Share this content

First gender pay reporting figures embarrass top six

5th Apr 2018
Gender Pay Gap for Work of Equal Value
istock_olivier_le_moal_aw

Those in the higher echelons of the accountancy profession have probably been dreading the publication of figures which would finally prove whether women in our industry get as bad a deal as everyone is always imagined.

At a headline level, according to reports on the BBC website more than 10,000 companies with over 250 employees published data, with more than 1,000 firms reporting on the last day.

With a degree of irony, the deadline for producing Gender Pay Reporting data was a single day before the end of the tax year, a stressful enough time for every practice.

The median pay gap among those companies was 9.7%, with the figures indicating that 78% of firms pay men more than women on average, while 14% pay women more. The remaining 8% really are equal opportunity employers.

In addition, it is stated that the national average pay gap between men and women is 18.4%. After so much news coverage and given empirical evidence from almost every organisation that one comes across, it goes without saying which of the two genders is the winner in this rather distasteful competition.

All of this headline data gives a good benchmark against which to measure the performance of the leading players in each industry, including the accountancy profession.

The table below makes it clear that the larger firms of accountants have a long way to go before they reach a level that the public would regard as acceptable.

 

Average pay gap

Higher paid jobs

Lower paid jobs

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

34.4%

36.7%

88.2%

PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited

13.1%

37.8%

49.9%

Deloitte LLP

12.1%

36.0%

49.0%

Deloitte MCS Limited

17.8%

24.0%

45.0%

Ernst & Young Services Limited

14.8%

35.5%

51.4%

KPMG UK Limited

22.1%

33.2%

56.1%

Grant Thornton Services LLP

34.5%

31.5%

91.2%

Grant Thornton UK LLP

24.3%

31.6%

60.1%

Grant Thornton Business Services

18.3%

31.6%

55.3%

BDO Services Limited

21.2%

36.5%

56.9%

Having reviewed this information, it is pleasing to be able to congratulate the best performers. Deloitte tops the accountancy list with a gender pay gap of little over 12%, comfortably beating the national average, although when it comes to having more women in higher-paid jobs PwC rates better, albeit still at less than 38%.

On the other side of the coin, based on the published data if you are a woman it might not be a good idea to send off a CV to Grant Thornton at present, as the fifth largest firm in the country scores unfavourably on every measure. This comes as somewhat of a surprise, given that the organisation is currently run by a woman, high-profile CEO Sacha Romanovitch.

Even allowing for the relatively good performance by Deloitte and PwC, none of this will make comfortable reading for any of the practices surveyed above and, without trawling through the figures for the next firms down on the list, very few are likely to come out looking much more generous to their female workers.

In some cases, it is not immediately clear exactly how firms split their workforces but it seems reasonable to work on the basis that service companies employ the vast majority of workers, while associated LLPs will probably have small numbers of administrative staff and, in a number of cases, possibly some or all partners.

There is also a lack of clarity about whether the remuneration of equity partners is included in any of the figures produced. The initial assumption based on the requirements of the legislation must be that, since equity partners receive profit shares rather than salaries, they will fall outside the remit of this exercise. If that is the case, then real gender pay gaps are almost certainly very much higher than those shown, since the imbalance of men and women at equity partner level in the profession is far higher even than that between the genders amongst the generality of employees and salaried partners.

To muddy the waters a little further, according to a statement on the firm’s website, PwC does include (equity) partners within its gender pay gap statistics. Although the figures do not quite tally with those above, the country’s biggest firm claims to have a mean gender pay gap of 43.8% and the median gap of 18.7%. Ethnic minorities are better treated than women at the firm with a mean gap of 35.9% and a median of 11.7%. Just to add to the confusion, PwC also states that using the government’s methodology its mean gender pay gap is 13.7% and mean bonus gap 37.5%.

A random selection of mid-tier firms suggests that PKF Cooper Parry is a firm that is bucking trends. The average woman at the firm is only paid 3.5% less than the average man, while women occupy 48.2% of higher paid jobs at PKF Cooper Parry Group Limited. Once again, is unclear whether equity partners are included and what impact those statistics might have.

