful


If you work 50 hours a week, you should be getting overtime, but since you're an American, you probably don't. Not any more.

I get OT after 45 hours with comp time for the first 5 hours. or I can comp all the hours without the OT

If you get paid the same if you work 50 hours/week as you do when you work 40 hours/week, then you're salaried, and this argument over equitable hourly wages does not apply to you.

I dont in this case, and I did the same job for hourly work for a year


And if you were paid by the hour, it is unlikely that you would be working 50 hours/week, because it is unlikely your employer would let you without prior authorization for the extra
pay to come out of the department's payroll allocation.

I did, and they still pony up for all the OT I care to genrate

The work has to get done, if it does not it impacts clients. They pay what it takes to get it done and get it done right and they pay to pull in top end talent


Perhaps the article didn't, but others in this thread have. Do you feel like talking to them, or do you just want to keep harping on the failings of the article?


Mm-hm.
The people in the thread that I saw were bringing it up in refference to the article ... I have yet to see any information that says how much of an impact of pay is actually related to the sex of the individual

I have no doubt that there is a disparity with the history of it but without more information we have no idea how much it actually is

Sorry for not reading the edit. Your edit was done after my post, that's why I assumed you decided not to reply in detail.
A lot of clearly made-up bullshit reasons, apparently.
A) Part-timers don't get offices. They might get desks, but since they are part-timers, they share them with someone else.
Where I work/worked, they didn't. Every part-timer had same stuff as full-timers. It's inefficient to share.

B) A job done in 3 months is more valuable than one done in 6? Really? The same job, obviously. We were talking about same jobs.

C) The two main reasons there is high turnover of part-timers is because they always have to be on the lookout for better paying jobs, and because the companies do not value them and will cut them first to save budget.
Yes. And since they easily cut them, they also aren't concerning about paying them much to keep them.

D) What dream world do you live in where every part-timer and every full-timer are working at their first and only job? How do you know that any given full-timer with five years at a company doesn't have ten years experience, or that any given part-timer with five years at a company doesn't have twenty years experience, most of it from when he/she was a full-timer?
I didn't say "every". I said it's on the average. There may be some part-timers with 20 years experience, but most of them have 5 at best. There are full-timers with little experience, but on the average full-timers have more experience.

OK, first you answered your own objection by quoting the footnote. Thanks. The comparison is between full-time jobs. Full-time = 40 hours/week. Are you under the impression that "full-time" means something different for women than for men? No, it doesn't. It's a legal standard set by the federal goverment.

Patronising never really comes across well to others. Though I wasn't aware the term 'full-time' was defined in the US as 40hrs/wk (I'll assume it is defined the same in my country as well), your next sentence was rather unnecessary.

Second, the answer to why it occurs is discrimination.

To just say 'Discrimination' is rather vague. If this is going to change we need to look at where it occurs.

Do employers start female employers on lower salaries than male ones?
Do females not receive salary rises as often as men?
Is this due to the boss having a bias one way, comparing the sexes of employees?
Is the fact that a greater percentage of women have part-time experience perceived by employers as not as worth as high a salary as someone with full-time experience?

These all need to be answered to narrow down some of the causes, plus other questions. I think the forced disclosure of salaries will be very beneficial to improving pay equality.

What you base that suggestion on?

Experience and empathetic thinking: Many women choose to get a job as a secretary, creating a stereotype, and other women are encouraged to maintain the stereotype...bit of both, eh? I obviously don't know that for sure, but it's what I would imagine is going on.


I am annoyed at myself because I failed to bookmark a chart taken from such a study that I found last time I argued this topic, and I haven't been able to find it again. It showed specifically comparisons between average wages of men and average wages of women in the same jobs during 2007 in the US. I am still looking for it and will post when found.

IF that's true, then yes, it would be true. However, it is not true in many, many jobs, including secretarial work, government office work, caregiver work, and other non-unionized employment. This was clearly shown in the chart that I'm looking for.

That can actually be explained by the type of work: secretarial work and especially caregiver work is dominated by women. Paying men more for those jobs may be an attempt to get more men into those jobs, much like this tiebreaker business is designed to do for women in other jobs. I know, for instance, that there are some incentives for potential male teachers over female teachers because there are so few male teachers (there are also incentives for different subjects: if you're a female social studies teacher, good luck finding a job). That's not hourly work, but the situation may be similar in other jobs. Once again, I don't know, I'm only suggesting possible explanations besides sexism: sometimes it's hard to see the bias in a study, or even if there is a (relevant) bias, eh?

I think the problem is that I forgot which keywords I searched by, so I have to try some different combos.

It happens.

We're not comparing different jobs, though. We're comparing the same job with different work hours.

And if they do the same job, their pay per hour should be the same.
Maybe I have gotten lost in the thread or missed something this is very likely but I have never worked in a place where the full time and the part timers actually do exactly the same job to start with even with the same rough job description ... I am sure they are out there I just have not worked in such a place

That being said I was addressing the original problem of comparing FULL time male employees to PART time female employees as supposed in the article which is stupid as not all part time work is a lower time equivelent of the full time position

But taken out of that frame there still continues to be a pay difference between the two, Like anything with supply and demand figured in what a company needs more of they will pay more to get. Even if the rough work requirements are the same if they need the hours they are going to pay more to get someone in there to do it. If they are trying to attract the experienced workers and attract them to a higher hour position they are going to pay more to get them where they want them

Seems pretty reasonable to me

I'm annoyed

business should be a private matter :headbang:

I'm annoyed

business should be a private matter :headbang:
Then British business shouldn't be protected by the government's protectionist measures?

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4217376.ece)

'Scuse the lack of comment but I think the article speaks for itself.

So we should all say "Yay"?

I have no problem with this suggestion.

I actually do think it is difficult for women to get hired in a male dominated field. I feel that employers discriminate against 'feminine' personalities which makes it difficult for people who are capable and girly.

Then British business shouldn't be protected by the government's protectionist measures?

No way!

but I'm not crazy enough to say they should all be abolished outright, an incremental reduction in the various tariffs and subsidies with maybe some damages pay would be less painful

No way!
This seems to conflict with your statement that "business should be a private matter".

This seems to conflict with your statement that "business should be a private matter".

:confused:
I mean there should be no protectionist measures

:confused:
I mean there should be no protectionist measures
Oh, righty. My mistake.

you missed my argument it is the woman's choice and the the employer should not be required suffer because of that choice even if society is the one pushing the woman to make that choice.

haha

don't waste your breath, the libs here don't believe in choice, I've gone that road against them before, and their response is always, "but but society is being mean to them!"

For my own part, I realize that in the US, there are far fewer protections and benefits for workers than in Canada and Europe.

And this may be the problem as this is an international forum, we would know more about how are country operates than others so each persons point may be valid as it is based on how their country operates.

Correction of a statistic deemed wrong based on forcing employment of thoes that may not be the best. Thats equallity being its best but doing its worst for ya

Correction of a statistic deemed wrong based on forcing employment of thoes that may not be the best. Thats equallity being its best but doing its worst for ya

Yes, that's bound to happen when you ask people to decide for the minority/female candidate WHEN ALL QUALIFICATIONS ARE EQUAL....

Yes, that's bound to happen when you ask people to decide for the minority/female candidate WHEN ALL QUALIFICATIONS ARE EQUAL....

It is hardly fair to hire someone over another because of their gender or race.

It is hardly fair to hire someone over another because of their gender or race.

Well, imagine you've got two people in front of you, absolutely equal in qualifications and skills, both wanting the job you've got on offer... what do you use to decide?

Well, imagine you've got two people in front of you, absolutely equal in qualifications and skills, both wanting the job you've got on offer... what do you use to decide?

So are you saying we should choose based on their gender or race?

So are you saying we should choose based on their gender or race?

I'm saying we already do. And we need to revise that.

I'm saying we already do. And we need to revise that.

OH ok I had you wrong there I thought you were saying we should hire a women purely because she is a woman, well yes we do need to revise this not hire someone because of their gender or race

I'm disappointed at the number of posts in this thread that either justify discrimination against women and minorities, or deny it happens against all the evidence.

A few minutes on google will show you that boys and girls are socialised towards different roles right from day 1, and this is reflected in the types of jobs women aim for, the way in which they negotiate for rises and promotions, the hours they spend on housework and caring etc.

My own experience includes:

Not being allowed to help with any car or diy tasks although my brothers were encouraged to.
Being restricted to kitchen and cleaning chores although my brothers were not required to do these.
Being switched, without notice or consultation, out of my GCSE choices of technical drawing, design technology and physics into art, domestic science and typing.
Being asked at interview about my plans for pregnancy and my birth control method.
Being told straight that as I was the best choice for the new supervisor role that opened up, I had been selected to train my male colleague who got the promotion.
Being told straight that I could not expect the same salary increments as my male colleagues.
Being paid significantly less than male colleagues who were a lower grade than me.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Of course you can, and probably will, dismiss this as some masochistic fantasy, or downright lies, or terrible luck, or excuses for not doing as well as I thought I ought to. It doesn't change the fact that my experience is not unusual, or even rare; the situation is simply wrong and must be corrected.

Having said that, I don't believe this law is the right way to do it - although women and minorities could only be hired where they are clearly the best or equal best for the job, it would still be seen as filling quotas and would undermine every woman and minority member who are in positions based on their own merit. It would also cause white men to feel threatened and they would therefore tighten their ranks even more. Since the law would be very easy to get around, its likely that women would find it even more difficult than it is already to get into the jobs they want.

