Iceland's women leave work at 2.38pm to protest gender pay gap - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Iceland's women leave work at 2.38pm to protest gender pay gap

£0.00 @ Iceland
Thousands of female employees across Iceland walked out of workplaces at 2.38pm on Monday to protest against earning less than men. Iceland is the best country in the world for gender equality, yet…
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals Avatar
4m, 2d agoPosted 4 months, 2 days ago
Thousands of female employees across Iceland walked out of workplaces at 2.38pm on Monday to protest against earning less than men.

Iceland is the best country in the world for gender equality, yet women still earn on average 14 to 18 per cent less than their male colleagues. According to unions and women's organisations, this means in every eight hour day women are essentially working without pay from 2.38pm.
Other Links From Iceland:
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals Avatar
4m, 2d agoPosted 4 months, 2 days ago
Options

Top Comments

(2)
9 Likes
hutchir9
If you was a manager at Iceland and someone walks out what would you do?
They accepted the job knowing the pay so for me I would sack them AWOL, abandonment of duty) or reduce their hours.
You cannot just walk out because you feel like it.

I don't think they meant Iceland the shop........
5 Likes
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.

All Comments

(90) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
2 Likes #1
Unfortunately, despite the large wage gap, women in Iceland actually fare quite well in the workplace compared to female workers in many other parts of Europe. According to a recent survey which placed the wage gap in Iceland at only 14 per cent, women in the UK are earning nearly 20 per cent less than their male counterparts. This means women in Britain are essentially working for free everyday from 19 October until the end of the year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-women-protest-strike-gender-pay-gap-leave-work-early-a7378801.html

It's amazing to me that we still have a disparity in pay based on gender in a country like our's. What's even more disheartening is that there seems to have been an industry cropping up to deny that it's even a problem in the first place. Good on the women of Iceland for doing this, and I'd support something similar in this country.

The women in this country seem woefully undervalued.
2 Likes #2
wont happen .. People in this country ( of all genders and persuasions) are pathetic at taking action .. Mind you given the lack of employment protection through law , in the UK .. It's getting much more difficult .
#3
Theres a huge thing going on with Asda at the moment, its to do with the depo getting more money than the store who basically do the reverse what they do but less money. They've won the first of three trials. So who ever works for Asda might as well put in for the claims
1 Like #4
Toon_army
Theres a huge thing going on with Asda at the moment, its to do with the depo getting more money than the store who basically do the reverse what they do but less money. They've won the first of three trials. So who ever works for Asda might as well put in for the claims
Then asda cut the hours so people earn no more than they were . Fair enough you may do slightly less hours but earnings stay the same and people end up doing more in the hours they are there to cover the shortfall . Big business rarely lose, after all the government make laws to protect them .

Edited By: plodging on Oct 25, 2016 12:47
3 Likes #5
I hope they remember to leave the freezers on.
3 Likes #6
Isn't the Gender pay gap a myth?
5 Likes #7
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
#8
This is very selfish of them.

Hows are all the mums after doing the school run at 3,15 dressed in pyjamas going to buy there turkey twislers, chicken nuggets and curly fries for tonights healthy dinner :|
#9
If you was a manager at Iceland and someone walks out what would you do?
They accepted the job knowing the pay so for me I would sack them AWOL, abandonment of duty) or reduce their hours.
You cannot just walk out because you feel like it.
1 Like #10
In the UK the gender pay gap figures highlighted by the Unions and Women's organisations are inaccurate as indicated by the ONS (Office of National Statistics). Women are paid more up to the age of 29 for comparative jobs, it is only once they have children that the pay gap reverses but this is explained in the article linked.

Edited By: nemesiz on Oct 25, 2016 13:27: .
1 Like #11
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.

And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
nemesiz
The gender pay gap figures highlighted by the Unions and Women's organisations are inaccurate as indicated by the ONS (Office of National Statistics). Women are paid more up to the age of 29 for comparative jobs, it is only once they have children that the pay gap reverses but this is explained in the article linked.

That article suggests it's 'only' 10% which is still unacceptable isn't it?
9 Likes #12
hutchir9
If you was a manager at Iceland and someone walks out what would you do?
They accepted the job knowing the pay so for me I would sack them AWOL, abandonment of duty) or reduce their hours.
You cannot just walk out because you feel like it.

