# One up for equality???



## redbhoy (10 Jun 2005)

The High Court has ruled that Portmarnock golf club in Dublin is not discriminating against women by not allowing them to become members. 

In a ruling this morning, Mr Justice O'Higgins dismissed the action taken by the Equality Authority against the club. 

Women are allowed to play the course, with or without accompanying male members, on payment of green fees.

A spokesperson for the club said he is very pleased with the outcome of the case.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jun 2005)

Just to clarify - this decision was made by the _High Court _and overturned, on appeal, a previous ruling by the _District Court _to the opposite effect. Seemingly the _Equality Authority _are investigating the possibility of a further appeal. See RTÉ News for more on this.


----------



## jem (10 Jun 2005)

one up for common sense. 
Freedom to associate is part of Irish law. Why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own rules for their club.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2005)

This is only because they have a drinks licence. If they didn't serve alcohol they could exclude whom ever they liked (just like the various women’s groups around the country).
As long as there is no discrimination of employees of the club I don't see the problem.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jun 2005)

jem said:
			
		

> Freedom to associate is part of Irish law.



So is protection against discrimination on .



> Why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own rules for their club.



Of course - as long as they comply with the relevant legislation.


----------



## RainyDay (11 Jun 2005)

While I don't disagree with the principle of having a men-only club, this isn't really the case with Portmarnock and many other golf clubs, where the ladies are allow to play & lunch, but not to vote. If it's a men-only club, why don't they show the courage of their convictions and stop the ladies from playing too.


----------



## Erith (11 Jun 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree with the principle of having a men-only club, this isn't really the case with Portmarnock and many other golf clubs, where the ladies are allow to play & lunch, but not to vote. If it's a men-only club, why don't they show the courage of their convictions and stop the ladies from playing too.



Nice thought but of course they'd be crucified.

Any idea if there are women's golf clubs in existence? Would male players give a toss?


----------



## ClubMan (11 Jun 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree with the principle of having a men-only club, this isn't really the case with Portmarnock and many other golf clubs, where the ladies are allow to play & lunch, but not to vote. If it's a men-only club, why don't they show the courage of their convictions and stop the ladies from playing too.



Presumably because the would probably lose their drinks license. As mentioned earlier, this is arguably the real nub of the matter. As far as I know anybody can set up any sort of exclusive club that they want but if they discriminate on the gounds set out in the equality legislation then there may be repercussions (e.g. no drinks license, no grant aid etc.).

Update: I see that _Purple _already said most of what I just did above!


----------



## daltonr (12 Jun 2005)

I have no problem with a men only Golf Club, and I'd be happy to let them have a drinks licence,  I'd be happy to let them completely ban women or allow women as guest players.  Whatever they like.

But... I wouldn't join a Men Only Golf Club.   I wouldn't accept a free membership card to Portmarnock.   And I reserve the right to consider those members who wish to preserve the no votes for momen situation to be sexist assholes.

I don't agree with their stance,  But I'll happily defend their right to hold it.

The only equality question here is are women entitled to set up a club that excludes men as full members?   If yes then there is no reason for the equality authority to get involved.   As far is I know there is at least one golf course in Dublin (In Leopardstown I think) where men can only play on weekends.

It's a funny thing equality.   If the travelling community built a golf course and excluded settled people, I don't think many would care, but do the reverse and there's trouble.   Women can get away with all sorts of inequality that would bring hell fire and brimstone down on any man who did the same.

In other words, those that beat the drum hardest on equality are often the most unequal in their attitude.

Let's all have a bit of cop on.   If the sad gits in Portmarnock want to keep their club exclusive and feel that allowing women as full members would be a bad thing, then let them off.   Who cares?

Publish their names every year and say they're sexist.   But beyond that forget about it.   It's not an equality issue, it's a personal choice issue.   If we banned clubs like Portmarnock, or forced them to conform, how would be know who the sexist assholes were????    It serves a very useful purpose.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (12 Jun 2005)

I don't care what exclusive clubs get set up either but I don't agree that they should obtain any imprimatur from the state (such as in the form of licenses to sell alcohol) if they discriminate on the grounds laid out in the equality legislation.


----------



## Marion (13 Jun 2005)

> In other words, those that beat the drum hardest on equality are often the most unequal in their attitude.



Could you provide a couple of examples?

Marion


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jun 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> Could you provide a couple of examples?
> 
> Marion



SFIRA for a start..


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2005)

> But... I wouldn't join a Men Only Golf Club. I wouldn't accept a free membership card to Portmarnock. And I reserve the right to consider those members who wish to preserve the no votes for momen situation to be sexist assholes.
> 
> I don't agree with their stance, But I'll happily defend their right to hold it.


That's pretty much how I fee about it as well.


----------



## shnaek (13 Jun 2005)

I agree with daltonr on this. 

And I'll throw in Ladies car insurance as an example of discrimination working the other way.


----------



## jem (13 Jun 2005)

Also Life Assurance.
You have clubs that are female only-ICA, mothers and todlers groups, womens associations etc 
You have other clubs that limit their membership base- you have to be in business to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce, The boys bregaide you have to be of a certian religion etc etc
I have to say IMHO this country has gone far to PC. I belive a club should have the power to refuse membership to anyone they want. 
I belive that business should have the right to do business only with whoever they want. If a pub doesn't want to serve a section of society they should have that right.Their business could suffer due to limiting its customer base but it should be their choice.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2005)

> I belive that business should have the right to do business only with whoever they want. If a pub doesn't want to serve a section of society they should have that right.Their business could suffer due to limiting its customer base but it should be their choice.


A private members club should be able to restrict it's membership but allowing a pub to restrict access on the basis of colour, race, religion etc would IMHO, be wrong.
I think the Judge's ruling was flawed and that he knew it was flawed so that the case can be referred to the Supreme Court. I think if it is it would be a good thing as this does have major implications for all equal status legislation.
If Portmarnock Gold Club didn’t allow people who are Jewish or black to become members I would be totally against it so maybe I am being sexist, I don’t know…


----------



## RainyDay (13 Jun 2005)

This Boards.ie discussion on a state employee's contract not being renewed because his boss wanted a female employee might be of interest.


----------



## daltonr (14 Jun 2005)

> I don't care what exclusive clubs get set up either but I don't agree that they should obtain any imprimatur from the state (such as in the form of licenses to sell alcohol) if they discriminate on the grounds laid out in the equality legislation.


 
I disagree.  The only way to square the constitutional right to free association, with the demands of equality and justice,  is to give everyone equal right to exclude others.
If Portmarnock was State owned and State run then you'd have a point.   But this is a groups of citizens making a decision about who can join their private club.

This throws up all of the "exclusive organisations" that Jem listed above.  None of which we have a problem with, and in return you get the Portmarnock's of this world who if equality is to have any meaning are "equally" entitled to their stance, even if it isn't a popular one.   

I wouldn't go so far as Jem.  I don't think Public houses should be allowed to exclude people based on membership of some group.   There's a difference between the right to run a PRIVATE club and the right to run a PUBLIC house.   We licence Pubs on the basis that they will serve the Public and that should mean ALL of the public.

If the Equality Legislation is out of step with this then the legislation is the problem.  
As I said I don't agree with Portmarnock's stance, but their right to hold the stance makes for a healthier society.   The positives of such "exclusiveness" outweigh the negatives by a long way.

>>In other words, those that beat the drum hardest on equality are often the most >>unequal in their attitude. 

>Could you provide a couple of examples?

Oh dear.  I'm going to draw some serious fire on this one, but here goes.
I think many women quite willing to accept and even rejoice in inequalities between Men and Women which favour Women.   In my (limited) experience, the women who are most vocal for womens rights and equality, are often the least likely to have a problem with the ways in which men are discriminated against.

Here's just one example.

I very rarely hear women calling for greater equality in the way men are treated as second class citizens in actual legislation in this country in particular in relation to the family courts.

If any limb of the state was as biased against women as this one is against men there would be outrage.  And rightly so.

If you believe in equality then you should campaign first and formost for the right of every citizen to be treated equally by the state.   When the important stuff like that is sorted out you can move on the trivial stuff like whether or not you have the right to vote in a Golf Club.

I don't blame these women for this,  we all have a habit of seeing only the ways in which we are discriminated against.  It takes a very enlightened person to understand and take up someone elses cause.

But I think those who are troubled about Portmarnock should be politely reminded that there are far greater examples of inequality enshrined in the actual laws of the state that should be tackled first.

Start with the family courts, and the right of schools to discriminate on religous grounds.   When you have that sorted out I'll talk you you again about the right to vote at the AGM of a Golf club.

As long as the state discrimintates it's pointless trying to get the citizens to treat everyone equally.

