NationStates

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:54 am**

As you might know, the Prime Minister ordered last year that UK companies must disclose the gender pay gap across all hierarchical levels and on an aggregate scale.

Data from 15 companies who have already disclosed their payroll fully show that there is no meaningful difference between the pay of men and the pay of women.

Not only does this make Theresa May a laughing stock as merely a tool of the left's talking points trying to get voter support in areas she'll never reach, but also severing her relations with proper conservatives and business.

Moreover, it puts the theory of the 'gender pay gap' to death. Or at least to an existential crisis, since only 15 companies have yet reported of the 350 due, but none even showing half a hint of a gender pay gap.

What do you think about May and the pay gap theory?

Imo it shows and reinforces once again the argument that the pay gap does not exist on an individual or company level, only on an aggregate economy level, because women tend to work in industries where the pay is severely lower than male-centric industries.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:00 am**

Well it's a paywalled article but even grabbing a hint of the contents..

One in 20 UK companies that have submitted gender pay gap data to the government have reported numbers that are statistically improbable and therefore almost certainly inaccurate, a Financial Times analysis has found. Fifteen companies, each with more than ...

Is this really saying what you purport it to say?

I found more..

Of the 15 companies that said they had no pay gap, seven added that they employed exactly the same number of men and women in the four pay grades that must be reported.

“While it is certainly possible for organisations with 250 or more employees to have no gender pay gap, common sense dictates that it is entirely implausible that they would have no gap on both the median and mean measure, while having exactly equal numbers of men and women in each of the four pay quartiles,” said Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London.

At least one company, Hugo Boss, changed its official submission after the FT pointed out that its results were unusual and asked for an explanation.

The company, which has 900 employees in the UK, originally reported that there was no gap of any kind between what it paid its male and female staff. It also reported that it had 53 per cent men and 47 per cent women in each of the four pay quartiles and that 100 per cent of employees received a bonus.

Hugo Boss did not respond to a request for comment. But its new submission showed a mean gender pay gap of 32.6 per cent and a median gap of 76.5 per cent.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:01 am**

Trumptonium wrote:As you might know, the Prime Minister ordered last year that UK companies must disclose the gender pay gap across all hierarchical levels and on an aggregate scale.

Data from 15 companies who have already disclosed their payroll fully show that there is no meaningful difference between the pay of men and the pay of women.

Not only does this make Theresa May a laughing stock as merely a tool of the left's talking points trying to get voter support in areas she'll never reach, but also severing her relations with proper conservatives and business.

Moreover, it puts the theory of the 'gender pay gap' to death. Or at least to an existential crisis, since only 15 companies have yet reported of the 350 due, but none even showing half a hint of a gender pay gap.

What do you think about May and the pay gap theory?

Imo it shows and reinforces once again the argument that the pay gap does not exist on an individual or company level, only on an aggregate economy level, because women tend to work in industries where the pay is severely lower than male-centric industries.

There is a difference and it is meaningful, but it is not due to discrimination against women, but rather, discrimination against men.

If you banned all black people from having any form of employment compensation other than wages, it would not be evidence of "Discriminating against white people" to note that most of them were paid less.
...
And chose their own hours, took more frequent holidays, had company cars, company parking, etc.

Now remove "Ban" and replace for "Socially pressured due to discrimination and prejudice.

Men also die more from stress related symptoms as a result of this dynamic.

The studies show that women balance direct income with other perks and have work-life balance, but men are pure workhorses. They reveal the underlying lie the feminist movement has pushed on the subject about this being the result of misogyny.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:06 am**

Well I can see this will be a fair and balanced discussion...

EDIT: Noting Ostroeuropa edited out his part stating the government were making unsubstantiated claims against the data due to a feminist agenda, when it's clear he hadn't even read the article.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:09 am**

Bombadil wrote:Well I can see this will be a fair and balanced discussion...

EDIT: Noting Ostroeuropa edited out his part stating the government were making unsubstantiated claims against the data due to a feminist agenda, when it's clear he hadn't even read the article.

