By Rowenna Davis / @rowenna_davis
I’m no party demagogue, but Harriet Harman, I salute you today. Few know it, but today’s exposure of an 80% gender pay gap in the city is to her credit. She may have climbed down on making companies publish their own salaries, but she clearly had other eggs in her basket – in 2006 she fought to give the Equality and Human Rights Commission the power to investigate private firms. The findings they released today were made possible by her campaigns.
The facts themselves are shocking. They don’t just show an 80% gap in performance related pay, but a bias that starts on day one of joining the financial sector. Eight out of ten women start off on a lower average salary than men – try explaining that inequality as the natural outcome of meritocracy. The City should be ashamed of such a gap, but out of all the top execs who have had access to these figures for years, less than a quarter are investigating why it exists.
This research proves something else feminists have long believed: free, public information advances gender equality. In the civil service, where pay gaps are compulsorily published, the gap is approximately 20% (although it is widening). The EHRC’s research is evidence to enforce what Harman always wanted – compulsory annual publication of salaries across the private sector. The Equalities Bill is set to go to the Lords for enactment in early 2010 – with these results in hand, we need to table an amendment to make this happen.
Without the constant challenge that comes with the publication of these figures, sexist outcomes can become “normal”. That’s why you get women like Melanie McDonagh writing for the Telegraph that men are probably just better at this kind of thing because of testosterone (although if the financial crisis is anything to go by, all city workers should be neutered), or because they don’t have to bring up kids.
Meanwhile, organisations like the CBI say things will improve naturally, but the Fawcett Society has documented the situation is getting worse as women are increasingly treated as sex objects rather than professionals in the workplace. Network events in lapdancing clubs, porno screensavers and sexual “banter” aren’t old problems that are working themselves out; they’re new ones that are being ignored. If such discrimination is to be changed, it must be exposed. The Tories won’t do that. But with a little bit more support, Harriet Harman might.
The picture is taken from the Fawcett Society's Sexism and the City campaign.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Comments here seem pretty consistent - the first reaction is to see '80%' and assume it is bogus and to dig deeper - and to find (surprise, surprise) it is based on comparing apples to oranges and meaningless.
I don't think authors expect nor care whether they are believed, the fact they have 'published' something is what earns them their brownie points (which is their motivation).
And politicians (claim to) wonder why they are held in such contempt... Clearly they don't wonder at all, and they don't actually care...
The ONS reguarly take issue with their fiddling of data and partial results. We hda the dodgy dossier and now we have the slow drip of what has really happened regarding the reasons Libya are suddenly our best friend.
Harman's legislation and reasoning and pure spite nothing else, but the Labour party has to find a reason for it. So we get meaningless statistics and subtle mistruths as cover.
As with all things Labour they pick an ideological leftwing standpoint for a policy then try to find "facts" to justify it. What we end up with is 12 years of waste and mess all covered with a sickly sweet web of spin, soundbites and untruths.
The deep lack of respect the UK public has for politicians and politics can be laid firmly at Labour's door.
He recalled how, since the beginning of time, statements from number 10 could always been be taken as gospel - plain and simple.
Then there was an occasion where Blairs number 10 released a categorical denial about something which they took on the usual basis and asked no more about it. Later it turned out that the statement had been heavily spun and the journalists had been misled - they were absolutely stunned, and their world changed.
Blair sold out years of tradition, trust and integrity for his personal gain, and for the labour parties political gain - it wasn't his to do that with, he was supposed to be steward of the principles attached to the office of PM...
Labour have been a disaster for our constitution - and their supreme court thing seems very unconsidered - I know consultation with legal bods is a complete nighmare and can drag on indefinitely, but whether straws changes are for better or for worse is going to be entirely down to chance. Parliament must not be sidelined, it must be made to work.
The party labour has royally screwed this country up, again.
To their credit they did disregard part time staff from their study which removes the skew that would be introduced by the larger proportion of female to male employees working part time. The lower income would obviously make the data inaccurate.
However, I did wonder how do they define financial services; Rowenna defines this as city banker but the report does not. The report includes those working in call centres upwards. The executive summary clearly states
"The causes also include factors that may be outside of the firm’s direct control, for example persistent job segregation. Women are far more likely than men to be working in a customer call centre; far less likely to be in senior management or on a board."