-Rd


----------



## Marion (14 Jun 2005)

I think  by the Women's Health Council] should rebut your argument that _many_ women reqoice when men are disciminated against and that you very rarely hear women calling for greater equality in the way men are treated.

This quote is particularly relevant:



> On the other hand, men, and especially fathers, have also suffered at the hands of prescriptive family policy practices based on gender stereotypes. The definition of women as carers has underpinned the marginalisation of men as emotionally significant in their children’s lives (O'Connor, 1998), as well as their discrimination in relation to social welfare entitlements as carers (Kennedy, 2001). This marginalisation has recently been found to be even more significant in the case of vulnerable fathers, including unmarried, and separated fathers (Ferguson and Hogan, 2004).


Marion


----------



## Purple (15 Jun 2005)

It's easy to see this as the state attacking Portmarnock Golf Club but in fact it's the Equality Authority. The discrimination against men by the family court system is outside their remit so they cannot within their statute help men in this case.
They can only take cases where a member of the public has made a complaint to them, the EA don't take cases off their own bat. They are required to look at the cases that come before them and if the legal opinion given to them is that there is a breach in legislation then they are required to follow through. This is not a case of an organ of the state taking a spiteful case against a golf club.
I do think that it is a bit ridiculous but it is the legislation that is at fault.


----------



## daltonr (15 Jun 2005)

> I think  by the Women's Health Council] should rebut your argument that _many_ women reqoice when men are disciminated against and that you very rarely hear women calling for greater equality in the way men are treated.


 
You've given ONE example of women addressing this issue.  I think that counts as RARELY.  They would fall under the enlightened category I mentioned above.   But having seen/heard MANY (not most) women ignore (at best) or rejoice in (at worst) discrimination against men it'll take more than a paragraph by the Womens Health Council to rebut my original point.

Whenever I discuss this issue with women I'm met the defense that women have been discriminated against for years, so it's fine if men are discriminated against.   That's no kind of equality.

Not that my original point matters too much, but you did ask for examples.   My only real point was that the people complaining about Portmarnock could spent their time and energy on for more important issues if equality is their Thing.

I suspect there aren't too many members of the Travelling Community voting at Portmarnock either.  Portmarnock isn't about equality, it's about a bunch of idiots deciding what type of person they'd like to be their friend.  Which last time I looked wasn't illegal.   And why would you want to hang out with a bunch of idiots who don't like women or travellers or anyone else they feel is "beneath" them?

-Rd


----------



## Marion (15 Jun 2005)

> But having seen/heard MANY (not most) women ignore (at best) or rejoice in (at worst) discrimination against men it'll take more than a paragraph by the Womens Health Council to rebut my original point.



Ok. I accept your anecdotal evidence that women with whom you may be acquainted  forms the basis of your argument. I guess we mingle in different circles.

Marion


----------



## daltonr (15 Jun 2005)

>>I guess we mingle in different circles.

Marion,  If I'm not mistaken we mingled in the same circle at an AAM night out.  I don't recall your personal views on these matters, but I recall some gender related issues coming up, specifically the relationship between single mothers and the fathers of their children, and the states treatment of them in rented accomodation  (let's not reopen that can of worms here- just trying to jog memory).

On that particular night I don't remember any women at the table coming to the defense of men.   Even though I don't drink the night is a bit of a blur so I can't say for sure.

I should explain that my attitudes on these matters were formed in school when one (MALE) teacher decided to introduce "Positive Discrimination" by banning boys from playing basketball and volleyball, on the grounds that girls didn't play hurling.  This despite a long history of perfectly happy students playing mixed basketball.
Note: Girls weren't banned from playing hurling under this deal.

It's amazing the silly things that still rankle all these years later and end up colouring our perspective forever.

-Rd


----------



## Marion (15 Jun 2005)

Hi Daltonr

In fact I do recall the conversation - kinda! There were a number of different topics being discussed at the same time - individualisation and tax and I do recall a mention of single *mothers* who care for their children being provided with houses.

I also recall someone mentioning that single men find it difficult to get accommodation provided for them. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning single *fathers* who care for their children and their rights to accommodation. If the conversation had developed I'm sure there would have been plenty of agreement. But it didn't. The topic moved on prior to its development.


Marion


----------



## daltonr (16 Jun 2005)

> If the conversation had developed I'm sure there would have been plenty of agreement.



Actually the conversation did develop to a discussion on how the current welfare arrangements make it more attractive for the mother to take the child and live alone with it, than allow the father to move in with them.

But we're digressing here.   I just wanted to point out my experience that Many women who I have discussed equality with treat it as a one way street.
You may well not be one of those women.

-Rd


----------



## Marion (16 Jun 2005)

The substantive discussion appears to be over so I hope people don't mind a little digression. Does anyone know of (m)any young single fathers who actually take care of their baby at home with his parents. Obviously, in my job, I see lots of young girls who get pregnant and who are the prime carers of their baby in their parents home. But, I do know of one young man who had broken up with his girlfriend and two weeks after she had the baby she brought it to his home and said that he could look after it. He did with the help of his parents. 

Marion


----------



## daltonr (17 Jun 2005)

> But, I do know of one young man who had broken up with his girlfriend and two weeks after she had the baby she brought it to his home and said that he could look after it. He did with the help of his parents.



I know of one guy who was raised by his single father, but I don't know the circumstances that led to it.

Are you saying that men are in some way negligent in not taking on this responsiblity?   Or that there should be a more equal divide between single mothers and singel fathers.

I suspect that there are many fathers who would love the responsibility but would never be allowed either by the mother or the state.   It's hard enough to get access  to them let alone get custody.

It's a fact of life that children of single parents will by and large be cared for by their mothers.   Do you know of any single mothers who've tried to give the kid to the father and been rebuked?

The point I raosed above was the situation where the couple would like to live together but the state gives them more money if they stay apart.   You end up in some cirsumstances with the couple living together,  telling the state they are living apart, and the state renting rooms in two different places, with one of the rooms being unused.

This does happen,  I've seen it.  It's not hearsay.
Is it anywonder the state rents 40% of all rental accomodation?

-Rd


----------



## Marion (17 Jun 2005)

> Are you saying that men are in some way negligent in not taking on this responsiblity? Or that there should be a more equal divide between single mothers and singel fathers.



There are 2 sides to every coin. There are men who are negligent of their responsiblities and maintenance and there are women who will try to deny access to their child. Both parties are wrong.



> It's a fact of life that children of single parents will by and large be cared for by their mothers.



This is the current position but it doesn't have to be the status quo. 

We have moved away from the day when reluctant couples were marched up the aisle when the girl became pregnant. But, we have a long way to go in educating young girls and boys on their rights and responsibilities when the girl becomes pregnant. Young boys need to be educated that they have responibilites when they father a child. Likewise, young girls need to be educated that having a child doesn't automatically mean that they _have_ to be the prime carer. This tranformation in societal thinking obviously won't happen overnight. I think a start has been made in some schools where both boys and girls have to look after a realistic "baby" and their treatment and care of the "baby" is monitored by a built in program  It is a start.



> I raosed above was the situation where the couple would like to live together but the state gives them more money if they stay apart



Single Mothers’ – (that should be changed to become Single Parents’) Houses are given in good faith by the State, in the main, to a mother and child because they don’t have the support of the father of the baby. There are many women in this category. 

If there are couples who wish to take care of their baby and who are in need of accommodation, then they should apply under a different scheme for a home – not the Single Mothers’ Houses Scheme. These houses should be kept for those for whom they are intended. 


Marion


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2005)

> If there are couples who wish to take care of their baby and who are in need of accommodation, then they should apply under a different scheme for a home – not the Single Mothers’ Houses Scheme. These houses should be kept for those for whom they are intended.


I agree completely. Much of the bad press that "single mothers" get (and yes, it should be single parents) should be targeted at couples that have a child but choose to steal from their neighbours by cheating the state by claiming benefits that they are not entitled to.
I know of one couple where he bought a house and rented it to his partner. In theory he still lives with his parents but in reality he lives in his house with his partner and child. The department of social welfare pay for the shopping, the government pay the mortgage and the eastern health board and St VDP furnish the house. He earns in excess of €60'000 a year.
That has nothing to do with equality it's just stealing.

The reality is that most loan parents are women but that should not stop the law being gender neutral. I don't think that is the case at the moment, certainly in the application of the law, which is what matters. 
I also think that the earlier point about the role of women as carers in the constitution and how it should be looked at in the context of where we are as a society is very valid. If the role of men as breadwinners had been there in the 40's do you think it would still be there now?


----------



## daltonr (20 Jun 2005)

> If there are couples who wish to take care of their baby and who are in need of accommodation, then they should apply under a different scheme for a home – not the Single Mothers’ Houses Scheme.



