Pope Francis calls inequality of pay for women "a scandal"

[Bexy]

It is against the law to pay women less for doing the same job as men.  However, jobs that are dominated by women are routinely paid less. 

And jobs that are dominated by men are routinely more backbreaking and risky... Harder work, higher risk --> higher pay. The majority of people injured and killed on the job are male. Nobody ever stopped me from becoming a construction worker, miner, soldier or oilrig worker, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to do the backbreaking and dangerous jobs they have. To me those people (male or female) deserve every penny they earn. While my deskjob may have caused me grey hairs at times, it certainly didn't put me at a high risk of death and injury and I don't have to worry about dust lung at 50.



In some studies it seems like women are now even outearning men in the west:

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

[MissBarbara]

It is against the law to pay women less for doing the same job as men.  However, jobs that are dominated by women are routinely paid less. 

And jobs that are dominated by men are routinely more backbreaking and risky... Harder work, higher risk --> higher pay. The majority of people injured and killed on the job are male. Nobody ever stopped me from becoming a construction worker, miner, soldier or oilrig worker, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to do the backbreaking and dangerous jobs they have. To me those people (male or female) deserve every penny they earn. While my deskjob may have caused me grey hairs at times, it certainly didn't put me at a high risk of death and injury and I don't have to worry about dust lung at 50.

In some studies it seems like women are now even outearning men in the west:

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

I think you have missed the point of the thread, and the Pope's comments.  No one is suggesting that all jobs should pay the same.  *Obviously* hazardous duty will result in higher pay, in most cases, except for undocumented workers in the construction industry, but don't get me started.

The point is this:  EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK.

The key phrase in Bexy's post is "in the West."

I've no reason to doubt that, in many places in the developed West, we are approaching the point where men and women are equally paid for equal work.

And the point is that the majority of the world's population does not live in the developed West.

[Bexy]

I think you have missed the point of the thread, and the Pope's comments.  No one is suggesting that all jobs should pay the same.  *Obviously* hazardous duty will result in higher pay, in most cases, except for undocumented workers in the construction industry, but don't get me started.

The point is this:  EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK.

I missed jack shit. I was responding to Lois' statement that female dominated jobs pay less and I pointed out the logical reason why they do. And I already pointed out that this 'wage gap' is pretty much extinct in the west and in some cases even reversed.

[Bexy]

The fact that you keep focusing on the West, when the Catholic Church has influence on a near-global scale, suggest that you have very much missed the point of the Pope's comments, as Toe said.

The fact that westerners keep regurgitating this 'wage gap' without quantifying the countries where it takes place shows me very much that it's still 'considered' a problem in the west.

Regardless, I don't see much logic in your argument with Lois' comment. Rate of pay is not, nor has it ever been, directly proportional to the physical labour required or risk taken to perform work.

I assume you fail to make a distinction between bluecollar and whitecollar work. In bluecollar work rate of pay is very much dependent on the risk one is willing to take in a job and in general bluecollar male dominated jobs are riskier, hence overall men are 'paid more' than women. My husband gets extra 'risk fees' because he performs several functions a regular soldier does not. Of course there is also a myriad of other factors at play, like the fact that more women than men will choose to stay home or take on part time work to raise tahe kids. But in 'desk jobs' in the west women are now outearning men in several fields, so I really fail to spot any wage gap.

When I was 11 we had to work in my dad's business and displace scrap wood. I found out my dad was paying my brother more than he was me and this made me livid, because I had this silly idea in my head that I was doing 'equal work'. I wasn't. My brother was stronger and faster than me and displaced more wood in a shorter time period, hence his higher pay was justified. Of course I didn't see it that way and with all those media messages about 'equality' I felt 'oppressed' when in fact I wasn't.

[Katiebee]

Bexy, that isn't necessarily a true statement between you and your brother. You could point to to males, both paid the same yet producing differently, and then compare your output. If your output equaled the leases outputting the two males that would indicate gender gap disparity.

[Bexy]

So... you thought the Pope was speaking as a "westerner" rather than as the head of the church? You've lost me.

That's because you don't understand my reasoning. We hear about this wage gap in the western world by the mainstream media already, as if it is still an issue here, when it is not, and now the church reinforces that with a blanket statement.

