Unleashed

Robust Community Debate

Find More Stories

8 March 2010

File photo: Protester holding an equal pay sign (Getty Images: Sean Garnsworthy)

Equal pay for equal work

Comments

Sharman Stone

Sharman Stone

International Women's Day will be celebrated in Australia and around the world on Monday 8 March.

On May 8, 1857 New York women employed in the clothing and textile industry finally took to the streets to demand better wages and conditions. Half a century later, in 1908, 15,000 women again marched in New York, and some went on strike, demanding better conditions and an end to child labour.

In Australia women were granted equal pay 40 years ago, and that should have been the end to pay inequity in this country. However in 2010, on average, women lag some 17 per cent behind in pay for equal work or work of same value and in some sectors, like finance and insurance this gender pay gap expands to a ripping 32 per cent.

Not surprisingly, 73 per cent of single aged pensioners are women, and women retire on average with about half the superannuation of men.

Australian women are world beaters in many fields from public service, to science, the arts, business, sport and politics. Australian women are ranked among the first in the OECD in gaining tertiary and other educational qualifications. However, the gender pay gap persists, and under Labor it is getting worse.

There are almost 5 million Australian women in the workforce and rates of participation are growing. Thirty per cent of small businesses are owned by women. As well, women commit thousands of hours and billions of dollars to the economy each year as the unpaid carers for children, the disabled and the elderly in their families.

Older women are the worst off as their careers have been interrupted or were never launched due to family responsibilities and met with little flexibility in paid work arrangements or paid parental leave. More frequent divorce today with worse financial consequences for women, combined with their fragmented or unpaid work, has too often locked them into an impoverished and welfare-dependent old age.

The gender pay gap is experienced at every level in the workplace in Australia, the land of the great Fair Go. It is regularly reported that the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange pay their female Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officers on average 50 per cent less than their male equivalents. Female CEOs earned 67 per cent less and women only occupied 7 per cent of the top five executive positions in these companies. Female CEOs are more likely to be employed in the not-for-profit sector. Women with disabilities are less likely to be employed than men with disabilities, and women are less likely to have the salary package add ons, like cars, phones and bonuses.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, describes poverty in Australia as having a feminine face. As she says, poverty should not be the reward for a life time of caring for others. Women and women's work cannot continue to be undervalued.

The ACTU has finally signalled that it is going to make gender pay equity a Federal election issue after decades of looking the other way.

The 54th session of the United Nation's Commission on the Status of Women is meeting in New York until 12 March to hear how much progress has been made in the 15 years since the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. Unfortunately Australia, as a developed nation, does not have a good story to tell and must do better.

The World Economic Forum's The Global Gender Gap Report 2009 on wage equality for similar work showed Australia ranked 60th globally in 2009, declining from 51st in 2007. In terms of women's economic participation and opportunity Australia slipped from 12th to 22nd globally from 2007 to 2008.

On March 8, International Women's Day, many will focus their attention off shore and be collectively disappointed at the lot of women that has not improved in 20 years in third world countries. And we should all be appalled at this. However, let us not forget about our own failures, with Indigenous and non-indigenous women who do not have equity in pay in the work place.

Many are in denial about the gender pay gap, or simply do not want to know.

The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act requires businesses to report on other matters but not the pay gap. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations "Making it Fair" report into pay equity tabled in 2009 has had no response from the Rudd Government.

Come on Australia, equal pay for equal work will make us a more productive nation, it will make us more internationally competitive, it will help to build women's sense of self worth and fair play, and it is just the right thing to do.

House Rules

Comments (190)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.

  • Helvi :

    12 Mar 2010 9:48:06am

    We have now had The Liberal Ladies Week: Niki, Pru and Sharman. How about three Labour women for some balance.

      • Is it sexist Eric :

        12 Mar 2010 1:38:38pm

        Why? Niki, Pru and Sharman have covered the same issues Labor women would, with the advantage that they cannot be pilloried for "lefty labour bias".

          • Vox Liberalis :

            12 Mar 2010 3:55:04pm

            Helvi,

            We've had the Three Liberal Ladies Week at their blog Unleashed.

            Now the Three Liberal Lads week begins at their blog with Stuart Robert, Liberal MP.

            http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2843321.htm

            And still no sign of any Labor politicians getting a say.

            All Liberals - it's THEIR abc.

      • Little old person :

        12 Mar 2010 4:00:31pm

        I agree with Helvi. Get three more women on to discuss equal pay, Germaine Greer and Tony Abbott.

        I once listened to an ABC radio show discussion with women representatives from Liberal and Labor. Whoever lined up the panel of representatives was perhaps expecting to generate some debate, but instead the women merrily chatted away discussing policy and sharing their experiences. It was delightful to listen too.

        That is what I enjoy so much about women when they speak or write about being politicians. Women in politics tend to be very honest about issues affecting women and communicate well with women from other parties. Men from different parties who share similar policy tend to take an "our policy is better than yours" approach, but women will find ground to agree on and work that shared territory very well while having a great time together. As a result they pitch their respective parties very effectively to female voters.

        I love listening to older women particularly, because they have so much experience to draw on and have become so very very good at what they do.

          • Bruce Thombo Jefferson :

            14 Mar 2010 6:11:46pm

            And what they are good at here is sprouting humbug about the Liberal Party caring about women. All this foray into female voters has been about, I suspect, is trying to win over a constituency that is normally too clever to fall for their hogwash because the Liberal Party promotes conservative satus quos fundamentally at odds with the interests of most progressive women. I suspect this win over attempt does have a root in sexual politics insofar as women by and large have spent too much time being the object of ham fisted attempts at seductions promising the world to be conned by these transparent diatribes. The Africans have a saying a hundred years of talking wont turn a crocodile into a canoe nor will a hundred years of Liberal Party claptrap convince women that its a safe vehicle to transport them over Jordan.

      • yen :

        13 Mar 2010 6:11:05pm

        Quote:
        "...
        How about three Labour women for some balance
        ..."

        There is a subtle difference between 'women in labour' and 'women in Labor'.

        The party is 'Labor'.

          • Helvi :

            13 Mar 2010 10:09:27pm

            yen, aren't making your nitpicking more and more like hard labour? There is more than a subtle difference between the Labor women and the Liberal ladies.

          • Put the u back in Labor :

            14 Mar 2010 1:35:00pm

            That is the problem with Labor, Yen. It has been defeminised.

              • Helvi :

                15 Mar 2010 12:16:47pm

                Stepford Wives here we come; nothing to do with real feminity, more like going back to the fifties, kinda Barbie Doll's style...

  • Jack of all Trades :

    12 Mar 2010 6:21:16am

    Ive had 30 years in the workforce and every woman Ive worked alongside has been paid the same and often more than me. This type of story is so old hat and unreal.

  • Devil's Advocate :

    11 Mar 2010 6:14:27pm

    Just watched channel 10 re this topic. They made mention of the increase to women's pay amoung social workers. However, when comparing equal pay for equal work, the implication was that social workers recieved less than other public sector jobs (without specifying which). As far as it could be ascertained, men and women received the same amount of renumeration in social work.

    This lower pay is not due to 'sexism' but perhaps the fact that this particular line of work is not as well paid as it should be, or, the work done is not doesn't deserve more pay. That said, as they are public jobs, then it is up to the government to sort this out. The fact that most workers are female is irrelevant (maybe we should be asking why more men don't seek employment in this field).

    Also, considering that it is our money that will be going to this pay increase, we should damn well get our money's worth.

    Lastly, are the men who serve as social workers going to get this pay rise also? If not, this is clearly a case of unequal pay for equal work.

      • seajae :

        12 Mar 2010 9:30:26am

        have to agree here, what amazes me is that these owomen & men go into these jobs knowing full well what the weages are and the amount of time they need to put in then once they get thwe job they start bitching that it doesnt pay enough. What you also have to look at is that the reason there are more women than men is that the job involves working with women & kids, naturally women want another woman to hear their problems rather than men especially if it a womens refuge etc. Again this is not about equal pay but it is simply a matter of the government setting the pay rate, a persons gender has nothing to do with it, these were once voluntary jobs, some still are so no wonder the pay rates are low, just ask for a higher wage. All this is , is grandstanding by the unions and womens rights groups, nothing to do with gender equality.

  • Bruce Thombo Jefferson :

    11 Mar 2010 4:12:20pm

    There is a subtlety we may be missing here. When Doyennes of the Liberal Party, architects of Work Choices, put on the pink and sound the Tally Ho for equal pay they probably mean something different from what you think they do.
    Clearly if wimmen are doing the same quality work as men for less money then men are being paid to much. This intolerable rip off of the long suffering heavily persecuted employers, who god knows can hardly afford the winter trip to Aspen these days, must stop. The pay of all workers, except member of the top four levels of management and the country club, must be sunk to that of the women to correct this appalling injustice and theres me bonus. Support them at your peril.

  • Lismore Liv :

    11 Mar 2010 3:11:30pm

    Women and young workers lost out the most under the Liberals' so-called WorkChoices.

    Literally millions of employees lost pay and/or conditions in one stroke of the Liberal pen.

    And Stone's colleagues want to reintroduce WorkChoices with only the name changed.

    Stone has a hide coming here to talk about "equal pay" for women when her own party leader believes women should be at home flat out on the ironing board.



    PS: ABC, why isn't the fact that Stone is a serving Liberal politician made clear up-front with her "article"?

      • Devil's Advocate :

        11 Mar 2010 6:48:47pm

        You do realise that, like every other author on this site, if you click on her name you get taken to her bio...

        But that should be irrelevant, surely you would wish to read the article, form your opinion, and then find out about the writer so that you can consider any bias and then reconsider and adjust your opinion as required.

        Or do you need to make sure that your responses are appropriate to your ideology, and contrary to the author's, as you read.

        Also, can you demonstrate how every single woman and young person lost out.

  • SeanK :

    11 Mar 2010 1:37:01pm

    Why is it that whenever the gender paygap equity issue is discussed there is always a reference to the top 500 companies and high flying CEOs and how more women should be represented etc etc etc????