If any of us were living on the kinds of money we're talking about here we'd do the same thing.   I certainly would.   Do you think I'd give a toss that I should have filled out a FORM XYZ1 instead of a FORM XYZ2.   Of course not.

I wan't the solution where I get the most money.   If the state has a scheme whereby we get more money by not getting together as a couple, or by lying about whether we live together, then the only question is..

Will I lie and live together,  and be honest and dump him/her.

A very simple solution would be for the state to recognise that where both parents are going to be receiving welfare anyway,   it's better to give them what they'd be getting if they lived apart, avoid having to pay for unused extra accomodation, and give the child two parents in the home instead of one.

This area is full of pitfalls, but the current system is not a good one.
Thankfully I have no direct experience of either welfare or single parenthood,   but I've seen both at close enough quarters to see something is wrong.

-Rd


----------



## nopotatos (22 Jun 2005)

Women wear the pants in this country. no question about it


----------



## MonsieurBond (22 Jun 2005)

Purple said:
			
		

> The reality is that most loan parents are women...



Is this a comment on the credit-fulled lifestyle of lone parents? 

There was an interesting piece on the 9:00 news a few weeks ago saying that people on low incomes were ripped off by banks and credit institutions more than more affluent people.


----------



## icantbelieve (22 Jun 2005)

Equality doesn't and shouldn't exist by default in a market driven society like ours, why shouldn't women (like men have to and have always had to) simply change employer if they're not being paid what they consider to be the optimum wage they can earn. 
Within the work place there's vast differences in salaries paid by different companies in different locations irrespective of whether your a man or a woman. During the IT employment boom riduculous salaries were being paid because the employee had the power to say that if you don't pay the going rate you won't get the workers.
If an employer pays less for a female employee than for a male then it means its because they'd prefer a male employee, a preference they're perfectly entitled to. If it's because of a mistaken assumption that the male will be more productive then like any poorly made business decision it'll cost the company and make them less effective. But it's still a business decision and one which the company should be allowed to make the same as any other decisions that affect their effectiveness. The market very quickley sorts out who is performing optimally and who isn't.


----------



## daltonr (22 Jun 2005)

>There was an interesting piece on the 9:00 news a few weeks ago saying >that people on low incomes were ripped off by banks and credit institutions >more than more affluent people.

There was a very interesting piece on Vincent Browne about the fact that many on low incomes don't have either a Passport or a Drivers licence and some don't even have utility bills and so can't even open a bank account.
This facilitates the Money Lenders some of whom aren't licenced.

I was also surprised to hear that some of the legal (licenced) Money Lenders can charge APR's of 100%+.   

Isn't it a grand little country where the stage can drive the worst of in society into your arms, and  the staste then  licences you  to take 100% APR from them.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (22 Jun 2005)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> If an employer pays less for a female employee than for a male then it means its because they'd prefer a male employee, a preference they're perfectly entitled to. If it's because of a mistaken assumption that the male will be more productive then like any poorly made business decision it'll cost the company and make them less effective. But it's still a business decision and one which the company should be allowed to make the same as any other decisions that affect their effectiveness. The market very quickley sorts out who is performing optimally and who isn't.


You are probably already aware of this, but no company is entitled to pay males more than females for the same work. That would be against the law.


----------



## icantbelieve (23 Jun 2005)

I'm aware of the law but are many jobs exactly identical outside of heavily regulated demarcation areas like the civil service. My point is that even men are paid differently for what is in essence the same job and that woman already have the same options as men to improve their salary. Let markets regulate it, is it any fairer, for example, that a women (or man) in this country is paid vastly more for the same work than a woman in Aisia by the same multinational corporation. It's supply and demand or "pay peanuts get monkey's logic", if a company underpays an efficient male employee they face losing him to a competitor, it's not any different for women but for some reason legislation is also demanded and where there is generalised legislation there's abuse of it. We're in a virtually full employment economy which is one of the best ways of guarenteeing worker rights not a one size fits all socialist imperative.
We aren't all equal, some are better than others (within specific fields, this isn't a statement that better workers are better people) men and women and as we all know luck plays a big part, but that's life. 
The most intelligent, hardworking, productive people can be hit by a bus as easily as anyone else, is it fair, no, is it life, yes.


----------



## stuart (23 Jun 2005)

> We're in a virtually full employment economy which is one of the best ways of guarenteeing worker rights not a one size fits all socialist imperative/QUOTE]
> 
> I understand the point you are making, I do not believe in possitive descimination either
> But what about when we don't have nearly full employment


----------



## soc (23 Jun 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> You are probably already aware of this, but no company is entitled to pay males more than females for the same work. That would be against the law.



Yes - but there is no way of proving it.  I can't just walk up to any male colleague, and ask:
"Hey mate, what sorta salary are you on?"

Even if I accidentally find out other guys salaries - wouldn't show good character to say to the boss:
"Hey xxxx is on €€€, why aren't I earning the same?"

The first thing the boss would ask is: "How do you know this?"...

Then what?

-soc


----------



## icantbelieve (23 Jun 2005)

I understand the point you are making, I do not believe in possitive descimination either
But what about when we don't have nearly full employment[/QUOTE]

It doesn't work like that, what if's don't count, you play the hand you're dealt and anyway the same thing applies in a higher unemployment economy except even more so. Companies would have to be even more effective as there wouldn't be the consumer spending power there is now which can mask ineffectiveness somewhat. if the market is allowed to functino correctly then in times of higher unemployment it's not women who make up the unemployed its those for whom there is no market for their skills or whose skills aren't of a level required by employers.
The bottom line in business doesn't change with employment levels, hire the best you can afford to be the most productive to return the most profit.

BTW as regards the original post about Portmarnock golf club's "discrimination", why shouldn't a group of men decide that they want a men only club. Why should they be labelled as neaderthals or bigots and what has a drinks licence got to do with it. Women have all sorts of activities which tend to be exclusive to them and the issue of men joining doesn't exist. This doesn't mean that given the chance women wouldn't turn around and exclude men it simply means that the opportunity hasn't arisen. IMHO this is because men recognise a demarcation between the sexes and have less of an inferiority complex that makes a lot of women decide to pursue what were once considered male activities. I'm not saying that there aren't women who just want to do something because they like to but there is a large amount of "anything a man can do I can do". Men don't even come close to this, I recognise that there's a million and one things that women can do that I can't and many of these neither I nor any men have the slightest interest in attempting even if it were only to show that "if a woman can do it so can a man". 
There was a  music video recently where there's one guy in amongst a workout session of barely clad, beautiful sweaty women, could you imagine this in reality, the guy would be politely asked to leave as he would be making the women feel uncomfortable. This would be correct, irrespective of whether he was as pure as driven snow, because people should be allowed to gather together amongst what they as a group perceive to be like-minded individuals.


----------



## podgerodge (23 Jun 2005)

The Last Word on TodayFm had the director of the womens council on. ( a woman - I guess they didn't give any men a chance at at the job).

She blamed the lower proportion of female politicians on the fact that men won't take on more child care duties and due to the "male ethos" that exists (in her own head).  She disagreed with Matt Coopers assertion that men and women vote vote for candidates and that this was democracy.  She was all for the latest political party craze of putting "one woman one man" forward for elections.  This according to her should be done regardless of whether 2 men may be better qualified.  (or 2 women for that matter but I guess she would have no problem with that).  A big Male conspiracy.

Thankfully a few women rang up complaining about her ridiculous attitude.

Please please someone set up a female only golf club and let them see that (I hope) most men would not give a toss.  I don't play golf but it sickens me to think that people cannot be free to set up clubs of any description that allows them to mingle with whom they wish.

Finally, I know quite a few females that acknowledge freely that they CHOSE to have children, CHOSE to take on most of the childcare duties, and CHOSE not to go for higher end jobs that would impair their ability to do so.  Funnily enough, these women are "responsible" for a higher proportion of male management and form part of the general statistics bandied around the place.  Not descrimination though.


----------



## daltonr (23 Jun 2005)

Quotas in elections are just a plain stupid idea.  I don't care if it's a man or a woman suggesting it.  When stupidity presents itself we need to point a finger and call it like it is.

Engineering democracy to ensure that half of dail seats go to women means one thing....  Two Elections, one for Men, One for women.    The inference from it is,  we've given women a chance to compete with men in elections and they can't cut it so we'll give them their own election.

If one of the reasons for the lower representation of women is a public perception, then giving them their own election makes matters worse, not better.

The women who have been elected are among the most capable, most outspoken and most effective of all the dail representatives.   We can't have TD's as effective as these operating under the cloud of having won their seat by virtue of a handicap system.  They deserve better.
If we are to have equality in only one area of society, it must be in how we elect our leaders.