You assume incorrectly. Risk and effort are just 2 factors that can affect the rate of pay a person can expect for their work. There are some obscure jobs that pay very well because they are very dangerous, but that's only because no one wants to do them and their product is in demand. There are any number of other factors that affect rate of pay, skill and usefulness being the most obvious.

Nurses and multilingual management assistants are in high demand in my country and the positions are difficult to fill. So clearly they are quite useful and can be very skilled, yet they will never receive 'risk fees' like soldiers and oilrig workers, hence their pay is overall lower. And this is logical in my book. Perhaps it's different in your country.

And 'obscure' jobs in my dictionary are 'criminal activities', not dangerous professions like soldiers and oilrig workers.

[Bexy]

Bexy, that isn't necessarily a true statement between you and your brother. You could point to to males, both paid the same yet producing differently, and then compare your output. If your output equaled the leases outputting the two males that would indicate gender gap disparity.

Same amount of hours worked, less wood displaced = less pay = logical to me.

[Katiebee]

Bexy, what i was getting at is if you were being paid for piece work, the amount of wood, then that is fair. If you were being paid a salary or on an hourly basis, then no, that is not equal pay, because the contract is not by the amount of work produced, unless there is an explicit criteria measuring the work standard.

[Bexy]

Are you only talking about "blue collar" workers or all members of the workforce? It's difficult to reply when the framing of the discussion is constantly shifting.

Are nurses whitecollar?

Regardless of your personal definition of an obscure job, my only point there was that there are relatively few people who work in those dangerous jobs. I do not think they exist in enough numbers to provide an adequate explanation for the statistics quoted in this thread (even if cynicism forces you to assume they are exaggerated). I don't personally believe that there is a huge pay gap in modern Western society, based purely on my own experiences, but your explanation is way too simplistic to be presented in definite terms, to me.

I just checked some numbers. There are about 31 000 military personnel and 29 000 nurses in my country. And we have a very small army compared to most countries. Of course; not all military personnel is performing the 'ultra' dangerous jobs but a majority of them are at least running more risk than a nurse. And construction workers aren't exactly 'rare' either. I agree that there are more factors at play, which I had already stated before, but I certainly do count 'risk' as a pretty important factor.

[Bexy]

My understanding of the blue/white collar thing has always been that it is the difference between a profession and skilled labour. I googled the question and I couldn't see any kind of definite answer, nor any definition of blue collar or white collar that casts a clear distinction in modern society. In any case, I strongly doubt "multilingual management assistants" can be considered "blue collar workers" by any definition.

Hey, whatever you feel you need to make of it to give your argument validity.

If your country pays every construction worker extra by default for the risk involved in their work then methinks that could do with being revised.

Why? They run more risk, they get more pay. Not a humongous amount more, but pouring asphalt under a blistering sun isn't exactly my idea of healthy in the long run.

Frankly, I do not see the risk factor as majorly relevant and if it was the reason for the difference in pay, then it would make me question just what is valued on a societal level. It's interesting that you chose nurses and military as examples. It surely raises interesting questions when comparisons are made between how much society values those trained to care for the vulnerable versus those trained to kill on order.

Well, considering the fact that our army is largely only involved in rescue and surveillance operations, helping with evacuations, etc. and are hardly given enough ammo to protect themselves in an actual conflict, coupled to the fact that this morning it was on the radio that our nurses make mistakes with half the meds they need to administer, due to lack in skill and understaffing, and this has led to several deaths already, your black and white comparison of 'soldiers = death' and 'nurses = life', kinda falls flat on its face. But hey, next time you find an old undetonated bomb on your property, defuse it yourself then.

[phtlc]

The key phrase in Bexy's post is "in the West."
I've no reason to doubt that, in many places in the developed West, we are approaching the point where men and women are equally paid for equal work.
And the point is that the majority of the world's population does not live in the developed West.

Perhaps, but outside of the developed west, women have bigger fish to fry than "equal pay for equal work", things like institutionalized violence against women, arranged marriages, sex trafficking, honour killings, female genital mutilation....etc. It seems odd that with all of those things going on outside the developed west, the pope would focus on equal pay for equal work

[phtlc]

Bexy, what i was getting at is if you were being paid for piece work, the amount of wood, then that is fair. If you were being paid a salary or on an hourly basis, then no, that is not equal pay, because the contract is not by the amount of work produced, unless there is an explicit criteria measuring the work standard.

