Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not what? Interesting TV or equality? " Equality. Fawcett Society figures show that women, on average, earn about 17% less than men for the same work. Now a whole workforce is about to find out what their colleagues doing the same job earn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very interesting programme... " Very moved by Tina being given a payrise - £14k before tax is not a lot in London. The fact that they hadn't looked at cost cutting before was interesting. A good business outcome in lots of ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Equality. Fawcett Society figures show that women, on average, earn about 17% less than men for the same work. " its wrong.. if it were the other way round there would be a riot.. not all professions thankfully have this blatant discrimination.. all in it together eh.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences......" is'nt that what NI is for? how about people who are off sick, cancer or something? so all women in employment dont have kids lest they be discriminated against? georgy best phone cameron with that one m8.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences......" I have heard and understand that argument. BUT, until men can give birth it's not the argument to make. Changes have been made to enable more men to take paternity leave by splitting the maternity leave between the mother and the father. Volume of take up? Minimal. The only person I managed that asked about this decided he couldn't risk take time out of his career as it could affect his future pay prospects - which is what happens to women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences...... I have heard and understand that argument. BUT, until men can give birth it's not the argument to make. Changes have been made to enable more men to take paternity leave by splitting the maternity leave between the mother and the father. Volume of take up? Minimal. The only person I managed that asked about this decided he couldn't risk take time out of his career as it could affect his future pay prospects - which is what happens to women." Ah ha, there we have it, the man wouldn't take the time as it would damage his career....... I am not (and I hope that my history on here) in favour of any form of discrimination (and this goes for surrey sensual's argument as well) but if you know you will loose money by making one choice then it is not fair to those that don't make those choices (be they men or women) that they be penalised for playing the game....... I do understand that it is an imotive subject, but if a woman makes a choice not to have children because it would harm her earning potential for her to do so (and I have known a few) is it not discrimination for her choice to be made null by that distinction being ignored? I don't agree with the argument that maternity is ackin to sickness..... You don't make the choice to be sick, or to break your leg or whatever. Agreed you may fall pregnant without wanting to, but you can chose to keep it or not......... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences...... I have heard and understand that argument. BUT, until men can give birth it's not the argument to make. Changes have been made to enable more men to take paternity leave by splitting the maternity leave between the mother and the father. Volume of take up? Minimal. The only person I managed that asked about this decided he couldn't risk take time out of his career as it could affect his future pay prospects - which is what happens to women.Ah ha, there we have it, the man wouldn't take the time as it would damage his career....... I am not (and I hope that my history on here) in favour of any form of discrimination (and this goes for surrey sensual's argument as well) but if you know you will loose money by making one choice then it is not fair to those that don't make those choices (be they men or women) that they be penalised for playing the game....... I do understand that it is an imotive subject, but if a woman makes a choice not to have children because it would harm her earning potential for her to do so (and I have known a few) is it not discrimination for her choice to be made null by that distinction being ignored? I don't agree with the argument that maternity is ackin to sickness..... You don't make the choice to be sick, or to break your leg or whatever. Agreed you may fall pregnant without wanting to, but you can chose to keep it or not........." my point about sickness was perhaps not in the context of what you said but once you start down a slippery slope.. 'we' are having less children per family than our parents did and the forecast numbers for those not earning due to retirement are not good long term as we speak.. i view it a bit like having a publicy owned and subsidised public transport infrastructure, its integral by and large for 'society' and the economy.. no woman should be penalised in any way shape or form for having children, whether planned or not.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences...... I have heard and understand that argument. BUT, until men can give birth it's not the argument to make. Changes have been made to enable more men to take paternity leave by splitting the maternity leave between the mother and the father. Volume of take up? Minimal. The only person I managed that asked about this decided he couldn't risk take time out of his career as it could affect his future pay prospects - which is what happens to women.Ah ha, there we have it, the man wouldn't take the time as it would damage his career....... I am not (and I hope that my history on here) in favour of any form of discrimination (and this goes for surrey sensual's argument as well) but if you know you will loose money by making one choice then it is not fair to those that don't make those choices (be they men or women) that they be penalised for playing the game....... I do understand that it is an imotive subject, but if a woman makes a choice not to have children because it would harm her earning potential for her to do so (and I have known a few) is it not discrimination for her choice to be made null by that distinction being ignored? I don't agree with the argument that maternity is ackin to sickness..... You don't make the choice to be sick, or