Let us all jump on the gender pay gap bandwagon.

[Workingman]

We might as well, everybody else is.

The figures are out and 80% of companies pay men more than women and the gap can be as laege as 80%. It is not on, is it?

Well of course not, and the TV, radio news and the papers are all telling us so. Out come the *spurts and the campaigners and the 'sufferers' to describe the injustice of it alll with their charts and graphs and stories. By and large they have been given an easy ride by their 'interviewers' with barely a difficult question to answer.

The up pop Stella Creasey MP (Lab) and Kate Andrews a statistician and economic affairs researcher. Stella was given time to explain her position and why she was in support of the campaign #PayMeToo. She was encouraged to give examples and she did so. It was all fair with a well laid out argumnet and reasonable position to take.

Then it was Kate's turn. Why is everyone conflating gender pay with equal pay? Don't people know that it is illegal in the UK to pay men and women different rates for doing the same job - an Act brought in by Labour? Do people realise that 'mean' and 'median' tell us nothing as to how they came about? The raw data paints a flawed picture.

The thing is that they are both partially right.

Unfortunately it looks as though women are being whipped up into a frenzy without being given the full facts; and they are being deliberately led into believing that equal pay and gender pay are both the same thing.

[cromwell]

I would like some more detail, but there isn't any. What exactly is the gender pay gap and how is the gap calculated?

I know it exists - my daughter is on maternity leave and the man they have hired on a contract is being paid £5,000 pa more than she is on - but please more detail.

In councils the rate for the role is set. PO(b) gets x amount, PO(c) gets y amount regardless of which sex gets the job.

So all I can see atm is more slogans and no details.

[Kaz]

That seems so wrong Crommers, why is he worth 5k more, just because he's male?

[cromwell]

A point my daughter made to her boss Kaz. What makes it more ironic was that she was in charge of compiling a report for her firm on - the gender pay gap. It was her last job before she went on leave. She made that point too!

They got round it by saying that it the higher pay was just because it was a temporary contract and they had had trouble filling the post.

[Workingman]

Kaz, I do not think that it is because he is male, I believe that it is to do with him being on contract. A female on contract would (should) get the same as him. It is the nature of contract / agency work.

When all this blew up yesterday Kate Andrews was trying to explain the Stella Creasy that the mean and median figures being used were useless without the mode being known. A good example of that comes from the BBC with this:
Data supplied by the NHS as per the law.

Women in NHS paid 23% less than men

1. It showed that the average full-time female worker is paid £28,702 a year in basic salary. That compares to the £37,470 average pay for men - a gap of more than 23%.

2. It found a gender pay gap of 15% with male doctors paid £67,788 in basic pay, compared to the £57,569 female doctors receive.

It is worth remembering that in the UK it is illegal to pay men and women different rates for the same work.

The figures in 1. looked at all women and worked out the average, then it did the same for men. So, they are looking for the average between say cleaners to consultants.

When it comes to women those on the lower pay grades far and away outnumber those on the higher grades. Look around any hospital and the most seen employees are women as cooks, cleaners, clerical staff, porters, receptionists, health care assistants, newly qualified nurses etc. The vast majority of them will be on a wage lower than the average and so bring that average down.

When it comes to the men there are of course the lower paid, but not in the same numbers as a percentage of the male workforce as the lower paid women are in their group. There are, for example, a lot more, many more, male surgeons and consultants. They skew the average figure upwards.

I am not saying that either case is right, it is just how they are and the way they are allows headlines like the one from the BBC.

The figures in 2. are even more outrageous. The BMA pay scales show that all doctors are on the same rate for the grade they are at - fat/thin, tall/short, black/white. male/female - it they are at the same grade they get the same pay... to the penny.

However it all comes down to mode, again. If more women doctors are at Foundation 1 or 2 or Specialist 1 compared to their male counterparts their average pot has to be lower - it is simple maths. If all doctors in a hospital were all at the same grade there would be no difference whatsoever. But if that were the case there would also be no misleading and provocative headline.

[Workingman]

Crommers, I have done plenty of contract work and always got paid more than a staffer of the same grade. The reason was very simple: staff employment rights - sick pay, holiday pay, bonuses, sometimes a co car, etc...

As a contractor I paid for them out of the money I earned. I also had periods between contracts with no pay at all. It is just the way it is. I agree that it looks a bit off, but when you look behind the headline figures there is a lot more to it.

[AliasAggers]

There's one aspect of this subject that is never mentioned. If a woman is doing exactly the same job as a man, and to the same standard,
then there is no reason why she should not receive the same payment. But what about a man who is doing the same job as another man?
There are many examples of different levels of remuneration for men doing similar jobs - particularly in managerial positions.

[Workingman]

There's one aspect of this subject that is never mentioned. If a woman is doing exactly the same job as a man, and to the same standard, then there is no reason why she should not receive the same payment. But what about a man who is doing the same job as another man?
There are many examples of different levels of remuneration for men doing similar jobs - particularly in managerial positions.

It is illegal to pay men and women different rates for doing the same work and has been for decades.

However, it is not illegal to have differential pay grades for skills, qualifications and seniority whether in management or the shop floor. Why can't people accept that?

If a person has a qualification with enhanced skills based on their years doing the job are they not worth more to a business than a newly employed person?

Maybe not, in the weird world we now live in.

Show me your degree, pet.

[AliasAggers]

If a person has a qualification with enhanced skills based on their years doing the job,
are they not worth more to a business than a newly employed person?

Of course they are. But that bit of information appears to have been forgotten.

Personally I don't quite agree with there being legal stipulations regarding what an employer pays his workpeople.
Some employees are better at their jobs and are worth more than others.