« Craig Murray | Main | New Year’s Honours List. »
December 30, 2005
EOC: Bastards.
Yes, yet more on the Equal Opportunities Commission and their playing with figures to show the gender gap. From ONS:
Although median hourly pay provides a useful comparison between the earnings of men and women, it does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay medians are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations and their length of time in jobs.
The EOC:
Women working part-time
earn nearly 40% less than full-time men, a pay penalty that has
hardly changed in 30 years.
Lying bastards, eh?
December 30, 2005 in Your Tax Money at Work | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8346847b353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EOC: Bastards.:
Comments
I must say I don't see this. The EOC statement says nothing that isn't endorsed by the clause "median hourly pay provides a useful comparison between the earnings of men and women" and nothing that extends to a claim of "differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs". I'm pretty sure that the Equal Opportunities Commission is not trying to make the claim that men and women get precisely comparable jobs to one another; it seems pretty basic to their business case that they don't. What exactly is it that you're objecting to?
Tim adds: Read the rest of the pieces over the past couple of days. They’re lying shysters.
Posted by: dsquared | Dec 30, 2005 5:24:10 PM
The lie is that earning less for not working full time is a "pay penalty".
Also, if "part time" would include working up to a max. of 60% of full time, it would not be surprising or an inequity if such workers were payed 40% less than full time employees. It rather seems amazing that the average female part time worker makes 60% of full time pay! Perhaps the part time females are getting payed more than the full time employees on a per hour basis?
Nor does the EOC note the other factors alluded to by the ONS statement which may factor into the "pay penalty" meme, making the term "penalty" a false characterization.
Posted by: Joe Peden | Dec 30, 2005 6:03:12 PM
Oh yes, they're lying bastards OK. If you set u a commission, they are never going to press-release themselves out of a job, are they?
Posted by: Beachhutman | Dec 30, 2005 9:14:42 PM
BeachHut,
There's another point that needs mentioning. If you've found a really good line that works, why bother stressing to find a new one? Work becomes so much easier if you can justify your massive salary by simply tacking a new cover to an updated version of old report.
With a few updated spreadsheets and graphs you can take last decade's report and publish it while claiming the cash for a whole new research project.
Damn, I need to get into consulting and fast.
RM
Posted by: Remittance Man | Dec 31, 2005 8:08:47 AM
Tim,
I think now you're overstating your case.
The statement:
Women working part-time earn nearly 40% less than full-time men, a pay penalty that has hardly changed in 30 years.
If anything is too mild. In fact women working part-time earn more than 40% less than men working full time as they do fewer hours. They earn about 40% less than men working full-time per hour.
But other than that the statement is factually correct.
Your criticism of the EOC's 40% statement has some validity when they don't say that it is woman working part-time compared with men working full-time (though I think adding a line to the effect, 'working full time is the typical situation for a man' would solve most of it), but that isn't the case here.
Posted by: Matthew | Dec 31, 2005 12:50:25 PM
Tim,
I think now you're overstating your case.
The statement:
Women working part-time earn nearly 40% less than full-time men, a pay penalty that has hardly changed in 30 years.
If anything is too mild. In fact women working part-time earn more than 40% less than men working full time as they do fewer hours. They earn about 40% less than men working full-time per hour.
But other than that the statement is factually correct.
Your criticism of the EOC's 40% statement has some validity when they don't say that it is woman working part-time compared with men working full-time (though I think adding a line to the effect, 'working full time is the typical situation for a man' would solve most of it), but that isn't the case here.
Posted by: Matthew | Dec 31, 2005 12:51:18 PM