to break your leg or whatever. Agreed you may fall pregnant without wanting to, but you can chose to keep it or not........." So women can have children, which men want as well, as long as they accept that they lose out professionally? Men who want their partners to have children, by that logic, should decide to take the career hit - but they don't. It's biology that is the central issue - as I said, until men can give birth it becomes a discrimination issue. You won't accept sickness as reasoning but take another example, which is affecting more men now - caring. Your choice argument bears out here. Your partner or parent becomes ill and needs full time care. You can't afford full time care and have to provide some of this yourself. You have to cut your hours at work to do this and this then affects your career forever more. You could make the choice not to care for your partner or parent but they will still need caring for. What do you do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So women can have children, which men want as well, as long as they accept that they lose out professionally? Men who want their partners to have children, by that logic, should decide to take the career hit - but they don't. It's biology that is the central issue - as I said, until men can give birth it becomes a discrimination issue. You won't accept sickness as reasoning but take another example, which is affecting more men now - caring. Your choice argument bears out here. Your partner or parent becomes ill and needs full time care. You can't afford full time care and have to provide some of this yourself. You have to cut your hours at work to do this and this then affects your career forever more. You could make the choice not to care for your partner or parent but they will still need caring for. What do you do?" You make a valid point re caring, but I would argue that if you go part time that you are making as much of a contribution during the hours you work as if you were working full time. I have to declare a personal interest here, because you mention paternity etc. When my partner fell pregnant I was offered no choice wether I wanted the child. I was offered no choice if I wanted to take paternity leave (beyond the 2 weeks I was entitled to) and I was also offered no choice to stay in touch when we split up (I launched a paternity case, but she moved house, changed no and stoped coms with her brief. I couldn't afford to hire someone to look for her, what with CSA and all and still can't). I am very bitter about kids and womens rights, but at the same time and in my own defence, I held the same view before the pregnancy. Whilst many would charachterise me as a liberal leftie, I am a radical leftie. I do believe in being able to make rational choices and return to the point that if you choise to have a child and take time off then you have to accept the consequence of that choice. Pay rises are linked (for the most part) to the businesses performance. If the business makes a profit then the staff should get a share of that in the form of a pay rise. If you are working part time then you have contributed and are entitled to that payrise. If you have decided to take 12 months away from your desk, then all power to you, but you have not contributed to the increace in profitability of the business. How is it fair to reward people who have not contributed with the same payrise as those who have? That is discrimination in the worst case and at best would serve as a disincentive to those desk slaves who work year after year........... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences......" you do realise that materity pay is not your full salary right?? So your sister (i am presuming this is a job title, not a patronising term for colleague) is actually paid even less than you when she decides to have a child. This arguement has no merit at all! a pay rise is in relation to the quality of work you do, not the amount of time you spend at your desk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"my point about sickness was perhaps not in the context of what you said but once you start down a slippery slope.. 'we' are having less children per family than our parents did and the forecast numbers for those not earning due to retirement are not good long term as we speak.. i view it a bit like having a publicy owned and subsidised public transport infrastructure, its integral by and large for 'society' and the economy.. no woman should be penalised in any way shape or form for having children, whether planned or not.. " I didn't realy focus on the sickness argument and accept your retraction, but..... From my point of view, your last line is indicative. You say no WOMAN should be penalised. I feel that more corectly no ONE should be penalised. You pays your money and takes your choice. I am perfectly happy to accept your other coments re demographics and share the creeping concern, but I think that has it's grounding in a lot of other factors (contraception for one) beyond equal pay........After all, the decline in fertility is evidenced from the 60's, long before the equality of access to the workplace (which I entirely support, with the consequences, which I won't go into here for fear of expanding the argument) let alone the equality of pay for the work that women do........ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That is discrimination in the worst case and at best would serve as a disincentive to those desk slaves who work year after year..........." it is not discrimination at all! if you believe that take it to tribunal and see the judge cry with laughter as yo are escorted from the court i am sorry to hear about your experiences with your ex but i would argue that as it takes 2 to tango you had some choice in making am baby! Paternity laws have now changed and you can split the leave between mother and father now i believe. so in order to get and equal and fair payment structue we should all stop having babies..