Now that approximately half of the workforce is fully armed with the information to prove that women in the upper echelons of the accounting profession are hard done by, the powers that be might very reasonably expect a clamour from female employees for promotions and pay rises in coming months.

For once, the message may not actually fall on deaf ears since, given the anticipated desire of those firms that are obliged to publish figures to improve from year-to-year, it would not come as too much of a surprise to see some subtle changes in recruitment, pay and promotion policies in those firms over the next few years.

Replies (61)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Luke11
05th Apr 2018 18:30

What a pointless exercise. The pay gap is a myth.

Thanks (14)
Replying to Luke11:
By Tom Herbert
06th Apr 2018 09:25

While you'd struggle to find anyone who believes that the new pay gap reporting measures provide a completely accurate representation of the numbers, they are a start, and force firms to actually think about their employment practices.

What will be interesting is to see how next year's numbers stack up.

Thanks (2)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 10:36

The data poses questions and provides no answers. It is lazy to suggest they do. There is a law in place for equal pay and if this is flouted there is a legal route for redress.
You appear to be 2 days behind in the debate which has already moved on from your stance.

Thanks (3)
Replying to andy.partridge:
By Tom Herbert
06th Apr 2018 11:39

I respectfully disagree with you Andy, and if the debate has moved on then I'm happy to be left behind.

Thanks (1)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 12:03

You shouldn't be because it would only serve to show you have a closed mind on the subject.

Have you read or seen any of the IEA's Kate Andrews' work on this? If you have what does she say that you disagree with?

Thanks (2)
Replying to andy.partridge:
By Tom Herbert
06th Apr 2018 13:25

Hi Andy,

Posted in a bit of a hurry before an interview so didn't quite explain myself as well as I'd have liked.

I don't particularly disagree with Ms Andrews or yourself about the accuracy or meaningfulness of the data.

On the off-chance we find comparable people in comparable jobs in a comparable industry, thanks to the culture of secrecy around salaries in this country we're unlikely to be able to get the information out of them.

As I alluded to in my earlier post, it's a mindset reboot. Like not sacking women when they announce they're pregnant, or not demoting them when they return to work, or not harassing them (all of the above happened to individual friends of mine last year - 2017).

There are laws to protect people, but disrupting your life to go through an employment tribunal, particularly when pregnant or with a young child, isn't exactly top of the priority list.

I don't think the figures are particularly good, and hopefully in the future there will be no need for them.

Thanks (2)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 14:46

Tom, I think the vast majority of people have no need of a 'mindset reboot'. For those that do, the data will not, and does not deserve to, provide the impetus because the conclusions that have been drawn by journalists and politicians are fundamentally flawed.

You don't find anything to disagree with Kate Andrews yet you find blatant misanalysis 'a good thing' for other spurious or anecdotal reasons.

What has happened to your friends is outrageous, but so is the misuse of data to combat it.

Thanks (3)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By VCG
15th Apr 2018 18:07

Thank you very much, Andy, for your thoughts.

I am sorry that you 're getting comments directed to you personally i.e. "you have a closed mind " just because you don't agree with people who delude themselves into thinking that all of this is a "myth"(!!!).

Well, they aren't professional women, I can tell that much! We have come a long way but we still have a long way to go. I know!

To say that I was pushed down by my male colleagues after my maternity leave is an understatement. And I had to put up with the retraining nonsense (as if I all of the sudden had forgotten my maths!) just because my male colleague had looked after my portfolio in my absence!. They fought so hard to prevent me from continuing looking after my clients that they restructured the team in a way that I no longer had any decision making, with the impending loss of bonuses too and nothing I could do about it. Absolutely shocking the foul play that's going on after women out there.

And then the government wants a percentage of women in boardrooms? All companies have to do is NOT to KILL the FEMALE TALENT they ALREADY have! We DO NOT need any favours, we need to be treated EQUALLY!

Thanks for keeping it going, guys! NOT!

Thanks (1)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By dgwsoft
06th Apr 2018 12:15

Tom, it's not a question of whether the figures are accurate, but of what they mean. What they don't mean is that women are being paid less for doing the same jobs as men. Nor do they reflect some mythical glass ceiling preventing women getting into the highest paid jobs.