    I think that the paygap equity issue here is how the massive salaries and perks of these highflyers (male or female) can be justified when compared the mere plebs and serfs who work hard all their lives on basic salaries to keep these people living in the manner they wish to be accustomed to.

    This is the real issue when it comes to the claims of 'Equal pay for equal work'.

    And BTW Sharman dont you have something else to do like parliament or something?

  • dinazad :

    10 Mar 2010 10:01:48pm

    I've just read this - what a classic! One of the most narrow minded politicians - the one most making an "us v them" argument about refugees - has the nerve to be banging on about gender equity.

    Sorry, Sharman, principles are above self-interest. If you want to start raising the flag for discrimination against women (and a worthy flag it is!), then you need to start appreciating that it is same mechanisms working against women that work against refugees, against the disabled, against religious minorities, against homosexuals, against the disenfranchised.

    The Left has fought long and hard to improve the status of women - your party, in stark contrast, seems only interested in the status quo...

      • Little old person :

        11 Mar 2010 1:50:38pm

        You seem more interested in claiming ownership of women by men of the left, dinazad, than in improving the lot of women.

        The left does not own women, any more than it owns refugees, the disabled, religious minorities, homosexuals and disenfranchised men.

          • dinazad :

            11 Mar 2010 6:18:12pm

            No, LOP, I'm not interested in in either men (did I mention them?) or the Left owning women - both have dodgy track records, let's face it - I'm simply pointing out that conservative politics has been more interested in the status quo - politically, economically, culturally, sexually and in terms of gender equity and equal opportunity - than the Left. Not always, but usually.

            The ways in which power disenfranchises immigrants largely parallels the ways in which power disenfranchises women - and it's disingenuous for Stone to want to have her cake and eat it too.

            The Left is not averse to this hypocrisy (and men usually rely on it) - in this case, we have a female of the right who is writing this piffle, so she is the subject of my observations!!

          • Devil's Advocate :

            11 Mar 2010 6:37:55pm

            Actually the left does; without them, they have nothing to justify their existance. It's actually in their interest to ensure that genuine reform does not occur else they'll put themselves out of business.

  • Eric :

    10 Mar 2010 9:03:17am

    It is sexist to say women should get equal pay for equal work.
    The cry should be Equal pay for equal work for all.
    Then it has the same meaning for all.

      • Is it sexist Eric :

        10 Mar 2010 2:10:31pm

        Is it sexist Eric? Because "equal pay for equal work for all" is exactly what women campaigned for with men when populist labour movements began developing last century. Women are still noticeably paid less for the same work as men, as well as disproportionately occupying lower paid positions in most industries including as part timers and casuals.

        Equal pay for all never happened, and it won't happen until women of all ethnicities are remunerated with equal pay for equal work in all industries.

  • Steve Mount :

    10 Mar 2010 5:23:58am

    Righto Sharman, excellent concept. Perhaps you can get the ball rolling by telling us your income, plus all allowances (yes ALL of them), and then comparing with one of your male counterparts. OK?

  • Scotsman :

    09 Mar 2010 11:35:38pm

    Stop Griping!!!
    The world is your oyster and we haven't got much time on it, So get a life!! think of something nobody has thought about, make it, sell it on the World Wide Web and you won't need to work again, So stop griping and get your brains thinking....
    Remember the clock is ticking....good luck all

  • seajae :

    09 Mar 2010 10:02:05pm

    anyone doing a job should receive the same pay for the same work. Unfortunately in a lot of instances this doesnt work, especiallt in the building trade. A female tradie will not lift the same weights, do the same high work or do the dirty work simply because they are female. When this happens the males can get a wee bit upset, especially when paid the same wage. If a women is not prepared to take the same risks, do exactly the same work etc then they should not expect the same pay, this is not sexist it is fact. If they are going to use the femininity as an excuse then they should not be in that job, same goes for males in a female dominated job. When both sexes do exactly the same things the pay rates will even out but until then the ones doing the heavier, dirtier, riskier and harder work are entitled to the difference. There will always be jobs that one sex does better than the other, just accept it whether you are male or female.

      • yen :

        11 Mar 2010 1:07:17am

        Quote:
        "...
        If a women is not prepared to take the same risks,
        ...."

        Often they are not.

        Many risky occupations have been made less risky when women entered those occupations.

          • seajae :

            11 Mar 2010 3:18:05pm

            what a laugh, safety in the trades has nothing to do with women being there as they still will not do the same work, trying to give them a pat on the back is crap & you know it. They simply do not want to do any work that involves lifting, high work, dirty work etc, they prefer the cleaner, safer jobs. The problem is that those making these supportive comments dont even know what they are talking about, it is all just assumptions on their part.

              • Put the u back in Labor :

                15 Mar 2010 11:51:02am

                I know of many women who deliberately weigh in to lift heavy objects, to prove they are as able as men. Some of those women are tiny little things, but somehow they manage to move a great bulk of work. They remind me of industrious ants. They are very good at devising safe ways to shift heavy loads, and seem to have developed a superior understanding of the laws of physics because of the engineering knowledge that they are capable of applying to increase efficiency and reduce the load on their smaller frames.

          • The Oracle :

            14 Mar 2010 12:26:52pm

            Well, there you go. And all this time I thought it had more to do with workplace health and safety legislation, civil litigation, large compensation payouts, potential fines or jail time for employers, lost productivity et cetera.

            Thanks for clearing that up, yen. Real informative.

  • Pun :

    09 Mar 2010 5:18:26pm

    "Equal pay for equal work":so why would Tony Abbott want a parental leave scheme that is only a redistributive mechanism in which the equal work of rasing a child sees some paid more (up to $75,000)from the impost that would fall on everyone,either from some businesses forced to pay, or the taxpayer?

    In a just and fair system giving more to some parents would mean that inequalities in compensation would be based on the needs of children(the care of some kids is more expensive, such as those with special needs), not on the need to make the whole taxpayer or consumer base pay to maintain the income of the well-off parent at the expense of the poorer parent.

  • Mat :

    09 Mar 2010 2:48:03pm

    The fact that this argument is focused on Corporate renumeration - the world of completely unreal pay packages - undermines it's credibility.
    As far as I have experienced in the real world of workers, renumeration is equal for both genders. If I, as a male, work as a nurse or carer , I will be paid the same award payment as a female with the same qualifications or experience. If a female works as a fitter or electrician, she will be paid the same as I would as a male.
    When it comes down to corporate management positions which pay obscene packages - lets face it, if you don't have the right social contacts and background, it wouldn't matter how bright you are, you're going nowhere. Simple as that.
    Why do you think some parents are willing to spend so much to send their children to the most prestigious private colleges?

  • CF Zero :

    09 Mar 2010 10:49:45am

    This argument is a furphy, the reason that men often get paid more is that they have the convition to say no to what they regard as inadequate remuneration, if men as a whole just said yes then there would be no difference.

    Women need to get better at asking for money and face up to the risk of being replaced if the employer decides not to negotiate, the same risk I take when negotiating my salary package for the year.

    24% pay rise due in June thanks, if I did not ask I would have received 3-4%, CPI, the same as everyone who did not have the conviction to put their job on the line, men and women included.

    Equality cannot be given, it is up to you to take it.

      • Little old person :

        09 Mar 2010 12:29:23pm

        You seem to lack a sense for the reality that women live with. That women need only ask is a myth.

        Women are discriminated against and treated worse in all areas, including when it comes to asking.

        When women ask for more, they run the risk of being treated twice as badly as men who ask for more.

        Remember, men are immediately assumed to be up to the task of performing with higher salaries and better job titles. Women overall are automatically employed at lower rates and in lessor positions than men. Do you even understand this?

        Men negotiate their wages and salaries less than they say they do.

          • CF Zero :

            09 Mar 2010 1:08:50pm

            If you are prepared to leave, how can you be treated badly? If you leave the employer has to replace you which is expensive and involves training and trying out new staff. Its only if you are bluffing could you be treated differently.

            I think your issue is you dont want to have to risk anything and be paid the same as someone who is prepared to risk their job.

            Let me put it this way, if I did your negotiating for you, you would be paid the same as me, then I would say to the employer this package is only good for someone who cant negotiate and ask for more.

            Why shouldnt I?

            This is as ridiculous as putting women on company boards to reflect gender equality, it should be about ability.

              • Pun :

                09 Mar 2010 3:37:07pm

                Leaving is not the answer:many women "leave"because forced out by inequalities in power.It is a nonsense to say that one woman (or man, one of the problems with Workchoices)is equal to one employer, unless other factors are in play).

                Even a strong person can be forced out of an organisation by practices such as bullying, which is what gender pay gaps amount to (hang the grammar).

                Covert bullying is built into systemic practices such as failing to enforce existing anti-discrimination laws, or not giving enough support to bodies to whom people can complain, or making the complaint and enforcement process a voluntary one for employers and difficult for employees.

              • yen :

                10 Mar 2010 2:43:29am

                Quote:
                "...
                Leaving is not the answer:many women "leave"because forced out by inequalities in power.It is a nonsense to say that one woman (or man, one of the problems with Workchoices)is equal to one employer, unless other factors are in play).
                ....."

                Apply for a job in the public service.

                States and Federal are all Labor.

                -and of course in favour of equal pay....

  • Vivienne Lai :

    09 Mar 2010 9:49:32am

    The same happens to the migrants. Especially migrant women - they get much less pay than white Anglo Australia women and noone ever talks about it.
    When the migrant woman says something - she is quickly shut up or fired and told she should be grateful to live in free (well, actually a colony), democratic (well, more like a monarchy with always the same head of state) and egalitarian (well, go to some rich suburbs) country.
    And I don't want to write about the abuse in all kind of forms migrant women experience from Aussie men... And there is noone to help.

      • Little old person :

        09 Mar 2010 12:40:01pm

        Nope. That is sadly a myth as well. I have seen "migrant" women trash women who are perceived to be "white and anglo" even when those "white and anglo" women who actually poorer.

        Some women like to take out their anger at being mistreated on a target they perceive to be weaker - they will criticise another women that they work with instead of the man who pays them less.

        Learn to put your ethnicity or nationality aside and work with other women of all ethnicities (including anglo) and nations who are in the same boat as you.

