Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Saint Billinge

Is it still a man's world!

46 posts in this topic

From the Church of England, to politics to boardroom, is it still an uphill struggle for women. It took many years even for the FA to lift its ban on women playing football on all their affiliated grounds. I was told recently that a women's place in in the kitchen and having babies!

I'm firmly on the side of women, after all I married one! :D Seriously, I do think its all outdated and good luck to women in their desire to move on. So, is it still a man's world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it depends, in some situations women get the upper hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In those organisations heading the way of the dinosaurs it probably is still a mans world.

In my experience there's a lot of organisations out there doing a lot of hard work to get the work/life balance right for male and female staff and making sure not to neglect 50% of the talent pool by discriminating against women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should stick to the Oliver Reed theory: "a woman should behave like an angel to my friends, a nun in the street and a whore in bed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In those organisations heading the way of the dinosaurs it probably is still a mans world.

In my experience there's a lot of organisations out there doing a lot of hard work to get the work/life balance right for male and female staff and making sure not to neglect 50% of the talent pool by discriminating against women.

St Helens Council is still holding out over past discrimination against women and equal pay. My wife is one of many who have waited several years over the continued wrangling, even though some councils have conceded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

St Helens Council is still holding out over past discrimination against women and equal pay. My wife is one of many who have waited several years over the continued wrangling, even though some councils have conceded.

Which is wrong, but I guess there hardly flush with cash right now, I heard the news about Birmingham council being liable for £700 and something million, that'd a leave a fair dent in the annual budget!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is wrong, but I guess there hardly flush with cash right now, I heard the news about Birmingham council being liable for £700 and something million, that'd a leave a fair dent in the annual budget!

But how much have they spent on legal fees fighting the case over several years? Councils still waste a vast amount of money, as well as huge salaries for a lucky few - and handsome severance packages for failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how much have they spent on legal fees fighting the case over several years? Council's still waste a vast amount of money, as well as huge salaries for a lucky few - and handsome severance packages for failure.

I'm not going to argue in favour of them or there point of view, but I guess what they've spent on legal fees is probably a drop in the ocean compared to what the potential liability is.

Not sure how "huge salaries for a lucky few" is relevent to the "mans world" theme of the thread, here in Wigan the lucky few doesn't seem to discriminate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue in favour of them or there point of view, but I guess what they've spent on legal fees is probably a drop in the ocean compared to what the potential liability is.

Not sure how "huge salaries for a lucky few" is relevent to the "mans world" theme of the thread, here in Wigan the lucky few doesn't seem to discriminate!

It was just to the fact that councils cannot cry poverty to deny women what is rightfully due yet still pay huge salaries that continue to be criticised under the prevalent climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In those organisations heading the way of the dinosaurs it probably is still a mans world.

In my experience there's a lot of organisations out there doing a lot of hard work to get the work/life balance right for male and female staff and making sure not to neglect 50% of the talent pool by discriminating against women.

I read an interesting little factoid the other day, which sounds plausible. There is only a small difference between the pay of men and women until they start having children, at which point the women leave their careers and inevitably fall massively behind. As the article I was reading put it - there's no glass ceiling, only a nappy ceiling.

The solution, as put forward by "I agree with Nick" Clegg, seems to me to involve fathers more in childcare and to share parental rights more equitably..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting little factoid the other day, which sounds plausible. There is only a small difference between the pay of men and women until they start having children, at which point the women leave their careers and inevitably fall massively behind. As the article I was reading put it - there's no glass ceiling, only a nappy ceiling.

The solution, as put forward by "I agree with Nick" Clegg, seems to me to involve fathers more in childcare and to share parental rights more equitably..

The historic gap which saw men and women paid different rates for the same (or same level) job doesn't seem to exist any more. The gap such as it is seems a lot more nuanced. Your assessment of a nappy ceiling seems to be borne out - and it's also worth saying that if you use the blunt split of what the hourly pay is for men and women and then locate a difference it's men who are often behind in most of the younger age ranges in the western world.