Studies show that once women and men have children they start to make different career choices. Young childless women earn as much as young childless men. But once they have children, not only do men start to earn more than women, men with children start to earn more than men without children, and women with children start to earn less than women without children. (All on average of course).

Men are (on average) prioritising earning money to support their families while women are (on average) prioritising being at home, or working part time to be able to pick children up from school.

There is no evidence this has anything to do with discrimination of any kind. On the contrary these are decisions that couples are reaching freely, together. They have nothing to do with employers, except that good employers who allow part time and flexible working find that more women take up these options and that increases the "pay gap" they are now forced to report.

And yes, the debate has moved on. This is a concern almost entirely of the political and media classes, and cultural marxists who see equality of outcome as more important than freedom of choice. See my blog for evidence and references: https://june24uk.com/2018/04/04/gender-pay-gap-again/

Thanks (5)
Replying to dgwsoft:
avatar
By dmmarler
06th Apr 2018 12:53

No, the debate has not moved on, and it is not a concern almost entirely of the political and media classes. It is a concern of women up and down the land who are managing on lower pay and retiring on tiny pensions because the system has prevented their progression. The guys then complain when they have to pay lots of maintenance when marriages break up. The State picks up the tab when women have no money either to support themselves in work or retirement. The whole system needs to be shaken, not just stirred.

Thanks (8)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By Halex
06th Apr 2018 13:11

Well said!

Thanks (3)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 14:48

There are lots of things already wrong with society. The misuse of data to prove a false conclusion is another one and should not be condoned.

Thanks (2)
Replying to dgwsoft:
avatar
By hoilidaycat
06th Apr 2018 13:08

"These are decisions that couples are reaching freely, together"!! Give me a break. How many men give any serious consideration to rearing their children? How many men do you know who stayed home to bring up their children? I know of one! When we had our child and I had the fateful conversation with my husband about him doing his fair share the answer came back, "What's it got to do with me?" That's it in a nut shell. Men inexplicably think that because a woman carries a child for 9 months on her own with no input from him that forever after women are solely responsible for everything domestic. Women want equality but men are determined to hold onto their unfair advantages. Men are never going to change unless women force them to.

Thanks (5)
Replying to hoilidaycat:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 14:51

You seem to be blaming society for your choice of the wrong man to father your child.

In any event there is no justification in falsifying the analysis of data to pursue a political agenda,

Thanks (3)
Replying to hoilidaycat:
Quack
By Constantly Confused
06th Apr 2018 15:18

hoilidaycat wrote:

When we had our child and I had the fateful conversation with my husband about him doing his fair share the answer came back, "What's it got to do with me?"

I'm almost tempted to not even believe that is a true anecdote... certainly if it is I truly hope you married in haste and divorced just as hastily.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Constantly Confused:
avatar
By hoilidaycat
06th Apr 2018 16:46

Is that how you smugly dismiss the rampant sexism in our society? I can assure you it is 100% true. I've actually been married to the same man for 34 years but I don't see any difference in my friends' husbands. Some are worse, one is better. Men just assume that women are there to look after them and their offspring. I might add that I also work full time in my own business. I could give you some even worse anecdotes, When I became an Assistant Accountant in an oil service company the men's salaries began a couple of grand above the highest female salary. As the Assistant Accountant and an honours Graduate I had the highest female salary and the lowest male salary was the apprentice engineer straight out of school with very few qualifications. I pointed out the discrepancy (this was in 1992) and demanded a higher salary. I was ignored so I applied and got a position as a Group Financial Controller on double the salary with another company. I still remember the jaw dropping expression of the Managing Director as I handed in my resignation. Men really don't get it, it's about time they did. Women are a hugely under utilised resource. I could tell you so many more stories, all 100% true. Just ask the women around you.

Thanks (4)
Replying to hoilidaycat:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 17:24

Do you think that is good reason for data to be misused?

If you 'demand' change the data to support your argument should be analysed rigorously and irrefutably. It should not be the perversion of truth that this article conveys. This article does not help you, it sets you back.

The data informs us that the gap between 22-39 year olds in negligible and in 2015 for 22-29 olds the gap was actually in favour of women. Did you know that?