ALSO INCLUDE? It MUST be the major contributing factor.
In other words rather than comparing like with like e.g. a male and female bankmanager's wages they're comparing the average female wage with the average male wage across the whole organisation from call centre to CEO. In these terms the data doesn't say very much it perhaps confirms what we empircally already know more women work in call centres and branches of banks than sit in boardrooms.
You might argue that discrimination results in this uneven distribution of male and female staff in which case the companies are at fault. You might equally argue societal/cultural reasons mean women tend to apply in greater numbers to low paid positions in banks perhaps the work is percieved as "woman's work" perhaps society is deeply discriminatory; I make no comment. In this instance though it's not really the banks fault.
To be fair I haven't read the whole report maybe it does crunch the stats more accurately later on; but at least now you know where the headline has come from; it's pretty misleading.
More than that, I don't think anyone, male or female, should earn as much as the highest level bankers.
It is a real shame Gordan Brown just opposed efforts by leading French and German politicians (supposedly to the right of him) to put a cap on wages.
The issue is class, not gender.
The issue is surely whether women at all levels get paid less for the same job. I know from personal experience that at some levels this is true, and would have been interested to know more.
Still. Rowmenna's point about making salary information known holds up, and seems valid.
Could it be that men are more profitable for there companies ? .
No i am not sexist or a tory , Just want to know as it is Pay prefomenced pay maybe they reached there targets ?
Anecdotally I hear that womens portfolios suffered less during the crisis than mens but underperformed during the boom.
If true - and I'm not sure it is as it sound a bit too neat and tidy - it's swings and roundabouts.
Also, I live a long way a way from London so my info is usually stale.
I do get sick of the feminists who spend half their time telling men that men and women are the same and mens advantages are undeserved, and the other half of their time telling women how their differences make them superior to men... If equality legislation meant anything, radio 4 womens hour would have been banned for inciting hatred.
Just tax their incomes above £100k at 80%. That'll reduce the inequality all round.
In any case, why is it any of Harriet's business? Hasnt she noticed a few problemettes in the Party that she might turn her hand to? Like letting terrorists out of prison? Refusing to support compensation for victims of terrorism? Cabinet colleagues laying (again) to cover up what the did? Having to let out suspected terrorists who were subject to Control Orders. That sort of thing that may affcet people lives and well being.
No? Thought not.
Still, nice positioning for when Gordon gets the knife in the next few weeks.
But never mind. The sisterhood sails on unaffected.
And surely Sexism in the City is a separate issue from the Fawcett Society's obsession with lap-dancing.
Don't get me wrong: corporate jollies at such joints are wrong, but I suspect that lap-dancing is one job where females are not discriminated against vis-vis males.
[The other evening a neighbour who works for one of the banks blushingly confessed that she and colleagues had gone to see the Chippendales. Right I said, I'm going to see the Ladyboys of Bangkok. Next day, by happenstance, I found myself dancing with one of them.]
Let's just focus on the equal pay issue.
How many people does this effect in comparison to say the number of people being made unemployed at the moment? Or maybe the issue of paternity leave could be addressed, surely an issue which effects far more men that what is being discussed here about a small group of women?
Do you see my point at all, or is it that you've rooted out some blatant sexism in a very small proportion of the population and that should now take up the time of Parliament whilst 2.5 million sit on the dole queue waiting for some of these wonderful jobs to be created? Rather than whinging that their bonuses are not big enough, it's be nice if they were grateful to have a job. While we're on the subject of comparisons:
A) A nursery school teacher defended her class against a machete-weilding assailant; she recieved injuries requiring several hundred stitches and compensation of £80,000.
B) A woman police constable was held back from promotion on account of her gender and was compensated in the sum of £500,000.
C) A female merchant banker who was told told she had 'nice waps' by her employer recieved compensation of £1.2 million.
So you're right there Rowenna, equality really doesn't exist for some women, especially when you compare those ladies who work in the banking sector and those women who have to deal with machete-wielding maniacs.
It will ensure more and more anti Labour votes at the next election.
I personally wold also like to salute Harman. To bring forward legislation that not is sexist and racist but actually embeds sexism and racism as legitimate reason to hire for the first time is a master stroke so close to an election.