I don't particularly see any block on women's progress in the UK that doesn't also exist for men(*). The increasing dominance of all aspects of our society by the 7% who got a paid-for education is what concerns me more.

(* with a few fairly obvious cultural and religious exceptions that we can have a good old froth about later)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just to the fact that councils cannot cry poverty to deny women what is rightfully due yet still pay huge salaries that continue to be criticised under the prevalent climate.

£187k to run an organisation the size of a council isn't huge by any means. I'd actually say it was about right.

Just have a look into the private companies that are talking over the public sector if you want to see huge salaries. That's where the money is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The historic gap which saw men and women paid different rates for the same (or same level) job doesn't seem to exist any more.

Good. It is illegal to pay men and women different amounts for the same job and has been for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. It is illegal to pay men and women different amounts for the same job and has been for some time.

Indeed.

But it's worth remembering that whenever the Fawcett Society put out a press release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just to the fact that councils cannot cry poverty to deny women what is rightfully due yet still pay huge salaries that continue to be criticised under the prevalent climate.

I'd imagine the salaries paid out by councils are in fact a small percent of of the overall budget. Sure I read (I'll try and dig out the figures when I've time if your interested) that the liability in Birmingham was roughly 1/3 of there annual overall budget. Cutting salaries will not pay the liability.

So to flip the question back, which services would you see cut by St Helens council to rectify these historical underpayments or would you propose some sort of increase in council tax payments by the good people of St Helens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine the salaries paid out by councils are in fact a small percent of of the overall budget. Sure I read (I'll try and dig out the figures when I've time if your interested) that the liability in Birmingham was roughly 1/3 of there annual overall budget. Cutting salaries will not pay the liability.

So to flip the question back, which services would you see cut by St Helens council to rectify these historical underpayments or would you propose some sort of increase in council tax payments by the good people of St Helens?

I can see your point but should the women just give up, when there is still money wasted? As for your other point, the Prime Minister is on a lot less in terms remuneration! It would be interesting as to what councils have in terms of valuable paintings etc, some of which are stored away? I'm sure there was a TV programme on the subject.

I accept that cutting the bigger salaries will not cut the liability, it's simply the injustice. Hasn't it been said that executive pay is going up excessively whereas the ordinary workers are bearing the brunt of the downturn? You don't see too many executives marching in protest!

Anyhow, the legal wrangling will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting little factoid the other day, which sounds plausible. There is only a small difference between the pay of men and women until they start having children, at which point the women leave their careers and inevitably fall massively behind. As the article I was reading put it - there's no glass ceiling, only a nappy ceiling.

The solution, as put forward by "I agree with Nick" Clegg, seems to me to involve fathers more in childcare and to share parental rights more equitably..

On the face of it it strikes me as a good idea, but wonder how much consultation is done with those effected, would women by happy to share there maternity leave with a partner? Might it open some up to pressure to return to work early, when infact they'd prefer to use the 12 months themselves?

Also wonder what uptake there is on existing legislation, can't permies take 10 weeks off (unpaid) in the first 5 years of a childs life? In all the places I've worked, only ever encountered one permie who took advantage of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting little factoid the other day, which sounds plausible. There is only a small difference between the pay of men and women until they start having children, at which point the women leave their careers and inevitably fall massively behind. As the article I was reading put it - there's no glass ceiling, only a nappy ceiling.

The solution, as put forward by "I agree with Nick" Clegg, seems to me to involve fathers more in childcare and to share parental rights more equitably..

There's something in this. My other half is a lawyer and not only is the above applicable but I'd also point out that the women in her firm work a damn sight harder than the men do, only to then disappear to have babies just at the time in their career when they'd be expecting to make partner (whether salaried or equity). Purely by dint of being the last ones left in the building the men then find themselves being made up. Nothing to do with talent or work ethic, more being in the right place at the right time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see your point but should the women just give up, when there is still money wasted? As for your other point, the Prime Minister is on a lot less in terms remuneration! It would be interesting as to what councils have in terms of valuable paintings etc, some of which are stored away? I'm sure there was a TV programme on the subject.