Thanks (0)
Replying to hoilidaycat:
Quack
By Constantly Confused
09th Apr 2018 10:35

hoilidaycat wrote:

Is that how you smugly dismiss the rampant sexism in our society? I can assure you it is 100% true. I've actually been married to the same man for 34 years but I don't see any difference in my friends' husbands. Some are worse, one is better. Men just assume that women are there to look after them and their offspring. I might add that I also work full time in my own business. I could give you some even worse anecdotes, When I became an Assistant Accountant in an oil service company the men's salaries began a couple of grand above the highest female salary. As the Assistant Accountant and an honours Graduate I had the highest female salary and the lowest male salary was the apprentice engineer straight out of school with very few qualifications. I pointed out the discrepancy (this was in 1992) and demanded a higher salary. I was ignored so I applied and got a position as a Group Financial Controller on double the salary with another company. I still remember the jaw dropping expression of the Managing Director as I handed in my resignation. Men really don't get it, it's about time they did. Women are a hugely under utilised resource. I could tell you so many more stories, all 100% true. Just ask the women around you.

Hope that rant made you feel better...

Like I say, I've worked in predominantly female teams, my direct manger has been female more often than male and I have seen employers bend over backwards to accommodate women who want to have children (while treating the few men who dared to ask for time off for their children as strange).

I worked with one woman who was awful, truly awful, at her job. She nevertheless earned the same as everyone else and after a year at the firm had a baby. I then had to do her work while her role was held open for a year. She came back for a month after her maternity then announced she was pregnant again.

Meanwhile the only guy in the department asked for paternity leave and was begrudgingly given the absolute bare minimum, then treated like he had let the firm down when he came back.

Let's have gender equality. But that has to work both ways.

#Edit# Having forced myself to re-read your wall of text I note you are complaining about things that happened decades ago. Are you honestly using something you claim happened in 1992 to say the world is messed up now?

Thanks (1)
Replying to hoilidaycat:
avatar
By Mr_awol
06th Apr 2018 17:00

hoilidaycat wrote:

"These are decisions that couples are reaching freely, together"!! Give me a break. How many men give any serious consideration to rearing their children? How many men do you know who stayed home to bring up their children? I know of one! When we had our child and I had the fateful conversation with my husband about him doing his fair share the answer came back, "What's it got to do with me?" That's it in a nut shell. Men inexplicably think that because a woman carries a child for 9 months on her own with no input from him that forever after women are solely responsible for everything domestic. Women want equality but men are determined to hold onto their unfair advantages. Men are never going to change unless women force them to.

I have no issue with equality. I have issues with discrimination. Furthermore, we live in a Capitalist world where employers seek to reward hard work, dedication, experience and skills rather than pool staff by arbitrary indicators (be that race, sex, gender, hair colour, star sign or anything else that has no bearing on their value to the employer) and make sure they promote/reward equal numbers from each group.

You seem to think that because your husband didn't want to pitch in that none do. Whether or not that is the case, the answer is perhaps to have that conversation BEFORE marrying someone and having children with them, rather than expecting a leg up in life to make up for 'missed opportunities' that were nothing to do with the people you now seek to gain an unfair advantage over.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Luke11:
avatar
By Halex
06th Apr 2018 12:04

What an idiot!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Halex:
By k743snx
06th Apr 2018 13:07

Constructive!

Thanks (0)
Replying to k743snx:
avatar
By Halex
06th Apr 2018 13:12

Sorry - I'm in fighting mood!!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Halex:
avatar
By Luke11
06th Apr 2018 17:21

Care to expand? I've read your other wall-of-text comment and it made me laugh to be honest. I thought this discussion was about the imaginary "gender pay gap" not "miscellaneous anecdotal problems I have personally faced at work".

While we're on the topic of being completely off-topic, the percentage of women working in sewers or as refuse collectors is roughly zero. Does this concern you at all? Or is equality only important in the nice jobs?

Thanks (4)
Replying to Luke11:
avatar
By Mr_awol
06th Apr 2018 17:48

Luke11 wrote:

While we're on the topic of being completely off-topic, the percentage of women working in sewers or as refuse collectors is roughly zero. Does this concern you at all? Or is equality only important in the nice jobs?