Sexism is ingrained in our societies and will take many generations to eradicate, if that can even happen. In the shorter term, measures to equalise the opportunity and burden of childcare will probably make the biggest difference, together with the kind of AA programs that Dempublicents1 has talked about - those that show women that they CAN be engineers, chemists or racing drivers.

Well, imagine you've got two people in front of you, absolutely equal in qualifications and skills, both wanting the job you've got on offer... what do you use to decide?

Conduct an interview. choose the candidate who best fits with the work environment.

So are you saying we should choose based on their gender or race?

If you're going to choose rather arbitrarily anyways, why not increase the diversity of your company by choosing someone with a minority status?

Conduct an interview. choose the candidate who best fits with the work environment.

What part about "equal" is so difficult to understand?

What part about "equal" is so difficult to understand?

I said this earlier, but I think this idea that you are ever likely to get two candidates who are exactly the same is incredibly unrealistic.

I said this earlier, but I think this idea that you are ever likely to get two candidates who are exactly the same is incredibly unrealistic.

You're never going to get two people who are absolutely identical, just one male and one female.
You will at one point, in such a situation, have to make a decision that is not based on any rationale, but rather on your own personal preference.

When my aunt applied for her first job back in the early 80s, she went for an interview and was told at the end of it that yes, she had all the qualifications they needed, but they just wanted to let her know that there was a man also applying for the job, and they would most likely give him the job as he would have to support a family.
I have to admit, since having heard that story, I personally don't really feel that disinclined towards positive discrimination any more, if it succeeds in disposing of attitudes like that...

I said this earlier, but I think this idea that you are ever likely to get two candidates who are exactly the same is incredibly unrealistic.

Nobody is arguing that you will get two candidates who are "exactly the same". You might, however, get two candidates that are equally qualified for the job. One may be better at X, while the other is better at Y. But if X and Y balance each other out, then you still don't have a candidate that is better than the other.

If you're going to choose rather arbitrarily anyways, why not increase the diversity of your company by choosing someone with a minority status?

Why should we?

What part about "equal" is so difficult to understand?

there is no way you get equal from an interview. there will always be someone whom the interviewer favors more. its like the Beetles Versus Elvis. you might like them both but it is impossible to like them both equally.

there is no way you get equal from an interview. there will always be someone whom the interviewer favors more. its like the Beetles Versus Elvis. you might like them both but it is impossible to like them both equally.

And given what we know about racism and sexism in our society, how is this more equal?

Why should we?

(a) Diversity can be a good thing in and of itself.

(b) It helps to counter the effects of discrimination against those groups.

And given what we know about racism and sexism in our society, how is this more equal?

What are you saying now, that the beetles were all girls and Elvis was black?:p

(a) Diversity can be a good thing in and of itself.

(b) It helps to counter the effects of discrimination against those groups.
A: How so?

B: OR it could serve to escalate the effects of discrimination against those groups. Think about it:

"That *Insert minority group here* guy/girl got my job even though we were both equally qualified, just because he was *minority group*! What *Insert slur here*!!!"

A: How so?

If you can't see the value of having people of diverse backgrounds around, I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

B: OR it could serve to escalate the effects of discrimination against those groups. Think about it:

"That *Insert minority group here* guy/girl got my job even though we were both equally qualified, just because he was *minority group*! What *Insert slur here*!!!"

*shrug* Sour grapes. They'd say the same thing if it were decided off of a coin toss or based on what school they went to or any number of things. And they'd know that if they'd work hard enough to be just a tad better than that other person, they would have gotten the job.

What they cannot say in this case is, "That person got their job just because of their minority status," which is what many people try to pretend affirmative action does.

If you can't see the value of having people of diverse backgrounds around, I'm not sure I can explain it to you.


A rich white man raised in a fancy suburb in the USA... Or a rich black man raised in a fancy suburb in the USA....

Racial heritage means nothing. NOTHING.
*shrug* Sour grapes. They'd say the same thing if it were decided off of a coin toss or based on what school they went to or any number of things. And they'd know that if they'd work hard enough to be just a tad better than that other person, they would have gotten the job.

What they cannot say in this case is, "That person got their job just because of their minority status," which is what many people try to pretend affirmative action does.
Erm... Actually they COULD say that. They might've been tied, but in the end, the other man got the job because he was born into a minority group.

But as I said before, there is no such thing as a complete tie. There aren't any two people that have gone to the same schools, for the same amount of time, and have the same qualifications, and the same personalities , etc, etc

A rich white man raised in a fancy suburb in the USA... Or a rich black man raised in a fancy suburb in the USA....


One of them is allowed in golf courses. One is not.

"That *Insert minority group here* guy/girl got my job even though we were both equally qualified, just because he was *minority group*! What *Insert slur here*!!!"

People say that without affirmative action. Fuck, they say that when the other guy graduated from college at the age of 12, holds seven patents, and they managed to spell their own name wrong on the resume.

One of them is allowed in golf courses. One is not.

? (http://i.cnn.net/si/golf/news/2000/11/07/tiger_pga_conflict_ap/lg_woods_ap-01.jpg)

(a) Diversity can be a good thing in and of itself.

(b) It helps to counter the effects of discrimination against those groups.

I am not saying it is not and if I wanted to could give many good reasons for having a diverse workforce and not just diversity from the point of view from culture or backgrounds. I don not see why business should be told they need to diversify.

What they cannot say in this case is, "That person got their job just because of their minority status," which is what many people try to pretend affirmative action does.

In some cases and policies it actually does, now I know that quotas are illeagl in the US but if I take the case of the ALP which institute affirmative action when decideding their candidates they state that at least 40% of all candidates must be wome and 40% must be men, so it isn't a case of the best person being selected in 20% of the cases, but in 40% of the cases the best women was chosen and 40% the best male was chosen if it was open to the best person being chosen for all positions then we could see that 70% of candidates will be women but at least 10% will be denined because they aren't of the right agenda.

To promote hiring women and minorites over other people simply because they are a minority or a woman is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged by the government, the same way as promoting them not to hire women or promoting them to hire men because of their gender is wrong.

The problem with antidiscrimination legislation is that there is really no way prove that discrimination has occurred in most cases. This forces businesses to set up a quota system to cover their asses from the threat of lawsuits, and thus quotas become the de facto system even if no explicitly de jure.

The problem with antidiscrimination legislation is that there is really no way prove that discrimination has occurred in most cases. This forces businesses to set up a quota system to cover their asses from the threat of lawsuits, and thus quotas become the de facto system even if no explicitly de jure.

*In before the quotas are illeagal posts*

While quotas may not be allowed by law in some countries dosen't stop companies from attempting to ensure that they have a certain proportion of a particular group in their workforce even if this may not be writtern down and confirmed anywhere.

If you can't see the value of having people of diverse backgrounds around, I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

I think you can't explain it at all.

How does having a women in the cubicle three rows down as opposed to a man help someone?

I'm not saying there isn't value in it, I'm just asking you to explain it, because I'm not entirely sure you can.

*shrug* Sour grapes. They'd say the same thing if it were decided off of a coin toss or based on what school they went to or any number of things. And they'd know that if they'd work hard enough to be just a tad better than that other person, they would have gotten the job.

The problem comes when companies take the minority over the other candidate when the minority is actually a tad less qualified because the company is (rightly) afraid of discrimination lawsuits.

What they cannot say in this case is, "That person got their job just because of their minority status," which is what many people try to pretend affirmative action does.

It doesn't matter if it was just because of their minority status or if it was because they are highly qualified and because of their minority status. They still got it because of their minority status.

oh, well then, that must be correct.

nevermind the fact that I'm disputing that very use from that very group. It's a bad way to use the data they collected and I don't care if it's the pope, the president, Statistics Canada of myself using it; The fact is that the median is the wrong statistical tool to use.
So you say, but I can only work with data I have, and what I have is you, some random person on the internet, bitching about your preference in methodologies, versus numbers issued and approved by a government agency. I think I'm going to accept the government numbers as at least a reasonable approximation of the situation in the US and dismiss your objections as a quibble.

I am aware of that. I am also fairly certain the USDL did collect all the data and made the average, median and a slew of other statistics with the data. I am also fairly certain that the USDL has more to it than collecting statistics. Like, say, point out inequities.

With that in mind a person (yes, a person and not the whole USDL) used the median to show the papers a difference in wages. That person didn't use the average and that person certainly had a special interest in using the median instead of the average. Was that person working for the USDL? Did the USDL told her to use the median? Those are two questions which if answered yes, shows that the USDL did have a point to show and used the wrong data to show it.
So, what you're really doing is claiming that the site which posted the chart took the chart out of context. You know, for nothing more than the price of postage and maybe copying, you can order a copy of the entire original USDL report for your own review, and then you can judge what you think the "proper" context should be. Until then, I see no reason why I cannot also take the USDL numbers out of context and look at them without reference to what the linked site says about them, drawing my own conclusions instead.

Either way you cut it, the median is a shit-poor statistics to use in the best of times. In that particular instance, it's even worse. Hire a male lawyer at minimum wage and the medians are suddenly the same. It's a poor data to use and one must have to have a point to drive across to use it that way. I don't care who it is and for what reason.
You keep saying that, but I still find the USDL more convincing than you.

The problem comes when companies take the minority over the other candidate when the minority is actually a tad less qualified because the company is (rightly) afraid of discrimination lawsuits.