          • Vivienne Lai :

            10 Mar 2010 9:07:12am

            Thank you for replying. This is exactly what I am saying: you Aussies ignore our voices and turn around all the facts in your favour and tell us things like it is multiculture etc. (which is not - because English rule this land - not multicultural people). Maybe we in the same boat - but you don't let us navigate at all.

              • Little old person :

                10 Mar 2010 12:55:15pm

                Women are not steering the boat as individuals, that is the whole point.

                When you blame other women for discrimination caused by men it hardly makes a woman want to entrust you with navigation of the vessel anyway.

                Learn to row with the other rowers instead of paddling against your neighbour out of spite.

              • Larry Cann :

                10 Mar 2010 1:45:19pm

                Let me work this out. Women all over Australia say that they are paid lower wages and salaries than Australian men. Vivienne says that she thinks Australian "white" women are paid more than "migrant" women. Little old person says that some "anglo" women "who actually poorer" than some "migrant" women are treated badly because they are perceived to have less power.

                Vivienne, wouldn't it make more sense to campaign for wages that are equal to the wages and salaries of men who are paid more instead of campaigning for wages and salaries that are equal to the wages of women who are paid less or nothing at all?

  • Maxwell Pinto :

    09 Mar 2010 2:51:15am

    Nicely written...some thoughts on women:

    Men and women should operate as a team, both within a corporate environment and outside one with synergy in mind. Members of either gender should not feel threatened by the presence or performance of the opposite sex. What we need is a positive approach to life and business in an attempt to increase personal, corporate, national, and international welfare.
    The social, cultural, and political attitudes of modern society have enabled women to seize some power from men, despite being treated unfairly by unethical leaders, who continue to reinforce the "glass ceiling" and, in some cases, despite having to leave the workforce due to family considerations, and then return a few years later. Women understand that fruitful conversations promote sound business relationships and teamwork, thus contributing to an improvement in the bottom line.
    Women are usually well organized: they manage a dual career, as homemakers and professional employees. Women often regard their fellow employees as family and take time to ascertain their personal needs. Hence, they can sometimes be taken undue advantage of. Competition is strange to most women because they were groomed for caring, rather than winning!

    Fay Weldon, a writer, stated, “Worry less about what other people think of you, and more about what you think about them.” A former mayor of Ottawa once said, “Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought of as half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult!”

    When women start to follow in the footsteps of many men, by being intoxicated by power, they lose their identity and bearings. Women should focus on a diplomatic approach and learn how to exude self-confidence while maintaining self-respect and deal with the competition without being intimidated or taken undue advantage of.

    Women who achieve powerful positions in the corporate world may be subjected to personal and professional attacks because of their gender. Independent women are strong, fearless, and in control of their homes, families, emotions, and their working environment. They tackle problems with a heads-on approach, being steadfast in their pursuit of success and happiness.



  • Sameoldthing :

    09 Mar 2010 2:42:45am

    There is a segment of men that are very vocal in complaining about equal female participation in management roles. They claim that it is positively unfair...women should merit leadership roles first...not just get them handed to them for being a woman....and after all...the 'merit system' works very well for male representation. Why do women have a problem with that? If they take time out of their careers for motherhood and family obligations or perhaps a delivery of a newborn...then that 17% gender pay disparity is easily explained...they just weren't working..by choice...and what we have is those lazy women complaining again.

    Why should women expect to be paid for less valuable work? Its a fact...women do a lot less valuable work. Well it is valuable, mummies are important...unpaid work is the most valuable work in the world...it is so valueable that you can't put a value on it.

    The REALLY important question is of course...why women were doing 17% LESS work than men. Which of course they were. That is why they got less pay. Real work of course. Mummies are important but that's not the same as being a rocket scientist now is it?

    And of course there are more male board members because there are more men of merit. Because there *just are* more men of merit... because *lots of people say so* and *because there aren't many women who are in these positions* and anyway *they are too busy being mummies to have the work experience and professional expertise that leadership requires*.

    Does anyone else find this stupifying?

    Gender inequity is such a mousey label....we should call it what it is: gender apartheid. We are talking about widespread social acceptance of political, legal and economic sanctions applied to a particular gender.


  • ram :

    09 Mar 2010 2:21:10am

    if it is EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK then it should be EQUAL TAX as men pay ,if there is no difference then do the same

      • Sea Mendez :

        09 Mar 2010 8:24:20am

        Is there a point lurking there somewhere, ram? If women got equal pay, they'd pay equal tax.

  • PS4 :

    09 Mar 2010 12:07:48am

    Ok Ok Ill just say it:
    "glass ceiling"
    There.
    Now we can go another few months before this same rubbish is trotted out.. Again.

  • fredd :

    08 Mar 2010 11:50:31pm

    I used to work in a small manufacturing business. Low volume, mainly one-off custom jobs. The engineers designed whatever was needed, and they were sent down to the workroom, along with an estimate of time required, and hence, how much the job paid (fixed hourly rate).

    We had a couple of girls working there, they were good. They thought it was good too, because they could work whatever hours they wanted, and get paid according to the work they did in that time.

    Then a new feminist fruitcake came in, and caused a huge stink because she, "wasn't getting paid the same as the fellas."

    Probably because she was as slow as a wet week! Don't get me wrong, her work was good, but it would take her roughly 7.5 hours to do a 6 hour job. Most of us (the other girls included) could have done those jobs in about 5 (and pocketed the difference, with company approval).

    This resulted in an 18 month wrangle involving the union, sex discrimination bods, Workcover (when she claimed that the dispute was causing her stress), and repeated appeals.

    Eventually she left, but not before doing a lot of damage to what had previously been a happy, family-based little company.

      • Little old person :

        09 Mar 2010 12:46:59pm

        In my experience women generally do more work more efficiently than men and have a better eye for accuracy and detail. That is why low paying production line sweatshops are full of women. What products did the firm you describe manufacture... children's toys... miniature electrical parts... mobile phones...?

          • fredd :

            10 Mar 2010 12:08:58am

            We made anything metal. If it needed welding or bending or shaping, we did it. Mainly one-off jobs for people who wanted something specific to their needs, and who were prepared to pay a premium for quality.

            Size ranged from a couple of inches, up to a jobs built out in the yard that needed a truck with "OVERSIZE" signs on it for delivery.

            Quality was consistently high across the board(less than 0.2% of jobs rejected). If you stuffed up a job and sent it out, you repeated the job, from scratch, without pay. The extra materials would be docked from your wages. One stuff-up like that, and you quickly learnt to double check every weld and every dimension described in the schematics.

            As I said, this woman was good, but she was slow. It was (in her eyes) grossly unfair that she got paid less than the rest of us (male and female), who could use our extra speed to earn a few extra dollars by doing more work in the same time.

            You picked which of the available jobs on the board you were going to do next -- there was no allocation system. If you wanted to finish early one day for some reason, choose a shorter job.

            It was a good place to work :)!

              • Little old person :

                10 Mar 2010 1:04:04pm

                Aha. So there is your answer, there was no job allocation system and all of the men picked the shorter jobs! Leaving the woman, who you claim was slower, to do all of the more difficult jobs that take longer.

              • fredd :

                10 Mar 2010 4:12:13pm

                The longer jobs also paid more. The $$$ per hour was constant across all jobs, but the time required (and hence the overall price of the job) varied according to the time it took.

                As I said above, most of us (men AND women) could finish a 6 hour job in 5-6 hours; and then do a small job to finish the day off. She would take 7-7.5 hours to finish the same job, then have no time to do that little job for extra $$$.

                Everybody else working there (again, men AND women) had no problem with the system, and used the flexible work hours it allowed to their advantage. When their kids were away on holidays, people would work extra hours to earn more.

                She was just a slow worker who couldn't understand why she earnt less for spending the same amount of time at work. Simple: she didn't achieve as much, whether she was doing little jobs or big ones. We got paid by work achieved, not hours attended.

              • Little old person :

                11 Mar 2010 2:15:44pm

                But in your first comment about the workplace you said that the jobs were paid at a fixed hourly rate.

                Quote: "The engineers designed whatever was needed, and they were sent down to the workroom, along with an estimate of time required, and hence, how much the job paid (fixed hourly rate)."

                Now you are telling me that longer jobs were paid at a higher rate. I don't believe you. Either the men were getting paid at a higher rate for longer jobs and women weren't, or men were taking all of the easy jobs and leaving women the longer and more difficult jobs, or both.

                She must have been a bit of a goer by the sound of it.

              • fredd :

                11 Mar 2010 4:42:24pm

                The hourly rate was the same for everybody, but we only got paid for the amount of time that the engineers estimated the job would take. If you could do a job quicker than that, your EFFECTIVE hourly rate went up. If you were slow, your EFFECTIVE hourly rate would go down.

                I once split a 6 hour job with this lady (job was to manufacture two identical stands) two days before Christmas. The jobs were identical when finished, but I took 2h30m, she took 3h15m. We got paid $120 each for our work, which she insisted was unfair. And no, I didn't barge ahead and stop her getting access to machinery. The shop had enough gear that there was almost never a need to queue to use equipment.

              • Little old person :

                11 Mar 2010 9:36:26pm

                But if you were so fast, then why did you need to choose shorter jobs to finish the day earlier? Surely if you were so fast you could have picked longer jobs all of the time and always finished earlier...

                It is odd that you volunteered the bit about barging ahead to stop her getting access to machinery. And that sometimes employees had to queue for equipment (for example if you were working on two identical benches that required identical equipment).

                I think you are exaggerating your own performance, men often do!

              • Once upon a time :

                12 Mar 2010 2:12:28pm

                Once upon a time there was a very young and talented woman who was unaware of her value and worth. She worked as a casual in an office staffed mainly by casual employees.

                One day she was allocated a job with a young man. The two worked beside each other and every now and then the young man would ask her "how much" she "had done". The woman would stop to reply and tell him, then would continue in her work. After a while the young man began to tell the young woman to "slow down" to "make the job last longer". The young woman asked him if he thought it might be better that they did the job well and at a good pace, because that way the client might be happier and commission more work from the company - which would be better for everybody in the office. The young man said no, it didn't work that way, and asked her to slow down again.