It's worse than that to be fair.

She wants fair pay and promotional opportunities - and if it ended there then I'd have no issue. But she also wants a twelve month sabbatical for each baby and to work part time if/when she does come back (whilst still getting promoted, obviously). Oh and flexible working outside core hours (which normally results in lower productivity as customers and suppliers are probably shut and the staff she's supposed to be in charge of all work 9-5) Finally, she want us to force her husband to run the hoover round once in a while.

I think that's it. Oh an if we object then it must be US that are deluded.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Luke11:
avatar
By Diverse Synergy
08th Apr 2018 08:55

Amen Luke11. What worries me, is that even highly educated and professionally qualified ACCOUNTANTS - who are supposed to be trained to evaluate statistics, and consider all the underlying sub-factors behind figures, swallow this utter garbage of a narrative.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Philipbwood
06th Apr 2018 10:17

So I guess it is a bad time for males either thinking of entering the profession or even worse, those who are already committed and looking for promotion and career progression. Yet more institutional discrimination.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By dmmarler
06th Apr 2018 10:24

Interesting, it is the guys who are responding to this article. I still remember being told (in a big 6 firm then) that despite all my qualifications I would not get into the next rung of the qualifieds' career ladder as I was female. (It was put less elegantly, so I have not reported verbatim.)

Thanks (4)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 10:36

When was this and what did you do about it?

Thanks (0)
Replying to andy.partridge:
avatar
By dmmarler
06th Apr 2018 12:40

Hi Andy,

Some time ago. The Partner was apologetic when I tackled him. They had given a promotion to another guy as they wanted to keep him. I got a job outside the profession and so did he the next year. My large client moved elsewhere. This is probably why there are fewer female role models in the higher ranks of the profession which then perpetuates the differences.

Thanks (0)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 14:55

Thanks for your reply, but knowing the law was on your side, why did you not take it further? You left anyway so it couldn't have been for a quiet life within the firm.

Thanks (1)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By 41115BARRI
06th Apr 2018 10:51

Well I have been looking for a female suitable to progress to directorship for several years now, without success. Anyone out there looking for progression and responsibility in a, currently 5 director, 3 shareholder, 4 office firm in the Staffs/Shrops/Cheshire area?
Phil Wood, MD. www.barringtons.co.uk

Thanks (1)
Replying to dmmarler:
By k743snx
06th Apr 2018 10:53

That was illegal - but nothing to do with a supposed "pay gap".

Get more women on building sites and bin collections, instead of just doing the "nice" jobs - then I might look on workplace "gender" differences in a kinder light.

(PS: stop the women-only gyms as well).

Thanks (1)
avatar
By meadowsaw227
06th Apr 2018 10:30

IMHO
Men are not equal to women and women are not equal to men and never will be.
All the legislation in the world will not change it either.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 10:37

Dear Mr Fisher
What a load of twaddle. Have you really been so brainwashed to believe such PC nonsense?
There are no figures that should embarrass the top 6 because there are no conclusions that can be drawn from the data.
You write, ' . . . publication of figures which would finally prove whether women in our industry get as bad a deal as everyone is always imagined.'
Such hyperbole is indicative that your piece has no credibility. You have fallen for the hoax whereby a pressure group starts with the conclusion they wish to reach and misuse the data to make it fit.
Shame on you.

Thanks (6)
Replying to andy.partridge:
By k743snx
06th Apr 2018 10:57

PC nonsense or not - 'fraid it looks like we're stuck with it. Thankfully, my place is below the reporting threshold re numbers employed, so we're spared any involvement - for now.