I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of that happening.

My argument is that in each case its likely for a fiscal purpose rather than just for the hell of it, how is that ignorant? I gave an example which you didn't like because it used the example of contract work (don't see why that is significant) and because you misread what I said about part time employers, but there could be millions of examples.
You gave examples that were factually incorrect and also irrelevant (the part about contract workers). That is where I see ignorance of how things work coming in. I explained exactly how and why they were incorrect and/or irrelevant, yet you still insist on them. This is where I see closed-mindedness coming in, where you refuse to consider the possibility that you may be mistaken on some of your facts.

Everyone who knows this topic is actually, or originally, about the UK raise their hand.
Don't pretend for a second that this thread has been only about workplace discrimination in the UK, and don't try to pretend that I ever acted like I was talking about the UK. Quite the opposite, in fact. From page 1, the thread has been international, and if you bother to read the thread, you'll see I made it clear that I know nothing of policy in the UK or Canada and have only been talking about the US. So when you argue with me, you're arguing about the US. So...does that mean that, in this case, YOU'RE the one who doesn't know what he's talking about?

I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of that happening.

Only as many examples as you can find of someone of equal or greater qualification being rejected because of their race or gender (within the last decade. Yes, shyte happened back in the day, but this is not back in the day).

I was hourly, after moving to salaried we were "non exempt salaried" meaning after 45 hours we still get OT

Mine does, which is why I made more then the part time hourly person hired even when I was hourly

They needed my position more then his even though we are in the same department with the same job discription

I agree with the first part ... they should have looked at pay comparison within job catagories rather then throwing two variables in the mix

as for the last part it is frigging unlikely not only was I a 2-3 Job part timer in my day but we have 3 in our office alone
A statistical comparison would only really require finding 200-300 of either and I sure as hell bet there is that many within a reasonable sample population that they choose

Yet they often do, I know for a fact the last 2 places I worked did so because having someone there that many hours was important for project work

I am sure there are some fields where the jobs are almost of parody, too bad that appears to not have been taken into account by the article they left it way to broad and going into areas that may have a significant difference between the pay for position rather then just sex alone

You may like to think that the stats origionally reflected that, I see no evidence that the pay comparison took that into account

Sure it does, it has a big impact on what my employer gets from me. And how long I choose to stay with the job. Compensating for stress goes a long way to keep me from moving on to something less stressful.

A good example is a co-worker one of the best server guys I have ever met, great to work with. He is purposely choosing to move to an position on the call center that has 0 off hours work schedule because the amount of compensation for the job was not enough

I worked 2-3 part time jobs for 6 years to pay for school at the same time ... an average of 70 hours a week with no benifits, it was much easier to just replace me with more part time college workers then pay me more or give me benifits.

The full time jobs sense have been way more stressful

I get OT after 45 hours with comp time for the first 5 hours. or I can comp all the hours without the OT

I dont in this case, and I did the same job for hourly work for a year

I did, and they still pony up for all the OT I care to genrate

The work has to get done, if it does not it impacts clients. They pay what it takes to get it done and get it done right and they pay to pull in top end talent

The people in the thread that I saw were bringing it up in refference to the article ... I have yet to see any information that says how much of an impact of pay is actually related to the sex of the individual

I have no doubt that there is a disparity with the history of it but without more information we have no idea how much it actually is
1) Your company pays fairly, values your work, and cares whether you're happy in the job? Can I work there, please? Over the past 25 years, I have worked at approximately 11 companies and been paid fairly and treated well by only one of them (until they had to drastically downsize after the market crash of '87; and they did try to rehire me later but I had already left NYC). No one I know has had any better luck than me in all that time, and according to most national news reports, neither have millions of other Americans. See, when I cite personal anecdotes from my own experience, I try to make sure they work as illustrations of the trends I claim exist, not as exceptions that somehow prove the trends don't exist. So, what trend are your personal anecdotes illustrating?

2) "Full-time" is a legal designation, so when the USDL uses it, I do not believe it means they are comparing people doing different jobs for different hours. To me, your objection that you have yet to see anything that indicates that they are comparing men and women doing the same jobs sounds like so much LALALALA-I-can't-hear-you.

Sorry for not reading the edit. Your edit was done after my post, that's why I assumed you decided not to reply in detail.

Where I work/worked, they didn't. Every part-timer had same stuff as full-timers. It's inefficient to share.
Really? You had just said part-timers had to have their pay reduced to cover such costs. Sounds to me like your company would have been more efficient to pay for workers rather than furniture that no one would be using half the time.

The same job, obviously. We were talking about same jobs.
I gave you an example of two secretaries both working on bill tracking. How is that not the same job? So which is more valuable to the company, then, the one who finishes a minor task in less time or the one who finishes a major task in more time? Hell, you can even assume they are both full-timers. Who has added more value to the company, judging solely on the value of the project -- the one who caught up on paperwork in 3 months or the one who streamlined the paperwork process in 6 months?

Of course, I get it that you meant that catching up on the filing in 3 months is better than in 6 months, but this just shows more of the workplace ignorance that I've been complaining about. Companies are not generally in the habit of running their business in a way they don't like. Whether they pay someone to do something in 3 months or 6, they are paying for what they want. If they thought a job was of sufficient priority that they could not wait 6 months for it to be finished, it is very unlikely they would give it to a part-timer in the first place, don't you think? So whether it takes 3 months or 6 months, it is worth whatever the company pays for it, in the eyes of the company.

Yes. And since they easily cut them, they also aren't concerning about paying them much to keep them.
And that's the fault of the part-timers how, exactly?

I didn't say "every". I said it's on the average. There may be some part-timers with 20 years experience, but most of them have 5 at best. There are full-timers with little experience, but on the average full-timers have more experience.
And I said your "average" is a groundless assumption. There is plenty of life experience and job market data available that contradicts it. On that basis I reject it.

Patronising never really comes across well to others. Though I wasn't aware the term 'full-time' was defined in the US as 40hrs/wk (I'll assume it is defined the same in my country as well), your next sentence was rather unnecessary.
Mm-hm.

To just say 'Discrimination' is rather vague. If this is going to change we need to look at where it occurs.

Do employers start female employers on lower salaries than male ones?
Do females not receive salary rises as often as men?
Is this due to the boss having a bias one way, comparing the sexes of employees?
Is the fact that a greater percentage of women have part-time experience perceived by employers as not as worth as high a salary as someone with full-time experience?
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes," then it is a case of gender discrimination, because time and legal battles have shown us that there is no reason for such differences to exist other than that the hiring entity is using discriminatory policies.

And I challenge you to support your assertion that a greater percentage of women have part-time experience. I do not accept that as a "fact" at all until I see some data.

These all need to be answered to narrow down some of the causes, plus other questions. I think the forced disclosure of salaries will be very beneficial to improving pay equality.
The last sentence I agree with in principle, but I do not know if it is practical. When we know what our co-workers make, then we can know if we are being deliberately screwed over by our employers. However, many people consider their salaries to be private information and do not want it made public to just anyone. I, personally, don't feel that way, but many people do, and they do have a right to privacy. This is why I encourage all workers to research their local government's wage standards. If they cannot compare their salaries to their fellow employees, they can at least compare them to a regional standard.

Experience and empathetic thinking: Many women choose to get a job as a secretary, creating a stereotype, and other women are encouraged to maintain the stereotype...bit of both, eh? I obviously don't know that for sure, but it's what I would imagine is going on.
"Empathic thinking"? So, you read women's minds and felt their pain? Please.

That can actually be explained by the type of work: secretarial work and especially caregiver work is dominated by women. Paying men more for those jobs may be an attempt to get more men into those jobs, much like this tiebreaker business is designed to do for women in other jobs. I know, for instance, that there are some incentives for potential male teachers over female teachers because there are so few male teachers (there are also incentives for different subjects: if you're a female social studies teacher, good luck finding a job). That's not hourly work, but the situation may be similar in other jobs. Once again, I don't know, I'm only suggesting possible explanations besides sexism: sometimes it's hard to see the bias in a study, or even if there is a (relevant) bias, eh?
Wait, you think that if a company underpays women, but pays men more for the same job so that they can get more men to do it, because having women do it can never raise the value of it, that's a reason OTHER THAN sexism? In other words, if companies think that if a woman does a job, it's only worth $20, but if a man does it, it's worth $25, you think they're not being sexist? Oy gevalt.

And this may be the problem as this is an international forum, we would know more about how are country operates than others so each persons point may be valid as it is based on how their country operates.

That's why, in a thread that did start to discuss the situation in more than one country -- UK, US, Canada, and some references to Europe in general -- I have made it clear several times that I am only talking about the US.

You're never going to get two people who are absolutely identical, just one male and one female.
You will at one point, in such a situation, have to make a decision that is not based on any rationale, but rather on your own personal preference.

When my aunt applied for her first job back in the early 80s, she went for an interview and was told at the end of it that yes, she had all the qualifications they needed, but they just wanted to let her know that there was a man also applying for the job, and they would most likely give him the job as he would have to support a family.
I have to admit, since having heard that story, I personally don't really feel that disinclined towards positive discrimination any more, if it succeeds in disposing of attitudes like that...
:eek: My mom had the exact same experience. How weird is that? Are you my long lost sister? Mom did used to hang out with rock bands. ;)

I am not saying it is not and if I wanted to could give many good reasons for having a diverse workforce and not just diversity from the point of view from culture or backgrounds. I don not see why business should be told they need to diversify.
I am not an enormous fan of affirmative action per se, but I do consider it a necessary evil, which I hope will someday soon stop being necessary. Businesses need to be told to diversify if and when it becomes apparent that they are not diversifying because of deliberate discrimination rather than some practical demand of their business.