I don't think they meant Iceland the shop........
1 Like #13
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
nemesiz
The gender pay gap figures highlighted by the Unions and Women's organisations are inaccurate as indicated by the ONS (Office of National Statistics). Women are paid more up to the age of 29 for comparative jobs, it is only once they have children that the pay gap reverses but this is explained in the article linked.
That article suggests it's 'only' 10% which is still unacceptable isn't it?

He's not implying that at all.
Stated that many Women didn't go for those types of jobs because it would impact their raising of children. He didn't state that it's the Womens responsibility to raise children or that no women go for those types of jobs because they have a responsibility to raise children instead.

I'd imagine there's a higher number of Women not going for jobs because it would impact family life than there are Men not going for those jobs.

That would ultimately lead to more Men applying for the jobs which could mean that they're more likely to get chosen because there's simply more of them going for the jobs.

There isn't a real Gender pay gap.
1 Like #14
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.

I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.

either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
banned 1 Like #15
They should allow loads of economic migrants into Rejkavik to work the final part of the day, then everyone is happy.

It's a win win for the EU, UK, brexiters, bleeding hearts and economic migrants. Only the whiney women lose out, but they can spend a bit longer at home getting themselves ready for their man. (So the Icelandic men will also have a smile on their faces too.)

Tongue in cheek but has merits. :p

Edited By: ICBMiss on Oct 25, 2016 13:42
1 Like #16
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.

It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.

But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
#17
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals

It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.

and there's right and wrong ways of doing that, like making requests to a current employer to help better accommodate staff, or to lobby for legislative change to the same effect.

a protest like this is just throwing the toys out of the pram (pun intended).
1 Like #18
hutchir9
If you was a manager at Iceland and someone walks out what would you do?
They accepted the job knowing the pay so for me I would sack them AWOL, abandonment of duty) or reduce their hours.
You cannot just walk out because you feel like it.



:D
1 Like #19
teh arn
Isn't the Gender pay gap a myth?



​Yes, it's an earnings gap, it's how much women earn, not how much a woman is paid. Dumb propaganda like 1 in 5 women have been raped etc.
#20
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.

Strawman, it's what they do here.
#21
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.

But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.

How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
#22
hutchir9
If you was a manager at Iceland and someone walks out what would you do?
They accepted the job knowing the pay so for me I would sack them AWOL, abandonment of duty) or reduce their hours.
You cannot just walk out because you feel like it.

sorry to say it, but train drivers do this all the time as well as postal workers, nurses, doctors and no one ever gets the sack.
1 Like #23
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.

Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.

Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?
1 Like #24
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.
Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?

Just Women?
Shouldn't they accommodate Men being Fathers or trying to raise their children too?
Bit sexist to suggest that we should only accommodate women.

They're not being penalised though, they're being treated fairly.

If a job required me to be there working 9-5 to complete projects for several months I wouldn't be able to do that job if I had things in the way e.g. taking time off to have and look after children.

Many jobs aren't that flexible; If you can't complete that job and meet the needs of the business, as they have stated, they're just going to hire some one else.

They could possibly do it by opening up in-house nurseries?
Other than that I can't really see how they could do it?

How would you suggest they do it without creating more sexism?
You haven't answered that, just replied with some non comment.








Edited By: teh arn on Oct 25, 2016 14:59
1 Like #25
women in this country are all alcoholics. you will find them protesting having a bacardi and coke at the pub.
1 Like #26
brendanhickey
women in this country are all alcoholics. you will find them protesting having a bacardi and coke at the pub.

i think in iceland everyone's an alcoholic as there is nothing else to do but drink :)
1 Like #27
mutley1
brendanhickey
women in this country are all alcoholics. you will find them protesting having a bacardi and coke at the pub.
i think in iceland everyone's an alcoholic as there is nothing else to do but drink :)

We're still talking about Iceland the Shop, right?
2 Likes #28
teh arn
mutley1
brendanhickey
women in this country are all alcoholics. you will find them protesting having a bacardi and coke at the pub.
i think in iceland everyone's an alcoholic as there is nothing else to do but drink :)
We're still talking about Iceland the Shop, right?

