Jump to content

'Gender Pay Gap' Senate committee enquiry.


Phil Perry
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've just watched this 8 min vid with regard to an alleged Gender pay gap. ( I like finding out how the Australian Government works )

 

Is it just me,. . .or are these ladies talking complete bollox ?. . .I don't mean to make light of the system, but these ladies don't seem to be talking sense, whilst the presiding Senator seems to be doing his best to understand what they are trying to say. . ..

 

Any explanations for this dumba$$ Pom ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Annualized"? Now there's a new one for the manipulators of statistics.

 

I didn't find any question of the Senator to be offensive. All he did was to try to get an answer as to how the figure of 15% less for women was arrived at. And which women were they talking about. If it was women in public service, then the pay is for the job, not the gender. I would assume the same holds true for the retail sales industries. I suppose that a job where an employment contract is made could affect the amount of money an individual is paid.

 

The moral of the story is, "Don't attend a Senate enquiry without having the data, and the way the data was analysed, irrefutable."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that I had posted my explanation yesterday, but it has disappeared. Maybe it was considered politically incorrect.

 

The explanation is that she is Blond. I used to think that blond jokes were just that, jokes, but this woman proves that they are serious.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that I had posted my explanation yesterday, but it has disappeared. Maybe it was considered politically incorrect.The explanation is that she is Blond. I used to think that blond jokes were just that, jokes, but this woman proves that they are serious.

A brave statement, Yenn! I agree that woman performed very badly, but it ain't hair colour or gender.

 

I've seen one particularly redhead get herself in worse knots.

 

I've also seen plenty of blokes commit amazing errors of logic, and straight out tell lies... one in particular has recently notched up his 10,000th.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/29/president-trump-has-made-more-than-false-or-misleading-claims/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44129d44db9d

 

Thanks for posting, Phil. If more voters actually watched what happens in their parliament they'd be better qualified to chose our reps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot blame Trump. He cannot tell truth from lies and is just an outstanding example of the standard of politicians in the world. No different from John Howard, Theresa May. Peter Dutton and uncle Tom Cobley and all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot blame Trump. He cannot tell truth from lies and is just an outstanding example of the standard of politicians in the world. No different from John Howard, Theresa May. Peter Dutton and uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Crikey Yenn! I must leap to the defence of those people.

 

He is very different, having inherited enough wealth and arrogance to be able to thumb his nose at all standards of decency. Those others offer a pretext at least of honesty and work ethic.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find a pretext of honesty or of ethics to be reason enough for me to want them wielding power over my destiny.

There are quite a few actual, fair dinkum, decent hard-working politicians. The trash press has had lots of fun undermining our faith in them, presumably so that we'll fall for populist candidates who cleverly pretend to represent us and claim they will "drain the swamp".

 

Trouble is then you just get a bigger reptile who uses his position of power to make profits at the expense of the little people.

 

Trump is provoking a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. What could go wrong? | Simon Tisdall

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, OK. I get that. But my problem is that I can't see the difference between them. All politicians sound so similar. And to make matters worse, (even though I intensely distrust the media), there is so much noise raised by media, that only the biggest spender (on p.r.) presents the kindest image to the public.

 

Unless I can sit down with each candidate for a couple of hours of friendly debate (interrogation) without an audience, I will never know their possible ethics or agenda. Simply not possible to do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, OK. I get that. But my problem is that I can't see the difference between them. All politicians sound so similar...

If you're talking about the major parties, I agree. There is quite a selection of "interesting" candidates from other groups, some of whose ideas I find refreshing. The trouble is finding a candidate (or party) with the mix of policies you can support.

 

Perhaps we voters are to blame for the bland range of candidates on offer. Mass marketing always targets the middle ground, leaving little to suit those of us on the margins (it's only in recent years that I've been able to buy off-the-shelf clothes that fit me).

 

...And to make matters worse, (even though I intensely distrust the media), there is so much noise raised by media, that only the biggest spender (on p.r.) presents the kindest image to the public...

That's a pretty broad statement, NP. Isn't there anyone you trust?

 

You are right about spending. Our electorate had a range of well-qualified candidates but the Nationals massively outspent them on electioneering, but even party stalwarts were privately admitting their misgivings about their wining candidate.

 

The last election proved that you can't beat the near media monopoly enjoyed by Murdoch across much of Qld.

 

When every shop, railway station, waiting room and office is wall to wall with the Courier Mail or Daily Telegraph, who set the agenda and mould perceptions.

 

...Unless I can sit down with each candidate for a couple of hours of friendly debate (interrogation) without an audience, I will never know their possible ethics or agenda. Simply not possible to do.

