michael Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm Isn't this just a perfect example of why women shouldn't be allowed to do important jobs though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Been through this once in a certain country and it is just a plain stupid practice because companies get forced to hire candidates that MAY not be suitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Harriet Harman is the Minster for Equality AND the Minister for Women. In 2007 Harriet was elected as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. She has since been appointed by the Prime Minister to serve as Chair of the Labour Party, Leader of the House of Commons, Secretary of State for Equalities, Minister for Women and Lord Privy Seal. Now, is it just me or do I sense a conflict in interests here? She's also the one who had her house climbed by the Fathers' Rights guys dressed as superheroes a few weeks back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I have to say I'm particularly loving the tags in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I have to say I'm particularly loving the tags in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 She said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to - or vice versa. They already do... they just may choose not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 They already do... they just may choose not to. It's such a ridiculous thing - and completely sexist in itself. Forcing people to choose or have a certain percentage of men/women in their company in the name of political correctness is just the world gone mental. Now...where did I put that copy of women's weekly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 I have to say I'm particularly loving the tags in this thread. What tags? Seems perfectly normal to me *shrug* Anyway shouldn't you be ironing or making cakes? *runs* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 It does say that the idea can work both ways though - that employers can choose whether to employ one over the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Like-a-dis . . . "She said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to - or vice versa." Thats OK isn't it - no change!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 What tags? Seems perfectly normal to me *shrug* Anyway shouldn't you be ironing or making cakes? *runs* I liked the tags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 I liked the tags. Have a word with one of your mod pals then, they clearly didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Been through this once in a certain country and it is just a plain stupid practice because companies get forced to hire candidates that MAY not be suitable. Exactly why I am in this country.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 We're doomed! We're doomed! Sexual equality should mean the best person for the job is employed. Crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Sexual equality should mean the best person for the job is employed. It does last time I checked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I missed the fun tags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It's not the case. It's entrenched discrimination. It's allowed to persist because it's all swept under the carpet." They may well not be 40% less intelligent, qualified, etc. but that does not necessarily mean they are not 40% (or more!) less valuable! Personally, I think that employers should be able to discriminate and salary in any way they see fit. They are the employer, after all. If you don't like it, don't work for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Also I remember at Wimbeldon, the women wanted the same money as the men. But my view is they shouldn't get the same, the men play 5 sets the women play 3. when they play 5 fair enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Also I remember at Wimbeldon, the women wanted the same money as the men. But my view is they shouldn't get the same, the men play 5 sets the women play 3. when they play 5 fair enough! Definitely! I don't know why they aren't playing 5 sets now. Aren't they fit enough? Very enjoyable to watch though, all the same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 They may well not be 40% less intelligent, qualified, etc. but that does not necessarily mean they are not 40% (or more!) less valuable! Personally, I think that employers should be able to discriminate and salary in any way they see fit. They are the employer, after all. If you don't like it, don't work for them! Ah, they have added the "per hour" bit now, originally it read as though someone working half the hours should be paid the same as someone who works full time. Either way pay should be a personal thing based on lots of factors, if you don't get paid as much as Betty then find out why and aspire to be more like her, if you reach that goal and still don't get any luck then you can kick up a fuss. (Or just wear a dress / change your ethnic origin* and take the easy route) * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7473821.stm Maybe he's just crap at his job but just happens to be Asian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Also I remember at Wimbeldon, the women wanted the same money as the men. But my view is they shouldn't get the same, the men play 5 sets the women play 3. when they play 5 fair enough! So you've just highlighted the reason why they get paid differently, not quite the same as someone doing the same job at the same office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Ah, they have added the "per hour" bit now, originally it read as though someone working half the hours should be paid the same as someone who works full time. Yeah - I kind of assumed they meant "per hour", otherwise it made no sense at all. But it could still be the case (and usually is!) that a part-time worker working 50% of full-time is probably worth less than 50% the value of a full-time employee. My partner is on job share since having Adam. She's working 60% of her previous hours and someone else now does the other 40%. However, the inefficiencies introduced as a result of having to co-ordinate between two workers and keep everything synchronised means the actual efficiency of their combined work is well below what she used to achieve single-handedly. Because of "equality" they had to give her a job at the same pay rate after the birth even though their overall costs increased. Great for us, of course, but I have genuine sympathy for her employers. Personally, I would have packed her stuff into a box as soon as she got up the duff, but I guess I'm not allowed to say that sort of thing! Either way pay should be a personal thing based on lots of factors, if you don't get paid as much as Betty then find out why and aspire to be more like her, if you reach that goal and still don't get any luck then you can kick up a fuss. Spot on!!! I would go further and also say that if there is a genuine reason why Betty being female (that's an assumption I've made there) makes her more valuable to my employer (maybe she can use her feminine wiles to make more sales or something?), then that's acceptable too. In some areas of work, what sex you are, what race you are, what age you are, etc. can make a genuine difference to your value as an employee. If, for example, your religion demands that you spend 5% of your day praying (just an example here - no offence intended) instead of working. If you make up for this by being 5% better than everyone else or working 5% longer than everyone else, fine. If not, it's not arbitrary discrimination when you are the one that is out the door first - it's not because of your religion, it's becuase you're doing 5% less work than the others! So you've just highlighted the reason why they get paid differently, not quite the same as someone doing the same job at the same office. Exactly - and it's not just the 3 sets vs. 5 sets thing - Womens' tennis and Mens' tennis are completely different sports. If the women think they deserve to earn the same money, they should all (men AND women) play in one big mixed tournament for the combined winnings. Somehow I don't think the women players would go for that one though, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Exactly - and it's not just the 3 sets vs. 5 sets thing - Womens' tennis and Mens' tennis are completely different sports. If the women think they deserve to earn the same money, they should all (men AND women) play in one big mixed tournament for the combined winnings. Somehow I don't think the women players would go for that one though, eh? What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 What's your point? Hehe - I would suggest that there should probably be a testosterone comparison too, but in today's tennis, I wouldn't be surprised if the women gave the men a good run for their money on that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DevilsAdvocate Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm Isn't this just a perfect example of why women shouldn't be allowed to do important jobs though? "No, time for you f-off and stay there." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.