When averaged out over a statistically significant sample, yes you can.
Equality in pay and conditions and feminism
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
When averaged out over a statistically significant sample, yes you can.
Um, a 4% difference? That's pretty damn small. I mean sure, I guess you could argue that any difference is bad, but 4% is pretty hard to get worked up about.
I recall seeing a study a while ago that the pay differences between men and women doing the same job with the same level of experience and education were mostly due to men being more willing to aggressively negotiate wages, demand raises, threaten to quit, etc. Basically, they get more because they ask for it. I don't have a link to the study handy, I'll see if I can find it.
Pfft. How is negotiating with each individual and paying them what we mutually agree to against the law? I treat the women the same as the men, they simply don't ask for money as much as they ask for other things.
Actually and employer will pay the absolute minimum they can for anyone. If they can make a male employee work for less they will. Women aren't usually paid as much becuase they arent as forceful about what their pay should be. It's a complete psychological thing, and big business will mind screw you every way it can to save money.
For instance on my last job I was paid as much as the women in my office. The other men were out earning me by ten to twenty percent. Why? Becuase of my desperation for the job at the time. My employer could sense my weakness in this area. I needed a paycheck and I couldn't afford to lose it over a few extra dollars.
Agreed. However, when a man steps forward, it is called "being assertive." When a woman does it, it is called "being a bitch." I don't mind, fortunately.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Not it's not. But somehow women overdo it more often than men.
I disagree. "Being a bitch" usually implies being overly hostile, rude, or petty.There's nothing "bitchy" about negotiating hard or a higher salary or asking for a raise, so long as it's done in a courteous and professional manner. Most corporate environments consider assertiveness to be distinctly different from being "bitchy," although there's probably no shortage of bitchy women who want to attribute the fact that many people don't like them at work to anti-woman sentiments rather than acknowledge the fact that they're really unpleasant to be around and work with. There are plenty of men in the workplace who are thought of as "assholes" or "bastards" or "jerks," but they don't have the luxury of using gender to rationalize why people don't like them.
Personal experience.
You don't think perhaps we're just characterized that way?
Bigotry isn't nice.
It's sorta' like stereotypes, Takandjive, they all got their start through something close to actual fact. Women are usually considered notorious naggers ...that did not come about without some basis in fact.
You, personally, might not be a nagger. I knew a woman who was not a nagger. And I'm sure there might be a couple of more somewhere. But ...women are naggers, and it's far more true than untrue.
Baron Max
what you guys are discribing MAY be an issue in other countries but shouldnt be here. Thats because we have strong laws which surport collective bargining (at least we have except during the howard years). What this means is that either the unions or the group of employees in that company sit down and negotiate the rates of pay across the whole group. The indervidual pay will differ depending on age (people under 21 can be paid less, i think it should be illegal but anyway), qualifications (so for the ambulance service thats clincial skills level), and potentually other factors which could include:
time in the company
station (again for ambos, some stations are less popular than others)
overtime
ect
However all this is set out in the contract (and voted on) at the start. Negotiating differences between men and women shouldnt really come into it except at the really high levels (above $100,000) which is the cut off to allow indervidual wage negotiation
time in the company
station (again for ambos, some stations are less popular than others)
overtime
ect
However all this is set out in the contract (and voted on) at the start. Negotiating differences between men and women shouldnt really come into it except at the really high levels (above $100,000) which is the cut off to allow indervidual wage negotiation
Geez, $100,000 per year is not "really high levels" of salary for upper management type people. Even many mid-level managers make that much.
But in the USA, we also have unions that negotiate pay scales, but not every position of labor or skilled labor is union-ruled. So there's still an entire segment of population that must negotiate their own pay.
Baron Max
thats not legal on an indervidual basis in australia any more
Its not nessarly unions who have to do the negotiating but it has to be workers as a group. Why? because of the exploitive nature of employer negotiation
for interest sake the entiprise bargin also has to be aproved (i THINK, the new laws only past parliment 3 days ago) by the fair work commission
Its not nessarly unions who have to do the negotiating but it has to be workers as a group. Why? because of the exploitive nature of employer negotiation
for interest sake the entiprise bargin also has to be aproved (i THINK, the new laws only past parliment 3 days ago) by the fair work commission
thats not legal on an indervidual basis in australia any more
Its not nessarly unions who have to do the negotiating but it has to be workers as a group. Why? because of the exploitive nature of employer negotiation
for interest sake the entiprise bargin also has to be aproved (i THINK, the new laws only past parliment 3 days ago) by the fair work commission
God in heaven, your nation is becoming a national game of "mother may I?"
What's next laws that state that nobody can negotiate the sale of their car, In effect that what they are doing.
you should really look at how unpopular the former legislation was, it alone lost howard the election and the dubious title of only the second PM to lose his own seat all because of "work choices". It gave employers the ability to strip everything away from an employee for $1 a week increase guess who were hit the hardest. Women, the hospitality workers, the young ect all the while exec saleries were going up and up.