If the political parties are unable to convince enough women to run, or if the members are too blind at convention time to put more women forward then tackle that.

There may be many reasons that we don't even understand why women 
 aren't elected in equal numbers to men.   Perhaps they have more sense than to get involved in politics.   Perhaps women in general are less aggressive in the pursuit of power.  Perhaps there are societal issues that mitigate against it.

What we can say for sure is the the current system doesn't prevent women reaching high political office.   The extent to which they are discouraged or opt out is the only point worth debating.

If any womans organisation believes that there is a public demand for 50% women that is untapped by the existing political parties then let them run candidates themselves.   If the public want 50% women in the Dail then then a party that can make up the current shortfall will have enough TD's to be the larger partner in a government.

Let's have no more talk of Gender Quotas.   General elections aren't golf courses.   You don't get to move the Tee a little closer to the hole to make it easier to compete with the men.

Unlike sports there are no physical limitations in the female that put her at a disadvantage in the political sphere.   Wheather there are psycological factors that make her choose to abstain we don't know.

-Rd


----------



## daltonr (23 Jun 2005)

I should add.   If people want a quota system then I'll accept it,  but only if it's representative.

We should also reflect the proportion of the population that are Disabled, Legal Immigrents, Asylum Seekers,  Unemployed, PAYE, Self Employed.

Hell... Let's go further,  Let's get a representative proportion of Farmers, IT Workers, Catholics, Protestants, Other Religions and None.

Or let's just cop ourselves on and accept that in any democracy there will be people who are not directly represented by their own kind, but who's views deserve to be represented by whoever is elected.  If that means a Lawyer campaigning for a farmers rights,  an athiest campaigning for a catholics rights, or a man campaigning for a woman's rights then so be it.   That's democracy.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2005)

well said Rd.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Jun 2005)

soc said:
			
		

> Even if I accidentally find out other guys salaries - wouldn't show good character to say to the boss:
> "Hey xxxx is on €€€, why aren't I earning the same?"
> 
> The first thing the boss would ask is: "How do you know this?"...
> ...


You tell him quite quickly that it doesn't matter how you know, what matters is that he is breaking the law - and his options are to fix the problem himself by negotiation, or to face an expensive legal process and a pile of negative publicity.


----------



## icantbelieve (25 Jun 2005)

Rainyday, can you clarify, in the example given by soc are you saying that the employer breaking the law irrespective of whether the employee making the complaint is a man or a woman, as I never realised that employers have to, by law, pay the same amount to all employees doing the same job. 
Often a discrepancy in pay between employees doing the same job means that the employer sees potential in one employee over the others and doesn't want to risk losing that person.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Jun 2005)

I'm saying that an employer can't use sex as a factor in deciding salary - performance and value to the business is a different matter entirely.


----------



## icantbelieve (25 Jun 2005)

ah right, so as I suspected equality law is only for women, who obviously are not able to voice their discontent or leave for another job in the same manner as their male counterparts, although given that they're equal in capability (the foundation of the legislation) you'd have to wonder why.


----------



## daltonr (25 Jun 2005)

> You tell him quite quickly that it doesn't matter how you know, what matters is that he is breaking the law



And the boss (who might be male or female) will say "no I'm not.  I'd only be breaking the law if my reason for paying you less was because you are a woman.   But since my reason for paying you less is that I value you less,  it's all perfectly legal.

At various points in my life I've been paid more than people who do more work than me, and less than people who do less work than me.   Was it fair?    Of course it was fair.  Those people were better or worse at marketing themselves

It's a fact of life.  You live with it or you move on.   Being a man I don't have the luxury of blaming it on my gender.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (25 Jun 2005)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> ah right, so as I suspected equality law is only for women, who obviously are not able to voice their discontent or leave for another job in the same manner as their male counterparts, although given that they're equal in capability (the foundation of the legislation) you'd have to wonder why.





			
				daltonr said:
			
		

> Being a man I don't have the luxury of blaming it on my gender.



Rubbish - the legislation applies equally to men & women, and indeed there have been .



			
				daltonr said:
			
		

> And the boss (who might be male or female) will say "no I'm not.  I'd only be breaking the law if my reason for paying you less was because you are a woman.   But since my reason for paying you less is that I value you less,  it's all perfectly legal.
> 
> At various points in my life I've been paid more than people who do more work than me, and less than people who do less work than me.   Was it fair?    Of course it was fair.  Those people were better or worse at marketing themselves
> 
> It's a fact of life.  You live with it or you move on.


You can of course opt to live with it or move on. Or you can choose to make a claim against your employer under the existing legislation. It's your choice.


----------



## icantbelieve (25 Jun 2005)

So a proponent of ridicuous "positive discrimination" legislation also advocates "claim culture", suing someone else because life isn't fair and you're too lazy to do anything about it. 
I can also choose to make a claim against someone if my kids arm is broken in the schoolyard because another kid ran into her, but I wouldn't. Bad things sometimes happen but this culture of always looking for someone to blame snowballs and makes life worse for everyone. A burglar can also choose to make a claim against me for defending myself and my family from his intrusion, probably another example of not compromising his/her rights as an individual.
I speak as someone with whom not too many people would choose to swap lives with but on the opposite side of a lot of crappy things that happened to my family, none of which were as a result of choices we made or actions we took, are a lot of good things that by focusing on which allows us to get through life. 
So when I say that life isn't fair and that it's not meant to be, its about the struggle and how the struggle moulds you and defines you, I'm not talking as some wet behind the years life idealist who thinks everyone is equal.
Real inequality exists in the treatment of the disabled at the hands of the state, in the logic that assumes by default that a child is better off with its mother, in the way that philipino nurses who prop up our health service are not allowed visas for their families, in the way that state sector employees can under perform with immunity (funny how they only wanted their pay to be comparable with the private sector and not the rest of their terms and conditions). However finding inequality in a sector where women, like men, are paid different rates for the same job, where women, like men, can leave and go elsewhere is really a bit much.

BTW I find it hard to believe that you're actually on this side of the debate Rainday. I've been reading your postings for quite sometime now and feel that sometimes you're a devil's advocate for AAM who teases out the debate in order to advance it.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Jun 2005)

You know, as I typed the words 'make a claim', I had a little nagging doubt that this would be misconstrued, but I wen't ahead anyway. I was right.

This is nothing to do with compo culture, burglars or Filipino nurses. I didn't realise we were having an ethical debate. I was just trying to clarify the fact that it is illegal to discriminate salary based on sex. That's all.


----------



## icantbelieve (26 Jun 2005)

Misconstrued nothing, there's not much room for misinterpretation in the words "make a claim", also, how could a debate on equality issues not be ethical (among many other things).
The fact is that statistics show that in general men are more productive workers than women and that's why employers decide either not to employ or to adjust the salary of women. It's a generalisation and isn't going to be true of everyone but just in the same manner as insurance companies are allowed to discriminate against men (and rightly so) companies, especially small business operating on tight margins, should be allowed to choose you they want to employ and who they don't. The market place is a different animal to general society, there is racial discrimination that isn't based on hatred but on business sense, would a chinese shop owner selling chinese goods to chinese people be right not to employ a white irish person, of course he would, the decision isn't base on dislike of race but an recognition of the fact that in order to sell chinese goods to chinese people he's more likely to succeed if he employs chinese staff at the counter. Like so many arguments on AAM with people who say "it's the law" the fact is that the law is black and white whereas real life is any and every colour.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Jun 2005)

So now that we've established the fact that it is against current legislation to set salary based on sex, you are of course welcome to post your opinion of how legislation/society should work. To be honest, I just couldn't be bothered entering into this debate, but I will ask you to show the statistics which support this little nugget;



			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> The fact is that statistics show that in general men are more productive workers than women


----------



## icantbelieve (26 Jun 2005)

Given that you don't want to further the debate I won't either as it's stopped being a debate, nobody has come forward to contest the points of my argument. Only today a request has come forward from women's for 1 years paid maternity leave, what percentage of women have children and how can having a child not affect the productivity of a working woman. Don't ask for statistics (a tried and trusted argument quashing method on AAM as very few people have access to such statistics or the inclination to go looking for them) when common sense makes it clearly obvious.
But as you say, this has stopped being a debate so I'll leave this lie too.

28/6/2005
Just noticed that I can no longer participate in this debate as new rules for this section prohibit it. I could simply keep reediting posts but rules are rules and despite the assertion by Rainyday and its afirmation by Purple that there are no points in my argument, strangley enough purple and daltonr have been arguing my points for me.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Jun 2005)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Given that you don't want to further the debate I won't either as it's stopped being a debate, nobody has come forward to contest the points of my argument.


Presumably because most people (including me) didn't see any points in your argument.