                As it turned out the young woman was a reliable worker who produced quality work in quantity. The young man on the other hand was thinking only of himself in the short term, without a big picture view, and he wanted her to slow down because he could not keep up.

                Because of the nature of the work and the high number of casual shift workers employed in the office, many of the staff were young, travellers, or topping up another income with a second job. The office had a regular core of staff, and a more transient base of employees.

                After a while the lives of the young woman and the young man took them in different directions and they left the office.

                About a year later the young woman ran into a manager of the office. They began to talk, he asked her what she was doing, and offered her a job as a supervisor. The woman had already settled into another workplace whose work and ethics she enjoyed, so she thanked the manager and declined. He told her to think about it and that she was always welcome back in their office.

                The moral of the story: some men do recognise talent in women, but other men still see women in the workplace as a competitive threat and try to undermine their work.

  • anote :

    08 Mar 2010 11:44:01pm

    Yes and no.

    “ Older women are the worst off as their careers have been interrupted or were never launched due to family responsibilities and met with little flexibility in paid work arrangements or paid parental leave. “ Yes but far from the whole story.

    “ The gender pay gap is experienced at every level in the workplace in Australia, the land of the great Fair Go. “ I do not buy it. Statistically it may be true but the statistics probably do not take into account the path to the job, in the job and the different choices made by men and women.

    “ As well, women commit thousands of hours and billions of dollars to the economy each year as the unpaid carers for children, the disabled and the elderly in their families.” Missing the point. There is a general public responsibility to support families but that is limited. The men and women responsible for producing the family have the primary responsibility of coming to an arrangement. It could be argued that single income families of two parent households also contribute more than there fair share in terms of social stability of there children. That is not to say women should be stuck in the house.

    Then we get the argument by some women that they should be in control of their bodies’ blah, blah and want all the choices men cannot have but have the men make ‘ equal contribution’. On the other hand there are men who will not take reasonable responsibility on board.

    Men and women naturally make different job choices that have nothing to do with desires for family and children, although that is part of it. There should be equal opportunity but not claims of prejudice based on simplistic statistics.

    Equal pay for equal work. So it should be but simplistic statistical comparisons do not tell the whole story.

    Equal security and financial independence. Equal security yes. Financial independence? Well equality in the sense that partners should be dependent on each other according to life circumstances. Does this mean every one should be the same? No but simplistic statistics do not explain the story.

  • Oliver S :

    08 Mar 2010 11:34:00pm

    So IWD is the official topsy-turvy day for the Liberal Party? Articles like this (from Pru as well), and Abbott on Lateline talking up the idea of taxing business heavily to provide full-pay parental leave.

    Now quite aside from the fact that that policy will actually have a detrimental effect on women's level of participation in the workforce, I find it greatly amusing that Abbott is happy to slug business with a large tax to fund this, when he was so opposed to taxing business for their carbon emissions. (Don't start with the AGW debate - Abbott's position was never officially against AGW, it was only against a tax to reduce its impact).

  • allan :

    08 Mar 2010 11:33:32pm

    Why aren't Men equal to Women when it comes to the age of 60 and Women stop paying National insurance stamps and Men continue for another 5 years until 65 and ready to drop,
    Can someone explain this one.?????

  • Tex Me :

    08 Mar 2010 10:31:22pm

    Sharman Stone, Liberal Party politician.

    So the ABC opens its blog to ANOTHER Liberal spruiker.

    Why?

    Because IT'S THEIR abc.

      • Zing :

        09 Mar 2010 2:14:29am

        And yet another ALP supporter makes a personal attack on the writer, rather then attack their argument.

        Why?

        ALP supporter. Nuff said.

          • Tex Me :

            09 Mar 2010 8:23:29am

            Zing! A supporter of WorkChoices unfairness for our kids at work.

            There is no balance on this blog.

            Show me ONE article written by someone from the Labor Party.

            You cannot because the only politicians published are from the Liberal Party.

            It's THEIR abc.

            Not enough said.

              • dkril :

                11 Mar 2010 7:04:06pm

                The ALP are too busy covering for Garrett the Incompetent (and checking their own backsides are covered) to write pointless articles for the Aunty.

              • yen :

                13 Mar 2010 6:26:33pm

                Quote:
                "...
                The ALP are too busy covering for Garrett the Incompetent (and checking their own backsides are covered) to write pointless articles for the Aunty.
                ...."

                One would have thought that that person would be well and truly both insulated and isolated by now.

  • DI MEO :

    08 Mar 2010 10:03:04pm

    Dublin,Ireland the year 1978 all female workers who were employed by CADBURYS are paid equal pay a first back then.I cant see why if you are able to do the same job as a male why you should be paid less.

  • Stranded :

    08 Mar 2010 9:12:09pm

    Another argument corrupted by the bitter hand of feminism.

    This is NOT a gender issue ... it's a issue about how we value specific types of work.

  • Ron W :

    08 Mar 2010 8:13:24pm

    I am so sick of hearing about this BS.I am a Left Winger and support equality for women,but Males, particularly in the Finance/Banking sector have been trashed by the Big Banks and other similar Organizations. Get a grip on reality.Unless females need to work for financial reasons they should stay at home (when married etc)and we would have none of the current civil disruption surrounding us.

      • Wining Pom :

        09 Mar 2010 11:02:08am

        I enjoyed staying at home raising our kids while my wife worked. Why should it be the women who stay home?

  • Rhonda :

    08 Mar 2010 6:21:12pm


    ..'more frequent divorce today with worse financial consequences for women has locked them into an impoverished and welfare-dependent old age.'

    I find this hard to believe. My son built up a thriving business and also renovated the home he shared with his (then) wife and son. She managed to do a bit of part-time work two days a week, had no involvement in the business nor the renovations, yet when they divorced she got 60$ of the spoils! The reason being because their son (16) went to live with her. Yeah right! He still spent a lot of time with his father, who continued to pay his school fees and even personal things like deodorant and jox as his mother didn't bother. The minute he turned 18, she was off 'like a rocket' travelling the world - didn't even 'phone her son for about three months at one stage. This is not an isolated case, by any means!

      • Eric :

        08 Mar 2010 11:11:10pm

        Rhonda, you have hit on a subject in which women are more than equal, when the family breaks up. Many a man has lost everything due to a generouse legal system.

        I beleive women should get equal pay for equal work, but as one women pointed out few women are prepared to go into those jobs which have discomfort thereby justifying the larger pay packets.

          • yen :

            10 Mar 2010 2:51:03am

            Quote:
            "...
            Rhonda, you have hit on a subject in which women are more than equal, when the family breaks up. Many a man has lost everything due to a generouse legal system.
            ...."

            Some women are good house keepers.

            They keep the house after the divorce.

          • Suzanne :

            12 Mar 2010 4:01:01pm

            I'm a woman and I lost nearly everything when my marriage broke up. Since it broke up due to his violence (a very common problem), would you consider that fair? Do I count, or would I get in the way of your posturing and stereotyping?

      • BG :

        09 Mar 2010 12:01:31pm

        Divorce is just nasty all round and tends to bring out the absolute worst in both men and women. What happened to your son also happens to women.
        My (female) friend is getting a divorce and as her husband is very wealthy (family money) but doesn't really work he can legally classify their house, car etc as inheritance and not have to give her a penny. On the other hand, he's entitled to half of what she (the only money earner and bill payer in their marriage) earned throughout their time together, including her superannuation, the furniture she bought etc. She's been left with absolutely nothing.

  • Em :

    08 Mar 2010 6:11:51pm

    Why yes "jazz all the way", your comment truly does have a valid point of reason! of COURSE women's pay should be based on their appearance. After all, what good is a woman working if she's nothing to look at!
    The gender pay gap highlights that the equal opprtunity legislation is in place, but not enforced. Furthermore, traditional women's roles in the workforce have always been paid and appeciated less than traditional "men's jobs".



      • Oliver S :

        08 Mar 2010 11:36:45pm

        "Furthermore, traditional women's roles in the workforce have always been paid and appeciated less than traditional "men's jobs"."

        Okay, and look at the life expectancy rates for men compared to those of women - maybe the traditional men's jobs are actually more ruinous to one's health? (Yes the life expectancy rates are a lot more complex than that, but it is food for thought...)

          • yen :

            11 Mar 2010 1:19:47am

            Quote:
            "...
            Okay, and look at the life expectancy rates for men compared to those of women - maybe the traditional men's jobs are actually more ruinous to one's health? (Yes the life expectancy rates are a lot more complex than that, but it is food for thought...)
            ...."

            So, for men and women who qualify for Old Age Pension it would happen that women get more, because they start pension age earlier and they get older before they die.

  • Davey Jones :

    08 Mar 2010 4:53:13pm

    You are witnessing the 2000 year old culmination of the Slave Revolt In Morals -- see Nietzsche. Its triumph will be its demise, as it stands in direct contradiction to the laws of nature and reality.

  • jazz all the way :

    08 Mar 2010 3:54:44pm

    Maybe if the australian women start to look like real women (not truck drivers) - they'll be paid the equal money and also get the paid maternity leave.

      • Oh no the beauty discussion :

        08 Mar 2010 7:58:09pm

        Australian women are very beautiful. I think it has something to do with the great mix of migrant populations that have settled in Australia. Australian women really do stand out as gorgeous in all skin tones and hair colours, from the very dark to fair and very freckled. Even the poorest women who cannot afford beauty products have naturally handsome features and ornament themselves in effectively thrifty ways. I could sit in a cafe all day long looking at Australian women pass by on the street, except that it is rude to stare and probably better to crack open a copy of The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf than comment on the grace of the modest Australian woman.

  • dubious the third :

    08 Mar 2010 3:19:49pm

    Sharman

    "equal pay for equal work will make us a more productive nation, it will make us more internationally competitive,"

    So you're planning to cut men's wages, I can only assume.

      • DannyS :

        08 Mar 2010 8:46:48pm

        ....."So you're planning to cut men's wages, I can only assume.".....

        Well why not? If a male isn't as good at his job as a female why should he be paid more? It makes no economic sense. We could be a more productive nation if the best person for the job wasn't a matter of gender.