You think thats a "nanny state"? *shrug* i really dont care, everyone with half a brain knows that an employer is in a better bargining position than a worker alone. The new laws were brought in to balance that. They do that by using collective bargining
You think thats a "nanny state"? *shrug* i really dont care, everyone with half a brain knows that an employer is in a better bargining position than a worker alone. The new laws were brought in to balance that. They do that by using collective bargining
Yes and in twenty years Australia will be in the exact same place that the US auto industry is now. Collective bargaining works only so far as it is not abused. Unfortunately it is always abused,
As for the previous law, yes it was deplorable, tbut that is what happens when you allow governement to but it's nose in whare it doesn't belong.
This and that
Do you think the factual basis might have some reason for existing? The reason I ask is that people who actually exploit those stereotypes generally don't understand where they come from.
Analogously, David Duke used to compile crime and demographic statistics and present a correlation between crime and high concentrations of dark skin. By his argument, such an outcome was supposed to prove something about the inherent inferiority of blacks. But what he never did account for was history. As we see among contemporary youth and, among others, the cultural phenomenon known as "wiggers", color has very little to do with it.
Nagging women? That precedent has been around for a long, long time. It's even found in the Bible:
Ever hear of a Good News Bible? You know, the simple translation placed by the Gideons in a bunch of hotel rooms? I had a copy when I was a teenager—it might still be buried somewhere around here—that I got from my church upon confirmation; the verse in Proverbs read, "A nagging woman is like a leaky faucet going drip, drip, drip."
People find their manner of empowerment. It's part of the struggle of history.
I agree that stereotypes usually have some basic seed that has been observed in reality. All I'm asking on this occasion is to consider the next level, the question begged by the fact of that seed.
For instance, I might counterpoint that—
—you, personally might not be a rapist. I knew some men who weren't rapists, and I'm sure there's more somewhere. But ... men are rapists, and it's far more true than untrue.
The stereotype has an observable seed, but what is its merit?
If women are naggers, part of the reason can be found in history; after centuries of being dehumanized, traded as political and socioeconomic baubles, and being the property of husbands, women found a way to empower themselves. There's also a stereotype about Jewish and Catholic housewives, their husbands, and "who wears the pants in the family".
That's because calling a guy a dick doesn't strike the same as calling a woman a cunt. But for men, it's largely sublimated. We might call women bitches, comparing them to whining dogs in heat, but if you really want to piss off a guy, call him a faggot. The gender consideration is simply applied in a different context.
___________________
Notes:
Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
Baron Max said:
Do you think the factual basis might have some reason for existing? The reason I ask is that people who actually exploit those stereotypes generally don't understand where they come from.
Analogously, David Duke used to compile crime and demographic statistics and present a correlation between crime and high concentrations of dark skin. By his argument, such an outcome was supposed to prove something about the inherent inferiority of blacks. But what he never did account for was history. As we see among contemporary youth and, among others, the cultural phenomenon known as "wiggers", color has very little to do with it.
Nagging women? That precedent has been around for a long, long time. It's even found in the Bible:
A continual dripping on a rainy day and a contentious women are alike; to restrain her is to restrain the wind, or to grasp oil in his right hand.
(Proverbs 27.15-17, RSV)
(Proverbs 27.15-17, RSV)
Ever hear of a Good News Bible? You know, the simple translation placed by the Gideons in a bunch of hotel rooms? I had a copy when I was a teenager—it might still be buried somewhere around here—that I got from my church upon confirmation; the verse in Proverbs read, "A nagging woman is like a leaky faucet going drip, drip, drip."
People find their manner of empowerment. It's part of the struggle of history.
I agree that stereotypes usually have some basic seed that has been observed in reality. All I'm asking on this occasion is to consider the next level, the question begged by the fact of that seed.
For instance, I might counterpoint that—
—you, personally might not be a rapist. I knew some men who weren't rapists, and I'm sure there's more somewhere. But ... men are rapists, and it's far more true than untrue.
The stereotype has an observable seed, but what is its merit?
If women are naggers, part of the reason can be found in history; after centuries of being dehumanized, traded as political and socioeconomic baubles, and being the property of husbands, women found a way to empower themselves. There's also a stereotype about Jewish and Catholic housewives, their husbands, and "who wears the pants in the family".
• • •
Nasor said:
That's because calling a guy a dick doesn't strike the same as calling a woman a cunt. But for men, it's largely sublimated. We might call women bitches, comparing them to whining dogs in heat, but if you really want to piss off a guy, call him a faggot. The gender consideration is simply applied in a different context.
___________________
Notes:
Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
tiassa thats only because it insults gays rather than the person your talking about. If you call someone a bitch (man or women i might add) it doesnt actually insult dogs because THEY CANT SPEAK ENGLISH. It only "insults" (assuming they do take it as an insult) the person its aimed at.