"Empathic thinking"? So, you read women's minds and felt their pain? Please.

That's not what I mean. I mean I can understand how the employers may possibly be thinking as opposed to being sympathetic with those employers: I may understand but I don't necessarily agree).

Wait, you think that if a company underpays women, but pays men more for the same job so that they can get more men to do it, because having women do it can never raise the value of it, that's a reason OTHER THAN sexism? In other words, if companies think that if a woman does a job, it's only worth $20, but if a man does it, it's worth $25, you think they're not being sexist? Oy gevalt.

Once again, that's not what I mean.

For starters, I'm speaking in hypotheticals. I am exploring other reasons for why such situations may arise that are not necessarily sexist in intention. I am not suggesting that I know these things to be true, I am only suggesting possible alternatives: if it turned out that there is a more benign reason, then promoting women over men would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? If. Hypothetical.

Now, I never said anything about the value of the job: the thread is about justifying the promotion of minorities over other equally qualified candidates in favor of diversity. So, if a certain office - say, the secretaries' - is primarily full of women, would not this idea of diversity suggest that the office needs more men in it? You are arguing that a need for diversity justifies promoting a woman over a man: if the balance was tipped the other way in favor of women, would not the need for diversity justify incentives to get more men in that workplace?

I'm not trying to argue either way: I'm only pointing out issues with both sides and exploring other options, rather than jumping to conclusions from insufficient information from studies that I haven't even seen.

You're never going to get two people who are absolutely identical, just one male and one female.
You will at one point, in such a situation, have to make a decision that is not based on any rationale, but rather on your own personal preference.

When my aunt applied for her first job back in the early 80s, she went for an interview and was told at the end of it that yes, she had all the qualifications they needed, but they just wanted to let her know that there was a man also applying for the job, and they would most likely give him the job as he would have to support a family.
I have to admit, since having heard that story, I personally don't really feel that disinclined towards positive discrimination any more, if it succeeds in disposing of attitudes like that...

1st. this is not the 80's(or the 70's for the US).
2nd did they tell your mom she had the exact same qualifications as the male ???? I mean perhaps she did piss poor on the interview and they were just trying to let her down nicely. rather then telling her she has no people skills.

I am not an enormous fan of affirmative action per se, but I do consider it a necessary evil, which I hope will someday soon stop being necessary. Businesses need to be told to diversify if and when it becomes apparent that they are not diversifying because of deliberate discrimination rather than some practical demand of their business.

They should be told to hire the best person that will do the job the best and be of most beneficial to the company not to be told that they need to diversify because than that is deliberate discrimination if they do that.

That's not what I mean. I mean I can understand how the employers may possibly be thinking as opposed to being sympathetic with those employers: I may understand but I don't necessarily agree).
That's not what "empathic" means. In order to be thinking empathically, you would have to be able to experience their emotions and thoughts in order to understand them as you do. Do you have that ability? Didn't think so. The word you wanted was "speculative" thinking.

Once again, that's not what I mean.

For starters, I'm speaking in hypotheticals. I am exploring other reasons for why such situations may arise that are not necessarily sexist in intention. I am not suggesting that I know these things to be true, I am only suggesting possible alternatives: if it turned out that there is a more benign reason, then promoting women over men would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? If. Hypothetical.
A hypothetical that can be shown not to match reality is useless in a discussion of reality. Since your hypotheticals do not match how reality works, then what you are really talking about in this context is nothing.

Now, I never said anything about the value of the job: the thread is about justifying the promotion of minorities over other equally qualified candidates in favor of diversity.
Which you respond to by justiftying the methods companies use to discriminate.

So, if a certain office - say, the secretaries' - is primarily full of women, would not this idea of diversity suggest that the office needs more men in it?
Yes, it would.

You are arguing that a need for diversity justifies promoting a woman over a man: if the balance was tipped the other way in favor of women, would not the need for diversity justify incentives to get more men in that workplace?
Sorry, you can't prop that strawman up on me. I have never, not once, said anything that could even remotely be interpreted to mean that women should be benefited to the detriment of men. You fail at attempting to paint me as an anti-man bigot. Try something else.

I'm not trying to argue either way: I'm only pointing out issues with both sides and exploring other options, rather than jumping to conclusions from insufficient information from studies that I haven't even seen.
So in other words, you are choosing to argue from a position of ignorance? The studies are out there. Some have been quoted. A couple of sources have been linked to. This does not inspire you to turn your opinion into an informed opinion? You would rather continue to groundlessly speculate about "options" that you cannot actually know exist, since you have not looked at the studies?

They should be told to hire the best person that will do the job the best and be of most beneficial to the company not to be told that they need to diversify because than that is deliberate discrimination if they do that.
And if they think the best person to hire is the white male, and their reason for thinking he is better is because he is a white male and they happen to believe white males are superior to females or males of color and, therefore, they will always choose the white male, regardless of comparative qualifications, since in their minds whiteness and maleness are qualifications for doing a job?

How about if they don't actually think the white male is superior, but they just don't like women or people of color?

Or how about if their only reason is that they themselves are white males, and they just like to help out their own kind?

Just how bigoted does a company have to be to suit you?

Again, I can only speak to US experience, but the reason affirmative action is a necessary evil in the US is that there are people making hiring decisions who are still that bigoted. They do not hire based on the qualifications of the applicants. They hire based on personal prejudices about how they think society should be organized, with their preferred group on top and everyone else below them. And in the US, we have a bitter and violent history with that kind of thinking and, therefore, we have a compelling interest in not allowing it to take root again in places or offices of power.

And if they think the best person to hire is the white male, and their reason for thinking he is better is because he is a white male and they happen to believe white males are superior to females or males of color and, therefore, they will always choose the white male, regardless of comparative qualifications, since in their minds whiteness and maleness are qualifications for doing a job?

How about if they don't actually think the white male is superior, but they just don't like women or people of color?

Or how about if their only reason is that they themselves are white males, and they just like to help out their own kind?

Just how bigoted does a company have to be to suit you?

Again, I can only speak to US experience, but the reason affirmative action is a necessary evil in the US is that there are people making hiring decisions who are still that bigoted. They do not hire based on the qualifications of the applicants. They hire based on personal prejudices about how they think society should be organized, with their preferred group on top and everyone else below them. And in the US, we have a bitter and violent history with that kind of thinking and, therefore, we have a compelling interest in not allowing it to take root again in places or offices of power.

Yes than that discrimination something I have said time and time again on this thread. Of course to say that only white males will help out their own kind is wrong. But regardless I have said that companies should not be forced to diversify they should not be allowed to hire someone based on their gender or race. The person who will best do the job and be of best benefit to the company should be hired.

1st. this is not the 80's(or the 70's for the US).
2nd did they tell your mom she had the exact same qualifications as the male ???? I mean perhaps she did piss poor on the interview and they were just trying to let her down nicely. rather then telling her she has no people skills.

hahaha

Yes than that discrimination something I have said time and time again on this thread. Of course to say that only white males will help out their own kind is wrong.
Good thing I didn't say that, then.

But regardless I have said that companies should not be forced to diversify they should not be allowed to hire someone based on their gender or race. The person who will best do the job and be of best benefit to the company should be hired.
I see, they shouldn't be forced to do something, but they should be forced not to do something. Fine, good enough.

That's not what "empathic" means. In order to be thinking empathically, you would have to be able to experience their emotions and thoughts in order to understand them as you do. Do you have that ability? Didn't think so. The word you wanted was "speculative" thinking.

Actually, no, that is not what empathy means:
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

As opposed to sympathy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy).

Please refrain from lecturing me on vocabulary.

And also, you have no idea whether or not I can sympathize with them, since you have no idea whether or not I am an employer who has had to make hard decisions about which candidate to hire. Please refrain from presuming to know more about me than you do.

A hypothetical that can be shown not to match reality is useless in a discussion of reality. Since your hypotheticals do not match how reality works, then what you are really talking about in this context is nothing.

What makes you think you know how the world works better than I do?

And apparently you don't understand the point of a hypothetical question: No, it may not necessarily match reality. But that does not mean you cannot discuss it as if it did in the right context and with the knowledge that it is only hypothetical. Please stop hiding your inability to discuss matters behind vocabulary lessons, especially because you don't seem to have a strong grasp on that, either.

Which you respond to by justiftying the methods companies use to discriminate.

That is exactly what you are doing:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

So. Choosing a woman over a man based solely on her gender is discrimination. It may be justifiable discrimination, since it could be balancing discrimination against women, but it is still discrimination.

I am only discussing possible reasons for why the perceived discrimination against women might exist in the first place. I have never said that I think these possible reasons are true or morally right, I am only bringing up opposing points because this is a discussion, and if everyone always agreed on everything it wouldn't be a discussion.


Yes, it would.

So would that not justify incentives to get more men into the job?

Sorry, you can't prop that strawman up on me. I have never, not once, said anything that could even remotely be interpreted to mean that women should be benefited to the detriment of men. You fail at attempting to paint me as an anti-man bigot. Try something else.

I never said anything about the detriment of men: you are arguing in favor of women benefiting from attempts to balance diversity in the workplace, neh? You are saying that given exactly equal candidates of different genders, a company should hire the woman, neh?

