Tuesday, July 31, 2007

That gender pay gap

I'm a little late with this, but I am mentioning it almost for my own reference; Tim Worstall greeted the last Equal Opportunities Commission Report [PDF] with derision: here are a few gems. [Emphasis mine.]
Women who work full-time earn, on average, 17% less per hour than men working full-time. For women who work part-time, the gap in pay relative to full-time men is a huge 38% per hour.

True. In the talking points:
The average woman working full time is still paid 17% less.
For part-time workers the pay gap is 38% less per hour.

Untrue. You can see how poor journalists get confused, can't you, when the EOC themselves perpetuate such nonsense.

Female part time workers get paid 38% less per hour than full time male workers. Not, as that second implies, 38% less than male part time workers. It's a deliberate distortion to make the problem look larger than it is. When I first saw these numbers, way back when, I phoned the EOC to find out what they were doing. I was told that "comparing male part time wages with female part time wages was not comparing like with like". Liars.

What a surprise! The Equal Opportunities Commission realises that, if everything is actually OK, it will have to abolish itself. So, in its own report, it lies in order to give the impression that there is a problem.
The causes of the pay gap are complex – in part to do with discrimination; in part because women are more likely than men to work in low paid sectors; and in part because women often have to ‘trade down’ or face other work and pay penalties once they become mothers.

Quite. That latter being the major cause.

When will people realise this? Having a child is a fucking lifestyle choice, not a sodding right, OK? If you decide to have a child, there is no reason on earth why I, or anyone else, should support that choice, either by supporting you or your fucking spawn. Why should I support a lifestyle that you yourself cannot? Should I demand that you support my booze or cigarette habit? Quite.
Until we close these glaring income gaps and fundamentally change Britain’s workplaces, our choices will remain limited.

JC on a bike: the income gap is because of the choices that people make: to have children, to care for them, the jobs that are chosen, the flexible hours and so on. It's precisely because people have choices that there is a gap!

Choices have consequences; our society has tried to insulate people from the consequences of their choices and the only thing that we have achieved is the infantilisation of the majority of the population.
Something else they want to see:
That gender-based violence is no longer considered acceptable

Anybody currently think it is? Anyone? Bueller?
an increase in the proportion of reported rapes that are successfully prosecuted

What? You mean that if there isn't enough evidence, a few more people should still be locked up in order to show our committment to gender equality?

Because of the nature of rape, it is often a difficult crime to prosecute; should we just do away with the trial process and just draw lots, or what? What a bunch of illiberal fuckwits.
In today’s workplace requesting flexible working can still spell career death for many women. Instead they often have to ‘trade down’ when they take on caring roles and then lose out on the top jobs.

True. It's that pesky choice thing again, isn't it?

Choices have consequences, choices have consequences, choices have consequences, et cetera ad nauseam...
Anyway, there it is, the last report from the EOC. Thank the Lord for that and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Never a truer word spoken but this report is, infortunately, typical of these fucking QUANGOs; after all, if the problem is solved, then these handsomely paid cunts are all out of a job. So—surprise sur-fucking-prise—they have produced a report that shows that there is a problem and, as we have pointed out, lie through their teeth whilst doing so.

But then, does anyone really still believe that our bastard bureaucrats have any priority other than their own self-enrichment?

1 comment:

Roger Thornhill said...

Totally agree here, DK.

The "truth that dare not speak its name", that of the lower value a woman of childbearing age has to the employer needs to be said. BBC Breakfast had two ladies on the show last week, which was the trigger to my overlooked post on this topic.

One was a businesswoman who complained that it was a nightmare for an SME to hire women when you actually needed people to be in the office 9-5 5 days a week and focusing on the job they are paid to do. Such a fear is not sexist, but purely logistical and economic.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...