I see the FT is in full "pay gap" mode on its front page this morning - not surprising as they've constantly been one of its main cheerleaders.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dgilmour51
06th Apr 2018 10:41

Indeed - the 'measure' is merely a spurious aggregation of numbers.
Personally I see employees as a resource and care not a whit of their gender, real, identified/other-trendy-epithet or otherwise.
They are there, like any other resource, to be exploited in furtherance of generating profit.
This is best catalysed by rewarding them according to their value contribution.
Whilst I am all for equality of opportunity, having provided that it is up to the employee to leverage the opportunities offered, NOT up to me to run their life for them.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
06th Apr 2018 10:55

Conclusion: there are a lot more men at the top jobs in those firms than women. What a surprise.
Profession still has a long way to go before women take over the top jobs, although it is slowly getting there- I remember when I started in tax there were about 2 women and 40 men in the department, now most firms are much better than that.
All these surveys really prove is that women occupy more of the lower paid jobs- and baring in mind most secretaries are still female, that would affect the figures too.
It's still useful information, but the real information that is needed is pay comparisons for people in the same job and same level of experience, etc.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
By k743snx
06th Apr 2018 11:04

I have to smile when some militant feminist waves her arms about over lack of executive women in FTSE-100 companies, then spends the rest of her time denouncing the capitalist system.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
Quack
By Constantly Confused
06th Apr 2018 15:21

Ian McTernan CTA wrote:

Profession still has a long way to go before women take over the top jobs, although it is slowly getting there- I remember when I started in tax there were about 2 women and 40 men in the department, now most firms are much better than that.

I have never worked in a tax department where there were more men than women...

The head of the department has generally been male I confess (though notably not always), but below that it was a... what's the opposite of a sausage-fest?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Mr_awol
06th Apr 2018 11:26

I've got to say, I'm thoroughly bored with this gender pay gap nonsense - but this article has raised one mildly interesting point/observation in my mind. Whether it counts as sexism I'm not convinced, but it does indicate different treatment for two people based partly on their gender:

A few months ago we had a very sexist article from someone who basically blamed men for stunting her career growth opportunities and claimed that her success was in spite of (and spurned on by) the fact that women are oh so badly treated and discriminated against. This article was written by a woman.

A few weeks ago we had another ridiculous article about how 'something must be done' and suggesting that employers were 'missing out' by not employing more women in senior roles and even suggesting that to 'maximise profitability' they should either pay women more, promote more women, or generally introduce a gender bias. It didn't substantiate WHY women would do such a better job then men and it completely missed the irony of it's hypocritical stance, but again it was written by a woman.

Now we have this. Some irrelevant stats, and more of the same twaddle about how this 'proves' that women are 'hard done by'. Only difference is this one was penned by a geezer.

So, whilst the whole thing is ridiculous no matter who writes it, I can somewhat understand the self-interest angle from the female authors. When the chaps start joining in, it feels worse somehow. It's similar to the cringe-worthy feeling you get when some attention seeking male announces that they are a 'feminist'.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 11:47

With the internet 'everyone' is a writer, an author, a blogger. The market is saturated and so the message needs to be more and more outrageous to garner attention.

The message we are being force-fed is 'all women are victims' which is seriously wrong. As for the preposterous Stella Creasey MP conflating this with #MeToo campaigning. The heart sinks, the motive stinks.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Halex
06th Apr 2018 12:03

I see it is mainly men responding to this. You really don't get it do you? Have you any idea how angry many women are? Then you whine about it being a little more difficult for young men to get into well paid jobs than it used to be.
There are a number of reasons why women don't get paid as much:
1. You announce your pregnancy and you might as well disappear through a hole in the floor. That's the last time anyone will consider asking your opinion on anything.
2. You cut back your maternity leave to 4 months, about the minimum you can get away with (well who needs sleep anyway) only to find that your job, office and seat around the senior table has been given to a nice young man. Despite protests you are now sat with the data entry staff. Apparently it was an organisational reshuffle and other people were affected too (except there doesn't seem to be anyone else involved). The nice young man occassionally condescends to drop some work your way and asks if you can cope, forgetting that you set the system up in the first place, are more qualified, have more experience under your belt and generally understand the things he doesn't.
3. The work place is structured around a 9-5 availability that suits those without child care responsibility. Meetings are held at 4.30pm - what a shame - you weren't there when that new project was being set up.
4. Most childcare and housework is carried out by women - i.e. you men are not picking up your fair share.
5. It is often difficult to find childcare that fits around work - I know - I have tried many different and inventive solutions, they mainly failed.
6. Once you have had to take a child care break because of the inevitable child care failure you are treated as being only capable of data entry, despite the degree and accountancy qualification and all the fantastic things you managed to get set up, funded, and supported in between the childcare. It seems that unless you were paid for these things they don't really count as experience.