I accept that cutting the bigger salaries will not cut the liability, it's simply the injustice. Hasn't it been said that executive pay is going up excessively whereas the ordinary workers are bearing the brunt of the downturn? You don't see too many executives marching in protest!

Anyhow, the legal wrangling will continue.

Are council salaries excessive? I've never looked into it to be honest, on the face of it they don't strike me as being to bad when compared to what those in the private sector earn for running similar sized organisations.

The prime ministers salary always seems to me to be a red hearing given what being in that job does to there future earning potential!

I'm not sure cutting the wages of those you deem to be over paid council execs and selling a few paintings is going to raise whats needed to settle past injustices. My concern would be that these liabilities will be settled to the detriment of those in the here and now and dare I say it when your cutting things like library services, sure start services etc etc to make up for budget short falls you’ll disproportionately discriminate against women who, certainly in my experience use these services far more than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something in this. My other half is a lawyer and not only is the above applicable but I'd also point out that the women in her firm work a damn sight harder than the men do, only to then disappear to have babies just at the time in their career when they'd be expecting to make partner (whether salaried or equity). Purely by dint of being the last ones left in the building the men then find themselves being made up. Nothing to do with talent or work ethic, more being in the right place at the right time.

Is that your missus making the observation that the women work harder than the men?

There is no doubt that having children does impinge on a person's career path. I don't think much can be done about this apart from offering both parents equal opportunities for leave and the option to share the burden as they see fit. I doubt many people that choose to have children are unaware that their career will suffer compared to if they haven't have had children.

I have a friend who was in a temporary management post before having a child and was then mightily peeved to learn that someone else had been given the permanent post on her return. I was surprised at her naivety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are council salaries excessive? I've never looked into it to be honest, on the face of it they don't strike me as being to bad when compared to what those in the private sector earn for running similar sized organisations.

The prime ministers salary always seems to me to be a red hearing given what being in that job does to there future earning potential!

I'm not sure cutting the wages of those you deem to be over paid council execs and selling a few paintings is going to raise whats needed to settle past injustices. My concern would be that these liabilities will be settled to the detriment of those in the here and now and dare I say it when your cutting things like library services, sure start services etc etc to make up for budget short falls you’ll disproportionately discriminate against women who, certainly in my experience use these services far more than men.

It's debatable but still causes much controversial headlines. With regard to women giving up on their attempts for justice given the amount it would take to settle in times of austerity, how do you see the situation as to how Local Authorities are going to continue to foot the bill for superannuation, without increased contributions and less benefits? Just like the women who were underpaid, the employees working for Local Authorities are certainly up in arms.

As for my thread, women have improved their lot since winning the right to vote, but there are still those who oppose them from getting on in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it it strikes me as a good idea, but wonder how much consultation is done with those effected, would women by happy to share there maternity leave with a partner? Might it open some up to pressure to return to work early, when infact they'd prefer to use the 12 months themselves?

In Denmark mothers still take the bulk of the parental leave, but the proportion taken by men is steadily rising.

As for the second point, maybe some women would be under pressure to go back early, but you can't have your cake and eat it. If women want equality then they have to take the downsides as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just to the fact that councils cannot cry poverty to deny women what is rightfully due yet still pay huge salaries that continue to be criticised under the prevalent climate.

The problem, as I understand it, with many of the legal actions that are being taken against councils on this is that the jobs are not like for like. There are a lot of dinner ladies who feel they should have been paid the same as binmen, and would like to see the money now. But a dinner lady is not a binman.

Binmen and binwomen should be paid the same. As should dinnerladies and dinnermen. But there's no reason why dinnerladies should be paid the same as binmen. Different jobs, different money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.