by frog
The Herald online highlighted the issue;
The Government has axed two investigations aimed at improving the pay of women as it tries to save money by controlling public sector salaries.
State Services Minister Tony Ryall said the investigations would “generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment”.
It’s the now familiar Nat buzz-line, blaming the economic environment, but I suspect that there may be a more sinister reason at work here. It may be that the Nats simply don’t care about women. The Greens have a well developed policy on women’s affairs and pay equity issues, so I thought that before I started forming the conclusion that the nats simply don’t care, I had better check out what the official National party policy is on Women’s Affairs. What I found was probably the National Party’s most coherent and well articulated policy:
I think a blank white page with a picture of a bloke says all that needs to be said!
I hopped over to the Hand Mirror, expecting that I would get the usual coherent feminist perspective to counter balance my decidedly male perspective, but clearly they have been left almost speechless by this arrogant stupidity. However, Catherine Delahunty found her voice and let rip here.
It is clear that a crusty old boys network is firmly in charge of the Beehive once again. But I have to ask. Can they afford to alienate over half of their potential voters like this? Apparently, they think that kiwi women will forget all about this come 2011.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Sat, February 21st, 2009
Tags: , Catherine Delahunty, green, hand mirror, Herald, new zealand, party, pay equity, policy, politics, tony ryall, women's affairs
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
While I might agree that this situation needs addressing I would also agree with national in the sense that other issues are somewhat more in need of consideration.
Instead of acting only against what national does, in defence, might it be a good time to advance ideas they might use. How about, given everybodies going to run out of money soon, or maybe a better way of saying that would be that our confidence in a global economy is flagging, that we should all be working to instill new confidence in our own abilities and resources and a green angle might be a bill to allow developmental and experimental ideas to have room to move ie communities allowed to set up on dead land or otherwise useless land to do experimental housing.
Thats just one thing I’d be keen on but surely you see my point that you’re only being defensive on a point of pride when the party could be of great use by offering alternative solutions at a time when we may be most open to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When women are prepared to work the same career structure as men, then they’ll get paid the same amount.
>>It may be that the Nats simply don’t care about women.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha….
How can you write this drivel with a straight face?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
artyone – what you are saying is that natural justice is not as important as “the economy”. The Greens have offered more constructive alternatives, hence the link to our women’s affairs policy. That’s why I linked to it. The nats have just gioven us an excuse to talk about it, we’re not being defensive!
The fact that both these inquiries were nearing completion says to me that national did not want to face up to the truth or the recommendations that these inquiries would have made clear.
If, as the research shows, women are paid on average 12% less than men for the same exact work, (yes the same exact work BP), perhaps in these tough economic times the boys should offer to take a 6% hit and share the balance with those who missed out on a Y chromosome during the genetic lottery?
Because there certainly is no other reason, despite what BP disingenuously claims, for women who do the same job not to get the same pay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>women are paid on average 12% less than men for the same exact work, (yes the same exact work BP),
Then why don’t firms hire only women? They’d cut their wage bill. And businesses which hire mainly men should be broke, because they can’t compete.
I strongly suspect the data doesn’t incorporate aspects such as longevity of service, loyalty, output, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog,
BP is correct, prehaps not in entirity but in part.
The female, because of her reproductive system, posses a significantly greater risk than a comparable male as in the present society she is able to get pregnant and have to take leave of work while males do not, she is far more likley to look after a child than her male counterpart, and she is far more likely to be contrained in terms of hours and stress due to that child. The pay differential mearly represents the additional risk incured in taking on female workers whom are still capable of reproduction. Its a risk premium.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bp – you suspect wrong. And longevity of service is a red herring in our chop and change to get ahead corporate world. I would have believed that meme 30 years ago, but not today. What is the executives average job span averaging these days? 2.5 years or so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Fraid not Sapient – That’s the old meme which has been disproved, in the modern context at least, many times over. Stop parroting the old sexist line and get with the research, man!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That blank page is priceless – you can’t quite pick up the url on the screenshot frog has published. It is
http://www.national.org.nz/policyareas.aspx?S=243
And five hours after frog published, it is still blank. I suspect some Nat staffers may have been called back in on their weekend to try to cobble something together to fill the gap.