Right, and i'm now trying to find the financial times article to go over it's analysis of the stats.
The government did make unsubstantiated claims, likely due to feminist influence and zealotry, but the financial times apparently also performed an analysis. I can't find it anywhere.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:10 am**

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Well I can see this will be a fair and balanced discussion...

EDIT: Noting Ostroeuropa edited out his part stating the government were making unsubstantiated claims against the data due to a feminist agenda, when it's clear he hadn't even read the article.

Right, and i'm now trying to find the financial times article to go over it.

Let me help you.. https://www.ft.com/content/ad74ba76-d9c ... 4b1c09b482

The way I went around the paywall was pasting.. 'One+in+20+UK+companies+that+have+submitted+gender+pay+gap+data+to+the+government+have+reported+numbers+that+are+statistically+improbable+and+therefore+almost+certainly+inaccurate,+a+Financial+Times+analysis+has+found.+Fifteen+companies,+each+with+more+than+...'

..then I could read it, I would copy the article over here but I think that breaches copyright and I'm sure Max doesn't need another UN email in his spambox.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:10 am**

Bombadil wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, and i'm now trying to find the financial times article to go over it.

Let me help you.. https://www.ft.com/content/ad74ba76-d9c ... 4b1c09b482

Paywall i'm afraid.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:23 am**

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Let me help you.. https://www.ft.com/content/ad74ba76-d9c ... 4b1c09b482

Paywall i'm afraid.

Well the point remains - and I've shared how I got around the paywall above - but both you and the OP have ironically written posts with a clear agenda, not having even read the article, about.. the feminist agenda..

The article is actually about the fact that the data reported is very likely to be false for the reason in the excerpt I did post, and one company has already reposted new numbers.

Hence my point that this is not going to be a good discussion when opinion trumps the facts from the offset.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:23 am**

Linking to a paywalled off site makes OP about as valuable as pure conjecture, unfortunately. It'd be great if you could find something else covering the same story.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:29 am**

Bombadil wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Paywall i'm afraid.

Well the point remains - and I've shared how I got around the paywall above - but both you and the OP have ironically written posts with a clear agenda, not having even read the article, about.. the feminist agenda..

The article is actually about the fact that the data reported is very likely to be false for the reason in the excerpt I did post, and one company has already reposted new numbers.

Hence my point that this is not going to be a good discussion when opinion trumps the facts from the offset.

In which case we're discussing pure wages gap and not anything actually meaningful, as usual the government and meida focus in on disparities that superficially indicate women losing out and attempt to fix them, while leaving the surrounding misandrous context untouched.

Even with a 36% gap in hugo boss, there's been plenty of studies showing the pay gap is not due to discrimination, but different choices women make, choices less available to men.

The hysteria and gynocentric focus on the pure wages gap is akin to the STEM campaigning.
Focus in on one area, ignore all the others, and say it's evidence of discrimination.
60-70% of all other degrees are for women? We don't talk about that, let's say that the only 4 areas with more men are the important thing, and they're evidence of discrimination.

Women have more freedom of choice in employment terms whereas men are locked into picking higher wages?
Higher wages is the thing, it's evidence of discrimination, blah blah.

Feminism is the sociological equivalent of global warming denial through manipulating statistics. You know that shit where they go "Look at these specific years here, see!"

Apparently I placed too much faith in companies to accurately report the gap and note the other areas, instead they appear to be desperately fabricating evidence they don't need to. It's an example of how bad feminist gaslighting has gotten.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:32 am**

This is the sort of thread that should only be started in NSG summer. It's a waste of shitstorm material otherwise.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:34 am**

I hope this destroys the Pseudo-feminist/leftist victim-bait they've been deceiving women with for decades. Death to fake feminism!!!

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:39 am**

Aillyria wrote:I hope this destroys the Pseudo-feminist/leftist victim-bait they've been deceiving women with for decades. Death to fake feminism!!!

Can you read the article?