Not true at all. Better workers tend to receive higher hourly wages.

[Bexy]

Childishness.

I was thinking the same about you. Nice we're on the same wavelength.

Because they chose their own occupation and know the occupational hazards. People should be payed for the work they do, and health risk should be a consideration, but a direct payment for risk is ridiculous. Every job comes with some kind of risk. Should everyone who works then be compensated by default to some degree, consequently?

Nope, in my country risk is established according to a set of criteria. If your job falls into that category you get a compensation. People who choose not to do those jobs know they don't get that compensation. You choose your occupation, you know the compensations.

Straw man, also ignores the central point.

Not at all. This is simply the day-to-day reality I observe in my country. You want to ignore that, that's your prerogative. It's not just nurses who 'protect the vulnerable'.

[GEMINIGUY]

Hey, Phtlc, I don't agree. Sometimes better workers get less hourly pay. To get a better hourly pay you have to have done the same job for years and i've seen the workers who've been doing a given job longer to it terribly but newer workers doing a better job.

[phtlc]

Sometimes better workers get less hourly pay. To get a better hourly pay you have to have done the same job for years and i've seen the workers who've been doing a given job longer to it terribly but newer workers doing a better job.

Only in union environments, and I strongly disagree with that, as I do with pretty much everything to do with unions.

[Bexy]

Really, what age are you? You specified a distinction between white collar and blue collar work in one post, went back to talking about white collar work in the next and are now throwing a tantrum because I asked for clarity.

A tantrum? Waw, you have a weird definition of a tantrum. Usually that involves namecalling and getting all riled up. I was perfectly calm when I wrote that. And you just swept the nurses under the whitecollar carpet to which I disagreed by bouncing back your childish 'childishness' statement. I could also say your throwing a tantrum here by insinuating I'm 'young and dumb' by asking for my age...

I even went to the bother of checking my own assumptions when I could have as easily not bothered. You can have your cake or you can eat it. If you find it so galling that someone may not take everything you say at face value then please consider what you say.

I don't find anything galling in this entire thread. There are much more serious issues in my life to get riled up about than this silly thread. I don't expect people to take at face value what I write. We're just having a discussion here. Chill.

What purpose does that compensation serve and what are the criteria? It sounds like a totally unnecessary, and exploitable, government imposition.

I don't have the list of criteria, it's different for every industry. I can only say that for my husband the risk fees serve as a provision in case of death or injury. And in his branch they all get injuries. Plentiful.

I didn't say they were. I don't think you're replying to anything I've actually said here.

You said nurses are trained to protect the vulnerable and soldiers are trained to kill. I nuanced that. If by reply you mean 'agree', then you have a point.

[phtlc]

It surely raises interesting questions when comparisons are made between how much society values those trained to care for the vulnerable versus those trained to kill on order.

What questions would those be?

[Katiebee]

Bexy, what i was getting at is if you were being paid for piece work, the amount of wood, then that is fair. If you were being paid a salary or on an hourly basis, then no, that is not equal pay, because the contract is not by the amount of work produced, unless there is an explicit criteria measuring the work standard.

Not true at all. Better workers tend to receive higher hourly wages.

that argument is addressed within my's post.  With all other things being equal experience and skill equal pay must be given in an hourly position.  Paying a woman less in that kind of position simply because she is a woman and you anticipate that she might not do as much is not fair, nor is it something that can be upheld until you see the output.

[phtlc]

Bexy, what i was getting at is if you were being paid for piece work, the amount of wood, then that is fair. If you were being paid a salary or on an hourly basis, then no, that is not equal pay, because the contract is not by the amount of work produced, unless there is an explicit criteria measuring the work standard.

Not true at all. Better workers tend to receive higher hourly wages.

that argument is addressed within my's post.  With all other things being equal experience and skill equal pay must be given in an hourly position.  Paying a woman less in that kind of position simply because she is a woman and you anticipate that she might not do as much is not fair, nor is it something that can be upheld until you see the output.

But Bexy wasn't saying she was being paid less based in the expectation she would haul less. She was paid less because she was hauling less.

[Katiebee]

No. She has not said  that she was paid based upon piecework i.e. how much she hold, she implied that she was paid an hourly wage.