Maybe:
No, that wouldn’t do, would it? I almost feel sorry for whoever has to write it. Will be a real test of the competence of their spin doctors!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog,
It is sexist to think that the fundimental physical differences in the reproductive anatomy and the socially constructed gender-roles between the sexes may have some economic bearing? well ill be darned!
Disprooved? Now this I would like to see! reference, reference, reference please, and make them credible! because the distribution of pay differences seems to support it pretty strongly to me…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Slightly off topic, sorry, but
http://getfirefox.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Bp – you suspect wrong.
See Sapients post. Both I and Sapient are right, and you’re dead wrong. There are different outputs because women tend to go and have babies.
If what you were saying were true, business would hire mostly women because they save 12.5% on their wage bill.
But that doesn’t happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Be nice to me toad! I linked to the page in question from within the post.
I think all of National’s spin doctors are here, and making a bad job of trying to justify why a simple inquiry was scrapped!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – do you still believe that nonsense that businesses are all rational economic actors? That, too, has been disproved time and again, but your ideology won’t let you see that.
Pay equity doesn’t happen for a host of reasons, but they have little to do with the discredited notion of people and business being rational economic actors. That absurd assumption is only necessary in neo-con economic theory in order to fudge the math.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not a National Party spin doctor.
Perhaps those inquiries were of dubious merit? Too many of the sisterhood involved?
Who knows.
But you’re avoiding the issue. Women are paid less because they WILLINGLY CHOOSE to go and raise kids instead. We don’t have a scarcity of people who will do that for nothing, therefore it will always be low paid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient said: It is sexist to think that the fundimental physical differences in the reproductive anatomy and the socially constructed gender-roles between the sexes may have some economic bearing?
Yes it is. Has it occurred to you, Sapient, that one of the reasons it is usually the mother, rather than the father, who stays at home or reduces employment to part-time in order to look after children is because she gets paid less in the first place, so there is less economic deprivation to the family from her doing so? You are juxtaposing cause and effect.
frog said: I linked to the page in question from within the post. Sorry frog, I missed it.
The other reason – the “socially constucted gender roles” you refer to – are inherently sexist by definition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oops, really am having a bad day. The last para was meant to be in reply to Sapient, not frog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>BP – do you still believe that nonsense that businesses are all rational economic actors?
Of all entities, business are possibly the most rational economic actors. It’s not even a difficult thing to measure. Hmmm…..female staff produce exactly the same output as men, in ALL respects, yet they are 12.5% cheaper?
The answer is they are clearly not offering the same value.
BTW: The women in my circle are VERY rational actors. More so than the men, certainly. Most married money….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>to look after children is because she gets paid less in the first place
A lot of women plan their “careers” to achieve just that.
For example, I have three female friends who work in the medical profession. Two are (ex) nurses, one is a doctor.
The two nurses are both stay-at-home Mums. They stayed being nurses, and never pushed up a career ladder because they always envisioned having children and staying at home. They married men who had high incomes. It was all part of the career plan, which was to have some level of independence, and to raise a family. It was never their plan to have a work career until they were 65.
The Dr is on 400K+ per year, and is a partner in a large Wellington practice. Doesn’t have kids.
Made very different choice. Both valid, but one path was always going to earn a lot more than the other. These are all intelligent women, perfectly capable of earning as much as their husbands.
Except for their “career” choice…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: A lot of women plan their “careers” to achieve just that.
They plan their careers to get paid less than their male counterparts doing work of equal value! I feel a Tui ad coming on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, Toad. Their career plan is to be stay-at-home mothers.
It was never their intention to have a long career of high paying jobs, so they never took the steps necessary to achieve that. Instead, they took the steps necessary to stay at home and raise a family.
Their husbands provide the means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
artyone – what you are saying is that natural justice is not as important as “the economy”.
What? Am I really?
Natural justice as I understand it is stuff like survival of the fittest and the most able to defend is the most able to keep. The idea of women recieving the same amount as men is only possible because we have an economy that trades labour for cash.
And to my mind paying people for any other reason than performance is unreal and setting up unfair advantages based on idealistic notions.
The simple fact is that some people out there get paid far too much and are basically greedy and if others run around and try and make that our measuring post and then equalise out from there then your fighting the wrong war… even if you win the battles.