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:43 am**

Aillyria wrote:I hope this destroys the Pseudo-feminist/leftist victim-bait they've been deceiving women with for decades. Death to fake feminism!!!

That...that doesn't really relate to the article, it is just a cut-out-and-paste response...

Also, OP, the paywall stops people from verifying the material you are referencing. Other sources would be helpful.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:45 am**

Screenshotted using Bomb's workaround. It's too large to post as an image.

https://i.imgur.com/9cPBGOm

So now we can move on and actually discuss it.

And for the lazier still, the article itself:

Cluster of UK companies reports highly improbable gender pay gap
Data from 15 of 306 groups disclosing so far show zero difference on two measures

One in 20 UK companies that have submitted gender pay gap data to the government have reported numbers that are statistically improbable and therefore almost certainly inaccurate, a Financial Times analysis has found.

Fifteen companies, each with more than 250 employees, reported that they paid their male and female staff exactly the same, that is they had a zero average gender pay gap measured by both the mean and median.

The companies were in a range of sectors, including science and technical activities, retail, social care, recruitment and services. They include Dana UK Axle, part of Dana Inc, an international car-parts manufacturer; Age UK North Tyneside, a branch of the national charity; and A Khan Restaurants, a McDonald’s franchise.

The gap between wages paid to men and women has become a hot political and corporate issue. Seeking to hold employers accountable, the UK government this year began requiring companies and public sector bodies with more than 250 employees to publicly report their median and mean gap. Roughly 9,000 companies must submit their numbers by April 1 but as of Wednesday only 306 had done so.

Experts on pay said that it was highly anomalous for companies of that size to have median and mean pay gaps that were identical because the two statistics measure different things. The mean gap measures the difference between the average male and female salary while the median gap is calculated using the midpoint salary for each gender.

Of the 15 companies that said they had no pay gap, seven added that they employed exactly the same number of men and women in the four pay grades that must be reported.

“While it is certainly possible for organisations with 250 or more employees to have no gender pay gap, common sense dictates that it is entirely implausible that they would have no gap on both the median and mean measure, while having exactly equal numbers of men and women in each of the four pay quartiles,” said Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London.

At least one company, Hugo Boss, changed its official submission after the FT pointed out that its results were unusual and asked for an explanation.

The company, which has 900 employees in the UK, originally reported that there was no gap of any kind between what it paid its male and female staff. It also reported that it had 53 per cent men and 47 per cent women in each of the four pay quartiles and that 100 per cent of employees received a bonus.

Hugo Boss did not respond to a request for comment. But its new submission showed a mean gender pay gap of 32.6 per cent and a median gap of 76.5 per cent.

Employers are responsible for entering the 14 data points required by the government which are published on its gender pay gap portal. Published data must be signed off at a senior level by employers but are not checked by the government.

Only three of the 15 companies provided responses to the FT’s request for an explanation of their numbers. Executives at Summit Recruitment, which provides temporary hospitality staff, and pharmacy group Walter Davidson & Son each said their pay rates were set by position and not affected by gender.

Holly Pearson, office manager at A Khan Restaurants, said the company had only included staff “working in the restaurants” and she believed the data did not include its directors.

The Department of Education, which includes the office responsible for the gender pay gap portal, said employers were legally required to report accurate gender pay gap data.

“This is not an option; it is the law. Employers have until April 2018 to report, so they need to get on and do it. Any evidence that employers are breaching the law can be investigated, and they risk being subject to enforcement by the Equality and Human Rights Commission,” the department said.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:46 am**

One big problem with analyzing the pay gap is that everybody has a motivation to lie. The pay gap is a huge issue, it garners support, it is an irrefutable mathematical proof that women are discriminated against in society regardless of anything else. Any evidence that suggests there's a good reason for it or that when you remove understandable factors it's actually very small is harmful to people using it to Marshall support. And in cases like THIS companies, don't want to be accused of discriminating regardless of whether or not they actually were. They'd rather not explain that they just had more men who were willing to put in the hours, or go through training programs. The smart thing for them to do is to make themselves look innocent, even if they really are innocent.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:48 am**

Hirota wrote:Screenshotted using Bomb's workaround. It's too large to post as an image.

https://i.imgur.com/9cPBGOm

So now we can move on and actually discuss it.