			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Only today a request has come forward from women's for 1 years paid maternity leave,


And does your company policy support 1 years paid maternity leave? If so, this is extremely generous and non-typical. I guess whoever sets the policy highly values their female employees.



			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> how can having a child not affect the productivity of a working woman.


Are you including time on maternity leave in your productivity calculations? That would be a little strange, given that there is no mandatory cost to the employer arising from maternity leave. Of course, many enlightened employers opt to supplement the state's minimal cover with a part or full paid period, but they are under no obligation to do so. Such policies simply come from a recognition of the value of female employees and the importance of retaining female employees of childbearing age.


			
				icantbelieve said:
			
		

> Don't ask for statistics (a tried and trusted argument quashing method on AAM as very few people have access to such statistics or the inclination to go looking for them) when common sense makes it clearly obvious.


I'm confused now. You said that 'the fact is that statistics show'. Surely if you had seen such statistics you would remember which august institution published this important paper? Could it have been IBEC, or maybe IMI, or possibly the HR Directors team of Portmarnock Golf Club? Wouldn't these important findings have got press coverage right round the world? Are you now saying that you haven't actually seen statistics which support your claim? If such statistics existed, I reckon I'd find them with Google in less than 15 minutes. But I just don't believe they exist - and in your heart, you know they don't exist either.


----------



## MOB (26 Jun 2005)

"Rubbish - the legislation applies equally to men & women, and indeed there have been claims from men seeking equal pay to female counterparts."

Not to be petty, but the link which you posted was to a report of an unsuccesful gender discrimination claim by a man.   

I can't remember ever seeing any successful gender discrimination claims brought by men in this country, but I would love to hear about such claims.

Anybody?


----------



## RainyDay (26 Jun 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> I can't remember ever seeing any successful gender discrimination claims brought by men in this country, but I would love to hear about such claims.


The [broken link removed] for equal pay with female switchboard operators succeeded in the High Court, but got bounced back to the Labour Court by the wigs on the Supreme Court. But I guess that's all part of the massive female mafia conspiracy to downtrod us males, given that there was a bloody woman sitting on the Supreme Court case. Why wasn't she at home minding her babies and cooking her husband's dinner? That's what I want to know.

I suppose the chances of the lack of male claims for equal pay having anything to do with the men are on average paid 15% more than women aren't realistic - right?


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2005)

In general terms I agree with icantbelieves comments above. In the real world people are seldom motivated by only one factor in making a decision. For example if you knew that your five employees in a small business had strong racist views would you employ a black person to work with them and suffer the problems that would result including the case that would be brought against you by the EA and the strong possibility that you would loose key staff or would you just not employ a black person?
As for rainyday’s statement that 





> there is no mandatory cost to the employer arising from maternity leave


. That is simply not true. Employers have to allow their pregnant employee to take maternity leave. The result of that is that a replacement has to be hired, at temp rates of pay, and that person has to be trained in on someone else’s time. There is a real cost in that, especially for a small business. If the employee in question is in a key managerial position the real cost will be much higher.


> So now that we've established the fact that it is against current legislation to set salary based on sex, you are of course welcome to post your opinion of how legislation/society should work


 That's a very condescending comment rainyday and well below your usual standard.


> Presumably because most people (including me) didn't see any points in your argument.


 Ditto that one.




> I suppose the chances of the lack of male claims for equal pay having anything to do with the men are on average paid 15% more than women aren't realistic - right?


 The link goes to the judgement to bounce the high court judgement back to the Labour Court. As for your point that Men are paid 15% more than women (the substance of which is not invalidated by the lack of a link to back it up); I'm sure you are aware that statistics are worthless without all of the relevant background contextual information.


----------



## podgerodge (27 Jun 2005)

Most of the women that work with me accept that the reason they earn less and are at a lower level of the organisation is because they chose to have children and find it easier to go home earlier, not work bank holidays etc and not go forward for promotions.  Therefore they earn less than me.  Are these lower wages part of these statistics being quoted?  If so, it shows how statistics can imply that things are unfair when in fact they are perfectly.


----------



## daltonr (27 Jun 2005)

> but I will ask you to show the statistics which support this little nugget;
> 
> Originally Posted by *icantbelieve*
> _The fact is that statistics show that in general men are more productive workers than women_


 


Actually Rainyday icantbelieve is right in his claim that Men are considered to be more productive than women. The research in this areas seems to have moved on to why this is the case, rather than if this is the case.

[broken link removed]
(Google 2 minutes, but we can search further if you like)

Of course the definition of productive can then be quibbled about.
But we can also quibble about how the wage statistics are calculated.

If the average woman's salary in a particular industry is 15% lower than mens in the same industry then we need to see why. If the womans average was dragged down by a portion of women opting to be less devoted to work so as to devote more time to family, then that does not mean that a given woman who chooses to devote the same effort as a man to her job will automatically earn 15% less. She may earn the same or more depending on her talent.

The only valid comparison is a Man and a Woman with the same abilities and puting in the same effort, and with the same homelife. If the woman finds it harder to have a spouse to take on the family responsibilities then I agree that's a problem with society, but it's not the woman's employers fault.

By definition no couple can have two people both fully devoted to work and paying no regard to home and family. Somebody has to clean the house, pay the bills, walk the dog, do the washing, look after the kids. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a man or a woman, but whoever chooses to be the one who sacrafices work for home will pay a price in work and will never earn as much as someone (man or woman) who does not make the sacrafice.

if the couple perfectly divide the home commitments equally then they will both devote slightly less to their work than someone 100% devoted to work. Both careers will suffer relative to that benchmark, but both may in themselves be happier.

I'd agree that society has traditionally forced that sacrafice on the woman more often than the man. I think that's changing but I don't think it will ever be 50,50. To try to create legislation that somehow negates the work sacrafice so that you get the same career path as someone who doens't make the sacrafice is wrong and will never work.



> So now that we've established the fact that it is against current legislation to set salary based on sex, you are of course welcome to post your opinion of how legislation/society should work.



That isn't in doubt and isn't what's being debated. There are very few jobs left where two people can be directly compared. Jobs like that are vanishing all the time. In the real world where the rest of us live there are so many factors that might contribute to a difference in pay that the legislation is essentially useless.

Q. Why do you pay is female programmer less than this male programmer?
Their coding is virtually identical.  They seem to have roughly the same number of Defects per LOC?

A. I find he comes up with more original ideas in solving design problems.
A. I find he is more willing to speak up at meetings and provide input.
A. I find that clients seem react better to him.

These are all very difficult things to prove or disprove. Is the court going to undertake a qualitative study of a programmers original ideas and raport with clients? A study that would by it's nature change the behaviour.

True equality means that women and men should get equal reward for equal effort and risk. Not equal reward regardless. As long as Mary and John but in the same work, take the same time off, work the same overtime, go on the same training course, promote themselves as effectively etc. Then they WILL be equally rewarded. 

But if either Mary or John take 6 months off to raise a child, or travel the world, or spend time with their sick family member, or go for medical treatment themnselves or any of the other things that cause people to step off the threadmill for a period, then they loose out.

It's life. Sometimes it's not nice, sometimes it's great, sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're unlucky. But more often than not life is brutally fair.

-Rd


----------



## Vanilla (27 Jun 2005)

If a couple want to have children, isnt it a fact of life that the woman HAS to have them- therefore how can anyone say its a choice?


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> If a couple want to have children, isnt it a fact of life that the woman HAS to have them- therefore how can anyone say its a choice?


 It's a choice the couple make. Women have to take this time off but in the interest of equality shouldn't the state cover the costs to her employer as well as paying her benefit? The fact that a woman does take time off to have children will be taken into account when she is being considered for senior position. That may not be fair but it is how the world works.


----------



## Vanilla (27 Jun 2005)

Podge&Rodge said



> Most of the women that work with me accept that the reason they earn less and are at a lower level of the organisation is because they chose to have children and find it easier to go home earlier, not work bank holidays etc and not go forward for promotions. Therefore they earn less than me.


 
My point is that the choice is not the same for women and men. A man can decide to have a child within the context of a relationship without it affecting his career, a woman cannot.

And DaltonR said


> But if either Mary or John take 6 months off to raise a child, or travel the world, or spend time with their sick family member, or go for medical treatment themnselves or any of the other things that cause people to step off the threadmill for a period, then they loose out


 
This may be so, but only Mary MUST take 4 months off to have a child, John will never have to do this in normal circumstances. And having a child is something I would imagine that most couples would do - all the other events are unexpected ( apart from the travelling the world bit, which is discretionary).

