Gender Pay Gap

I would guess that most of our generation had a significant career break after becoming a Mum - staying at home till the youngest was at kindergarten then working part-time until the children were into their teens. That was the norm, but it did make it quite difficult to re-establish a career in your forties, fifties and sixties.

However many more of our daughters took much less time off when they had their children, partly because they were generally older than we were, but mostly because of social pressure. Economic pressures play a part but most of us went from two people on two incomes to three or four on one income and somehow managed.

I think another factor is age discrimination. Young women think they will never get another decent job if they try to re-enter the jobs market when they're over forty. Age discrimination (overt or covert) should be illegal as the country needs the skills of mature men and women.

I don't know how old you are, varian, but very few women of my age (I'm 61) took a significant time of time off work after having children, although some went part-time. It was probably the norm for my mother's generation (she's 85), although even she worked part-time when my youngest sister was very young and I remember that most of the mothers in our road did.

My career came to a standstill when I had children, partly through discrimination and partly because I just didn't have the time to put in as many hours at home or networking as I had before children. Although my children were at nursery full-time, my ex still expected me to be the main homemaker and child-rearer when we were all at home. I became a lone parent when my younger child was three and had to cut too many corners at work to be promoted, as I would almost certainly have been if I'd not had parenting responsibilities.

Age discrimination (overt or covert) should be illegal as the country needs the skills of mature men and women

From what I see, it often does not happen like that. The company or organisation start thinking they can save money by hiring cheaper younger staff, even if their skills are less. Well their skills are often less, but they are cheaper, so in many cases, it is justified by saving the company money.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Younger managers are often wary of people with more experience than they have.

Lots of women would like to either work more flexibly or work part time. Employers need to be more flexible if they are to retain their expertise and talent. When looking at recruitment needs they need to be open minded about whether or not you really need a full timer in the role.
I know of a number of very competent women who have managed to rise in their careers despite only working part time - but their employers have been willing to negotiate a package with them that works. If more women in senior HR roles push these kind of ideas and practices things will improve for other women (and for men who don't want to work full time).

I didn't see the Nazi comment as I have just come online now. One thing I do wish though is that GNHQ would not be so fast to delete things.

Ladies,and Gentlemen of course, this is GRANSnet, so by definition we are all grown ups on here. This could perhaps lead into a thread about a nanny state. For me though I would like to make my own decisions. It would be better if there was an "ignore" button so that one could make one's own mind up.

If someone offends or annoys you simply press the ignore button and you will never see another post from them again

But there isn't an ignore button. Or a hide button I dont. O rany other kind of button like that.

And moderationon gransnet is already mild.

You could start a thread on site stuff, but I think everything has been said before.

And not delete a thread that was inappropriate about nazis?
Glad gransnet deleted it so quickly.
Perhaps you should have a talk to gransnet about what you dont like about them? Though I cant see it going well.

GNHQ only delete a post if it's been reported by other GN members for some reason. They don't trawl threads looking for posts to delete!

llrina, if you didnt see the post, how can you know how beyond the pale it was?

I must admit that they do seem to be very quick to delete posts these days, sometimes for the flimsiest of reasons.

I did read the post in question, but it didn't strike me as being 'beyond the pale'!

Not directly linked to OP but this link has a scroll down column at the side about amazing women who do all sorts of jobs/work/ careers but often we have not heard of. Just thought it might be interesting if you had not already seen it.

www.amightygirl.com/

I suspect that when employers need to be flexible about the working hours of their employees, they will be. Or when it makes no difference, or when it benefits them.

Necessity mother of invention and all that.

And so I suspect that those who are not flexible already haven't felt the need, even if employees have. I guess that means that it's still easier, and possibly cheaper, to employ someone else to do all the hours than to employ one person for some of them and someone else for the others.

All of this is speculation on my part but none of it seems as if it could be unreasonable from an employer point of view.

Also, the skill level of a person will dictate how dispensable they are. Someone with rare skills is not as dispensable as someone with common skills.

I cant find the scroll down Penstemmon.

thatbags, it is paperwork too. Two lots for two employees, instead of one lot.