I admire your optimism but pity your hope.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:48 am**

Hirota wrote:Screenshotted using Bomb's workaround. It's too large to post as an image.

https://i.imgur.com/9cPBGOm

So now we can move on and actually discuss it.

You're a hero!

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:55 am**

Trumptonium wrote:
Data from 15 companies who have already disclosed their payroll fully show that there is no meaningful difference between the pay of men and the pay of women.

Oh well, I guess sense 15 companies out of thousands and thousands of companies in the UK that disclosed the pay role before the legislation went into effect means that there is no pay gap and it was an SJW hoax all along.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:55 am**

Iridencia wrote:
Hirota wrote:Screenshotted using Bomb's workaround. It's too large to post as an image.

https://i.imgur.com/9cPBGOm

So now we can move on and actually discuss it.

You're a hero!

I'm the hero that NationStates deserves. It's why we are all doomed.

Anyway, one of the graphs that I've not posted, but is in the screenshot is interesting because it demonstrates how one or two individuals being paid really well skews the whole pay gap. It doesn't mean that there is a privilege all men enjoy, but one or two. By elevating womens pay to that of the mean, you are simply placing them above a majority of men rather than bringing them equality.

It's the classic blaming all men for the "sins" of the one percenters. Most women and most men get paid the same, it's just that there are some men who have been so entrenched in their roles for so long they are borderline irreplaceable and therefore paid a premium which skews the average. It'll happen for women over time.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:02 am**

Hirota wrote:
Iridencia wrote:
You're a hero!
I'm the hero that NationStates deserves. It's why we are all doomed.

Anyway, one of the graphs that I've not posted, but is in the screenshot is interesting because it demonstrates how one or two individuals being paid really well skews the whole pay gap. It doesn't mean that there is a privilege all men enjoy, but one or two. By elevating womens pay to that of the mean, you are simply placing them above a majority of men rather than bringing them equality.

It's the classic blaming all men for the "sins" of the one percenters.

It's a valid point.. single data points can very much skew the average except.. the data points skewing the average are men earning far more than everyone else. That is, in the main, females have equal pay but then there's a reason we have the term 'glass ceiling'.

UK boards stall in recruitment of female directors - Financial Times
Feb 7, 2017 - The rate at which women are being promoted to the boards of the UK's largest companies has slowed for the first time. Women made up 29 per cent of hires to UK boards last year, down from 32.1 per cent in 2014 and 31.6 per cent in 2012. This compares unfavourably to western Europe where women ...

Having said that, I would argue against the idea that women choose lesser positions. Having worked with women in business groups a large factor is that women are simply not as aggressive in asking for pay rises and promotions or self-congratulatory behaviour. This is largely anecdotal to an extent and on the internet we're all dogs but just what I've noted.

To be honest, I feel the entire debate is fought at the extremes and, in general, most people are okay about all this but then it's the extremes that drive the change.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:21 am**

Bombadil wrote:Having said that, I would argue against the idea that women choose lesser positions. Having worked with women in business groups a large factor is that women are simply not as aggressive in asking for pay rises and promotions or self-congratulatory behaviour. This is largely anecdotal to an extent and on the internet we're all dogs but just what I've noted.

If you don't ask for a pay rise or a promotion to the top level that at least indicates a lower level of ambition or an unwillingness to put yourself forward compared to those who do. That's a choice, and different choices tend to lead to different outcomes.

In my opinion government should get involved in the bargaining process to ensure workers are being paid at least a fair basic rate. But intervening to "correct" pay awards above that rate and the net positions in the hierarchy that result from different decisions made by particular classes of workers? Mandate that some workers get essentially preferential treatment? That seems like social injustice.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:24 am**

Bombadil wrote:Having said that, I would argue against the idea that women choose lesser positions. Having worked with women in business groups a large factor is that women are simply not as aggressive in asking for pay rises and promotions or self-congratulatory behaviour. This is largely anecdotal to an extent and on the internet we're all dogs but just what I've noted.