        Perhaps it's time more than a few male egos were bruised and relegated to a lower pay scale if their performance wasn't up to scratch.

      • luke warm :

        08 Mar 2010 10:21:47pm

        Probably, she is part of the "Work Choices" team. There will be equal pay for children to, by reducing adult wages to their level.

  • Pun :

    08 Mar 2010 2:45:17pm

    How I detest that phrase "women's work".

      • yen :

        11 Mar 2010 1:21:50am

        Quote:
        "..
        How I detest that phrase "women's work".
        ...."

        It's never finished.

  • David :

    08 Mar 2010 2:12:27pm

    I am all for women getting the same pay as men for the same work. However, let it be fair dinkum work and not dressed up in chit chat about the kids on the firm's time. This is only a personal observation.


      • Jo :

        08 Mar 2010 5:10:44pm

        On the same basis let woman be compared to fair dinkum work, not chit chats about the footy/cricket/golf/wine dressed up as meetings.

        Pay should be for work performed regardless of gender.

      • DannyS :

        09 Mar 2010 7:53:13pm

        Where I work the usual talk, while not doing any actual work, is about the Cricket, Lara Bingle, the pre-season footy and writing or reading emails that have photo attachments of 'funny photos', usually of female genitalia and breasts heavily involved.

        Okay, some of it is by the ladies, but not very much.

  • Zing :

    08 Mar 2010 2:05:18pm

    We should have a female PM.

    It's about damn time we had one, she'll do as much work as a male one and she might even be better at the job.

    Plus, we can pay her half the wage.

      • MarK :

        08 Mar 2010 3:35:58pm

        We probably will in the not too distant future, After Julia Gilalrd, Guts Kevin and Rudd and uses his carcas to build an election platform Bear Grylls style, She will go head to head with the mad monk

          • luke warm :

            08 Mar 2010 10:23:41pm

            Come off it, Phoney Tony is the Bear Grylls imitator.

          • Groucho :

            08 Mar 2010 10:33:00pm

            Can you try saying that again in earth speak and without a gob full of broken bowling balls?

      • Country Boy :

        08 Mar 2010 3:40:11pm

        We already do.
        Expect the pay is definately equal.

          • Fnord :

            08 Mar 2010 4:35:05pm

            We do so have a male PM!

            He's just....on holiday....that's all...

              • Country Boy :

                08 Mar 2010 7:41:47pm

                Julian Gillard?

              • yen :

                10 Mar 2010 2:59:03am

                Quote:
                "...
                We do so have a male PM!

                He's just....on holiday....that's all...
                ...."

                He does not speak Australian any more, because he is to much overseas.

                The other day he said he would "step up to the plate"

                -has he ever done that on a sports field?

                -but often in a restaurant.

          • Kevin is a man :

            08 Mar 2010 8:03:38pm

            At this rate nobody will notice when the switch is made.

              • Country Boy :

                09 Mar 2010 3:46:13pm

                I believe it already has.

      • yen :

        11 Mar 2010 1:23:27am

        Quote:
        "...
        We should have a female PM.
        ...."

        QLD has a female Premier.

        Very popular.

  • Hudson Godfrey :

    08 Mar 2010 1:45:03pm

    It takes a particular kind of conspiracy theorist to conclude that capable women if they are to be paid less are unable to find employment at senior levels in the Australian workplace.

  • John Brigge :

    08 Mar 2010 1:39:13pm

    What bizarre drivel! Women and men get exactly the same weekly pay if the hourly rate and the number of hours worked are the same. Is she suggesting the hourly rate is less for women than men for the same position? got any evidence?

    Let me decode this rubbish. It is most unlikely she wants women to work more hours per week to bring them to equivalence to men, what she wants an increase in hourly pay rates for woman compared to men to compensate for their reduced total weekly hours at work. The problem is that this positive discrimination is not going to be implemented.

    "Australian women are world beaters in many fields" : what - better than men? got any evidence?
    "Thirty per cent of small businesses are owned by women" ; Is this the same as 70% being owned by men?

    "Indigenous and non-indigenous women who do not have equity in pay in the work place"; see above.

    The biggest concern with this pap is that it is produced by a federal politician funded by taxpayers.

      • Blunt pencil :

        08 Mar 2010 2:40:53pm

        Well John,
        A equal concern to me is the author had over a decade in government to do something about it and chose not too.

        As for your comment, I fully agree that a normal person doing a normal job is paid the same regardless of the shape of their genitals.

        This has gone around and around on Unleashed and is the same old garbage.

        If the author wants to write about equity of employment, maybe she could give up this soft target and move to something like the massive disparity in income that took a foothold in the Hawke and Keating years and grew out of sight in the Howard years.

        So Ms Stone, have you got anything to say about the incomes of the corporates that ensure your preselection and heavily influence your subsequent election to parliament? Anything at all?

          • luke warm :

            08 Mar 2010 10:28:09pm

            "A equal concern to me is the author had over a decade in government to do something about it and chose not too."

            That's a bit harsh. It's not that she CHOSE not to, it's just that the 'boys' (John, Peter, Tony,) couldn't understand why she wasn't barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen

              • Country Boy :

                09 Mar 2010 3:47:34pm

                You mean where she belonged?
                ;)

              • yen :

                10 Mar 2010 3:03:59am

                Quote:
                "...
                That's a bit harsh. It's not that she CHOSE not to, it's just that the 'boys' (John, Peter, Tony,) couldn't understand why she wasn't barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen
                ...."

                ??
                But there are more female than male voters, are there not?

                So, why are the problems not yet solved?

  • DocMercury :

    08 Mar 2010 1:39:11pm

    March 8th is also International Women's Day, as well as Labour Day in Victoria this year.

    Seems no women remembered?

  • sammax :

    08 Mar 2010 1:30:31pm

    If the quoted figure of 17% less pay for females is true (for the same work), wouldn't some enterprising business only hire females and instantly get a 17% reduction in employee expenses?

    You would think businesses would be clamouring for female employees in that case. (same work and cheaper!)

      • smurray :

        08 Mar 2010 2:42:51pm

        Yes it is happening: look at the childcare sector, textiles, aged care, NGOs and so on. Industries in this country with lower wage bills employ more women and can pay them less.

        In other fields, the issues are partly that women undervalue themselves, and the employer is only too willing to agree. Take an equally capable, equally educated and experienced man and a woman and most often the man will believe he is worth more and will ask for more.

          • Oliver S :

            08 Mar 2010 10:38:59pm

            It is not happening. People in those industries are paid less because there is less money available for wages (NGOs) or they are generally less skilled (childcare vs finance) or less dangerous (textiles vs mining) than more highly paid sectors. These industries do not hire women because they have lower wage bills (that is some really bizarre circular reasoning you are using there). Fact is that the majority of women choose to work in these industries. The real question is why that is...

          • Jason :

            08 Mar 2010 10:55:55pm

            so educate women to negotiate better and stop complaining if they can't. it's not a man's fault if he asks for more and it's not an employers fault if they accept a woman's offer.

            in any case, more women as pointed out above would be hired in the case where they undersell themselves on price.

          • Oliver S :

            08 Mar 2010 11:38:59pm

            As for a woman getting paid less because they aren't confident enough - surely there is only one person to blame in that situation?

  • Michael :

    08 Mar 2010 1:17:04pm

    I certainly agree with the statement, "More frequent divorce today with worse financial consequences for women." My ex-wife who was employed as a school teacher went onto the single mother’s pension after she left me. Her income has certainly gone down but I am paying her a lot more in child support! My ex is no doubt "certainly impoverished" and will have a "welfare-dependent old age." One could argue this is caused by her own actions but that might be harsh and some might think that I should support her for the rest of her life. Statistics can always be played with to show one thing or another. No doubt this will be an argument for more affirmative action. I am all for affirmative action one way could be to encourage more men into female dominated professions like teaching and nursing. If the wages are so poor and men aren't attracted the wages would have to rise. I would suggest a target of 25% male nurses and teachers by 2015. Wages would then have to rise to encourage males into the professions then by 2020 we could have a target of 50% males in nursing and teaching. Wages would on the writer’s theory be increased to encourage males into the professions of nursing and teaching and woman would benefits as well. We could do the same with all female dominated industries targets, for males!The result higher wages for all!

      • Jason :

        08 Mar 2010 10:57:05pm

        now this is common sense. it still exists!

  • john woodie :

    08 Mar 2010 12:50:49pm

    Would love to comment but as the story is in black letters on a dark background it is almost impossible to read!
    Stop the arty farty gimmicks!

      • Milde Ridd :

        08 Mar 2010 2:59:57pm

        You must have a slow connection or machine. The text is black on white if the page loads properly.

      • cristophles :

        08 Mar 2010 4:03:17pm

        Better check your computer monitor, web browser, or your eyes.

  • rattus :

    08 Mar 2010 12:48:55pm

    I have worked in the employment industry have have seen time and time again female workers getting paid less. Of course companies usually dont have it in writing that that is their policy.
    I have heard numerous accounts of female workers asking male counterparts about there hourly rate and discovering that they are paid less per hour for the same job. One woman explained that she worked in the finance sector of a mining company and handled all the pays. She stated that almost every female employee was paid less per hour then their co workers who were doing the exact same job.
    The real question we should be asking is why?
    We do not live in a third world country.
    There is no excuse. Lets get real and say enough is enough. No matter your gender, sexual preference, religion or colour. If you do a job you should be paid the excact same amount as someone else who does that same job no matter which state you live in.

      • atrax :

        08 Mar 2010 1:43:58pm

        I worked in a service station for three years, doing evening and overnight shifts. Men and women were employed at this particular store and were paid equally and according to appropriate awards.

        Over my time working there, I consistently noted that a number of female employees were relectant to work the potentially more dangerous evening or overnight shifts. They would back there case with the argument that being women they were more vunerable or at higher risk of being robbed, attacked etc. They simply were not prepared to work those shifts and were not forced by management because of there gender.

        I doubt a male employee would have the same success in negotiating safer working times.

        Why should male employees be more subjected to these positions of risk and still be paid the same amount of money as women working during safer hours?