My experience as an employee has been that employers will discriminate against female employees in terms of salary and promotional prospects because of a realistic fear that the woman will take maternity leave ( at least once and probably more than once) and secondly that once a woman has children she will no longer work the same hours, and will need more time off because of childcare issues. There is also an underlying idea that women do not need to earn as much as they are not the main earner of the household - i.e. what I call the ' hubby is working' syndrome. I have heard this from colleagues who are employers and from some of my own past employers - this is the idea that somehow, because your husband or partner is a full time worker, that you do not need to earn as much. This is just my experience and perhaps an isolated thing?

I think its also naive for anyone to say that once a couple has children that child care can be shared equally. In my experience one person generally takes the lions share of the childcare needs-  of all my family and friends, there is only one couple where the woman is the main earner, and her husband does take on more childcare. In all the rest where both are working full time, it is the woman who leaves work on time to pick up the children, it is the woman who takes time off to go to parent teacher meetings, or when the children are sick or when they need to go for a check up etc etc. So this obviously has a detrimental affect on a womans career. I really don't know how much choice is involved. I think the only choice you have once you have children is whether you will put them before your career or not. Is that a choice? It's not for me. Why is it that in general women take on the childcare needs, and men don't? Is it because they want to? Or is it because for many reasons, they have limited choices. I genuinely believe it is the latter.


----------



## daltonr (27 Jun 2005)

Actually the major impact on the womans career is not the having of children it's the time taken off after the child is born to look after it for a few months/a year.  This could be done by the man.  We're going to get into a whole debate about just how much/little time a woman MUST take off work.

Obviously you can't have a kid on Saturday and be back in work on monday,  but I don't believe the few weeks in actualyl having the child is the major factor in the different careers.

As I've said before I believe the actual difference is more psychological, I don't believe women are as driven or aggressive in pursuit of either power or money.
But on this specific question yes Men have a slight advantage in terms of actually giving birth they can work more.  But I don't accept that this accounts for the pay difference.   Ultimately it's still a matter of choice.

Nobody is denying that there is a certain societal bias towards the woman being the carer, and the is a physical issue which means it's women that gives birth.   Neither of these are the fault or the responsibility of the Employer.  The religious among you might like to take the physical issues up with your creator.

What rarely gets discussed is how much a woman should be compensated for being the child bearer.    What is the quantifiable impact of giving birth on ones career?  Where a couple choose to have kids the woman has to have them, so some compensation is deserved,  but why doesn't that compensation come from her husband?

As for the follow on care this is traditionally done by the woman, but is not neccearily so.  This is a choice made by the family and again the employer has no obligation to compensate either partner for the impact on their career path.

Note.   What we're talking about here is not who pays for the maternity leave/paternity leave.  The employer may choose to pay something out of recognition of the value of the employee,  but isn't obliged to.

What we're talking about is compensating people for the impact on their career
for taking time out to have kids, or be ill, or travel the world, or sit by the bedside of a family member.    There should be no compensation for this.   It happens.

Is it unfair that the childbearing reality impacts on some womens careers?    
No it isn't.  It's life, it's brutally fair.  The childbearing reality also impacts in the relationship that the child has with each parent (usually closer to mother), and with the respective rights of the parents in the eyes of the law.   There's swings and roundabouts.

-Rd


----------



## Vanilla (27 Jun 2005)

Daltonr: on a purely practical level- do you have children, and if so, did you take or even contemplate taking parental leave to take care of them after the birth? If you did, you're very much in the minority. Aside completely from the physical aspects ( and btw you havent taken into account breastfeeding - which WHO recommends should be done for a year, and all medical advice seems to be to do it for as long as possible or being up half the night with a newborn) how would your employer view your decision to take parental leave? I'd guess badly. In the same way your employer would most likely view repeated absences by you to take care of your children badly. 

You say 'ultimately its still a matter of choice' , but I don't agree. My point is that for most women, if they want to have children, there is no choice. Thats a fact of life. However I do agree that an employer has no obligation to compensate because of the effect this will have on a womans career, nor should they. It is perhaps understandable that an employer will prefer a male employee to a female because of the possible detrimental effect having a child will have on their work. 

Being a woman, however, you will excuse the fact that I am not happy about it. I am not happy that in a job application, a man of equal experience and sometimes less, would be likely to be preferred. I am not happy that it is likely that a man would be paid more. I'm not saying I dont understand the reasons why, but I don't have to be happy about it. I'm not happy that I will have to let my career suffer to take care of my child because it would be much harder for my husband to take parental leave. However I am not prepared to let my child suffer in any way, so I will have to sacrifice my career. Thats life, but I don't have to like it.


----------



## daltonr (27 Jun 2005)

> on a purely practical level- do you have children, and if so, did you take or even contemplate taking parental leave to take care of them after the birth?



No, although I've seen the phenomenon close up, so I'm familiar with it.   To answer your question I have discussed the possibility of being the one who stays at home should the situation present itself.   I don't dispute for one second that that would put me in the minority.   And I accept that due to lots of factors stay at home men will always be the minority.



> and btw you havent taken into account breastfeeding



Actually I have taken this into account.  Again there are choices here.  The choices suit different people.   From not breastfeeding at all to using a pump etc.   Let's not get into this in too much detail.   Let's stick to big picture.



> how would your employer view your decision to take parental leave? I'd guess badly. In the same way your employer would most likely view repeated absences by you to take care of your children badly.



I'm my own employer but whether it's me or another employee I'd interpret the decision to take parental leave as a decision to prioritise family over work.   A very wise piece of prioritisation in my view.   I wouldn't punish a worker for such a decision, but I'd also not expect such an employee to continue to advance their career while they are off pursuing their other priority.  When they return they'd have fallen slightly behind someone who hadn't taken time off.  'd expect nothing less if I was the employee.



> you will excuse the fact that I am not happy about it. I am not happy that in a job application, a man of equal experience and sometimes less, would be likely to be preferred. I am not happy that it is likely that a man would be paid more. I'm not saying I dont understand the reasons why, but I don't have to be happy about it.



I fully understand your position.  It's one I'm very familiar with,  I've heard this story many many times.   I've seen it from the perspective of the employee and the employer.

The problem is muddied a bit.   We need to pin down what we're talking about here.  There are perhaps half a dozen different issues that get rolled into this discussion that need to be teased apart and discussed in isolation before trying to put them all together.   Here are a few...

Isssue 1.  Will employers in general prefer a man to a woman when hiring or
promoting due to the possibility that the woman may take more time off?

My opinion.   Possibly.  Certainly in small business I can see this might happen.  It's far from universal, but it's probably right that steps be taken to tackle it.   Simply legislating that it isn't allowed isn't enough,  a small employer won't care about the legislation, they'll act in the interests of their firm and come up with a plausable excuse as to why the woman wasn't hired.   

Perhaps compensating small businesses for time lost so as to make such a hire less risky might be a more proactive way of dealing with the issue.  
For example if employers PRSI was lower for women of childbearing age, or for people who are likely to need time off work due to illness or disability, this might go someway to redressing the balance.

Business is business and risk must be rewarded or the money will go elsewhere.   No business will take on risk unless there is a payback.  If you can hire a man for the same price you will.   Money has no emotion on these matters.

If someone has to pick up the tab for engineering a more equal society then it should be government.  They're in the business of engineering society.   Businesses are in the business of making money.

Issue 2.  Do women in general make more compromises in work in order to prioritise family than men?
My Opinion.  Yes, I think that's fair to say.  I don't ever see a time when this will be 50/50 or the men will take the lead.  Perhaps there's something deep inside us that cause this difference, or perhaps it's societal.  but it's true.

Issue 3.  Given that women compromise on work and prioritise family, and men do the opposite (in the main).  Should women who make this compromise be entitled to stay on the work conveyor at the same speed as someone (male or female) who does not make these trade offs.

My Opinion.  No.  Anyone who prioritises anything over their work give up something to those who put work first.   In some cases the compromise is forced on us, and yes women are more likely to have the compromise forced on them than men.    It's not ideal, but it's life.   You don't get to choose whether or not you deal with a serious illness either.

You may be able to get a soft hearted government to ease the burden of the forced compromises, but your beef shouldn't be with employers.

Issue 4.  Will an employer in general pay a woman less than a man for no other reason than the fact that she's a woman. 

My Opinion.  No.  There may be pay differences but I firmly believe that is a symptom of many issues.  Simple straight forward discrimination on the basis of gender is not a credible explanation for such a widespread phenomenon.   

If it were related to gender bias then the employees of women managers would display the opposite, men would be paid the same or less than women,  but we find similar pay differentials regardless of the gender of the person writing the cheque.

The reasons for the Pay rates accross entire industries may relate to differences in ambition, differences in aggressiveness,  differences in life goals and priorities, differences in the way children are taught to think about themselves as they grow up.

