by GED KEARNEY
When anyone asked my daughters what they wanted to be when they grew up I would always tell them to answer by saying ‘to be paid the same as a man’.
Most people would in turn respond with a furrowed brow.
The gender pay gap was a rarely acknowledged problem 10 or 20 years ago and even now, while each year we have Equal Pay Day as a way to highlight the fact that the gap remains, not much has changed.
If it had, the day wouldn’t exist and I wouldn’t be writing this.
The gap remains a persistently wide 17.5%, despite the publicity Equal Pay Day gets each year as it highlights the fact that women have to work an extra 64-odd days more than a man every single year to earn the same money.
Yes, that’s right – in 2012, women working full-time earn on average 17.5% less than men who also work full-time.
The figure has widened from the 17.2% it sat on the previous two years, then taking women an extra 63 days to earn what their male counterparts earned.
There’s a myriad of reasons explaining why the gap is getting worse, not better, and why women face restricted access to equal employment and career development opportunities in the workplace, leading to just 12.5% of Top 200 ASX companies with female directors, 3% with CEOs, and 2% with female chairs.
The top explanations include that women still tend to be the primary caregiver in the majority of families. When they take time out of the workforce, the reality is that by the time they return they have skipped a pay increase or two and their male colleagues (who haven’t had a break) have climbed the promotion ladder ahead of them.
There are other reasons for the pay gap – like the fact that women often leave their full time secure jobs after having children so that they can get ‘flexible’ hours via casual work or a part-time job, in lieu of the pay and career paths their previous role offered.
Top Comments
Well why should women get paid the same. Think about it from my (employer) perspective, why should an employer pay a female more then her male counterpart when he has to give her 6 months off paid when she gives birth.
Over a course of 10 years and roughly 2-3 children from each female, thats a whole heap of money being lost just so women can get paid the same.
I say it is totally right for females to get paid less.
I respectfully disagree with much of this article. It is illegal for any employer in Australia to discriminate on the basis of an employee's sex. Men and women must be paid the same rate and must never be discriminated against. This is law, and rightly so. Unless there has been a breach of this law, and you can point to companies that are actively breaching it, then there is no discrimination against women in terms of remuneration. As I have seen no blogger or writer offer evidence to this end, I can only conclude that this so-called "gender pay gap" is a myth.
If a woman chooses to have a child and take time off following the child's birth, that's a serious decision she would have to weigh up, considering that taking a year, or two, or five, out of her career may put her at a disadvantage as compared to the other women and men who have continued furthering and developing their career during these five years. This just makes sense from the company's perspective, and is fair to the other employees, male or female.
That said, the workplace should be a meritocracy, meaning the person who deserves the job gets it. If that's a man, so be it; if that's a woman, so be it. Making quotas is sex-based discrimination whichever way you look at it, and is abhorrent in the extreme in an ostensibly egalitarian society like Australia. Indeed, I find your promotion of discrimination quite offensive and a little ironic, given that you have devoted an entire article to overcoming discrimination.