When someone gets a job mostly because of what they are as opposed to what they can offer then are paid for a weeks work, and then spend it all in two days, what would take me a year to earn, which would allow me to exist as I do for two years, then I’m afraid your notion of equality is completely different from mine, as is natural justice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you have it in your head that you’ll be ending your professional work life at 30 years old (to raise a family), then that’s going to affect the type of carrer you choose.
You’ll choose careers you can dip in and out of that offer significant levels of flexibility. That’s if you ever go back to them at all, which in my example, they have no intention of doing.
These women will earn a lot less than their husbands over their lifetime for the simple reason they’re not prepared to climb the professional ladder for 40 years. Their career choice was to raise a family.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Agreed that the gender roles are highly sexist, that is exactly why I said “socially constructed”.
I believe that you are getting cause and effect mixed up, women are more likely to stay at home and take care of children because a) The female is physically better equiped than the male to nurse the child in the first months of life and b) The socialisation process constructs certain expectations both of women and within women so that generally, when one looks across society as a whole, women are far more likely to desire to nurse.
As an economist or psychologist it is not sexist to think that the differences may have economic bearing, though it is hopelessly naïve to think that it would not; as an employer it may be sexist to make the distinction, logical but sexist. It is much like many asian employers wont employ third generation asians as apparently they are far more lazy than most other NZ’ers and many maori employers wont employ maori because of higher crime statistics; in both instances it is racist but in both instances it is a logical economic choice based on statistics.
Frog,
Back up your statements, I want to see references! I am waiting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient: dont wait, it’s the weekend, and that dude is tubing out on a blue-winged angel.
Not a bad thing either.
Do these things come together?-are we a white-winged true
union? Or a sum of parts, desparately seeking reunion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark,
I dont have much better to do, ive been having a rare marathon of binge drinking in the days since we parted ways so my ability to think or study has been cut down to hardly above that of the standard student, i feel retarded. It is because of this that I have absolutly no idea what the second paragraph of your post means, or what a blue-winged angel is for that matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I took part in the pay equity review. It was anything but a ’sisterhood’ gathering.
“generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment”
What does he mean, additional? Equitable remuneration for women is seen as ‘extra’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Women lawyers make a good living employed in the Family Court.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a simple answer in keeping with the spirit of equality & the times.
Drop Men’s wages 12%
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Disagree kelpie – drop men 6%, raise women 6%, or whatever equilibrium formula is needed to get it sort of down the middle. God knows the inequities are probably oddly distributed.. No harm, no foul to NZ business, but the boys get to see it from the other side – half way at least….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sounds good to me Frog.
Hard to believe that the first equal pay for women was negotiated back in the 70’s under the Remuneration Authority presided over by Philip Proctor.
It was granted by the way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>No harm, no foul to NZ business, but the boys get to see it from the other side
I’m sure many men would like to stay at home whilst their big earning career partner works for the man until they are 65.
Careful what you wish for….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Normalised for experience (i.e. time spent off raising kids is taken into account) and qualifications, women are paid and promoted less than equavilant men in every study I’ve read.
Have you heard of blind auditions? For the longest time large bands, orchestras, etc… would watch musicians so they could see how they moved the instrument, etc… Everyone thought they were judging the candidates fairly. But when they hid the candidates from view, women started being hired at a higher rate than men. We unconsciously devalue the contributions of women to the point that we actually notice they’re better when we don’t know who did it.
Perhaps the reason employers don’t hire women, even though they get paid less on average, is because they have unconscious biases that make them think perfectly acceptable candidates cannot do the job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The truth
Why would any business hire young females who have just got married, train them up, spend a truck load of money on them only to have them fall pregnant and be on maternity leave for a year, all that time you have to keep their job open while training somebody else.
It’s nuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
*sigh*
I stop paying attention for a day & this comes up …
BP, Sapient, BB, et al:
There is ample research, run as longitudinal studies, which can be accessed from the MWA and the Government Statistician, showing that women of every age are discriminated against in wage and salary contracts.
It’s not just employers being shy of ’sweet young things’ who may get married and have children; surprise, surprise, married women whose children have all grown to school-age, sometimes discover that despite ‘marrying up’, their husband’s salary is not enough to support a wife and children in the manner to which they would like to continue to be accustomed.
