The Gender Pay Gap - It Really Is This Simple.

Or it should be.

The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a Federal Government agency on equality in the workplce. Their current (Feb 2023) figures on the Gender Pay Gap is 13.3% & claim its the lowest on record.

Its a remarkable figure considering how demonstrably ridiculous the stat is taken out of context & used for no positive benefit, in fact if anything the Gender Pay Gap issue is a weaponised form of absurd division.

Triggered?
Good.

Now calm the farm & answer just a few short questions...

1. Do you believe women are every bit as capable (on average) as men in the workplace?
   
   
2. Do you believe they are unfairly paid less?
   
   
3. Why is it you think that, if they're every bit as good as men & they cost so much less why aren't all workplaces employing more women than men seeing how much more cost effective that would be?
   
   
4. Same outcome for a lower cost, is there some institutionalised unfairness stopping smarter economic outcomes for employers?

Makes a difference a bit of thinking huh?
Here's some facts...

1. Men (not all men but men generally) do the majority of more dangerous (higher paying) work.
   
   
2. Men (not all men but men generally) are prepared to travel more (higher paying) for work.
   
   
3. Men (not all men but men generally) are prepared to do more over time & work weekends.

Makes a difference. To underline this, in Australia in 2017, 9.8% of men worked 60+hours whilst 3.0% of women worked 60+ hours plus. That's over 3 times more for men.

Hang on, buckle up, there's more...

45 - 59 Hours Worked (2017)
Men         20.4%
Women      9.0%

45 - 59 Hours Worked (2020)
Men         17.8%
Women      8.3%

GREAT NEWS - How to solve the Gender Pay Gap is actually incredibly simple but its not easy, not wise, not at all cost effective & would in turn be counter productive for business, the economy, worker & company earnings with no benefit to families. You just need to do 2 things...either, or.

Ready?
Are you ready to consider & are you ready to do this?

1. Bring in the government to get involved & fully legislate & regulate the workplaces, all the workplaces in Australia so ALL jobs have equal men & women. Only employ one person? Well bad luck, you know have to employ both a man or a woman or devise a job sharing arrangement so half the hours worked are men & half the hours worked are women. So nursing, education, child care will have to (over a reasonable transition time) replace all its female staff with men. All workplaces with manual labor, mchining/welding trades, building, transport, oil & gas, security will have to replace a lot of male staff to acheive 50:50 male/female staff.
   
   
2. Once you do that, no one gets over time unless there are an equal number of men & women getting over time, doing high risk tasks, working away. No 50:50, then it must not happen.
   
   
3. All men & women must work the exact same hours in the respective jobs, have the exact same benefits & conditions. If a woman takes however long for Maternity Leave, a man must take the exact same amount of time off as well. If a man takes time off for Paternity Leave then his workplace female equivilent must take that same amount of time off away from their career.

Yes, you will soon see, you cannot employ one man or one woman...you have to employ 2 people, one man & one woman in the same job, doing the same work, same hours to get the pay gap to zero.

Now what happens in the Worker Pairs if the man quits...you'll have to fill the vacancy with another man pronto or you will create a Gender Pay Gap in the statistics. The woman though has 30 years experience & they bring in a man, the only man they could find who has 5 years experience. Well they'd have to be on the same pay otherwise there's a Gender Pay Gap. So do we bump the (for example) the male teacher with 5 years experience up to the same pay as the woman who's got 30 years experience & sits on a valid, well earned higher spot on the pay grades...or do we bump the woman down...because otherwise you have  Gender Pay Gap don't you? I mean you don't want to be unfair now do you?

There's the easy solutions to the Gender Pay Gap, they're ridiculous, unworkable, unfair, counter productive and are every bit as absurd as the idea the Gender Pay Gap is a result of unfairness that has to be rectified.

But I can tell you as a person who is not a book maker at the races, its always a very short odds bet that looming & likely to pop up is the chestnut that its unfair women have to interupt their career to fall pregnant & raise kids. I'm not sure by what moral & ethical standard it is unfair but it seems for some the fair solution is women who have kids & start a family must have full pay for time spent away & have no career milestones lost whilst other men & women stay at work and build on their careers. The problem is somehow a fault of institutionalised gender inequality, or in other words, deliberate sexism. Its a very poor effort at a false bolster "yeah but" and stands out quite badly amongst quite a number of other intellectually corrupt ideas. Is it somehow how bad to be a mother, to have kids, to have a family, to love, nuture & raise another generation?
Great message for the kids, you offspring ruined my career & I got no compensation for the unfair blow I was dealt. Great messaging.

Perhaps its a coincidence that the Gender Pay Gap more likely to hit the media & social media around the time of International Women's Day and not International Men's Day. Perhaps its only my curious thinking that's all wrong and I won't support International Mens Day or International Women's Day. I'm not a ruthless brutal authoratarian misogynistic chauvist household controller...but the women folk in my household, who out number me don't celebrate either & see both as better ignored but if not ignore they need mockery. The big tell though was when the comment in our household was "Why isn't there an International Family Day to celebrate strong, traditional & loving family units?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Part 2 - not for the faint hearted...

The other bit some won't want to read, the bit about politics.

I noted one political party had a very Women's Committee. To promote women's interests, advancement of women in leadership roles & society in general.
I asked why there wasn't a Family Committee & a Men's Committee and the women on the committee said those sorts of committee's aren't required, those groups enjoy greater advantage and therefore don't exist.

Which brought me to ask "So you're saying women suffer a disadvantage and families & men don't?"
I was told yes, they enjoyed advantages women don't.

I pointed out both men AND women AND families ALL suffer disadvantages & how is it the women's committee members are so very well versed & knwoledgable on what affects men to the point of making a judgement yet it is not allowed the other way around?

Apparently I was part of the problem and in this day of Identity Politics, Emotivism & weaponised tribalisim I guess I very likely am.

Added irony for me is that party had a quota system for its State Executive. I'm still trying to find out but at this point I don't think either Labor Party or the Greens had that. The worst part was one year there were 3 women & 1 man looking to take up the gender quota seats, 2 for men, 2 for women. 3 of the women were top shelf, so to were 2 others who were considering running but weren't keen on vying for a spot against but anyway...
They stuck to their convention, 2 women were elected & they then had to hunt around for another man. They found one. He's a capable bloke but contrbuted very little & mainly listened for the entire year. The lady who missed out on the spot went onto other things. 
I'm told they still have the quota system.

At present there is Equal Opportunity. Its here, its enshrined in law.
There is not, nor should here be Equal Outcome.

It is not unfair that Julia Gillard became Prime Minister at the time & I didn't based on my & her gender.
Was she a great Prime Minister? Debatable, I think likely not. Would I have made a greater Prime Minister at the time? Debatable, I think due to her political expereince, her experience in cabinet & her parliamentary experience going back many years, she'd have been a better PM at the time than I would have. That's equal opportunity at work. Merit.

Do I think she could have been better, definitely. In my opinion her best contribution was leaving office but others have a differing view & neither there's nor mind is based on gender.