To have followed it up with the comment that men can't be trusted to run things themselves is possibly the greatest foot in mouth moment I've seen for a while. Let's try the opposite, imagine a male MP saying "women can't be trusted to run things for themselves"... imagine the reaction. Well you got a near similar reaction after Harman's comments with a few "feminists" I know saying she had really gone too far.
More Harman please, it makes Labour's demise ever more certain.
I can only conclude that you are comparing the pay of traditionally male and traditionally female jobs, which is a different matter altogether. HR and grad recruitment jobs are female dominated, but are paid less as they are unskilled jobs that a monkey could do. The question of how to attract more women into front office banking for example has nothing to do with sexism - women most probably choose not to enter this pelvis-thrusting environment for reasons other than being discriminated against. Certainly more choose to enter medicine, where women now outnumber men at junior level.
If a bank takes 10 male graduates, and 10 female graduate on the same terms, but also takes 10 lower paid office juniors the majority of whom are women, then that will diminish the average wage paid to the females. I had a quick flick through the Guardian article but couldn't see much detail.
Apples and pears?
Can this really be true (I haven't had time to download the full report and check). Surely all graduates on every bank's graduate training scheme get paid exactly the same ?
Step one, mention Harriet Harman,
Step two, get abuse on "What a horrible person she is" (usually from Woman) or "I ****ing hate the *****.
Step three, go to step one.
Haha, just kidding!
We know that sexual discrimination in the workplace is a criminal offence - so if there are no prosecutions then there has been no sexual discrimination...
So the figures being waved about must be statistical tricks thought up by clever people to get a misleading headline.
Yup - this is pure labour.
Did you know - Male MPs earn 4 times as much as Female MPs?
Of is it really a tiny problem, having masses of public money thrown at it to make a minister 'look good'.
So what about male MPs being paid 4 times as much as female MPs ? is that a problem? of do you think it is perfectly acceptible?
I have a rock that keeps away tigers which you may be interested in purchasing.
I recognise that it's possible for me to try and intimidate a woman that I have sexually harassed. However, the fact that I have never been charged with sexual harassment is not evidence that I have been waging a campaign of intimidation against my theoretical victims.
Saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is not a valid logical argument, but it's understandable that people fall for its superficial wisdom. Saying that an absence of evidence is, in and of itself, suggestive of a crime is moronic.
What she said was:
"if there were no prosecutions, this wouldn't prove there was no discrimination"
Which, especially in legal terms is not remotely the same as saying:
"If there were no prosecutions this would prove there was discrimination".
nor
"If there were no prosecutions this suggests there was discrimination".
The difference is that I was doing it a little sarcastically to illustrate a point. You can tell by the way I offered to sell her a rock that keeps tigers away.
Secondly, Rowenna finished her post with, "That would be evidence of more sexism, not less." and I was addressing that. Non-existent evidence cannot be used to justify anything.
I took the last line to refer to city firms ability to afford "hot shot lawyers to run rings around an individual woman, even if her case is legitimate." I don;t actually see that that "ability" is evidence of any crime or indeed sexism, but that's another issue. I think.
So you're arguing that the number of women in the City who have had sexist remarks/unsuitable advances without going to court is "likely" to be very small? I doubt it.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but then women often ignore the fact that there are far greater instances of discrimination and bullying in other industries, not to mention the fact that as a man you are expected to put up with sexual banter and smutty comments as it is not being a 'man' to object.
My wife used to work alongside me in a male dominated industry and she had to put up with a lot of stick, a lot more than being told she had 'nice waps' but we had to tolerate it. Either that or be pushed out of our jobs because others would tolerate it, or me risking going to court for lamping one of the cretins out. Women elsewhere in the UK and men for that matter put up with a whole lot more than the few who work in the city, but it seems it can't be tolerated when it happens within a few small square miles of Westminster.
Does my point make any sense to you at all on this? Effectively I'm saying we should all be equal, but it seems some (the minority) are more equal than others. If my wife could have gotten £1.2 million for someone saying 'nice waps' then we could have got billions for when one chap at a place we were working insinuated she was a prostitute.
I'd say quite a lot of those women - certainly some that I know - are originally from working class backgrounds, trying to get on, and most certainly some of them (probably not HR) are paid less for doing the same job. My wife best friend worked in HR for a City firm, so I can confirm that. However, I do see that the survey is between two stools - is it mean to prove that recruitment is biased towards men, or that the wages are biased to men - intertwined but different subjects.