i think it would apply to the country and the shop. whenever i go into iceland supermarket, i never see anything exciting.
1 Like #29
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.
Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?
Just Women?
Shouldn't they accommodate Men being Fathers or trying to raise their children too?
Bit sexist to suggest that we should only accommodate women.
They're not being penalised though, they're being treated fairly.
If a job required me to be there working 9-5 to complete projects for several months I wouldn't be able to do that job if I had things in the way e.g. taking time off to have and look after children.
Many jobs aren't that flexible; If you can't complete that job and meet the needs of the business, as they have stated, they're just going to hire some one else.
They could possibly do it by opening up in-house nurseries?
Other than that I can't really see how they could do it?
How would you suggest they do it without creating more sexism?
You haven't answered that, just replied with some non comment.

You start by recognising the current reality of what it's like for women in the workplace not just by looking at figures which point to a pay discrepancy but by actually listening to what women say. I'm not trying to disparage or undermine your points but I'm just wondering how old you actually are. In my own experience, but also listening to my partner, her colleagues and her friends, there's a severe lack of help with enabling women the ability to have children and a career.

The same absolutely should apply to men who want to do the same and you're right to pick me up on that.

Now you might think that acknowledging there's an issue and trying to rectify it could be sexist simply because you're applying a different set of criteria to one group because of their sex and my response would be to get over it. Our society is stronger if we empower women to not have to compromise in either area but more importantly, our industries are stronger if we have a diversified workforce. When we make it harder for one group to succeed then we have a smaller pool of talent and there's not an industry in the world that wants that.
2 Likes #30
hutchir9
If you was a manager at Iceland

Drop me out
2 Likes #31
hutchir9
If you was a manager at Iceland and someone walks out what would you do?
They accepted the job knowing the pay so for me I would sack them AWOL, abandonment of duty) or reduce their hours.
You cannot just walk out because you feel like it.


​Oh dear....
1 Like #32
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.
Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?
Just Women?
Shouldn't they accommodate Men being Fathers or trying to raise their children too?
Bit sexist to suggest that we should only accommodate women.
They're not being penalised though, they're being treated fairly.
If a job required me to be there working 9-5 to complete projects for several months I wouldn't be able to do that job if I had things in the way e.g. taking time off to have and look after children.
Many jobs aren't that flexible; If you can't complete that job and meet the needs of the business, as they have stated, they're just going to hire some one else.
They could possibly do it by opening up in-house nurseries?
Other than that I can't really see how they could do it?
How would you suggest they do it without creating more sexism?
You haven't answered that, just replied with some non comment.
You start by recognising the current reality of what it's like for women in the workplace not just by looking at figures which point to a pay discrepancy but by actually listening to what women say. I'm not trying to disparage or undermine your points but I'm just wondering how old you actually are. In my own experience, but also listening to my partner, her colleagues and her friends, there's a severe lack of help with enabling women the ability to have children and a career.
The same absolutely should apply to men who want to do the same and you're right to pick me up on that.
Now you might think that acknowledging there's an issue and trying to rectify it could be sexist simply because you're applying a different set of criteria to one group because of their sex and my response would be to get over it. Our society is stronger if we empower women to not have to compromise in either area but more importantly, our industries are stronger if we have a diversified workforce. When we make it harder for one group to succeed then we have a smaller pool of talent and there's not an industry in the world that wants that.


Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.

You taking time off from work and work duties means that you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require; if you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require they're going to hire some one that can.

It's really that simple.

Should requirements drop so that people can go and do their own thing or should standards stay the same and they hire people that meet those requirements and standards?

Do you see the irony in your comment?

I've basically applied something you did in a previous comment and you're arguing against it because I reversed the genders.

It sounds like what you want is for Women to have more rights and better prospects/options than Men, rather than equality.


The only way we're going to have the kind of equality you want is everyone is given the same options, including those that don't want or have kids.

That's never going to happen though because if you can't meet your jobs oblations they'll just find some one else that can.

Edited By: teh arn on Oct 25, 2016 16:05
1 Like #33
teh arn
Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.

It's really that simple.