Thus, she decides to get another job (maybe even so that extra savings can accumulate for holidays/renovations/future education costs). If adequate childcare is a problem, especially in a small town where employers know what the local creche/after school care capacity is, she may find it very difficult to get an interview, let along a job, as employers show immediate bias against mothers.
If she is, God forbid, trying to get some work experience under her belt as an insurance against marital infidelity (NB: I’m not being sexist here, I haven’t stated his or hers!), then she’ll be doubly disadvantaged if her marriage collapses – a good corporate wife, who hasn’t worked for 10 years, is heavily discriminated against in the employment market.
Not only is there a lack of current work practice experience, but also a need for cast-iron fail-safe childcare, as there is often no backstop adult (relative/new partner) who can collect the kids if working late is an imperative.
The workforce participation rates of women in NZ are an indicator of stubbornness on the part of women who need to work, rather than any softening of employers’ attitudes to female staff.
Some industries are still very gender-targeted; others have achieved gender-balancing due to the efforts of some very strong, determined women as leaders and mentors in their professions (WIFT, the Women in Film & Theatre mentoring/support group, is an example of this, as is Linuxchix, an informal gathering of OSS-coders and geekgirls who meet F2F as well as in on-line fora, to be geeky without putdowns or being talked over by the males in the industry)
Frog: great post, good rebuttals.
May I offer you some textbooks some time
You just may be a quicker learner than some of my last tutorial students …
BTW, I foreshadowed this when the ‘Bill & John Show’ got underway – Mary English is a very intelligent and influential woman in her own field, but takes a back seat firmly when it comes to politics and the family; I understand that Bronagh Key is of a similar mindset, although I’ve never had the opportunity to speak with her.
Mary acts out of strong Catholic convictions, and while I don’t share her faith, I respect that she has integrity and dignity in the manner in which her words and her deeds match up.
(See, this is that bit of feminism that blokes often don’t get – “separate but equal” – we can work for the improvement of women’s lives using various tools and techniques – and I happen to know that Mary English does participate in work for women who are disadvantaged, which is not heavily publicised, so I will respect that and not give details.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient; Sorry(?) to hear of your Party IQ – we must do it again sometime.
A blue-winged angel is a reference to surfing thru a tube wave — or whatever the guy/girl wants to do when he/she gets a day off!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kelpie, Frog,
So now your going to legislate pay rates? Maybe i should move to australia after all…
Besides, the difference is nil in low-skilled or high-staff-turnover jobs so that would be profoundly unfair to males, not to mention it would result in far lower employment of females, as such defeating the purpose entirly.
Frog, Katie, Ari,
Your claims are against intution and logic, that is all good and well but to make such claims one needs evidence to back them up. You keep saying “studies this”, “studies that”; WHAT F()[KNG STUDIES? Cite them! Provide reference! One cannot argue against a study unless one is able to examine the results and the methods, you should know this, if you honestly beleive these studies to be sound then give me the reference!
Your not furthering your arguements in the slightest, all your acheiving is making me frustrated as you act like mindless Solanites.
Katie,
Yes there is discrimination, that has been acknowledged this whole thread! whilst it may not be ideal it is still entirly logical and that is what i have been arguing. The phenomona can work on name alone when short-listing, if you have a ethnic sounding name your far more likley to be out, same if your female, the funny thing is the exact same biases occur if the employer is female or ethnic. The mind is a rational thing though it works on heuristics, if we see in the stats that ethnic groups have lower language skills, higher unemployment, etc then we will rationally be less inclined to hire them. it is much the same as how many police officers will be more likley to pull one over or charge if your black because blacks are represented more in prison. It may be self perpetuating and have origionally come from nowhere but it is still rational. “The human is always, and everywhere, a victim of circumstance as we act to respond and adapt to out environment the best we can based on our genetic endowment and our previous environments” – employers are no different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>legislate pay rates
What a great way to ensure fewer women are hired….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“then she’ll be doubly disadvantaged if her marriage collapses – a good corporate wife, who hasn’t worked for 10 years, is heavily discriminated against in the employment market.
Not only is there a lack of current work practice experience, but also a need for cast-iron fail-safe childcare, as there is often no backstop adult (relative/new partner) who can collect the kids if working late is an imperative.”