And you are trying to paint me and an anti-woman bigot.

And you are setting up your own straw-man argument about who is calling whom a bigot and semantic arguments about vocabulary.

You're dodging questions and claiming that I am attacking you, when in fact I am attempting to clarify the argument you are making. If I am mistaken in the argument you are making, then explain where, refute it, and bring up your own points for discussion. In fact you are, once again, hiding your inability to clarify your arguments behind straw men.


So in other words, you are choosing to argue from a position of ignorance? The studies are out there. Some have been quoted. A couple of sources have been linked to. This does not inspire you to turn your opinion into an informed opinion? You would rather continue to groundlessly speculate about "options" that you cannot actually know exist, since you have not looked at the studies?

I am arguing from the information that I have. Studies have biases, different countries have different issues, and in the end, you don't know any more than I do. Please stop presuming to know more than I do about these things, and please stop attacking me for cautiously approaching an issue instead of jumping head-long into it. I free admitted a level of ignorance on the issue: that does not mean I am not an intelligent person or that I am incapable of discussing an issue on hypothetical terms. Stop acting superior to me, especially when you haven't said a single thing about the actual topic of this thread in your response to my post.

And I challenge you to support your assertion that a greater percentage of women have part-time experience. I do not accept that as a "fact" at all until I see some data.


This datasheet (link (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=1383&All=Y&B2.x=107&B2.y=10)) gives percentages of people in different hours categories. From 2008:

Hours.....Men.....Women
<6.........0.6.......1.7
6-15......3.2.......10.3
16-30.....6.9......29.7
31-45.....60.8.....49.3
>45.......28.5......9.1

From earlier in this thread. Although these are UK figures, they show a larger number of women working part-time than men. From the rest of the datasheet, this has been fairly constant since 1992. The trend has been for more women to work >15 hours, 16-30 showing a 5% rise and 6-15 a 5% fall, but the majority still do work part-time.

The last sentence I agree with in principle, but I do not know if it is practical. When we know what our co-workers make, then we can know if we are being deliberately screwed over by our employers. However, many people consider their salaries to be private information and do not want it made public to just anyone. I, personally, don't feel that way, but many people do, and they do have a right to privacy. This is why I encourage all workers to research their local government's wage standards. If they cannot compare their salaries to their fellow employees, they can at least compare them to a regional standard.

I haven't read the proposed law in detail but the summary suggested that the releasing of salary information was to the government to maintain contracts, rather than to the employees themselves. So perhaps it will spur companies to even up salaries between genders just through losing business if they don't, and won't be too much of a privacy problem.

That said, local government figures should be readily available for comparison.

Actually, no, that is not what empathy means:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

As opposed to sympathy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy).

Please refrain from lecturing me on vocabulary.
I stand by my statement.

And also, you have no idea whether or not I can sympathize with them, since you have no idea whether or not I am an employer who has had to make hard decisions about which candidate to hire. Please refrain from presuming to know more about me than you do.
But you didn't say you sympathized with them. You said you empathized with them. If you had said you sympathized, I wouldn't have argued with you on that point at all.

What makes you think you know how the world works better than I do?
The content of your arguments.

And apparently you don't understand the point of a hypothetical question: No, it may not necessarily match reality. But that does not mean you cannot discuss it as if it did in the right context and with the knowledge that it is only hypothetical. Please stop hiding your inability to discuss matters behind vocabulary lessons, especially because you don't seem to have a strong grasp on that, either.
I specifically stated that your hypothetical was meaningless in this context.


That is exactly what you are doing:
I do not justify discrimination. I heartily wish the US could find a system that worked better than the current system of affirmative action in order to combat workplace discrimination. I would very much like to see it replaced. But the way things stand right now, if it were scrapped without a replacement, things would get very much worse in the US, not better. But that does not mean that I think it is a good system. If you say that I say otherwise, kindly quote me affirmative action as anything other than a "necessary evil" specifically within the historical context of the US.

So. Choosing a woman over a man based solely on her gender is discrimination. It may be justifiable discrimination, since it could be balancing discrimination against women, but it is still discrimination.
Yes, obviously.

I am only discussing possible reasons for why the perceived discrimination against women might exist in the first place. I have never said that I think these possible reasons are true or morally right, I am only bringing up opposing points because this is a discussion, and if everyone always agreed on everything it wouldn't be a discussion.
I got that the first time you said it. My criticism of it stands.

So would that not justify incentives to get more men into the job?
Not discriminatory ones. For instance, if a company with predominantly female staff is considering two new hires of equal qualifications, one male and one female, the state would have a compelling interest in encouraging the company to hire the male candidate in the interest of workplace diversity. I would hope they would find a non-discriminatory way to make that encouragement.

But someone else (I think) said something about it being okay to pay men more than women to do the same job, in an effort to get more men into a given field of work. That is just plain ridiculous, in my opinion. If better pay is needed, then it should go to women in that field as well as men. (By the way, in the US after WW1, there was a habit of paying women less than men who were hired to do the same jobs. The declared reason for this was that the "prevailing wage" for women was lower than for men. The US Supreme Court rejected that argument as discriminatory.)

I never said anything about the detriment of men: you are arguing in favor of women benefiting from attempts to balance diversity in the workplace, neh? You are saying that given exactly equal candidates of different genders, a company should hire the woman, neh?
If "neh" means "no," then neh, I'm not. I am saying that the government has a compelling interest in reducing or eliminating (as much as possible) discriminatory hiring practices.

I am also saying that such discriminatory practices do exist. That has been the bulk of my argument in this thread.

I have said NOTHING about the value of the new UK measure.

And I have criticized affirmative action as a less than ideal tool for the purpose of combatting discrimination.

And you are trying to paint me and an anti-woman bigot.
You read that into my criticism. What I am saying is that you are making excuses for discriminatory practices. I have said nothing about why you are doing that.

And you are setting up your own straw-man argument about who is calling whom a bigot and semantic arguments about vocabulary.
No, I'm not. I expressed an opinion about what you were saying about me. And you DID misuse the word in question above. And you DID try to claim that I made an argument I did not make, as explained above.

You're dodging questions and claiming that I am attacking you, when in fact I am attempting to clarify the argument you are making. If I am mistaken in the argument you are making, then explain where, refute it, and bring up your own points for discussion. In fact you are, once again, hiding your inability to clarify your arguments behind straw men.
1) What question did I dodge?

2) Explanation and refutation provided above. I have made my argument. The ball is in your court.

I am arguing from the information that I have. Studies have biases, different countries have different issues, and in the end, you don't know any more than I do. Please stop presuming to know more than I do about these things, and please stop attacking me for cautiously approaching an issue instead of jumping head-long into it. I free admitted a level of ignorance on the issue: that does not mean I am not an intelligent person or that I am incapable of discussing an issue on hypothetical terms. Stop acting superior to me, especially when you haven't said a single thing about the actual topic of this thread in your response to my post.
You didn't ask me anything about the topic of the thread, if by "topic" you mean the UK measure.

From earlier in this thread. Although these are UK figures, they show a larger number of women working part-time than men. From the rest of the datasheet, this has been fairly constant since 1992. The trend has been for more women to work >15 hours, 16-30 showing a 5% rise and 6-15 a 5% fall, but the majority still do work part-time.
I saw that, and just looked at it again. I find the full chart difficult to navigate. I do not see where it compares the work hours numbers to population numbers (re the part of your assertion that "most women" have more part-time experience). Since I find the chart confusing, can you please point out the feature I'm missing?

I haven't read the proposed law in detail but the summary suggested that the releasing of salary information was to the government to maintain contracts, rather than to the employees themselves. So perhaps it will spur companies to even up salaries between genders just through losing business if they don't, and won't be too much of a privacy problem.

That said, local government figures should be readily available for comparison.
That sounds find to me.

A rich white man raised in a fancy suburb in the USA... Or a rich black man raised in a fancy suburb in the USA....

Racial heritage means nothing. NOTHING.

(a) You're much less likely to be dealing with the former than the latter, given the statistical chances here.

(b) Even a rich black man in a fancy suburb in the USA will most likely have experienced racism and will have a different outlook because of it.

Erm... Actually they COULD say that. They might've been tied, but in the end, the other man got the job because he was born into a minority group.

If they were tied, it means the man got the job on his own merits. Ethnicity mattered only because they needed something to go by.

But as I said before, there is no such thing as a complete tie. There aren't any two people that have gone to the same schools, for the same amount of time, and have the same qualifications, and the same personalities , etc, etc

Of course not. But those qualities can balance each other out. No two people will be exactly alike, but that doesn't mean they can't tie.

It's sort of like taking a test. Two students can take the same test and get the same score without answering all of the same questions correctly.

I think you can't explain it at all.

How does having a women in the cubicle three rows down as opposed to a man help someone?

I'm not saying there isn't value in it, I'm just asking you to explain it, because I'm not entirely sure you can.

Partially, it's a matter of attitude. A woman who sees that women are valued in her company will be happier in her job. A man who sees that will be less likely to be rude to the women who are there. And people who have worked with minority groups are less likely to be a problem when such minority groups are customers, etc.

It's also a matter of perspective. People of different backgrounds often have different perspectives. If all of your workforce comes from a very similar background, they're also likely going to have very similar solutions to things. Having people with different outlooks, on the other hand, can bring more to the table.

The problem comes when companies take the minority over the other candidate when the minority is actually a tad less qualified because the company is (rightly) afraid of discrimination lawsuits.