I totally agree, NP. The only way for most of us to get some idea of their real agenda is have proper journalists delve deeply into their past activities and to watch them in action on Q&A and other panel shows.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re, my mistrust.

 

Due to my own apathy (coupled with the knowledge that even if a sincere independent wins a seat, he/she is always going to be railroaded by a big party),

 

Anyway, due to my own apathy, I have only been present on two occasions when a politician was visiting a small group of voters. I went along because these two had been making some public statements that sounded like great ideas. I was stunned to hear them speak to us. Once the media 'sound bites' were stripped away and these blokes had to explain their attitudes, beliefs and motives, I realised that they were both way too extreme (in my opinion, nutty) for me. Had I only listened to their media presentation (TV news bites), I would have voted for them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the gender pay gap, surely nobody can argue against equal pay for equal work.

 

In some areas where physical strength is required, women and feeble men will miss out on the job, and so they should.

 

Ambulance staff are an example - if you can't cope with an unruly patient, then you shouldn't be there.

 

But not all women would miss out, some of them are really strong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...even if a sincere independent wins a seat, he/she is always going to be railroaded by a big party)...

That's not a given, NP. Three independents had the balance of power that led to the Gillard minority government.

 

Lead by Tony Windsor, they were able to guarantee stable government for the nation and achieved a lot for rural Australia, a fact which resulted in the Nationals running a nasty campaigns against them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wherever I've worked, I've found that the female staff were paid the same as the males, for equal job responsibilities. That is, for identical job descriptions. I wonder just exactly how the statistics are gathered. Are they doing a statistical average of the national net income of females, and comparing with the national average income of males? If so, it fails to reflect the rates of pay for identical jobs.

 

I seem to recall that a survey carried out by a women's magazine many years ago, where the majority of women surveyed wanted to see more women in senior roles. But the same survey revealed that the majority of respondents didn't actually want to be in those jobs. Maybe it was all just misogynistic propaganda. But in my experience, anybody with ambition, has been able to climb the ladder to higher, more powerful jobs. But they have to cope with discrimination and back-stabbing regardless of their gender, race or favorite footy team.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But in my experience, anybody with ambition, has been able to climb the ladder to higher, more powerful jobs. But they have to cope with discrimination and back-stabbing regardless of their gender, race or favorite footy team.

That's been my experience too, NP. The best bosses I've had were women- and so were the worst.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if a Check-out Guy at Woollies is paid the same as a Check-out Chick? Andy why is it that employees (customer service persons) in the retail sector are mainly female?

 

When women were first engaged as street cops in NSW, the old brigade believed that they would be useless in pub brawls and the like. I worked with quite a few women in the police who have been worthy partners when the going got rough. Unfortunately, the efforts of these pioneering women were undermined when it became necessary to take women police off the streets and put them into the stations, or non-contact roles when they became pregnant. Not that removing them from the streets was incorrect, the problem was that Management would not provide a replacement, so the rest of the station staff had to shoulder extra work for up to 18 months while the woman was pregnant, then away on Maternity Leave. After that, a lot of these women came back as part-timers, which didn't relieve the pressure on the male members of staff, or those other women who were more career orientated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Getting back to the gender pay gap, surely nobody can argue against equal pay for equal work."

 

In my dealings, equal pay, meant that the MEN had to do a lot of the womans work, not just the heavy lifting but also dirty work ,(didn't like to dirty the ladies hands).

 

Also when a rush job came up the fairer sex couldn't be made to get a sweat-up.( the man had to do that work as well as their own !.)

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think I'd rather do a few extra shifts than push a baby out. Nature decides who gets that job. You don't volunteer for it. Women also do a lot of the physical work in some countries because the men hold all the cards,. because they are "special" and CAN get away with it. and wrote the Bible the Koran and most other books about the supernatural and other imaginary things. Well , the believers believe in their own ONLY so MOST of them must be WRONG as so many "believers" (and all the atheists) say so.. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my limited knowledge it's not about the same pay for the same job - that's a given. If there's any company paying women less than men for the exact same role then Fair Work Australia should stomp on them. (AFL vs AFLW?)

 

Nev has hit the nail on the head. Society's expectations of women generally mean that they're expected to bear the main burden of parenting (there's certainly not 50/50 parity in child-rearing yet) at the expense of their career, superannuation etc. There's also certain roles with higher female representation which don't attract the pay levels of other roles which have higher male representation. For example early childhood learning (child care centres) are predominately female staffed but poorly paid. I would argue that educating very young minds is one of the most important jobs there is, because studies have clearly shown that time spent at child care has correlation with better education, career and health later in life. However FIFO mine workers, mostly male, probably get at least triple the salary with far less benefit to society.

 

I don't know how you'd make it work, but I reckon all careers should be paid not only according to skill / profitability etc but also the benefit to the community.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...