Of course, a sample size of one isn't statistically significant. If you want that then go to the Harvard Business Review.
Gender bias is alive and kicking in the workplace, you just probably don't recognize it.

Thanks (9)
Replying to Halex:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 12:10

Dear Halex
Your account appears to have been hacked. Best tell Sift urgently.

Thanks (1)
Replying to andy.partridge:
avatar
By Halex
06th Apr 2018 12:16

Ha ha!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Halex:
avatar
By hoilidaycat
06th Apr 2018 12:52

You are completely correct. The system has been set up by men to favour men. The only way to escape the structural entirely arbitrary biases is to set up your own business and then as if by magic women can have it all. What galls me is that most of these men who bleat there is no gender bias never gave it more than 10 seconds thought (if that) to take their full share of child rearing. If they did anything like their full share things would change pretty quick.

Thanks (3)
Replying to hoilidaycat:
avatar
By dgilmour51
06th Apr 2018 14:20

hoilidaycat wrote:

The system has been set up by men to favour men.

Its this sort of unthought-through idiocy that undermines any legitimacy in argument put forward by those with generally two X chromosomes.
'The system' evolved in the context of the prevalent culture evolution and over many centuries.
It is only since the 1930's that, at least in the Western World, there has been shifting in the gender roles - much catalysed in Europe by two wars which seriously perturbed cultural mores.
The system was never set-up, in the sense of 'designed', at all. It simply evolved.
The evolution continues - and a feature of evolution is that cataclysmic change, certainly in only one or two generations, doesn't feature.
In my view the comment merely exhibits a paucity of intellectual or analytical rigour and typifies a level of emotionally driven knee-jerk reaction that just detracts from any otherwise persuasive argumentation.
Thanks (1)
avatar
By matchmade
06th Apr 2018 12:24

What a totally pointless exercise. If these surveys showed that female employees with pretty-well the same degree of experience, qualifications, responsibility and job role were systematically paid less than male employers, then I would agree we have a problem.

However these figures don't show this and make no claim to. All they appear to show is that in most large companies there are more men in better-paid and more responsible senior roles. Well, duh. This isn't a "pay gap": it is an inevitable result when huge numbers of women choose to take career breaks to bring up children, and then choose to work part-time when the children are older, partly to be "there" for the children or elderly relatives, but often also because they are sick to death of the career rat-race and don't *want* to go back to work, or they want something less well-paid but less stressful. In my wife's lines of work (teaching, then an NHS medical professional), for example, women vastly outnumber men, and in the NHS in particular, most of them only work part-time; this is only economically practical because they conveniently all have male partners or husbands who work full-time and are the main wage-earners. If you said to most of these women: "why don't *you* work full-time and earn more money and thereby do your feminist duty to close the "pay gap", while your partner stays at home and works part-time?", I know what their answer would be.

In other words, in our culture women consider themselves entitled and have a degree of freedom to choose between a series of life options, while men, by and large, do not have these choices - they are expected just to keep on the treadmill of full-time work, and generally they (come to) prefer this or put up with it. Meanwhile they are being castigated for their "male privilege", while no-one talks about the value for women of being liberated to work part-time or take time off to bring up children (and yes, I know that is hard work too).

Thanks (2)
Replying to matchmade:
avatar
By Halex
06th Apr 2018 13:09

Nope - you still don't get it. If you really believe that women have a completely free choice then so do men. But most men choose not to take the sharing role.

Women do want to go back to work, but on the same terms as the men - i.e. why should a women put in 40-50 hours of paid work and still have to pick up another 40 hours of domestic work while the other half only has to do the paid work.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Halex:
avatar
By dmmarler
06th Apr 2018 13:54

We all need wives, Halex.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Halex:
avatar
By andy.partridge
06th Apr 2018 14:58

That's a domestic issue to sort out with your spouse, not a stick to beat employers with.

Thanks (2)

Pages