That is a problem. And they should be much more afraid of discrimination lawsuits if they do this than if they don't.

It doesn't matter if it was just because of their minority status or if it was because they are highly qualified and because of their minority status. They still got it because of their minority status.

....which, in this instance, is little different from getting it because they went to the same school as the manager, or because they wore his favorite color to their interview, or because the coin came up heads.

The important thing was their qualification for the job. Minority status was an afterthought.

Partially, it's a matter of attitude. A woman who sees that women are valued in her company will be happier in her job. A man who sees that will be less likely to be rude to the women who are there. And people who have worked with minority groups are less likely to be a problem when such minority groups are customers, etc.

It's also a matter of perspective. People of different backgrounds often have different perspectives. If all of your workforce comes from a very similar background, they're also likely going to have very similar solutions to things. Having people with different outlooks, on the other hand, can bring more to the table.

Indeed. Very well stated.

That is a problem. And they should be much more afraid of discrimination lawsuits if they do this than if they don't.

But unfortunately, they're not. When was the last time you heard a white guy suing for discrimination and actually winning? Not trying to argue, just pointing it out.

....which, in this instance, is little different from getting it because they went to the same school as the manager, or because they wore his favorite color to their interview, or because the coin came up heads.

True, that. As far as coins go, though, I actually think that can be a valid solution: you cannot claim favoritism, because no one can actually control the coin toss. Lost the toss? Well, God/fate/the laws of probability hate you. Sucks to be you, but no one did it on purpose, eh?

The important thing was their qualification for the job. Minority status was an afterthought.

Indeed. It's a thin line, eh?

I stand by my statement.

You're still missing the intellectual part. I don't have to actually experience it, I have to be of a state of mind in which I can consider their position and imagine myself in it. Which I can do.

Intellectual.

Not emotional.

Not sympathize.

Regardless:

But you didn't say you sympathized with them. You said you empathized with them. If you had said you sympathized, I wouldn't have argued with you on that point at all.

You shouldn't have started at all. You know what I meant, and you know what I mean now. Why are you still arguing this? You're distracting from the main topic.

And yes, I know I am, too. But I freely admit that I don't particularly care that I am. I just enjoy calling you out on it.

The content of your arguments.

And what makes you think that my personality on NS is anything like my personality in real life, hmm? If you really knew anything about me you'd know better than that.

I specifically stated that your hypothetical was meaningless in this context.

A hypothetical question is meaningless in the context of an internet discussion group designed around the idea of fictional nations with the players as their leaders and the general discussion sub-forum of that game created for "For discussion and debate about anything", specifically around a topic that is based on a hypothetical and highly unlikely situation in the first place (that two candidates are exactly equal in qualification)?

I do not justify discrimination. I heartily wish the US could find a system that worked better than the current system of affirmative action in order to combat workplace discrimination. I would very much like to see it replaced. But the way things stand right now, if it were scrapped without a replacement, things would get very much worse in the US, not better. But that does not mean that I think it is a good system. If you say that I say otherwise, kindly quote me affirmative action as anything other than a "necessary evil" specifically within the historical context of the US.

A "necessary evil" is justification. If something is considered necessary it is justified through its necessity.

to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded

So. Given this agreement:

Yes, obviously.

IF:
Selecting any individual over another based on their gender or race is discrimination (which you agreed to).
Affirmative Action selects individuals based on their race (and/or gender?) (which it does).
Affirmative Action is necessary [and evil], and thus justified.
THEN:
You have argued that a kind of discrimination is justified.

I got that the first time you said it. My criticism of it stands.

Your criticism is ungrounded: You're criticizing me for bringing up opposing views in a forum that is about discussing opposing views.

Not discriminatory ones. For instance, if a company with predominantly female staff is considering two new hires of equal qualifications, one male and one female, the state would have a compelling interest in encouraging the company to hire the male candidate in the interest of workplace diversity. I would hope they would find a non-discriminatory way to make that encouragement.

By definition it has to be discriminatory: selecting an individual over another based on race and gender rather than merit (and you cannot select one over the other since they are equal in merit [hypoethetically]) is discrimination. Therefore, providing incentives to men (or women) over women (or men) is selecting them for special treatment based on their gender. That IS discrimination.

Unless all you're doing is putting out fliers stating your desire for more of [race/gender/minority group]. But we're not talking about fliers, we're talking about being given a job or extra pay. Which is special treatment, which is, by definition, discrimination. Justifiable, maybe. But it is discrimination.

But someone else (I think) said something about it being okay to pay men more than women to do the same job, in an effort to get more men into a given field of work.

I didn't say it was ok, I suggested that it may explain why it is happening. If someone else said it is an ethical practice, then address that person, not me.

That is just plain ridiculous, in my opinion. If better pay is needed, then it should go to women in that field as well as men. (By the way, in the US after WW1, there was a habit of paying women less than men who were hired to do the same jobs. The declared reason for this was that the "prevailing wage" for women was lower than for men. The US Supreme Court rejected that argument as discriminatory.)

What happened 70 odd years ago in the US has little bearing on what's happening now and in other countries.

If "neh" means "no," then neh, I'm not. I am saying that the government has a compelling interest in reducing or eliminating (as much as possible) discriminatory hiring practices.

Neh would be the opposite of eh, which sit on either side of meh. It's a habbit I've picked up over the years: Ender's jeesh FTW.

But you are arguing that Affirmative Action is necessary (even if less than desirable). So, you are arguing in favor of (for lack of better options, but still in favor of) "hiring" - accepting a student application from - a person based on their gender. Which I think we can all agree is beneficial to that person, and which is also detrimental to another candidate who could not be hired or accepted because the spot was already filled. So, not men, but people who are not of minority status.

I am also saying that such discriminatory practices do exist. That has been the bulk of my argument in this thread.

And the bulk of my argument is an attempt to explain why such practices exist in ways that may not include outright sexism or racism. Not that these suggestions are truth, only an explanation of possibilities for the purpose of discussion.

I have said NOTHING about the value of the new UK measure.

Neither have I.

And I have criticized affirmative action as a less than ideal tool for the purpose of combatting discrimination.

I have not disagreed. However, I have tried to bring to your attention that you are justifying it, if only temporarily and in lack of better options, and that you are therefore justifying discrimination, even if that discrimination leads to a greater end which is less net discrimination over time.

You read that into my criticism.

But you're not just reading my own attempts at ad hominem into my criticism...

What I am saying is that you are making excuses for discriminatory practices. I have said nothing about why you are doing that.

And I am saying you are doing the same thing obliquely. And I have not criticized you for it; I have only criticized you for not recognizing it.

No, I'm not. I expressed an opinion about what you were saying about me. And you DID misuse the word in question above. And you DID try to claim that I made an argument I did not make, as explained above.

And I am doing the same thing, I did NOT misuse that word, and you also did that.

1) What question did I dodge?

Pardon: not question, but point of discussion: Is it not possible that the perceived racism and sexism is in fact a product of biased (though not necessarily purposefully so) studies and misinterpreted information, and if that were true, would attempts to balance this non-existent discrimination lead to worse discrimination?

2) Explanation and refutation provided above. I have made my argument. The ball is in your court.

Noted. As it happens I suck at basketball.

You didn't ask me anything about the topic of the thread, if by "topic" you mean the UK measure.

The topic of the thread has expanded to include many forms of discrimination and attempts to solve it, which I have asked you about.

Only as many examples as you can find of someone of equal or greater qualification being rejected because of their race or gender (within the last decade. Yes, shyte happened back in the day, but this is not back in the day).

In other words, you can't back up your claim.

In other words, you can't back up your claim.

As well as you can back up yours.

As well as you can.

It's kind of hard to back up my claim when I never made one. Operating on assumptions is not an effective debate tactic.

<snip>


You're still missing the intellectual part. I don't have to actually experience it, I have to be of a state of mind in which I can consider their position and imagine myself in it. Which I can do.
No, I'm not missing the intellectual part, and you're still wrong, and I still stand by my criticism, whether you agree or not.

Intellectual.

Not emotional.

Not sympathize.
That's not what "intellectual" means. But feel free to cherry-pick part of a dictionary definition in another failed attempt to prove me wrong.

Regardless:



You shouldn't have started at all. You know what I meant, and you know what I mean now. Why are you still arguing this? You're distracting from the main topic.
Why are you still arguing it?

And yes, I know I am, too. But I freely admit that I don't particularly care that I am. I just enjoy calling you out on it.
Too bad you're doing such a poor job of it.

And what makes you think that my personality on NS is anything like my personality in real life, hmm? If you really knew anything about me you'd know better than that.
When did I make any comments about your personality at all, in real life or elsewhere? I am attacking your arguments, which you made in NSG, in whatever version of yourself you're using.

A hypothetical question is meaningless in the context of an internet discussion group designed around the idea of fictional nations with the players as their leaders and the general discussion sub-forum of that game created for "For discussion and debate about anything", specifically around a topic that is based on a hypothetical and highly unlikely situation in the first place (that two candidates are exactly equal in qualification)?
No. Go read the thread and find what I actually said. I am not going to keep typing the same words over and over for you.

A "necessary evil" is justification. If something is considered necessary it is justified through its necessity.