There may also be a factor that men are more willing to jack in a job that they don't feel pays enough and move on.   I have seen women underpaid (relative to the industry, not relative to a coworker) who have stayed in the job regardless.

I lectured for a while and I can say with certainty that gender was not a reliable way of picking out who in the class would be a good programmer and who would not.

If some of the females I taught are on less money than their male counterparts for no other reason than that they are women, that would annoy me as much as you and I'd like to hear about it.

-Rd


----------



## Vanilla (27 Jun 2005)

I think its fairly obvious that an employer will favour a man over a woman because of the possibility of maternity leave and the fact that women in general will take the burden of childcare in the main, and similarly men will be paid more than women for the same reason. And as whether any particular woman will actually have children or not, or take on that burden or not is impossible to predict, then it follows that women will be more likely to be on a lower pay and less likely to get promoted for no other reason than they are women.

And getting back to the physical aspects, you say you have taken into account breastfeeding- I agree there is the choice to not do it, I don't necessarily agree that you can always choose to pump. But thats a side matter.


----------



## daltonr (27 Jun 2005)

I know you can't always use a pump it isn't for everyone and it can't start immediately. I know a little more about such matters than I'd care to know to be honest. 

As I said there are lots of choices, and then there are situations that are forced upon us. I also agree that women get more choices made for them in this area than men. On the other hand the flipside is that that women or men who end up staying at home with kids get more time with their kids. You'd sometimes think that this was a bad thing. What it is is their compensation for prioritising family over work.

My sympathy would be with the woman who chooses to devote herself fully to work and get's discriminated agaisnt on the grounds that she *might* become pregnant. Her choice to prioritise work is not rewarded as it should be. That is unacceptable.
It's understandable why an employer might discriminate, but it's unacceptable. I think my Employers PRSI idea might help such women.

Some will say that we shouldn't reward anyone who puts work before family.   Well business will reward them.  Business doesn't care if you have kids.    Government, the State cares about having kids to pay for pensions etc in the future,  but business doesn't really care.

So, let the state reward you for having kids, and let business reward you for doing work.

Women or men who prioritise family over work should suffer somewhat in the work area, but they are compensated with a better (hopefully) homelife. Those who prioritise work over family will probably suffer in terms of family life but will be rewarded with a better career.

Our goal should be to create a society where both men and women are given equal opportuniy to make the work/family, not to compensate people for the loss that results from making the choice.

-Rd


----------



## Vanilla (27 Jun 2005)

I agree.


----------



## daltonr (27 Jun 2005)

Oh thank goodness for that.

It usually takes days of debate, and often bribery with skittles and alcohol before people start to agree with me.  

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (27 Jun 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> 
> Actually Rainyday icantbelieve is right in his claim that Men are considered to be more productive than women. The research in this areas seems to have moved on to why this is the case, rather than if this is the case.
> ...


Eh yes - I would definitely need some more googling to be convinced, given that study in question is based on 155 tree-planters in Canada in 1994. Hardly representative or exhaustive. And based on my quick scan of the study, it refers to different male/female responsive to an incentive scheme rather than base productivity. So a lot more googling is required to show that men are more productive than women. 

For the record, I'd be quite happy to accept that men are better than women on hard, physical labour (no childbirth-related pun intended) like unskilled building work, mining etc, but I'm a long way from being convinced that men are generally more productive than women in knowledge-worker roles.



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> In general terms I agree with icantbelieves comments above. In the real world people are seldom motivated by only one factor in making a decision. For example if you knew that your five employees in a small business had strong racist views would you employ a black person to work with them and suffer the problems that would result including the case that would be brought against you by the EA and the strong possibility that you would loose key staff or would you just not employ a black person?


I'd be more worried about how you managed to get 5 racists onto your staff. Wouldn't say much for your hiring practices to me.


			
				Purple said:
			
		

> As for rainyday’s statement that . That is simply not true. Employers have to allow their pregnant employee to take maternity leave. The result of that is that a replacement has to be hired, at temp rates of pay, and that person has to be trained in on someone else’s time. There is a real cost in that, especially for a small business. If the employee in question is in a key managerial position the real cost will be much higher.


Flimsy arguements at best. Don't you have somebody trained in to provide holiday cover, or sick leave cover, or parental leave (which applies equally to both men & women) cover, or employee might leave/get heart attack/get fired cover. Excessive dependancy on key individuals is jut bad business. And let's not be so quick to assume that temp rates are always higher than FTE rates. Are you really looking at the fully-burdened FTE rates will all the overheads thrown in?



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> The link goes to the judgement to bounce the high court judgement back to the Labour Court. As for your point that Men are paid 15% more than women (the substance of which is not invalidated by the lack of a link to back it up); I'm sure you are aware that statistics are worthless without all of the relevant background contextual information.


Apologies for the broken link - [broken link removed]


----------



## daltonr (28 Jun 2005)

> Eh yes - I would definitely need some more googling to be convinced, given that study in question is based on 155 tree-planters in Canada in 1994. Hardly representative or exhaustive. And based on my quick scan of the study, it refers to different male/female responsive to an incentive scheme rather than base productivity. So a lot more googling is required to show that men are more productive than women.



Actually the study found that men planted 11% more trees than women and sought to find out why.  It ruled out discrimination and tried to see if men and women react differently to incentives.   It concluded that they didn't.

The final conclusion is that the difference in productivity was down to ability.  I agree that this qualifies as a physical job, although hardly hard labour.  Trees are small when you plant them.

You could well be right that women are just as productive in knowledge based jobs.   That wuold be my observation in the main, but it's interesting that that is the very type of job in which direct comparison of pay levels is not possible, since no two knowledge jobs are the same.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2005)

> I'd be more worried about how you managed to get 5 racists onto your staff. Wouldn't say much for your hiring practices to me.


 You know well that the situation in question was a hypothetical one. That sort of comment contributes nothing to a discussion. If you hired workers from poorer areas of north Dublin for manual work you would have a better idea of where a large minority of Dublin people stand on working with Black people.



> Flimsy arguements at best. Don't you have somebody trained in to provide holiday cover, or sick leave cover, or parental leave (which applies equally to both men & women) cover, or employee might leave/get heart attack/get fired cover.


 I assume you are joking here? Are you really saying that in a small company of 5-10 people it is possible to train a person in to fill a role for a period of three to four months at no disruption or cost or another person will be available to fit into that role for three or four months with no disruption or cost to the company?

Would you care to share your own opinions here and make a constructive contribution to this thread rather than just deconstructing other people’s comments?


----------



## Vanilla (28 Jun 2005)

Skittles? Alcohol? Damn it, I knew I should have held out!


----------



## daltonr (28 Jun 2005)

> Flimsy arguements at best. Don't you have somebody trained in to provide holiday cover, or sick leave cover, or parental leave (which applies equally to both men & women) cover, or employee might leave/get heart attack/get fired cover.
> 
> I assume you are joking here?


 
I have to admit the naivete of that comment coming from someone like Rainyday took me a bit by surprise.  I thought I read on a previous thread that he had some involvement in a small company in the past.

Any small business I've ever been involved with (5 at this count) works around these issues,  it isn't possible to have someone who can fill in,  if such a person existed they'd already be on the staff doing their own work.

Holidays are usually 2 weeks, often less and you live with it.  Being an industry of relatively young people you disregard the risk of death because it if happens the project is going to be the least of your concerns.

Redundancies only usually occur when there's a slow down so a replacement by definition is not required.

Perhaps Rainyday's experience of small businesses is different.   I'd be very curious to see how a small (1 to 10 employee) knowledge based company manages to have standby staff ready to provide cover.

Obviously in jobs where people are interchangeable, e.g. conveyor belt manufacturing jobs then it may be possible.   Although we won't have to worry about such jobs for long, they'll all be in China or India by the end of the decade.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2005)

> Obviously in jobs where people are interchangeable, e.g. conveyor belt manufacturing jobs then it may be possible. Although we won't have to worry about such jobs for long, they'll all be in China or India by the end of the decade.


 I agree, and so will a lot of the IT job! (but I digress)


----------



## daltonr (28 Jun 2005)

Yep, some of the coding jobs may go abroad, but I think the vast majority of bespoke software (the kind that is most knowledge intensive) will always remain close to the end user when it comes to development.

I can see a lot of the big off the shelf coding being moved abroad,  the Microsoft style companies etc.   But it certainly won't happen soon.

But we digress.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2005)

To digress again, most of the "conveyor belt manufacturing jobs" have been in eastern Europe, south east Asia and China since the end of the last decade. For example Dell may employ more people than ever directly in this country but they provided more jobs in the economy 6-8 years ago. To tie in to the subject at hand the companies that have gone under/ overseas have had an equal opportunity policy when letting their staff go.