My god!..do people who think like this really exist?
The “corporate” wife scenario is hilarious, you portray her as a victim yet there is nothing stopping that wife from taking a job of her own.
Why should she receive special treatment because she wanted to sit on her backside for ten years living off her husbands money, like most of these corporate wife’s I suspect she set out to target a rich man in the first place and never had any intention of working for a living.
The child care suggestions just proves why the left are no longer in power, it is not the job of the tax payer to pay for the upbringing of your kids, if you cannot afford full time child care then that is your problem, it is not a burden you can shift onto the tax payer.
We have a big enough problem in NZ with the DPB and paying low life to breed without expecting others to pay for your child care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The corperate wife probably has a demanding husband who wants her to run the house hold. he does not want his wife working and indeed having her do so could lower his status.
Some corporate men are wife beaters ……………. the wifes dont leave or report it to the police as if he goes to jail how does the large mortgage and kids education get paid for???? ……
Child care or children being raised in a good and correct manner is very important and everyones ‘problem’ .
Children and Kids raised in the wrong manner leads to crime, criminals and far greater expenses ( prisons etc ) in the future.
Common sense Bro ………………… .
As for the natianals and their no pay equity for women.
What did anyone expect ??
The new nats are just the same as the old nats.
Boot camp thinking .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What about all those women out there who are the sole earner for the family?
They are the ‘bread winners’, but because they are not swinging dicks they have to take home less than the male doing the same job.
We are still in the dark ages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No they will not hire more men.
Women with dependents are far easier to scare than men; so they will hire them every time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This thread sums up all that is wrong with the Greens, most of your thinking and arguments are still stuck in the 60’s.
The rest of us have moved on from the Vietnam War, bra burning, communism/socialism and “women’s lib”, we live in the new century and deal with new century issues……………oh, and some of us eagerly await the emergence of a true centrist Green party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Da Bro – had you pegged as a Secret Greenie – right on Greenbro, come out of the closet – we love ya!
Incidentally, referring to New Age Economics – I was in an Office recently that had historic photo’s on the walls.
One took my interest – it was taken in 1895 and had a fair number of women employees. Inquiry revealed that they were indeed paid as Humans ie; equal to men.
But that Office and it’s like have almost disappeared from NZ’s Working Landscape – yep – it was one of those leftie Union Offices.
The baby got thrown out with the bathwater a long time ago – we have indeed a new age – one of systemic idealogical, moral and fiscal meltdown nonparalliel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Da Bro – had you pegged as a Secret Greenie
Yep, even voted for them once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come back to the Fold Bro – instant wisdom is a rare gift. It’s a Party where everyone gets a say…..great hey!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I voted for them once, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bog bro said: The rest of us have moved on from the Vietnam War, bra burning, communism/socialism and “women’s lib”, we live in the new century and deal with new century issues
Yes, some of us have moved on BB – from the 1960s to the 2000s.
But some, like you and Tony Ryall, appear to have moved back from the 1960s to the 1860s where a woman’s place was in the kitchen and if she dared to work it was okay to pay her less than a man would get for similar work!
So why not let the investiagtions proceed and then look at the evidence they came up with. Well, Ryall answered that – he knew what the outcome would be and that they would “generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment”.
Or, put another way, he canned the investigations becasue he knew they would provde evidence which would make it harder to justify the National Party’s intention to keep women’s incomes low.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>why not let the investiagtions proceed
I’d imagine the conclusion of such “investigations” were drawn well before they started.
The only possible “answer” is to make child rearing a paid activity, probably in the form of long, paid maternity leave.
In case you hadn’t noticed, we can’t afford such gestures, and no, we will not be paying more tax. The tax pool is already diminishing, and will do for quite some time. Key was talking about the structural deficits to 2025 looking pretty awful.
Get over it. And on with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
So now there is a massive consperacy that is holding women down, and somehow the national party is the main culprit? WTF?