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You make a valid point re caring, but I would argue that if you go part time that you are making as much of a contribution during the hours you work as if you were working full time. I have to declare a personal interest here, because you mention paternity etc. When my partner fell pregnant I was offered no choice wether I wanted the child. I was offered no choice if I wanted to take paternity leave (beyond the 2 weeks I was entitled to) and I was also offered no choice to stay in touch when we split up (I launched a paternity case, but she moved house, changed no and stoped coms with her brief. I couldn't afford to hire someone to look for her, what with CSA and all and still can't). I am very bitter about kids and womens rights, but at the same time and in my own defence, I held the same view before the pregnancy. Whilst many would charachterise me as a liberal leftie, I am a radical leftie. I do believe in being able to make rational choices and return to the point that if you choise to have a child and take time off then you have to accept the consequence of that choice. Pay rises are linked (for the most part) to the businesses performance. If the business makes a profit then the staff should get a share of that in the form of a pay rise. If you are working part time then you have contributed and are entitled to that payrise. If you have decided to take 12 months away from your desk, then all power to you, but you have not contributed to the increace in profitability of the business. How is it fair to reward people who have not contributed with the same payrise as those who have? That is discrimination in the worst case and at best would serve as a disincentive to those desk slaves who work year after year..........." I am sorry to hear about your personal situation - it is not right and I wish you all the best in trying to get access to your child. But, back to the argument in hand. Take my caring scenario further. Your partner/parent is ill and you need to take 3 months or longer out in order to deal with the situation. Your employer is enlightened and grants you a leave of absence, akin to maternity leave (although without the reclaim element from HMRC). You take this but by doing so you lose out on the bonus or payrise that others get and are no longer on the promotion track. Once again you take the career hit. What you have done previously may have led to the business profitability but you weren't there all the time so you are not entitled to the increase that someone who turns up but adds less value than your contribution gets? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
i thought the mechanics dealt with it best, finding ways of cutting costs elsewhere to rase the money so no one had to take a pay cut | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have now put my hard hat on, but......... How many of the statistics compare the income of women who have had a child and taken maternity leave with those who have not? I would stand by any sister who was doing the same job as me and had not taken maternity leave. That income disparity would be straight discrimination. If my co worker had taken 18 months off to have 2 children , then I would not expect them to have been advantaged by the one or two payrises that she was not at her desk to enjoy. You make the choices in your life, you have to accept the consequences...... you do realise that materity pay is not your full salary right?? So your sister (i am presuming this is a job title, not a patronising term for colleague) is actually paid even less than you when she decides to have a child. This arguement has no merit at all! a pay rise is in relation to the quality of work you do, not the amount of time you spend at your desk." No, I meant sister in the comradely sence (in the same way that on the picket line I would call my comrades brothers and sisters)........ I do know that women only earn a proportion of their normal salary when on maternity leave. I agree that performance related pay has an impact, but if you are at home, having chosen to look after your baby, then you aren;t performing your role at all. The passage about defending my 'sisters' right to equal pay is a positive. If they start on the same pay grade and salary as me, do the same job as me and do it as well then hell yes they ought be paid the same as me, but if they take a year out, then it's not fair on me to have them payed the exact same as me when they come back, having had a year of not performing..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You make a valid point re caring, but I would argue that if you go part time that you are making as much of a contribution during the hours you work as if you were working full time. I have to declare a personal interest here, because you mention paternity etc. When my partner fell pregnant I was offered no choice wether I wanted the child. I was offered no choice if I wanted to take paternity leave (beyond the 2 weeks I was entitled to) and I was also offered no choice to stay in touch when we split up (I launched a paternity case, but she moved house, changed no and stoped coms with her brief. I couldn't afford to hire someone to look for her, what with CSA and all and still can't). I am very bitter about kids and womens rights, but at the same time and in my own defence, I held the same view before the pregnancy. Whilst many would charachterise me as a liberal leftie, I am a radical leftie. I do believe in being able to make rational choices and return to the point that if you choise to have a child and take time off then you have to accept the consequence of that choice. Pay rises are linked (for the most part) to the businesses performance. If the business makes a profit then the staff should get a share of that in the form of a pay rise. If you are working part time then you have contributed and are entitled to that payrise. If you have decided to take 12 months away from your desk, then all power to you, but you have not contributed to the increace in profitability of the business. How is it fair to reward people who have not contributed with the same payrise as those who have? That is discrimination in the worst case and at best would serve as a disincentive to those desk slaves who work year after year........... I am sorry to hear about your personal situation - it is not right and I wish you all the best in trying to get access to your child. But, back to the argument in hand. Take my caring scenario further. Your partner/parent is ill and you need to take 3 months or longer out in order to deal with the situation. Your employer is enlightened and grants you a leave of absence, akin to