          • rattus :

            08 Mar 2010 7:50:51pm

            It is a known fact that muggers burglars rapists ect will pick a female victim over a male due to the fact that most women are more likely physically not able to defend themselves. Yes women are a ‘weaker’ sex in physical terms. So logically if there was a female attendant on night shift then there would possibly be more crimes. Its great that your employers paid equal pay (if they did). Have you actually seen the co workers payslips? Hourly rates? Its very easy to say that they pay equal but it is not until you actually compare rates that you can truly claim it.

          • What a situation :

            08 Mar 2010 8:09:54pm

            Women should be able to work without fear of being molested. Your story really shows how badly women are treated, and proves that women sometimes sacrifice working extra hours just so that they can prevent themselves from being bodily harmed by men. I bet none of the men that you worked with complained when they were able to work extra shifts and earn more!

          • luke warm :

            08 Mar 2010 10:31:46pm

            "I doubt a male employee would have the same success in negotiating safer working times."

            So did you try, or are you just having a whinge because you didn't think of asking? Maybe if you had been in a union you could have negotiated for better rates for those dangerous shifts?

      • Guy Elliott :

        08 Mar 2010 2:47:14pm

        Yes there is no excuse, but private companies have the right to negotiate their employee’s wages and under the old work choices individual contract legislation the inequity of pay would most likely have been broadened, and may raise its ugly head yet again under the Liberals if they gain power and re invent work choices under another name.

        The old wage accord system set minimum wages for all staff depending on industry, and again what is paid above that award is the discretion of the employer.

        Government employees are paid what the role is worth, but again how does one value a traditionally female role against a traditionaly male role, and even I have seen discrepancies here.

        Like any social change it takes time, but regrettably the old dinosaurs that make the fiscal decisions in many organisations were the choice to pay females less is made are still stuck in their time, where women were not to be trusted, as why train them up so they can get pregnant and leave the office in the lurch when they take maternity leave and may not even come back, especially with the spectre of paid parental leave hanging over their profits.

        Maybe the answer is making the amount each person is paid reportable, but who will police it and what will be the consequences.

          • Oliver S :

            08 Mar 2010 11:51:17pm

            I think it is a fair decision for businesses to be wary about training females up if there is evidence that they are less likely to stay with the organisation due to parenting etc for as long as males. The whole aim of a business is to make money - additional training costs and instability in key positions will reduce their ability to do so. The fact is that businesses are obliged to work this way because shareholders demand it.

            The only way to change the situation for women is to change the aim of the business - it shouldn't just be about making profits it should also be about looking after its employees (perhaps a sense of nobliesse oblige?)

              • yen :

                11 Mar 2010 1:31:17am

                Quote:
                "...
                The only way to change the situation for women is to change the aim of the business - it shouldn't just be about making profits it should also be about looking after its employees (perhaps a sense of nobliesse oblige?)
                ...."

                A business without profit.???

                Would you invest in one of those?

              • Devil's Advocate :

                11 Mar 2010 6:31:42pm

                Easy way to fix it, if a woman (or equally a man) is required to be trained/educated etc by a business before starting work, then there should be a minimum time in the job before that person can serve notice. If they wish to leave before that time is up they have to buy out their contract/re-imburse the training.

              • Oliver S :

                14 Mar 2010 11:47:03pm

                Sounds good in principle. But methinks that it would end up being too similar to indentured servitude when put into practice.

      • Oliver S :

        08 Mar 2010 11:46:09pm

        Were all the men paid the same amount in those jobs? I would be very surprised if it were the case. (If they were and it was only the women getting paid less then of course it should be changed.) What is more likely though is that these businesses have clandistine pay negotiations and contracts which have non-disclosure clauses preventing people from talking about how much they earn so that they can screw the less confident people. That is a pretty dispicable practice in itself and should be abolished.

        But it is also more likely that differences in pay were due to differences in experience and time in the job - I get paid more than several women and one man who perform my role, but at the same time I get paid less than three women as well. This is all because of our length of time in the role.

  • Michael :

    08 Mar 2010 12:37:32pm

    Hmm...pay discrimination based on gender is illegal in Australia. There are a lot of figures quoted in this article. For those of us trying to determine the truth of the matter, would it be possible to disclose the source(s) of this data?

      • Hubert :

        08 Mar 2010 2:01:50pm

        Agreed. It sounds as though this is a policing issue rather than one of inequality.

        The key words are "equal work or work of same value"... Perhaps certain professions which have high proportions of males or females have different pay scales to other professions ?

          • Oliver S :

            08 Mar 2010 10:46:31pm

            Yes. And then there is the definition of 'equal work'. Do we mean equal qualifications? Equal immediate risks? Equal long-term health impacts? Equal flexibility in working hours? Equal amount of unplanned leave?

            These issues are all just driven by vested interest groups and by obfuscation of facts.

      • Thrud the barbarian :

        08 Mar 2010 11:18:22pm

        Public service wages often reflect the tone of similar private industries. So take a look at different parts of the public service.

        In service delivery portfolios (Centrelink, Medicare, etc), wages are on average 10-15% lower than policy portfolios. The service delivery agencies are staffed 70% by female employees. The higher the number of male employees, the higher the remuneration by department.

        So, service delivery in government could be expected to reflect the trend for service delivery in the private sector. Industries dominated by women could therefore be expected to see comparitively less wages growth than those dominated by men, with perhaps the most graphic example being that of child care workers.

        The method of dealing with the legality of paying less on the basis of gender is therefore neatly avoided by employers simply discriminating as a whole against industries dominated by women. If men happen to work there, they suffer the same fate. But if more men chose to work there, perhaps it wouldn't happen.

  • Sean :

    08 Mar 2010 12:30:41pm

    Remember affirmative action. It failed, was unfair and in hindsight was very quietly swept under the carpet. Here we go again. The left wanting politicians to intervene because they think things are not fair. Well in fact they are not for many reasons and its not a gender issue.

      • Oliver S :

        08 Mar 2010 10:48:30pm

        The left? Its funny because I am right now listening to Tony Abbot talking about ridiculously overpaid parental leave policy...

      • Oliver S :

        08 Mar 2010 10:56:34pm

        Oh yes and the author is a Liberal (as stated in her bio). Just so that you know, the Liberals are the right not the left.

  • Milde Ridd :

    08 Mar 2010 12:21:31pm

    Excellent article. Concise, to the point, and easy for men to understand. Highly readable and highly relevant.

      • Oliver S :

        08 Mar 2010 10:54:39pm

        You don't help your intended aim by being sexist. When a man hears sexist comments by a feminist we just automatically assume you must be a rabid man-hater...

        This article just rechews the same old rubbish that has been spouted here in previous articles - none of which has actually been supported by anything resembling convincing evidence or arguments.

  • Charles :

    08 Mar 2010 11:44:32am

    This problem is more about how this pay gap is measured, than any actual differences in pay between the genders.

    Every case that I have ever noted in my working career (30 years) saw women who were equally qualified, and doing the same work, with the same amount of experience, get paid the same.

    Sure, there are gross differences in that the majority of women tend to select careers where they do not reach the same heights as men for remuneration. However, that is generally due to the fact that they pick these jobs to fit in with their family responsibilities.

    This puff piece is reminiscent of Sharan Burrow's dribble, and should be given no credence unless they both wish to compare apples with apples on this topic.

      • Blunt Pencil :

        08 Mar 2010 5:26:10pm

        The theme of the day for liberal party today is to be popular.

        Here we have Stone, mumbling about something which was not looked at during their time.

        Elsewhere we have Abbott rabbitting on about paid maternity leave when he was dead against it when it was his turn.

  • MK :

    08 Mar 2010 11:40:28am

    Sharmon! Congratulations on being the 1 Millionth writer of an article on the wages gap, Please accept your prize of a snazzy new, tonny abbot signature range iron with matching ironing board wcihc come with a cover featuring the mad monk in his best red speedos.
    You came dangerously close to delving into the reasons for these statistics in paragraphs 6 and 7,
    which would have invaldiated your prize.

    but you saved it with shiny C-level distraction of CEOs and CFOs, by definition each company has only one of each C-level psositon and so no two are working the same job, and given how ludicrously divorced C-level pay is to any actual work/resutls, and given it only relates to 0.00001% of the population, its great for a whigne but has bugger all to do with equality

  • Felix :

    08 Mar 2010 11:12:53am

    "The gender pay gap is experienced at every level in the workplace in Australia, the land of the great Fair Go".

    Not the case in my workplace. Gender is irrelevant in our salary scales.

    Can someone show me a link where two people that are doing exactly the same job are paid differently? I agree - THAT would be unequal and worthy of change - not this usual biased perspective.

  • Felix :

    08 Mar 2010 11:12:53am

    "The gender pay gap is experienced at every level in the workplace in Australia, the land of the great Fair Go".

    Not the case in my workplace. Gender is irrelevant in our salary scales.

    Can someone show me a link where two people that are doing exactly the same job are paid differently? I agree - THAT would be unequal and worthy of change - not this usual biased perspective.

      • presactly :

        08 Mar 2010 7:32:25pm

        Yeah, Felix, I can. Early in my career I and a group of colleagues broke the confidentiality clause in our contracts and discussed our pay.

        The bloke who sat next to me was appalled to discover he made $5K a year more than me for the same job - at the same level, with the same background and qualifications and so on.

        Not the first time, (probably) won't be the last.

          • Groucho :

            09 Mar 2010 12:42:51am

            Same here,(in mining).Same job,different people - different salaries.

            Details available-If I can be fecked.

  • Patricia :

    08 Mar 2010 10:47:25am

    I am a strong feminist and was involved with the Womens Electoral Lobby way back in the 1970's and 1980's when Anti-Discrimination Legislation and Equal Employment Opportunity Legislation was introduced by Labor Governments at both the state and federal level.

    I regret that for a range of reasons women are not better placed in our society, economically and influentially.

    As a feminist I am a strong advocate of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, especially when it comes to indigenous Australians.

    However, I am once again aghast that the ABC is sponsoring articles presented by Liberal Party representatives (politicians and advisers), who are quick to criticise others for inaction when they sat on their hands for years.