There was a doctoral dissertion writen by a social policy analyist from NZ long before maternity leave was even on the table, by my uncle none-the-less, which while supporting its introduction specificly stated that greater pay inequity would be a likley consequence. So if anything, the conspiracy is headed by the likes of those found throughout labour and the greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>long before maternity leave was even on the table, by my uncle none-the-less, which while supporting its introduction specificly stated that greater pay inequity would be a likley consequence
I imagine that’s because employers would be forced to keep the position open during that time and replace with a contrator?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@BluePeter-
Thats right, females can continue to be oppressed because we do not have the correct economic conditions to treat them as first class citizens. A bad economy does not justify the subordination of a significent proportion of the workforce based purely on their sex.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They are not oppressed. They earn less because they offer a different risk profile than men. Women, in certain age groups, cost more to hire.
In any case, even if there was some grand conspiracy against females (groan), where are you going to get the money from to pay for long maternity leave? Your magic green money tree? Cost it out, then tell me *exactly* where the money will come from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of corse there is no grand conspiracy ………….. its the natianal party we are talking about and there aint nothing grand about that mob.
Ryall stopped the investigations because they would provide proof of the exploitiation of female workers in compared to males …………… something the nats have never cared about before.
The nats have always struggled with the female vote ……………… and this is an example why.
The new nats are just the same as the old nats.
Same dog ……………. same leg action
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘I strongly suspect the data doesn’t incorporate aspects such as longevity of service, loyalty, output, etc.’
Everybody repeat after me:
“Loyalty will be rewarded”
“Your input is important to us”
“Employees are our most valuable asset”
“We reward risk-takers”
Now drink your cool-aid. I’ve got to go to the Philippines for …. er never you mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Out of context, Don.
Forget loyalty. Forget longevity of service.
If women (insert any social group here you like) present a higher risk to the employer, then that risk will be reflected in their pay.
There IS a risk that a woman of child bearing age will have children and require leave. The position may have to be held open for a year. That means the employer must account for that position and get a contractor in to cover, who tend to cost more. If the job is reasonably important, the chances of getting a qualified person who will work for a limited term are low. Again, extra risk and extra cost.
It’s not rocket science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
Bingo.
RedDeath,
I can see this wednesday is going to be very interesting! I look foward to debating this issue live, esspecially since Sue and Cathrine will be there to join in
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see the National Party’s Women’s Affairs policy page is still blank. Maybe it is intentional, and not just a glitch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For those who can’t google the ref’s for themselves:
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/gender-analysis
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/our-work/action-plan/index.html
http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/circulars/co02/2.html
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/news-and-pubs/publications/az-publications/bim
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/news-and-pubs/publications/az-publications/work -and-enterprise/influence-of-maternal-employement.pdf
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/news-and-pubs/publications/az-publications/work -and-enterprise/oss-litrev.html
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/news-and-pubs/publications/trading-choices
That’s prolly enuff research for you to chew on for now, there’s more but I seem to recall a limit to how many links the blog allows in comments posts.
Frog, no intention to spam your post, just evening up the playing field.
This is what a feminist look like …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks katie. keep sending the refs! And yes, there is some sort of limit to the number of links, but it seems to vary so I have no idea what to recommend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow, that was so incredibly depressing reading all those comments. I can’t believe people still think that women don’t deserve pay-equity. It’s 2009!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fem,
its not that we, or atleast I, are arguing that women deserve less pay. Rather that in our present social situation, due to the choices made by the majority of women and due to women having wombs, women do in reality pose a greater risk than a male whom is exactly the same save sex and as such would be less prefered at a given pay rate. Employers have a basic right to employ employees at a rate which represents the costs and benefits associated with employing said employee.
Katie,
.
Thanks, I shall get on to those
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I can’t believe people still think that women don’t deserve pay-equity.
Women and men should get exactly equal pay for equal work and equal risk to the employer.
The point is that some groups do present higher risk, hence the reason for the inequity in many cases. Again, if women were really “cheaper”, then businesses would employ mostly women. Their wage bill would be lower.
But they don’t. So why is this not happening?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What sapient describes is social freeloading from the employers.
If it were not for wombs and the ‘choices’ of their woman owners there be no ‘markets’ at all……………..
In many developed countrys there is the problem of woman putting of childbirth or not having children at all ……………. often for economic reasons.
The penalizing of those with the wombs really suits those who prefer males to hold the upper hand and power within society. …………… ie the nats
Have the modern nats ever done anything to advance the position of woman in society ??????????
It seems they oppose every measure which brings equality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>not having children at all
Thought you greenies would be applauding that. So the world isn’t overpopulated?