Can you give me an example where a female member of staff having maternity time off wouldn't impact an employer?
#34
dtovey89
teh arn
Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.
It's really that simple.
Can you give me an example where a female member of staff having maternity time off wouldn't impact an employer?

Not one that takes maternity leave.
There are instances of women not taking maternity leave or taking a shortened maternity leave; that's going to have less of an impact.

I'm not against people taking maternity leave at all, it's great.
Should people receive preferential treatment because they're having kids?
I would say no.
#35
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.
Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?
Just Women?
Shouldn't they accommodate Men being Fathers or trying to raise their children too?
Bit sexist to suggest that we should only accommodate women.
They're not being penalised though, they're being treated fairly.
If a job required me to be there working 9-5 to complete projects for several months I wouldn't be able to do that job if I had things in the way e.g. taking time off to have and look after children.
Many jobs aren't that flexible; If you can't complete that job and meet the needs of the business, as they have stated, they're just going to hire some one else.
They could possibly do it by opening up in-house nurseries?
Other than that I can't really see how they could do it?
How would you suggest they do it without creating more sexism?
You haven't answered that, just replied with some non comment.
You start by recognising the current reality of what it's like for women in the workplace not just by looking at figures which point to a pay discrepancy but by actually listening to what women say. I'm not trying to disparage or undermine your points but I'm just wondering how old you actually are. In my own experience, but also listening to my partner, her colleagues and her friends, there's a severe lack of help with enabling women the ability to have children and a career.
The same absolutely should apply to men who want to do the same and you're right to pick me up on that.
Now you might think that acknowledging there's an issue and trying to rectify it could be sexist simply because you're applying a different set of criteria to one group because of their sex and my response would be to get over it. Our society is stronger if we empower women to not have to compromise in either area but more importantly, our industries are stronger if we have a diversified workforce. When we make it harder for one group to succeed then we have a smaller pool of talent and there's not an industry in the world that wants that.
Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.
You taking time off from work and work duties means that you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require; if you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require they're going to hire some one that can.
It's really that simple.
Should requirements drop so that people can go and do their own thing or should standards stay the same and they hire people that meet those requirements and standards?
Do you see the irony in your comment?
I've basically applied something you did in a previous comment and you're arguing against it because I reversed the genders.
It sounds like what you want is for Women to have more rights and better prospects/options than Men, rather than equality.
The only way we're going to have the kind of equality you want is everyone is given the same options, including those that don't want or have kids.
That's never going to happen though because if you can't meet your jobs oblations they'll just find some one else that can.

What you've described there is one of two things.

1. A badly-run company

2. What someone who has little experience of working-life thinks a company is.

Now assuming it's the first one, good companies recognise the value of good workers. They understand that it's easier to retain great staff than look for similar employees and that there are individuals out there who greatly improve their company and they won't necessarily find an equivalent replacement out there.

That's why you see companies moving towards giving women greater help when having children. They recognise the value that these people bring to the company, which is something I think you're either ignoring or simply don't have experience of.