There is some evidence tucked away somewhere in the feminism thread that women tend to favour a work-life balance that leans more towards the life side of things. Part of this is perhaps because of expectations made upon both men and women - men are expected to provide, women are expected to care. Critics of feminism and feminists alike have agreed (I know right!) in the past on that thread that bringing paternity leave up to par with maternity leave would probably help with the skewed work life balance for men, whilst eliminating one area women do tend to see a disadvantage in negotiating for salaries.

And yes, there is some evidence men can tend to be more hawkish in looking for promotions and pay rises. But again, we are talking about a narrow difference (and it's probably only caused by a small number of men as opposed to all men being more hawkish)

To be honest, I feel the entire debate is fought at the extremes and, in general, most people are okay about all this but then it's the extremes that drive the change.

Not an unfair assumption in this and many other things in life. Polarisation seems to have escalated lately. But I do believe that a lot of the smear campaign against men is primarily designed to get people distracted with gender politics and scapegoating, to encourage ignoring the fact that most of the problems faced by men and women are caused by decisions that benefit the rich.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:24 am**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Having said that, I would argue against the idea that women choose lesser positions. Having worked with women in business groups a large factor is that women are simply not as aggressive in asking for pay rises and promotions or self-congratulatory behaviour. This is largely anecdotal to an extent and on the internet we're all dogs but just what I've noted.

If you don't ask for a pay rise or a promotion to the top level that at least indicates a lower level of ambition or an unwillingness to put yourself forward compared to those who do. That's a choice, and different choices tend to lead to different outcomes.

In my opinion government should get involved in the bargaining process to ensure workers are being paid at least a fair basic rate. But intervening to "correct" pay awards above that rate and the net positions in the hierarchy that result from different decisions made by particular classes of workers? Mandate that some workers get essentially preferential treatment? That seems like social injustice.

No. Government should get out not more in. You have to adapt to the world you're in, so if you don't ask you don't receive.

It's not like women don't have the collective purchasing power to train all school age women how to negotiate successfully.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:26 am**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Having said that, I would argue against the idea that women choose lesser positions. Having worked with women in business groups a large factor is that women are simply not as aggressive in asking for pay rises and promotions or self-congratulatory behaviour. This is largely anecdotal to an extent and on the internet we're all dogs but just what I've noted.

If you don't ask for a pay rise or a promotion to the top level that at least indicates a lower level of ambition or an unwillingness to put yourself forward compared to those who do. That's a choice, and different choices tend to lead to different outcomes.

Sure but some would say that 'choice' is predicated on gender roles instilled through childhood about what a 'man' is and what a 'female' is. There's the theory of Stereotype Threat, which isn't super solid in the sense it's not been replicated successfully, but how we frame things can lead to different outcomes, that isn't just a choice.

In my opinion government should get involved in the bargaining process to ensure workers are being paid at least a fair basic rate. But intervening to "correct" pay awards above that rate and the net positions in the hierarchy that result from different decisions made by particular classes of workers? Mandate that some workers get essentially preferential treatment? That seems like social injustice.

I kind of agree to a point, I mean there's symbolic actions that can carry great weight but then there's a general evolution of opinion that can't be forced. Thing is if you don't place people in positions that allow other to think 'I have a place there' then you slow the overall process. Yes it can be unfair because some might lose out as a result but I hope we can look at the net effect overall.

Problem is there's no easy slogan that can clarify the position and the easy slogans merely exacerbate the issue.

EDIT: Just to note Hirota's point and, yes, a huge amount of wedge issues in society are effectively just masking the rich/poor divide.

NationStates

UK Companies forced to disclose "gender pay gap"

UK Companies forced to disclose "gender pay gap"