----------



## RainyDay (28 Jun 2005)

Using costs of training a replacement for maternity cover as an arguement in proving lower productivity for women is taking the narrowest possible view. You might as well blame the costs of the soap in the ladies loo. Sure if you didn't have any women on staff, you wouldn't need the ladies loo at all at all.

I notice that neither Purp nor RD answered the point about training staff to provide cover for parental leave? Or cover for critical employees simply leaving? I've worked with a number of small companies in my time. The smart ones made a concerted to provide cover for key employees by cross-training, with varying degrees of success.


----------



## daltonr (28 Jun 2005)

> I notice that neither Purp nor RD answered the point about training staff to provide cover for parental leave?



I thought we both answered it.  I certainly did.   I mentioned being involved in various capacities with 5 (perhaps 4) small companies.   I said that from what I could gather no special plan was in place for absenses due to parental leave.   If/when it happened it was dealt with.   That usually meant cutting back on the amount of work that was taken on.

There was of course an element of cross training of all staff, but the net result is your still down a staff member.   You can't do your own job and someone elses.

In 2 of the companies there were/are no key female employees.

I'm not saying this is good.   I'm just saying it's life.   You can try to legislate for it but in the kind of jobs we do today it is virtually impossible to compare two workers.
We need new and imaginative ways to tackle discrimination where it exists.

I don't hear imagination in the comments on this thread.   I hear a stubborn clinging to the belief that you can pass a law and everything will be ok.    I don't hear any recognition of the fact that small businesses are often surviving rather than thriving.  Many have no training of key staff, much less cross training to cover for absent staff.

Are they smart?  Are they dumb?   if their busieness keeps them in the lifestyle they desire then they are smart.   You'll have to do more than pass a law or appeal to their decency to get them to use their busienss as a tool to tackle discrimination.
In simple terms if you want them to take on extra risk, you'll have to reward them with cool hard cash.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2005)

There's no need for me to add anything to that.


----------



## jem (29 Jun 2005)

I have to say RD that you have made extremly good posts on this subject.
Rainyday etc what you seem to have forgotten is teh fact that there is only 1 reason for anyone to go into business that is to make money, its not to employ people, its not to be fair to community,(although both may be by products), its to make money.
Most small business are keeping going, there is a major difference between small business, working from day to day and large business/companies large ones can afford to have people cross trained, small business have people trained to cover for short periods of time holidays etc only not for 3/4 months, doesn't work that way.
The bottom line is with the exception of holidays, no work no pay very simple, no one pays the self employed for being out.


----------



## RainyDay (30 Jun 2005)

I get the feeling I'm being attacked for things I haven't said. I didn't make any comments about whether businesses should pay maternity pay. I didn't suggest that an employee being out on maternity doesn't leave a business down one person. I didn't suggest make any comments at legislation in this area. Let me just sumarise & restate my key points on this thread.

I'm extremely sceptical about the existence of any firm data/research to show that men are more productive than women, with the exception of physical labour role. 

Any additional unavoidable costs associated with maternity leave (over and above additional costs that exist to ensure holiday cover, sick cover, parental leave cover) are marginal, and extremely unlikely to be significant in comparing male/female productivity.


----------



## daltonr (1 Jul 2005)

> I get the feeling I'm being attacked for things I haven't said.



I get that a lot too. 



> I didn't make any comments about whether businesses should pay maternity pay.



I agree, we were talking about the indirect costs.



> I didn't suggest that an employee being out on maternity doesn't leave a business down one person.



You did suggest that the impact of being down one person should be  minimal  because the "smart" companies  should be cross training.   We're just setting you straight on the naivete of that with regard to many small busineses, particularly in the knowledge based jobs which is the way work is moving.



> I didn't suggest make any comments at legislation in this area.



Yes you did...



> You tell him quite quickly that it doesn't matter how you know, what matters is that he is breaking the law - and his options are to fix the problem himself by negotiation, or to face an expensive legal process and a pile of negative publicity.



This was the comment that sparked this whole discussion.   You omitted his/her third option which is to tell the employee that he/she values the other employee more.



> I'm extremely sceptical about the existence of any firm data/research to show that men are more productive than women, with the exception of physical labour role.



OK.  I think you're right.  Two Employees of equal ability who devote equal effort to their jobs are certainly likely to be equally valuable to a company (productive if you like).  I'dagree that gender is unlikely to affect their ability or productivity.



> Any additional unavoidable costs associated with maternity leave (over and above additional costs that exist to ensure holiday cover, sick cover, parental leave cover) are marginal



I disagree with you on that.  But at least we all know where we stand now.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (1 Jul 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> You did suggest that the impact of being down one person should be  minimal  because the "smart" companies  should be cross training.   We're just setting you straight on the naivete of that with regard to many small busineses, particularly in the knowledge based jobs which is the way work is moving.


You don't hold a monopoly on knowledge of how small companies operate. It seems that my experiences are different to yours. And just for the record, your assumption that large companies have loads of excess resources that can easily be cross-trained and swapped around doesn't hold water as a general principle either.



			
				daltonr said:
			
		

> Yes you did... This was the comment that sparked this whole discussion.   You omitted his/her third option which is to tell the employee that he/she values the other employee more.


This isn't a 'comment' on the legislation. It's a statement of fact. It is against the law to pay men more than women for equivalent work. 

Your third option is an over-simplification. If you checked out the links to the Equality Tribunal cases, you'll see that those guys will crawl all over such claims with a fine toothcomb - if the claim doesn't stand up, the employer will end up paying out.

On the more general issue, I'm seeing a growing acceptance of seeing the guys taking their full parental leave (up to & including director-level staff) and the guys rushing out at 5 pm to do the creche run.


----------



## daltonr (4 Jul 2005)

> You don't hold a monopoly on knowledge of how small companies operate.


 
I don't think I ever claimed to have.   I just offered my observations of the 4 or 5 small companies I had seen up close, and my observation of having been involved in running 2 small companies.



> And just for the record, your assumption that large companies have loads of excess resources that can easily be cross-trained and swapped around doesn't hold water as a general principle either.


 
And I made this assumption where exactly?

I did confine myself as much as possible to speaking about small knowledge based companies,   because it's what I know best.  I don't think I passed ANY comments on big businesses.  Although I think it's pretty obvious that the owner of a small business is more likely to be hit in the pocket by someone taking leave than the HR Dept of a big business.  Money has a way of focussing the mind.



> Your third option is an over-simplification. If you checked out the links to the Equality Tribunal cases, you'll see that those guys will crawl all over such claims with a fine toothcomb - if the claim doesn't stand up, the employer will end up paying out.


 
It's no more of a simplification than your advice to inform the boss that he/she's breaking the law.

My income has yoyo'd up and down over the years.  I've taken pay cuts to work on interesting projects with smaller companies,  and I've been over paid in some instances too.  I don't look at others and complain that they earn more than me.   I have no right to complain.

In a low skill job where workers can be swapped with very little trianing then yes, any pay gap is questionable and should be easily addressed.   Most of these jobs are unionised anyway so I'd have to ask what the hell the Unions are being paid for if they can't even ensure equality in peoples pay.

In the more skilled and knowledge based jobs people have far more capacity to market themselves and if they do it properly they may earn more than their collegues.  These jobs tend to be less unionised for the simple reason that most people in the industry feel they can look after themselves.    

Interesting that this comes down to 2 men arguing.   Is there any woman out there earning less than a colleque.  Who would be willing to join the discussion.   Can you say honestly that the difference in pay is down to gender and not knowledge and how you market yourself.  Can you say honestly that you couldn't earn a lot more by switching jobs?

It would also be interesting to hear from Men who feel they are underpaid.  Because I guarentee you they are out there.


-Rd


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2005)

Off topic a bit I know but the idea that there are knowledge based jobs and then there are manual jobs is a gross oversimplification. For example the key guys on the factory floor in my company (engineering) are manual workers but the skills required for those jobs take 10-15 years to learn. The machines are programmed from PC's in a CAD office by the same people who run the cells and set up the machines. It is a small specialised industry and there is no chance of getting anyone to fill in from an agency if one of them is out. The cost would be very high even if it were possible as yearly pay for the permanent staff often exceeds 100K.
We advertise as an equal opportunities company but have no female employees on the factory floor or in any technical engineering post. The reason for that is that none, not one, has ever applied for a job.


----------



## daltonr (4 Jul 2005)

> For example the key guys on the factory floor in my company (engineering) are manual > workers but the skills required for those jobs take 10-15 years to learn. 

Then it's a knowledge based job.  I didn't say that all manual jobs are plug and play.   If your job relies on knowledge or skill then your pay packed should reflect that.   If there are different levels of knowledge and skill then that may be reflected in different pay packets.    

-Rd


----------