Now if you want to give everyone the same options then that's a possibility - there are companies out there who offer people sabbaticals which is about fostering loyalty and retaining good workers whilst allowing them the chance to do what they might feel they need to.
#36
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.
Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?
Just Women?
Shouldn't they accommodate Men being Fathers or trying to raise their children too?
Bit sexist to suggest that we should only accommodate women.
They're not being penalised though, they're being treated fairly.
If a job required me to be there working 9-5 to complete projects for several months I wouldn't be able to do that job if I had things in the way e.g. taking time off to have and look after children.
Many jobs aren't that flexible; If you can't complete that job and meet the needs of the business, as they have stated, they're just going to hire some one else.
They could possibly do it by opening up in-house nurseries?
Other than that I can't really see how they could do it?
How would you suggest they do it without creating more sexism?
You haven't answered that, just replied with some non comment.
You start by recognising the current reality of what it's like for women in the workplace not just by looking at figures which point to a pay discrepancy but by actually listening to what women say. I'm not trying to disparage or undermine your points but I'm just wondering how old you actually are. In my own experience, but also listening to my partner, her colleagues and her friends, there's a severe lack of help with enabling women the ability to have children and a career.
The same absolutely should apply to men who want to do the same and you're right to pick me up on that.
Now you might think that acknowledging there's an issue and trying to rectify it could be sexist simply because you're applying a different set of criteria to one group because of their sex and my response would be to get over it. Our society is stronger if we empower women to not have to compromise in either area but more importantly, our industries are stronger if we have a diversified workforce. When we make it harder for one group to succeed then we have a smaller pool of talent and there's not an industry in the world that wants that.
Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.
You taking time off from work and work duties means that you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require; if you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require they're going to hire some one that can.
It's really that simple.
Should requirements drop so that people can go and do their own thing or should standards stay the same and they hire people that meet those requirements and standards?
Do you see the irony in your comment?
I've basically applied something you did in a previous comment and you're arguing against it because I reversed the genders.
It sounds like what you want is for Women to have more rights and better prospects/options than Men, rather than equality.
The only way we're going to have the kind of equality you want is everyone is given the same options, including those that don't want or have kids.
That's never going to happen though because if you can't meet your jobs oblations they'll just find some one else that can.
What you've described there is one of two things.
1. A badly-run company
2. What someone who has little experience of working-life thinks a company is.
Now assuming it's the first one, good companies recognise the value of good workers. They understand that it's easier to retain great staff than look for similar employees and that there are individuals out there who greatly improve their company and they won't necessarily find an equivalent replacement out there.
That's why you see companies moving towards giving women greater help when having children. They recognise the value that these people bring to the company, which is something I think you're either ignoring or simply don't have experience of.
Now if you want to give everyone the same options then that's a possibility - there are companies out there who offer people sabbaticals which is about fostering loyalty and retaining good workers whilst allowing them the chance to do what they might feel they need to.


What you're describing most likely wont apply to the average worker.

Probably more likely to apply to those higher up or those in smaller companies, but if you work for a large company and you're not one of the higher ups you're easily replaceable.

Perhaps it's just the industry/sector I work in?
#37
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
teh arn
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
thegroutch
this is incredibly stupid.
there's a reason for the pay gap, and that's because a lot of the higher paying jobs aren't pursued by women, be it managerial positions because of longer hours adversely effecting their child-raising responsibilities, or higher paid unskilled work being more physically demanding (heavy lifting).
to remove the pay gap would require women to be paid more than men for the same job, which would be a greater level of discrimination than anything being suggested/implied by this protest.
And here's an example of the problem facing society when people imply that only women can raise children. That's a very outdated view.
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that only the mother can raise children, I'm actually very happy to see a rise in the number of 'househusbands', but the facts are still that a higher percentage of women assume the childcare responsibilities.
sometimes there will be no choice in the matter (single parents/widows), but a lot of the time it is a decision that is made either by the woman herself or jointly by the couple, it would be naive to assume the role is forced upon them.
either way, that doesn't detract from the fact that women are being paid the same money for the same job, and it's foolish to protest against employers who have done nothing wrong.
It would be equally naive to think that society doesn't have a tendency to define certain roles by gender. What clearly needs to happen is for society to make it easier for women to have the best of both worlds so that they're not penalised for having children.
But protests like this go a long way to highlighting gender pay inequality. I'm amazed to see people have an issue with that.
How would they do that? More sexism?
Having children isn't a right.
Wow. Ok. Personally, I think that we as a society should accomodate women having children without being penalised in the workforce. Besides anything else, I think our economy is stronger with the best people (that includes women) in it.
Having children may not be a right but generally speaking it's a good thing isn't it?
Just Women?
Shouldn't they accommodate Men being Fathers or trying to raise their children too?
Bit sexist to suggest that we should only accommodate women.
They're not being penalised though, they're being treated fairly.
If a job required me to be there working 9-5 to complete projects for several months I wouldn't be able to do that job if I had things in the way e.g. taking time off to have and look after children.
Many jobs aren't that flexible; If you can't complete that job and meet the needs of the business, as they have stated, they're just going to hire some one else.
They could possibly do it by opening up in-house nurseries?
Other than that I can't really see how they could do it?
How would you suggest they do it without creating more sexism?
You haven't answered that, just replied with some non comment.
You start by recognising the current reality of what it's like for women in the workplace not just by looking at figures which point to a pay discrepancy but by actually listening to what women say. I'm not trying to disparage or undermine your points but I'm just wondering how old you actually are. In my own experience, but also listening to my partner, her colleagues and her friends, there's a severe lack of help with enabling women the ability to have children and a career.
The same absolutely should apply to men who want to do the same and you're right to pick me up on that.
Now you might think that acknowledging there's an issue and trying to rectify it could be sexist simply because you're applying a different set of criteria to one group because of their sex and my response would be to get over it. Our society is stronger if we empower women to not have to compromise in either area but more importantly, our industries are stronger if we have a diversified workforce. When we make it harder for one group to succeed then we have a smaller pool of talent and there's not an industry in the world that wants that.
Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.
You taking time off from work and work duties means that you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require; if you're unable to perform that job to the standard they require they're going to hire some one that can.
It's really that simple.
Should requirements drop so that people can go and do their own thing or should standards stay the same and they hire people that meet those requirements and standards?
Do you see the irony in your comment?
I've basically applied something you did in a previous comment and you're arguing against it because I reversed the genders.
It sounds like what you want is for Women to have more rights and better prospects/options than Men, rather than equality.
The only way we're going to have the kind of equality you want is everyone is given the same options, including those that don't want or have kids.
That's never going to happen though because if you can't meet your jobs oblations they'll just find some one else that can.
What you've described there is one of two things.
1. A badly-run company
2. What someone who has little experience of working-life thinks a company is.
Now assuming it's the first one, good companies recognise the value of good workers. They understand that it's easier to retain great staff than look for similar employees and that there are individuals out there who greatly improve their company and they won't necessarily find an equivalent replacement out there.
That's why you see companies moving towards giving women greater help when having children. They recognise the value that these people bring to the company, which is something I think you're either ignoring or simply don't have experience of.
Now if you want to give everyone the same options then that's a possibility - there are companies out there who offer people sabbaticals which is about fostering loyalty and retaining good workers whilst allowing them the chance to do what they might feel they need to.
What you're describing most likely wont apply to the average worker.
Probably more likely to apply to those higher up or those in smaller companies, but if you work for a large company and you're not one of the higher ups you're easily replaceable.
Perhaps it's just the industry/sector I work in?