It's not as simple as that Bags. Managers can be narrow in their thinking. I've come across it many times. They have in their heads that a particular full-time role needs to continue in the same way. They may also believe that being in the office for long hours somehow equates to good performance. (In fact some people waste a lot of time in work, chatting or playing computer games or using social media and may be less productive than someone who is fully focussed during their paid hours.) Getting them to take the time and make the mental effort to have a fresh look at how the work could be done is something I have done on many occasions. This can enable a person who wishes to work part time to retain their management responsibilities while someone else does some of the other tasks in the job description. It usually requires HR input to question and its more work than just saying "its a full time role". Managers don't always see the loss of female talent they just accept it.

Good capitalist speak there thatbags. If the market demands it then it is right. We do have to ask who wins from the market being run in this way and who looses. It also begs the question as to whether this is the only way to run an economy - there are pluses and minuses in all types but there certainly isn't only one that works although there may only be one that works for a specific group of people.

I recently came across the term "gig-economy" for the first time. This is where your "flexibility" is going. Teachers are now part of this, certainly in colleges, as are nurses. Is this how we want to construct our society? Having a "gig" (job for a short period of time) when you are in a band in your early 20s may work but relying on this structure of work to support yourself and your family ...

In the second half of my life I have started to believe in a class war - not the old class structure but new and equally opposing ones. I have watched only one class - the elite - do everything including stealing pensions from those they employ and despair of the structure that has formed. Out of this sort of suppression many nasty things have arisen in the past and there is no law that says it may not in the future.

Interesting article appeared 7 hours ago.
Four ways the gender pay gap isn't all it seems

It seems to me that the top now of many companies, institutions etc, including the long running ones, have structures in place to keep the 1% away or ahead of the 99%. And the situationis only getting worse.

Not sure what that has to do with gender pay, but most organisations at the top are run by men from what I can see.

Point 1. of Elegran's link.
Where someone I know works, it is a fireable offence if you ask what a colleague is earning.

I think that enables an employer to hide what they are paying colleagues doing much the same work.

Interesting article Elegran. Picking up on Obieone's comment on point 1, in some countries people's tax returns are available for anyone to see so there isn't this idea of keeping salaries secret.

Reading the article I can see two things that might help. Firstly all pay for all jobs should be open and available and secondly we need another equal pay act to say that part-time pay must be proportionate to full time for a job of equal worth. I do appreciate that employers will play with the "job of equal worth" bit but a few tribunals being won will have them being more careful to some extent at least.

I agree Obieone that the gap between the highest paid and the lowest is getting wider but I am also as concerned about the move towards less security for employees (or those who have been told to become self-employed).

Is the telling people to become self-employed becoming widespread? I know a few people that has happened to, but didnt realise ti could be a national thing happening.

It's been a national thing for ages, obie. Until a few years ago, the DWP used to actively encourage the unemployed to become self-employed by offering financial incentives. It wasn't a lot, but it was more than JSA and people didn't feel so stigmatised and hassled. Unfortunately, rules about minimum wage, holiday pay, etc don't apply to the self-employed and people are now finding themselves much worse off.

Privatisation of Royal Mail has led to an explosion of delivery drivers, who are legally self-employed and are paid a pittance with no employment safeguards. Cuts to public services have meant that former managers are now working as self-employed consultants. There's much more. The ONS has shown that there's been a huge rise in the number of self-employed and the median income is somewhere around £10,000.

My area has a very high number of self-employed - mainly women, who set up small businesses, because there's very little paid work available. Most of the businesses fail.

Thanks for the article, Elegran. It really is about much more than equal pay for equal work.

dd I heard someone on the radio say the other day (sorry can't reference it) that, on average, self-employed people's earnings are half that of employed people. Allowing for the fact that a small percentage of self-employed earn greatly more than someone employed in the same job I found that very worrying.

As I understand it the small business set up for cleaning, ironing, etc., would be legally self-employed but the delivery driver situation is more debatable.

Thanks daphnedill.

Pensions, or lack of, is a problem.

I agree that it's not as simple as my post seemed to suggest to you, jess and gracesgran, and I agree, jess, about narrow-mindedness in managers, but I also think that necessity matters. If a business is running smoothly and profitably in spite of managerial narrow-mindedness and apparent loss of talent, then where is the motivation to broaden one's mindset or to retain a particular person's 'talent'?

I'm not saying this is a right or ideal scenario, just that I think it exists, and it won't change until it needs to because that's what human beings are like.