      • John Brigge :

        08 Mar 2010 2:01:23pm

        What action would you have the writer do? Encourage women to work the same hours as men? Increase female pay scales for equal positions so their pay rates are greater than men?

        Do you have any other solutions to the pay differential between men and women? Maybe a taxpayer subsidy for women in the workplace for working less hours than men?

      • yen :

        13 Mar 2010 6:45:45pm

        Quote:
        "...
        As a feminist I am a strong advocate of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, especially when it comes to indigenous Australians.
        ...."

        I am not too happy with affirmative action.

        The mechanic who repairs my brakes

        The dentist who repairs my teeth

        The cardiologist who repairs my heart

        -all of them, I hope, are where they are because of their abilities. ..

        -hopefully not because of some affirmative action.

      • yen :

        13 Mar 2010 6:48:54pm

        Quote:
        "...
        However, I am once again aghast that the ABC is sponsoring articles presented by Liberal Party representatives (politicians and advisers), who are quick to criticise others for inaction when they sat on their hands for years.
        ...."

        So, if somebody who has been 'sitting on their hands' for years cannot speak up. ..

        -then we will have a very quiet world....

  • Richard Bender :

    08 Mar 2010 10:39:09am

    Like all laments on alleged pay inequality, the author fails to give a single example where men and women are paid differently for doing the same job.

    Tertiary qualifications and years spent on the job are irrelevant in determining the value of the work. Nobody is entitled to a certain level of pay simply because he or she has a degree or has worked for twenty plus years.

    Placing an artificial floor under wages in industries where consumers are not willing to pay more will result in higher unemployment.

      • Milde Ridd :

        08 Mar 2010 12:10:39pm

        If women were paid for the quality of their work, they would be paid twice as much as men who do very little and make a dog's breakfast of so many things from diplomacy right through accuracy.

        Are you afraid of women being paid for the quality of their work?

          • Richard Bender :

            08 Mar 2010 1:01:46pm

            I have no objection to people being paid based the quality of their work.

            However, quality of work and the value placed on it are different matters. My garbage collector does quality work: the bin is left in much the same place as I left it and there is never any spillage. My doctor also does quality work. For various reasons, I and most other people in society, place a higher value on the work of the doctor than the garbage collector and their pay rates differ accordingly.

          • Herr Kaleun :

            08 Mar 2010 1:19:27pm

            ". . . men who do very little and make a dog's breakfast of so many things from diplomacy right through accuracy."

            Since when has it been okay for women to make sexist remarks against men? I just don't get it; every time issues of pay inequality come up, both sides of the gender fence launch into attacks on the other. Had you wrote ". . . [insert a race] who do very little and make a dog's breakfast of so many things from diplomacy right through accuracy." it would have been seen as racist and bigoted. Attacking males is no less offensive.

            Seriously, we're all people - crirticising a person because of their gender, or race, is ridiculous and counter-productive.

              • Oliver S :

                08 Mar 2010 11:10:50pm

                Shes got form for this sort of sexist comment apparently - theres another one a bit further up (admittedly a little more subtle).

          • John Brigge :

            08 Mar 2010 1:53:54pm

            "Are you afraid" Not at all. Got any evidence that women's work is of higher quality than men's?

              • Milde Ridd :

                08 Mar 2010 3:04:23pm

                Yes I have evidence. Look at Stone's punctuation and at Blender's.

          • Oliver S :

            08 Mar 2010 11:15:15pm

            Diplomacy? From someone who comes across as a man-hating feminazi? (Not implying that you actually are one by the way, just that the tenor of your responses makes you sound like one).

            It'd be nice if we were all paid for the quality of our work, but there would (still!) be no difference in pay if that were the case.

              • Little old person :

                09 Mar 2010 12:58:44pm

                Thank you for illustrating Milde's comment with your undiplomatic responses.

              • Oliver S :

                09 Mar 2010 2:00:25pm

                And thank you for demonstrating the hypocricy of certain 'gender equality' campaigns - you seem perfectly happy to overlook Milde's blatant sexism but take great umbrage at my reasonable (if a little colourful) response. You have to look beyond the language used in a person's comment and actually read what they are saying. I did not cross the line into personal insult (which she did incidentally).

          • yen :

            13 Mar 2010 6:51:10pm

            Quote:
            "...
            Are you afraid of women being paid for the quality of their work?
            ...."

            Isn't that happening in businesses owned by and run by women?

  • DocMercury :

    08 Mar 2010 10:19:56am

    Perhaps if they were working instead of carrying placards on the street then they'd be earning more money?

  • RayS :

    08 Mar 2010 9:48:12am

    Under an industry award women earn the same as men for a given role, but under individual work contracts or employment not covered by an award we often find women receiving less.

    This is an appalling wrong that should be righted. No group within society should be able to gain competitive advantage in the employment market by pitching their services at a lower price point. Individual work contracts are the construct, promoted as "free choice", where women are paid less and expected to work long hours without pay.

  • RichyRoo :

    08 Mar 2010 9:38:31am

    The pay equality thing is a dogs breakfast...

    "women lag some 17 per cent behind in pay for equal work or work of same value and in some sector"
    - what are you saying here, are you saying women get paid less for the same job? What is 'equal work', or 'same value'? How are these defined?

    I'm pretty sure in Victoria its law that two people doing the exact same job get paid the same.

    The real issue here is that women make choices which dont lead to big dollars. But Gail Kelley at Westpac seems to do ok.

    As far as the CEO's thing, thats a total red herring, because while the title is the same, as you note more women work for 'not for profit's and one would expect that the CEOs of not for profit organisations would in general be paid less than CEO's of businesses. It just stands to reason.If you can show some discrepency between male and female CEO's in the same industry sector for comparbly sized organisations I would get interested.

    Also the whole '5 billion in unpaid work' ... umm its unpaid work! What are you talking about?

    This article has a lot of facts and figures, but dances around the three core social issues:

    1) The roles in society traditionally considered 'womens work' are not paid well. This includes teaching, nursing, caring and food and hospitality. This is an historical anachronism stemming from the time of broadly unequal pay between men and women. While it should probably be looked at, it would cause significant problems in our economy if hospitality staff had their pay doubled.

    2) Women are able to choose their career the same as men, and if they choose industries and careers which dont pay well, then they will on average be paid less as a group. This doesnt discount the few who go on to be CEO of Westpac or Pacific Dunlop for example.

    3) Leadership positions in our society are handed out based on social connection, not ability. It is an old boys club and we would all do better if leaders were selected for ability, but men are discriminated against by the ruling clique as well.

    Now this article seems to be trying to give the impression that women are being paid less for the same job in the same company at the same level. Is this the case, or is it that on average women choose careers which are not as lucractive?

    You make a comment about 'banking' but I am not sure what you are alluding to. I know at my workplace the women are paid the same for the same job, as required by law.

      • Audrey D :

        08 Mar 2010 1:51:11pm

        your first point is spot on, there is a need in our society for questioning how we value work these days. Why is a CEO paid more than a teacher? why is an hour of consultant worth more than that of a garbage collector?

        the rest is disappointing. Women don't CHOOSE less paid careers, they choose (or do they?) to look after their husband's children instead. What's the percentage of Aussie men doing the chores at home? looking after the kids?
        Why is the work done by women at home not considered productive? after all, thanks to them men can't stay later in the office, work during the weekends, etc.

          • Ravensclaw :

            08 Mar 2010 3:27:36pm

            Why is a CEO paid more than a teacher? Actually some earn less.

            Why does a Dean or Principal earn more than a teacher?

            Should better teachers get better pay?

            Why does Hu Jintao or Kim Jong Il get paid more than their workers?

            These are all interesting questions.

            Cheers

          • Oliver S :

            08 Mar 2010 11:22:06pm

            Women DO choose less paid careers because they have different priorities (in general) than men (in general). By the way, while the mother may choose to look after 'their husband's children', the father generally then chooses (or does he?) to work longer hours to support them financially.

            Stop trying to make what is only a matter between individual parents into a social issue. If the woman wants to work then she should just look for a husband who is more willing to look after the kids. The important part if that there is a partnership in play when it comes to parenting. The exact form of that partnership is up to the individuals involved.

          • yen :

            11 Mar 2010 1:46:12am

            Quote:
            "...
            Why is a CEO paid more than a teacher? why is an hour of consultant worth more than that of a garbage collector?
            ....."

            Probably because the better paid people help the firm earn more money.

            (But why a CEO can be paid for making a loss is weird.)

  • Big M :

    08 Mar 2010 8:41:51am

    Articles on unequal pay appear in UL fairly regularly. The author points out many instances of pay inequality. My problem is that most of us workers get exactly the same pay rate, regardless of gender. The 'top out of sights, such as CEOs complain about inequality. They get paid (not 'earn') an outrageous amount, often getting bonuses while dividends are cut, or workers take redundancies. The government has been completely powerless in redressing this, very real, inequality, so, how will it be able to guarantee gender equality in CEO's pays?

  • Helvi :

    08 Mar 2010 8:37:45am

    Why haven't the Liberals done anything to make the life better for the Indigineous people and for the Australian women during their years in power!
    These too half baked articles are hardly readable.
    The girls have been reading The Woman's Day for too long!

      • Granny :

        08 Mar 2010 11:08:10am

        I do agree with you Helvi, the Libs did nothing to progress any womens' issues. The fact that sales of womens' magazines has been in serious decline for many years now says we are no longer interested in the frivolous machinations of magazines. I have, on numerous occasions fronted up to political gatherings only to be confronted by males obsessed with belittling any endeavours to improve the status of women. I can only assume that the Aussie male is scared of womens' progression. "Get back to your kitchen", was the usual rhetoric we faced.

          • yen :

            13 Mar 2010 7:01:05pm

            Quote:
            "...
            I do agree with you Helvi, the Libs did nothing to progress any womens' issues. ...
            ...I have, on numerous occasions fronted up to political gatherings only to be confronted by males obsessed with belittling any endeavours to improve the status of women. I can only assume that the Aussie male is scared of womens' progression. "Get back to your kitchen", was the usual rhetoric we faced.
            ...."

            Since you in the first paragraph critisise the Libs, one would assume that the 'political gatherings' you mention next were Labor.
            ??