No, I agree. In industries where a high turnover of staff is part of the landscape then there's not so much of an argument for retaining good staff but it's remarkable the difference that good employees can have on a business at any level.

This is where so many businesses get it wrong and often don't appreciate the value of good staff and also retaining good staff. It's where the argument for pay parity becomes a two-way street where the benefits of accommodating women (and men) taking time off go both ways.
#38
teh arn
dtovey89
teh arn
Your employer is only interested in your personal life if it impacts them; they've got no interest in you having children unless it impacts them.
It's really that simple.
Can you give me an example where a female member of staff having maternity time off wouldn't impact an employer?
Not one that takes maternity leave.
There are instances of women not taking maternity leave or taking a shortened maternity leave; that's going to have less of an impact.
I'm not against people taking maternity leave at all, it's great.
Should people receive preferential treatment because they're having kids?
I would say no.

If you give birth some sort of maternity leave would occur, i.e. the day of birth.
2 Likes #39
You see a problem here is its

Women get paid less than men, then Men are as capable of raising kids as women, then women are this and men are that!

It shouldnt be this it should simply be, everyone gets equality, and both sexes are responsible for the lack of equality,

The whole thing is a conundrum wrapped in hypocrisy

We NEED equality, but Men & Women have differences that affect that equality.

no one will ever be right, as someone will be made to feel guilty no matter what they do.

Edited By: haritori on Oct 25, 2016 16:59
#40
haritori
You see a problem here is its
Women get paid less than men, then Men are as capable of raising kids as women, then women are this and men are that!
It shouldnt be this it should simply be, everyone gets equality, and both sexes are responsible for both lack of equality,
The whole thing is a conundrum wrapped in hypocrisy
We NEED equality, but Men & Women have differences that affect that equality.
no one will ever be right, as someone will be made to feel guilty no matter what they do.

i think men and women should be paid the same wage for the same job and if they are not then that is sex discrimination. everyone should be paid on their abilities but unfortunately wage is not a direct correlation to ability.

my ability to do a job is the same but i paid different wages depending who i work for.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!