So. Given this agreement:



IF:
Selecting any individual over another based on their gender or race is discrimination (which you agreed to).
Affirmative Action selects individuals based on their race (and/or gender?) (which it does).
Affirmative Action is necessary [and evil], and thus justified.
THEN:
You have argued that a kind of discrimination is justified.
Sigh. You really do "read but with a lust to misapply," don't you? I have already explained myself. My argument stands, and I maintain my claim that I oppose discrimination. At this point, I will leave it to other readers to decide for themselves whether I am telling the truth about myself or if you are right in calling me a hypocrite.

Your criticism is ungrounded: You're criticizing me for bringing up opposing views in a forum that is about discussing opposing views.
No, I'm not.

By definition it has to be discriminatory: selecting an individual over another based on race and gender rather than merit (and you cannot select one over the other since they are equal in merit [hypoethetically]) is discrimination. Therefore, providing incentives to men (or women) over women (or men) is selecting them for special treatment based on their gender. That IS discrimination.
No, it doesn't. Use some imagination.

Unless all you're doing is putting out fliers stating your desire for more of [race/gender/minority group]. But we're not talking about fliers, we're talking about being given a job or extra pay. Which is special treatment, which is, by definition, discrimination. Justifiable, maybe. But it is discrimination.
Not extra pay. Extra pay would be discriminatory. As for given a job, we have already established that the candidates are equal in all respects pertinent to their ability to do the job. Why should the state not be allowed to suggest that, that being the case, they would appreciate it if the company opted for workplace diversity rather than uniformity?

I didn't say it was ok, I suggested that it may explain why it is happening. If someone else said it is an ethical practice, then address that person, not me.
If you would bother to read what I actually wrote, you would see that I attacked your suggestions on the grounds that they are unrealistic, and that because of that, they have no effect but to provide excuses for discrimination. I did not say that you personally approved of discrimination. I was attacking a flaw in your argument.

What happened 70 odd years ago in the US has little bearing on what's happening now and in other countries.
It has a great deal of bearing on what happens now in the US, and as I have said time and time again, I am only talking about what happens in the US because that is all I know about. I believe I have the right to do that here because from the beginning, this thread has talked about the situation in multiple countries, including the US.

Neh would be the opposite of eh, which sit on either side of meh. It's a habbit I've picked up over the years: Ender's jeesh FTW.

But you are arguing that Affirmative Action is necessary (even if less than desirable). So, you are arguing in favor of (for lack of better options, but still in favor of) "hiring" - accepting a student application from - a person based on their gender. Which I think we can all agree is beneficial to that person, and which is also detrimental to another candidate who could not be hired or accepted because the spot was already filled. So, not men, but people who are not of minority status.
No, I'm not, actually, but you seem very attached to the notion that I am. As I've said, I have made my argument. I leave it to others to judge it now, since I know what you think of it.

And the bulk of my argument is an attempt to explain why such practices exist in ways that may not include outright sexism or racism. Not that these suggestions are truth, only an explanation of possibilities for the purpose of discussion.
And I have pointed out that your non-sexist reasons are, in fact, not non-sexist at all, and I have explained why. But you keep on pretending I never did any of that.

Neither have I.



I have not disagreed. However, I have tried to bring to your attention that you are justifying it, if only temporarily and in lack of better options, and that you are therefore justifying discrimination, even if that discrimination leads to a greater end which is less net discrimination over time.
I have already addressed this, and will not do so again.

But you're not just reading my own attempts at ad hominem into my criticism...
I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem attack. I accused you of a strawman argument.

And I am saying you are doing the same thing obliquely. And I have not criticized you for it; I have only criticized you for not recognizing it.
Yes, I know. I get it. I've gotten it every single time you said it. I still disagree.

And I am doing the same thing, I did NOT misuse that word, and you also did that.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Neener, neener.

Pardon: not question, but point of discussion: Is it not possible that the perceived racism and sexism is in fact a product of biased (though not necessarily purposefully so) studies and misinterpreted information, and if that were true, would attempts to balance this non-existent discrimination lead to worse discrimination?
No. The data are too consistent over too long a period of time and over too many cultural shifts, and among too many studies by too many different groups. for that to be the case.

Noted. As it happens I suck at basketball.
It was a tennis reference.

The topic of the thread has expanded to include many forms of discrimination and attempts to solve it, which I have asked you about.
And about which I have answered you. Many times. At length.

No, I'm not missing the intellectual part, and you're still wrong, and I still stand by my criticism, whether you agree or not.

You haven't shown me to be wrong at all, you've only disagreed strongly with your opinion. Which is your opinion. I, however, stand by the definition of Dictionary.com, which, while not the most prestigious of definers like Oxford or Webster, is more reputable than you or I.

You say that "empathize" means "you would have to be able to experience their emotions and thoughts in order to understand them as you do".

Dictionary.com says that the understanding is based on intellectual understanding, not experience.

Three guesses as to what I'm studying at uni. I'll give you a hint: it's not Russian.

That's not what "intellectual" means. But feel free to cherry-pick part of a dictionary definition in another failed attempt to prove me wrong.

I did not cherry-pick, I bolded the part of the definition that was relevant to the point I was making while including the rest for context. How is that cherry-picking? Yes, I agree, empathize does involve identification with the "empathizee", but it is done in the intellect, not by actually going out and experiencing it for yourself.

The difference I was actually trying to emphasize was that sympathy implies agreement, while empathy only implies understanding. I understand. I do not necessarily agree. That is the difference.

Why are you still arguing it?

It amuses me.

Too bad you're doing such a poor job of it.

Doesn't look so bad to me.

When did I make any comments about your personality at all, in real life or elsewhere?
Do you have that ability? Didn't think so.
What makes you think you know how the world works better than I do?
The content of your arguments.

In order for you to know that I am incapable of something, you would have to know me, which you claim to through my posting habits, which are not at all indicative of myself.

I am attacking your arguments, which you made in NSG, in whatever version of yourself you're using.

No, you're attacking irrelevant semantics.

And I'm using the RhynoDedede version, at the moment (the deletion of RhynoD and RhynoDD is being appealed).

No. Go read the thread and find what I actually said. I am not going to keep typing the same words over and over for you.
I specifically stated that your hypothetical was meaningless in this context.
A hypothetical that can be shown not to match reality is useless in a discussion of reality. Since your hypotheticals do not match how reality works, then what you are really talking about in this context is nothing.

So. Is the context not a discussion forum etc.? If not, what is it?

Sigh. You really do "read but with a lust to misapply," don't you? I have already explained myself. My argument stands, and I maintain my claim that I oppose discrimination. At this point, I will leave it to other readers to decide for themselves whether I am telling the truth about myself or if you are right in calling me a hypocrite.

You haven't explained yourself at all. You've spent the last several posts saying that you've explained yourself without actually explaining yourself.

No, I'm not.

Yes you are. Do I win if I put it in all-caps like I'm yelling?

No, it doesn't. Use some imagination.

Yes it does. Use a dictionary.

Not extra pay. Extra pay would be discriminatory.

Yes. Yes it would. That's my point.

As for given a job, we have already established that the candidates are equal in all respects pertinent to their ability to do the job. Why should the state not be allowed to suggest that, that being the case, they would appreciate it if the company opted for workplace diversity rather than uniformity?

I never said they shouldn't. I have only ever said that making such a decision is, by definition, discriminatory, as it chooses one candidate over another based on race/gender/etc. over merit. However, it may (or may not) be a justified form of discrimination necessary to balance racism/sexism/etc.ism.

But it is, by definition, discrimination.

If you would bother to read what I actually wrote, you would see that I attacked your suggestions on the grounds that they are unrealistic, and that because of that, they have no effect but to provide excuses for discrimination. I did not say that you personally approved of discrimination. I was attacking a flaw in your argument.

That's not a flaw, since I never once suggested that they were entirely realistic. I suggested them as a plausible point of discussion, nothing more. If you don't want to discuss the idea, then don't, but I never suggested it was reality.

It has a great deal of bearing on what happens now in the US, and as I have said time and time again, I am only talking about what happens in the US because that is all I know about.

So in other words, you are choosing to argue from a position of ignorance? The studies are out there. Some have been quoted. A couple of sources have been linked to. This does not inspire you to turn your opinion into an informed opinion?

I believe I have the right to do that here because from the beginning, this thread has talked about the situation in multiple countries, including the US.

And yet you criticize me for discussing hypothetical points because they are not relevant? How can you argue you have a right to argue points that aren't relevant to everyone and at the same time argue that I do not have that same right?

No, I'm not, actually, but you seem very attached to the notion that I am. As I've said, I have made my argument. I leave it to others to judge it now, since I know what you think of it.

You're not what? Arguing that Affirmative Action is necessary?

And I have pointed out that your non-sexist reasons are, in fact, not non-sexist at all, and I have explained why. But you keep on pretending I never did any of that.

You never said why: first you mistook my argument completely and then completely ignored it by saying it doesn't matter anyways.

I have already addressed this, and will not do so again.

You have not. You have only stated repeatedly that you have addressed it.

I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem attack. I accused you of a strawman argument.

[You fail at attempting to paint me as an anti-man bigot

A) An attempt to paint you as an anti-man bigot would be an attack on your personal character, which would be ad hominem.

B) Ad hominem is a [specific] kind of straw man.

Yes, I know. I get it. I've gotten it every single time you said it. I still disagree.

I know you disagree. What I'm waiting for is something more substantial than "I disagree."

Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Neener, neener.

I don't know what you're being sarcastic about.

You started it.

No. The data are too consistent over too long a period of time and over too many cultural shifts, and among too many studies by too many different groups. for that to be the case.

