Wednesday 7 November 2012

"Gender pay gap 'likely to improve', say campaigners"

From the BBC:

The pay gap between men and women is likely to widen for the first time on record, a leading men's pay campaign group has predicted.

The Churchill Society says that men are paid only 14.9% more on average than women for doing much more skilled and difficult jobs. But it says this gap will probably widen as public sector cuts push women into the private sector or out of work.

The prediction coincides with a survey which suggests that a man can earn £423,000 more than a woman in his career. That average lifetime earnings figure comes from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) 2012 Gender Salary Survey, which also finds that the average pay gap stands at £10,060. This is a drop from 2011, when the difference was £10,546.

Men fare much better when it comes to bonuses, receiving twice the average £3,700 that women receive, says the CMI.

Charlie Goddard, the Churchill Society's chief executive, said the CMI survey should serve as "a wake-up call to government - business as usual is working".

Minister for Men and Equalities Jo Swinson said: "Pay equality was a real threat to men in the workplace. We have implemented measures in the Equality Act to make pay secrecy clauses unlawful and we are taking through legislation which would give tribunals power to order that employers conduct a pay audit where they have been found to discriminate against men."

More still needed to be done, she added.

'Turning the corner'

The Churchill Society, which campaigns for a fair deal for men, is calling for a dedicated men's employment strategy and for the government to bring more pressure to bear on the private sector to pay men more for working longer hours in more skilled or difficult jobs.

It hopes that the employment trend from public to private sector work will leave men, who are usually the main bread winners with the more secure, better-paid, full-time jobs. The private sector pay gap, at 20.4%, is higher than in the public sector.

"It looks as if we might be turning the corner", said Mr Goddard.

'Signal'

Annual figures on pay from the Office for National Statistics to be published next week are expected to indicate that the gap is improving.

"In recent years, men's pay has been eroded, but as the age of austerity bites, we now face the very real prospect of the gap actually improving for the first time since records began," Mr Goddard said.

The news comes on Equal Pay Day, marking the point in the year when men actually start getting paid that little bit extra compared to women.

'Now check your mirror and slow down a bit'

As well as earning less for doing easier jobs, women do not have to climb such a steep slope as men, the CMI figures show.

For while career men account for only 43% of the professional workforce, they battle their way up and represent 60% of department heads and 75% of chief executives, says the CMI.

Arthur Francke, CMI chief executive, said: "This lack of a strong talent pipeline on the female side really makes itself shown when it comes to promotions. Just imagine the chaos if 75% of our companies were run by women!"

He wants the government to "name and shame" companies "holding men back".

'When I said 'signal', I meant 'put the indicator on'. What did you think I meant?'

Baroness Prosser, deputy chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, argues that if men were offered more career opportunities, that might further improve the gender gap.

"The onus is squarely on employers to redress the balance, and male executives should also look to make the most of the male talent available to them," he said.

The CMI's National Management Salary Survey, conducted by XpertHR, collected data on 38,843 employees, from junior manager to board level, between August 2011 and August 2012.

5 comments:

Tim Almond said...

Ann Francke, CMI chief executive, said: "This lack of a strong talent pipeline has to change, and fast. Allowing these types of gender inequalities to continue is precisely the kind of bad management that we need to stamp out."

I do wonder who the CMI are, especially as I've never heard of them before. It seems like the sort of government-run organisation that is really more about the bureaucracy and rules of management, rather than what value management is supposed to deliver.

You would be crazy to hire a recently married female programmer in her early 20s to come and work in your company. I saw a crisis at a software team in one company - they had a team of 7 including a project manager, analyst, tester and 4 developers. Two of the developers had been hired within a few months of each other and at around 6 months and 12 months into the job, both announced they were pregnant. And both intended to take the career break. So, for around 6 months, the company lost 2 of its developers, and had to backfill with expensive contractors. Then when the women returned from their year off, they had to spend time getting used to new software and processes. Oh, and then one of them got pregnant again and took another year off.

Guess what happened next? The US company closed all development in the UK. It all went over to Ohio and North Carolina.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TS, indeedy, and as we well know, there is no men-vs-women pay gap, it is a mothers-v-everybody else pay gap, and on average, for each of her first three children, a mother earns about ten per cent less than she otherwise would have done (i.e. compared to men or childless women).

Bayard said...

"I do wonder who the CMI are, especially as I've never heard of them before."

Well they appear to be yet another professional institute, like the Royal Institute for Chartered Surveyors, or the Royal Institute of British Architects or the Institute of Electrical Engineers etc. there's bloody hundreds of them these days and they might be funded entirely by their members' fees, but I can't be bothered to check. However it's also quite possible that the "2012 Gender Salary Survey" was commissioned by HMG.

Imagine the fun if a company made potential female employees sign a form saying, "should I have a baby, I will come back to work and the father will take a year off to look after it". The righteous against the right-on.

Snarfangel said...

What I find rather curious in "gender pay gap" stories are the things they leave out of the analysis. For example, they never take into account that (at least here in the States) men and women are able to retire at the same age, but women celebrate their golden years three or so years longer. For example, in the U.S., men live an average of 17.6 years after their 65th birthday, while women live an average of 20.3 years after that milestone. If you have a choice between a pension that pays out $20K per year for 17.6 years and one that pays out $20K per year for 20.3 years, which one would you go for? That completely leaves aside the value of medical expenses, extra leisure time, and the like. If we legislate equal pay during our working years, we should get equal retirement as well.

This "gender equal pay" reminds me of the news stories that fret about the increased "biological" expenses that women shoulder -- for example, in medical care -- but ignore the fact that men need to spend an average of 30% more on food of equal quality (2600-2800 vs 2000-2200 kcal per day) just to survive. If money is transferred from one group to another because of the medical cost of one "act of God," it's only fair that a portion is transferred back as a subsidy for food.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Snarf, it's worse over here.

Women can start claiming their pension at 60, men at 65, add to the fact that women live 5 years longer, that means that women get about two-thirds of the state pension paid out.