  • Honestly :

    08 Mar 2010 8:15:17am

    To me it looks like we are having An Australian Liberal Women's Day on Unleashed, Stone and Goward!

    And, no, Pru, women all over the world were not impressed with Ms Creer, they already then had the equality you are striving for today.

      • Groucho :

        08 Mar 2010 10:11:27am

        Quite ironic really.Aboriginal people are worse off than when they were recognised as citizens and given the vote.Howards disdain and inaction pushed them backwards,and licensed the public to blme them for all their problems(Hanson policy-stolen)

        Women are still getting ripped off.
        Goward did absolutely nothing when supposedly 'looking after' womens interests- but run messages back to women from Howards boys club.

        "Hi girls,John sends his love.Back to the ironing,cooking and listening without speaking."

        Rudd is almost on a par with Howard.

          • Little old person :

            09 Mar 2010 1:04:01pm

            Ouch but I had to laugh. Still, it is interesting that Liberal party women feel safer publishing articles like this under a Rudd government. I can't remember anything like it when Howard was in.

  • Ravensclaw :

    08 Mar 2010 8:04:14am

    Also just on the poverty thing.

    Have you noticed a significant rise in polygamy in Australia, and have you noticed this is being unpoliced.

    A woman who ends up as a 2nd, 3rd of 4th wife loses a lot of her independence and ends up being little more than a plaything.

    Why aren't Australain women's groups actively protecting and aiding these women?

    In my opinion Australian feminist lobby groups have lost their core purpose, and are more ideologically driven (what women's group supported Palin's bid for the VP) and interested in vindictiveness towards males e.g. lobbying for further discrimination of males in family law.

    There are big moral pursuits that femiminists can follow in Australia e.g. education and assertiveness of migrant women, polygamy etc; as well as more serious problems in the global community e.g. education, employment, independence, health etc.

    The women's movement in Australia needs to go back to their grassroots and soul search their principles. They need to start calling a shovel, a shovel, instead of a thing to whack men over the head with.


    Cheers

      • Arthur 1 :

        08 Mar 2010 9:50:57am

        Ravensclaw,


        "Have you noticed a significant rise in polygamy in Australia, and have you noticed this is being unpoliced.

        A woman who ends up as a 2nd, 3rd of 4th wife loses a lot of her independence and ends up being little more than a plaything"


        How many of these relationships do you know of personally,Raven?If you do knoe of any,and it worries you,have you reported them to the authorities?If not,Why not?

          • Suzanne :

            12 Mar 2010 4:36:38pm

            Don't worry Arthur 1 - it's just an anti-muslim dog whistle.
            Also, a thinking woman would not automatically support a woman running for political office. Supporting Sarah Palin would have been a poor choice for US women, given that she represented a backward/backwoods mentality that would have been a disaster for all people in that nation.

              • yen :

                13 Mar 2010 7:05:56pm

                Quote:
                "..
                Supporting Sarah Palin would have been a poor choice for US women, given that she represented a backward/backwoods mentality that would have been a disaster for all people in that nation.
                ...."

                The use of 'backward/backwoods mentality' just means that you disagree.

                Palin would have called her policy 'forward-moving'.

  • Ravensclaw :

    08 Mar 2010 7:44:24am

    Does a woman who works as a banker for 5 years earn the same as a man (assuming hours and productivity are the same)?

    What about teachers, miners, cleaners, GPs (female GPs are in higher demand), hairdressers etc... are the pay scales between the men and women in those professions the same?

    Are people who work in dangerous industries entitled to better pay? e.g. mining.

    Has the mining industry experienced an impressive boom over the last 25 years?

    Have many women sought careers in the mining industry even with positive discrimination in place e.g. affirmative action?

    Should women in female dominated industries be entitled to greater pay than their male counterparts to make up for a perceived imbalance in other employment sectors?

    Should we disolve a merit based system of advancement so we can promote more women (ahead of better qualified men) to make up for the perceived pay imbalance?

    One area where women are frequently exploited is in the low skilled and small business sector of the economy. In this sector you have mainly migrant women who are unsure of their rights and entitlements, and are frequently underpaid. Yet unions and women's groups only seem to be interested in attacking the top end of town.

    Cheers

      • Nick :

        08 Mar 2010 11:10:33am

        "positive discrimination"?

        Exactly what part of discrimination is positive?

          • Ravensclaw :

            08 Mar 2010 3:10:18pm

            Labor preselection for starters - where it still exists today.

            Otherwise Affirmative Action was a "positive" discrimination policy from the early 80's to approx 2000.


            Cheers

          • yen :

            11 Mar 2010 1:54:38am

            Quote:
            "...
            "positive discrimination"?

            Exactly what part of discrimination is positive?
            ...."

            Every time I hear about "positive discrimination" I think of the bricklayer who on a Monday after a "heavy weekend" was told that the wall was not vertical.
            He banged the spirit level against it and said:
            "A bit more than vertical, even!"

      • Paul :

        08 Mar 2010 12:33:55pm

        Nice one Ravensclaw, obviously all the blame falls to Unions and Womens' groups.

        As you say Women are often exploited in the low skilled and small business sector of the economy and the writer of this opinion piece sat in a government that for 12 years assisted in that exploitation, Workchoices ring a bell?

        Unions can do little to assist non-members, although hard fought for workers right do often flow to non-members. The Howard government vigorously sougt to do away with Unions and AWAs were a direct cause of a loss of conditions and pay for the same low skilled workers you care so much about.

        At least the Rudd government, via Ms J Gillard, are starting to address these disparities through the FWA legislation but God help us all, especially Women if Tony Abbott gets the opportunity to attak workers rights again.

        Cheers

          • Ravensclaw :

            08 Mar 2010 3:16:56pm

            LOL

            I don't know how you draw your first conclusion. It must be this ESP thang, cuz it ain't intuition or logic.

            Workchoices or no workchoices, there were award conditions in place.

            Ending the union monopoly for worker representation is not seeking to do away with unions.

            And "ya de ya de ya" more trashy prayers to Labor.

            Cheers

              • Paul :

                08 Mar 2010 9:00:35pm

                ROFLMA

                My first conclusion was based on a fact thang, intuition or logic not needed. The majority of voters agreed as proven by Howard's resounding defeat.

                Workchoices led to the erosion of all award conditions, another fact again as proven by Howard's resounding......

                Unions have never had a monopoly on representing workers and Howard worked very hard at doing away with Unions and workers conditions. I wont bother to list the conditions won by unions as compared to conditions gifted by benevolent employers.

                "ya de ya de ya" probably your best point but i dont get it, young liberal thang maybe??

                Cheers

              • Ravensclaw :

                10 Mar 2010 11:52:08am

                Then please quote the fact thang instead of drawing whacky conclusions.

                Workchoices kept the awards in place.

                In Workchoices workers had a choice either to represent themselves or have a union represent them on their behalf.

                The union TV campaign against Workchoices started before Workchoices was fully drafted.

                How many jobs have been lost and industries destroyed because of unions? I refer to the great era of the 70's and early 80's where the height of union thuggery saw an almost complete collapse of our manufacturing sector.

                How are those Cowra abattoir workers now i.e. those that took the union advice about Workchoices and kept their employer's position untenable?


                Cheers

  • the yank :

    08 Mar 2010 7:23:22am

    It is a different world from the one my parents faced. Then it was a given that women didn't work, yes I know it wasn't true but for them and their crowd it was a fact.
    Now I don't know of anyone that would even imply, other then Abbott, that women should be at home ironing. Common sense would tell you that besides the need many families have for two incomes the economy as a whole benefits from the talents of having women in the work force.
    That equal pay for equal work is still an issue boggles the mind. There should be no question that Rudd should back such a proposition.

      • Hermit :

        08 Mar 2010 9:13:05am

        Perhaps Mr Abbott was reflecting the reality that the majority of ironing is done by women rather than promoting that as being the correct world order.

        The fixed world view has a great deal to answer for.

          • the yank :

            08 Mar 2010 6:14:47pm

            I'd be interested in other men commenting on that statement Hermit. I've iron my own stuff since I was a kid. And I know other men that do the same.

              • Hermit :

                08 Mar 2010 6:44:44pm

                Indeed. A sample of one isn't very convincing.

              • the yank :

                09 Mar 2010 5:15:58pm

                You don't iron your own clothes? Why not are you armless?

              • Oliver S :

                08 Mar 2010 11:28:17pm

                I personally iron my own (unless my fiancee wants to give herself an excuse to stay up later than she knows that she should to watch a tv show).

                But I have a friend who actually pays his girlfriend to do his ironing (by paying a bigger share of the rent). If thats not bad enough he used to pay his mother to do it...

      • Oliver S :

        08 Mar 2010 11:29:24pm

        Of course Rudd should back equal pay for equal work. But I would want to see some hard evidence that it is not already occuring before there is any legislative action.

          • Pedro :

            07 Apr 2010 7:03:54pm

            It is a myth that women are payed less than men. If a women does the same job as a man, has the same job description she is payed the same. It is illegal not too.

            The discrepancy comes about because you are comparing high payed Mining and Construction workers etc @ 95% male with Childcare workers, Kindergarten teachers and Nurses etc @ 95% female. The difference is due to things like hours, working conditions (like 12hr days and 40 degree heat) and the value society places on the jobs done predominantly by the women mentioned above. A women that drives a truck on a construction or mine site is payed the same as a man.

            When pseudo feminists like Stone say how awful it is that women get payed less than men and others do not point out the truth, the myth is perpetuated. The (female) President of the ACTU is doing this currently. They are saying that the difference is 17%. During the 2007 boom in WA I heard reported that there was a 30% difference (no doubt due to all of the mining and construction projects.).None of these women are pointing out the actual reasons for this. Why is that?

            I would challenge you and the contributors to this forum to give an example of a women they know or know of that is doing the same job as a man and is payed less. Good luck.

            There may be some differences in the private sector due to private enterprise contract arrangements where this could happen. (98% of CEO's are male)The only way to know for sure is for men and women doing the same job under such arrangements is for them to compare payslips . Experience, years of service and qualifications are also factors here, as in all employment.