The change in time and culture is exactly why I call the studies into question. Things change over time: Hypothetically: Historically, sexism forced women into certain positions which have persisted through several eras because of long-standing habits of both genders which do not mean to discriminate against women, but lead to women accepting lower-paying jobs because traditionally that is how it is, which is not the fault of the men or the women specifically but a result of historical influences that is slowly being erased but is not completely dissolved at this time.

It was a tennis reference.

I'm better at basketball.

And about which I have answered you. Many times. At length.

So why did you bring up the fact that I have not specifically asked you about the subject of the OP?

Indeed. Very well stated.

Thanks =)

But unfortunately, they're not. When was the last time you heard a white guy suing for discrimination and actually winning? Not trying to argue, just pointing it out.

To be fair, I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone suing for discrimination and winning. The burden of proof in such cases is high.

True, that. As far as coins go, though, I actually think that can be a valid solution: you cannot claim favoritism, because no one can actually control the coin toss. Lost the toss? Well, God/fate/the laws of probability hate you. Sucks to be you, but no one did it on purpose, eh?

In a perfect world that wasn't still affected by past discrimination, I'd probably argue that it was the best way to do it. But, with the world as it is, I don't see a problem with using minority status as a tiebreaker. It shouldn't be the backbone of affirmative action, especially not at this point, but I think it can be a part.

Thanks =)

Indeed.

To be fair, I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone suing for discrimination and winning. The burden of proof in such cases is high.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything specific. But I know I've heard of many hate-crime cases, and none of them had a white guy on the prosecutor's side (except the lawyers).

In a perfect world that wasn't still affected by past discrimination, I'd probably argue that it was the best way to do it. But, with the world as it is, I don't see a problem with using minority status as a tiebreaker. It shouldn't be the backbone of affirmative action, especially not at this point, but I think it can be a part.

Actually, a lot of minorities hate Affirmative Action because people don't take them seriously: "Oh, you only got into that university because you're [minority], not because you actually deserved to go there." Not that they don't deserve to go there, but that's the negative stigma associated with it.

I saw that, and just looked at it again. I find the full chart difficult to navigate. I do not see where it compares the work hours numbers to population numbers (re the part of your assertion that "most women" have more part-time experience). Since I find the chart confusing, can you please point out the feature I'm missing?

Yes, it is hard to navigate. To the left shows 'All persons' with percentages and numbers (in thousands), adding up those for 2008 shows the total survey had 25 million participants (13m men and 12.4m women), the percentages come from these two numbers.

My comment involving part-time was meant to be comparing the numbers of women and men working part-time, i.e. it was more likely to find a woman with (more) part-time experience than a man. From the chart, those with <31 hours are 5,169,000 females and 1,397,000 males.

Within the numbers for women, I can't say if there are more full-time or part-time workers as the categories are too wide: 31-45hrs could include part-timers as well, and makes up the largest percentage (almost 50%).

You haven't shown me to be wrong at all, you've only disagreed strongly with your opinion. Which is your opinion. I, however, stand by the definition of Dictionary.com, which, while not the most prestigious of definers like Oxford or Webster, is more reputable than you or I.

You say that "empathize" means "you would have to be able to experience their emotions and thoughts in order to understand them as you do".

Dictionary.com says that the understanding is based on intellectual understanding, not experience.

Three guesses as to what I'm studying at uni. I'll give you a hint: it's not Russian.
Well, if it's English, then I hope you're only in your first year, because you fail so far.

1) Your interpretation of the dictionary definition is either grossly incorrect or else a flat-out lie. The definition is in the thread. I leave it to people who can understand English to read it and see for themselves.

2) Your claim about what I said is also either grossly in accurate or deliberate misrepresentation. And I also leave my words for others to judge for themselves, because further explanation to you is clearly not worth the effort.

3) And if you want to engage in the debating fallacy of appeal to authority, you may be studying English at university, but I worked as a proofreader and copy editor for more than ten years. I may not be perfect, but you do not know more than me about English, and in this instance, you are the one who is wrong. We cancel each other out. Also, you are the one who is pursuing, and escalating, an off-topic argument, by the way. I'll tell you right now, I will not back down on this, though I am getting bored with it.

I did not cherry-pick, I bolded the part of the definition that was relevant to the point I was making while including the rest for context. How is that cherry-picking? Yes, I agree, empathize does involve identification with the "empathizee", but it is done in the intellect, not by actually going out and experiencing it for yourself.
No. (A) That is not what I said, and (B) that is not what the definition says. Go back and stare at the definition -- the WHOLE thing -- until it makes sense to you. Try diagramming the sentence. Maybe that will help you figure out how the words relate to each other.

The difference I was actually trying to emphasize was that sympathy implies agreement, while empathy only implies understanding. I understand. I do not necessarily agree. That is the difference.
Too bad you used the wrong word for it.

It amuses me.

Doesn't look so bad to me.
I think you are the only person who is enjoying watching you be wrong.

In order for you to know that I am incapable of something, you would have to know me, which you claim to through my posting habits, which are not at all indicative of myself.
So you are claiming that you DO have the ability to read minds?

No, you're attacking irrelevant semantics.
No, I'm not, but I am starting to understand why you cannot keep track of the argument.

And I'm using the RhynoDedede version, at the moment (the deletion of RhynoD and RhynoDD is being appealed).
That's fascinating.


So. Is the context not a discussion forum etc.? If not, what is it?
Read. The. Thread.

You haven't explained yourself at all. You've spent the last several posts saying that you've explained yourself without actually explaining yourself.
Read. The. Thread.


Yes you are. Do I win if I put it in all-caps like I'm yelling?



Yes it does. Use a dictionary.



Yes. Yes it would. That's my point.
You don't win. Nobody wins in a discussion with you, it seems, including you at this point, sadly. You have clearly entered this discussion with no intention of discussing anything, because you simply ignore everything that is said to you. You claim that I have not explained myself, and I point you back to my arguments, saying that they are my explanation. Do you point out to me what parts of them do not make sense to you? No, you just keep demanding that I tell them to you over and over and over. I am not going to play that game. Read what I wrote and respond to it, or don't, but do not ignore my arguments and then claim I never made them.

I never said they shouldn't. I have only ever said that making such a decision is, by definition, discriminatory, as it chooses one candidate over another based on race/gender/etc. over merit. However, it may (or may not) be a justified form of discrimination necessary to balance racism/sexism/etc.ism.

But it is, by definition, discrimination.
And when did I ever deny that? When did I ever say I supported it? All I said is that I do not want affirmative action eliminated without a replacement program in place. However, that does not mean that I support the ways in which affirmative action is applied in the US currently. There are plenty of instances in which I think it is misused to create new discrimination, not block old discrimination. Kindly show me where I said anything other than that. Saying that the bad system should not be scrapped until there is a new system is not the same as saying you support the bad system. By the way, I also think that the US prison system is grossly dysfunctional and needs complete reform, but I do not want to see all bad prisons shut down and the prisoners released just because no new system is in place yet. However, that does not mean I approve of the way prisons are run now. Do you get it yet? Not wanting to have no system does not mean that one supports the current system. That is why your attempt to claim that I support discrimination fails.

That's not a flaw, since I never once suggested that they were entirely realistic. I suggested them as a plausible point of discussion, nothing more. If you don't want to discuss the idea, then don't, but I never suggested it was reality.
So you admit you were just spinning bullshit? Thank you. Now I can dismiss you as a crank.

So in other words, you are choosing to argue from a position of ignorance? The studies are out there. Some have been quoted. A couple of sources have been linked to. This does not inspire you to turn your opinion into an informed opinion?
Who do you think you are, the Ghost of Christmas Present? Oh, no, you can't be him, because he never lied. Kindly show me where I made any comments or claimed any knowledge about any country other than the US. Kindly show me where I applied US rules or conditions to any other country. If you look real hard, you will find that, in fact, I have done the exact opposite in this thread, and have said so many times. This is the last time I will say it, because at this point it is clear you are being deliberately dishonest.

And yet you criticize me for discussing hypothetical points because they are not relevant? How can you argue you have a right to argue points that aren't relevant to everyone and at the same time argue that I do not have that same right?
I have already explained this several times over, too, including in the post you were "responding" to.

You're not what? Arguing that Affirmative Action is necessary?

You never said why: first you mistook my argument completely and then completely ignored it by saying it doesn't matter anyways.



You have not. You have only stated repeatedly that you have addressed it.
Wrong again, again, and again. On purpose?





A) An attempt to paint you as an anti-man bigot would be an attack on your personal character, which would be ad hominem.

B) Ad hominem is a [specific] kind of straw man.
No, it isn't. So far you have not been correct on a single assertion of fact. I think this is the last time I will talk to you.


I know you disagree. What I'm waiting for is something more substantial than "I disagree."
Read. The. Thread.


I don't know what you're being sarcastic about.

You started it.



The change in time and culture is exactly why I call the studies into question. Things change over time: Hypothetically: Historically, sexism forced women into certain positions which have persisted through several eras because of long-standing habits of both genders which do not mean to discriminate against women, but lead to women accepting lower-paying jobs because traditionally that is how it is, which is not the fault of the men or the women specifically but a result of historical influences that is slowly being erased but is not completely dissolved at this time.
So, on your planet, consistency over time and sources invalidates data. Right, that explains a lot.

I am done with you. You've gotten all you're going to out of me. I don't care if it isn't what you want.