maternity leave (although without the reclaim element from HMRC). You take this but by doing so you lose out on the bonus or payrise that others get and are no longer on the promotion track. Once again you take the career hit. What you have done previously may have led to the business profitability but you weren't there all the time so you are not entitled to the increase that someone who turns up but adds less value than your contribution gets?" Something similar did happen to me once (though the comparison is not exact). I missed a couple of weeks payment out of the lottery syndicate at work. One of the tickets I had not paid for won a grand or so for all the people on the syndicate. My tough luck. I did not ask for, nor did I recieve anything from it because I did not pay in for the tickets which won. Cest la Vie. I had decided that there was something better for me to spend my money on. I had made a choice and I had to live with the consequence of that choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"back to the premise of the show... i thought it was very interesting to see the evolvng attitudes of the different levels of staff. i also thought it was hilarious when the call centre manager didnt know why a member of staff was paid a certain wage - typical son given a senior role in daddy's company
i thought the mechanics dealt with it best, finding ways of cutting costs elsewhere to rase the money so no one had to take a pay cut"Absolutely! I would love to see a follow up on what other business benefits came from this new open information they all share. The organisations I have run have all had open, transparent pay scales. But I was more than a little taken aback when I resigned from one organisation and when they appointed a man in my place he was granted a higher salary for less hours per week. I raised this with them and soon realised that they hadn't even thought about it being unequal treatment and were very embarrassed that I had spotted it. It would have done me no good to take a tribunal case as although all sides agreed I would most likely win it would not have benefited the business or my career to do so. Even with the 'good' organisations discrimination through thoughtlessness happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"my point about sickness was perhaps not in the context of what you said but once you start down a slippery slope.. 'we' are having less children per family than our parents did and the forecast numbers for those not earning due to retirement are not good long term as we speak.. i view it a bit like having a publicy owned and subsidised public transport infrastructure, its integral by and large for 'society' and the economy.. no woman should be penalised in any way shape or form for having children, whether planned or not.. I didn't realy focus on the sickness argument and accept your retraction, but..... From my point of view, your last line is indicative. You say no WOMAN should be penalised. I feel that more corectly no ONE should be penalised. You pays your money and takes your choice. I am perfectly happy to accept your other coments re demographics and share the creeping concern, but I think that has it's grounding in a lot of other factors (contraception for one) beyond equal pay........After all, the decline in fertility is evidenced from the 60's, long before the equality of access to the workplace (which I entirely support, with the consequences, which I won't go into here for fear of expanding the argument) let alone the equality of pay for the work that women do........" was'nt retracting it georgey was highlighting that whilst it was not in the context of the pay issue its a slippery slope when 'we' start adding even more discrimination to the system.. i said no woman should be penalised for having children and stand by that as unless i'm mistaken men cant do that yet? like other's i hope you get your personal issue sorted, and not allow it to cloud your opinion to such an extent which it apppears to have done so.. you dont normally come across as someone in favour of discrimination m8.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"my point about sickness was perhaps not in the context of what you said but once you start down a slippery slope.. 'we' are having less children per family than our parents did and the forecast numbers for those not earning due to retirement are not good long term as we speak.. i view it a bit like having a publicy owned and subsidised public transport infrastructure, its integral by and large for 'society' and the economy.. no woman should be penalised in any way shape or form for having children, whether planned or not.. I didn't realy focus on the sickness argument and accept your retraction, but..... From my point of view, your last line is indicative. You say no WOMAN should be penalised. I feel that more corectly no ONE should be penalised. You pays your money and takes your choice. I am perfectly happy to accept your other coments re demographics and share the creeping concern, but I think that has it's grounding in a lot of other factors (contraception for one) beyond equal pay........After all, the decline in fertility is evidenced from the 60's, long before the equality of access to the workplace (which I entirely support, with the consequences, which I won't go into here for fear of expanding the argument) let alone the equality of pay for the work that women do........ was'nt retracting it georgey was highlighting that whilst it was not in the context of the pay issue its a slippery slope when 'we' start adding even more discrimination to the system.. i said no woman should be penalised for having children and stand by that as unless i'm mistaken men cant do that yet? like other's i hope you get your personal issue sorted, and not allow it to cloud your opinion to such an extent which it apppears to have done so.. you dont normally come across as someone in favour of discrimination m8.. " Fair enough. My personal circumstances don't affect my opinion on this as a) I am a rational person and b) as stated, I held this position before the brith of my little un. I stand by the argument that it's not a penalty for having kids, it's a consequence. If a man took all of the paternity leave then he would pay the price of it............ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