>>The penalizing of those with the wombs really suits those who prefer males to hold the upper hand and power within society
There is no law saying women must look after children. If women tended to have babies, then went back to work soon after, and the male looked after the child, then you’d see the pay rates reflect this. But women DO make a choice, and that choice has a COST.
Who should pay that cost? You? Good-oh – send more of your income direct to the IRD.
>>Have the modern nats ever done anything to advance the position of woman in society
I used to hire them. They tend to make very good programmers, in my experience.
What have you done?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
First Link; Gender Analysis: The page itself is useless, though it does link to the “Full Picture” doccument which, while not a study, does cite several. It claims “Occupational segregation means that women are more likely to be in clerical positions…”, “women’s labour force participation has doubled over the last four decades, and by 1991 women made up 45 per cent of the labour force employed for 20 hours or more per week”, “in 43 per cent of two-parent families with children, women’s income is more than 35 per cent of the total family income”. These are the only substantive statements in said document and none of which support your argument; in fact they actually support some points made by the right wing “trolls” further up the thread.
None of the articles referenced in the document detail pay differences for the same jobs or support your arguments in any way either.
Second Link; Action Plan: Well what can I say, it cites no stats or research and all it is is a, very poor, plan to enhance the place of women. This does not support your position.
Third Link; Extract from Cabnet Office Circular: Again, this pushes the role of the ministry of womens affairs but it provides no stats or arguments that lend any support to your arguments. The same stands true for all links from the page and Annex A.
Fourth Link; Ministerial Breifs: Okay, Now we are getting somewhere. I just read every one availible on that page. From the 2007 report; “ Women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence, are lower paid than men, and bear the greater share of responsibility for unpaid work.”, “Women have much lower lifetime earnings than men, and the pay gap between women and men is ‘stuck’ at around 12 percent
Lifetime earnings are a critical factor impacting on women’s economic independence. The average weekly income from all sources for women in 2007 was $510, compared with $832 for men. This reflects the combined impact of women being less likely to be in paid work, working fewer hours, and earning less per hour. Women’s median hourly earnings were 12.1 percent lower than men’s in 20073 – men earned $19.10 compared to $16.78 for women. “. From 2008; “Women’s labour force participation was at its highest in the September 2008 quarter at 62.6 percent – an increase of 0.4 percentage points from the previous quarter. This compares with a labour force participation rate for men of 75.0 percent – a decrease of 0.4 percentage points from the previous quarter.6 • In the June 2008 quarter, women’s median hourly earnings were $17.50, compared to $20.00 for men. The gender pay gap has remained at around 12 percent since 2001.”.
Here it readily highlights the difference in pay rates between men and women, but note, it says across the entire economy, it also notes that there is a significant difference in areas of employment and in hours worked. It makes no claim as to women and men working at the same place, in the same job, with the same skill, same longetivity, etc making different sums.
This reference lends no support to you statements, if anything it again enhances those of the “trolls”.
Fifth Link; Influences of Maternal Employment and Early Childhood
Education on Young Children’s Cognitive and
Behavioural Outcomes: Okay? So you provided a link that shows not only that women are of a significantly greater risk than males, supporting my argument, but also that it is better for children to have mothers whom work little to no hours?
Sixth and Seventh link; crud: same as mentioned in previous links.
So overall you provided no evidence for your claims and actually backed up those of your opponents! The reason asked yout and frog to provide references was precisly because it is so easy to find evidence supporting me, now show me some supporting you
You truly are an anthropologist arnt you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>So overall you provided no evidence for your claims and actually backed up those of your opponents!
Thanks for backing our position, Katie!
You iz trollz now….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The National Party’s Women’s Affairs policy page is not still blank. Its most obvious feature is the presence of three pictures of John Key! What does that say?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That chicks have the hots for Key and will drop any other concern if they can droll over him?
I’ve seen women do this over him…its mad!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So far this thread has been won by BP,Sapient et el….the opposition is running on emotional fumes and leftist dogma.
The issue of cost is one that the opposition can’t answer without arriving at the inevertible lefty solution…..State force being needed to “rebalance” things….the gun in other words….whos suprised?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
incredible what they do… its all i can say…
Women demands
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)