I absolutely take your point about women in other jobs. We could have had a survey of sweatshop owner cartels setting wages, cheating people and so on. And I certainly take your point with regard to your wife.
My wife has a well-paid senior job in an organisation where she doesn't have the abuse you mention, but was stitched up while on maternity leave. She had a solid legal case against the company, but couldn't face the prospect of the abuse, not being able to afford a lawyer as good as theirs and so on, 9 months after having a child. And she is a tough, educated woman from a working-class Scots background - what chance would a junior have if she got felt up by a pissed trader in a lap dancing club?
So that;s why I had a bit of red mist on the court/prosecutions issue.
I feel the 1.2m settlements are red herrings really, but yes, I note the cynicism of choosing an area with a good pr angle - hadn't thoght of that, duh. But the central point of the piece re publishing salaries reducing unfair differences in pay does seem worth making.
I'm sorry your wife got that sort of abuse, it's revolting. It's funny, I don't know what you both did, but I grew up among fairly er, robust working men who did manual work, and for all their reputation for uncouthness or whatever, I didn't know anyone who would speak to women at work in the way that I have heard some educated men in offices do. That;s not being romantic about the horny-handed, it's just a fact.
If you look at it from another angle though think about what it is like in any workplace. As a male you can go into a workplace and manage quite well, but object to some of the sexually explicit banter and watch carefully as you are bullied and ostracised. It may not include the same sexual connotations that women have to endure, but it is exactly the same when it comes to the power play involved in such bullying. What course of action does the male employee have? If they complain they are likely to make matters worse or lose their job because they are not a 'team player'.
How do I know this? Because it has happened to me. I was the person who stood up and told people to quit it. My days in that workplace were made a living nightmare, but what could I do about it? Granted, I wasn't subjected to physical bullying, nobody attempted to touch my bottom and I wasn't told I had 'nice waps' (although I believe I have a very nice pair for a man) but I'd challenge some of these city bankers to a day in my shoes back then.
I do sympathise with your wife's situation and I do find it to be all too common, but we all find ourselves in very difficult situations when it comes to the workplace and legislation can not always find its way to solving the problem. Politicians do not have all the answers. For instance, I had an employer who had a liking for throwing phones at my head when I didn't meet his impossible standards. I was self-employed and could have walked at any point, but the job was reasonably well paid and all I had to do was learn how to dodge.
Another angle to view from is when men are sexually discriminated in the workplace. Much in the same way as male rape is dealt with, it is viewed as a non-existant problem and few employers even entertain anyone who brings up a complaint. It is a far less recognised instance than with female employees, but then it doesn't make for sensational headlines and certainly doesn't provide the entertaining court cases.
As I said initially, this article tackles a small percentage of women in small sector of the country, leaving the other 60 odd million to fend for themselves. Harriet Harman isn't thinking of the working class women who go through the mill everyday, she hasn't a clue, her goal is the city-dwellers who she is familiar with and will craft legislation to suit them, not Noreen who works in the canteen of the haulage firm, Alice who does the accounts for a small landscape gardening firm or even Gareth who has tried his best to fit in at the call centre for 18 months. I have known them all personally, but Harriet Harman wouldn't speak to them if she fell over them. They are the voters who don't really matter as they don't fit into one of her tidy little boxes where she can place a tick, a cross or sign away people's rights because she thinks she has all the answers.
With regard to the working class women issue -as Siberian Tory points out above, the report seems somewhat knotted. It seems to be about the financial services sector, which takes in women working in call centres who migth well look to the Labour Party to represent their interests. However, the headline stuff draws on the City, and even if one does think it right to expose pay inconsistencies there, the issues are surely a bit different.
Isn;t Harriet married to Jack Dromey who came to prominence in the Grunwick dispute? I seem to recall she is. How things change, eh.
Many conservatives have blind spots when it comes to the legal system and minorities who are discriminated against - although they spend much time here and elsewhere pointing out how/why public organisations outcomes fail to reflect reality, they suspend this scepticism when it comes to the judiciary in cases like these.
One reason why the right still struggles to attract minorities who are sick of the left IMO.
any fule kno plenty of women have won sexual discrimination cases against city firms this decade. therefore by your logic there has been sexual discrimination...