jump to navigation

Women employees ‘accepting’ less remuneration than men for the same roles? April 15, 2014

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Feminism, Gender Issues, Workers Rights.
trackback

Ignore the fluff in much of this report and check this out, from the Irish Times, in relation to a Employment Market Monitor from CPl.

The survey also found that 40 per cent of employers said that women generally accept less remuneration than men for equal roles, particularly in the tech sector, while the monitor points to a strong first quarter for job listings, with the level of jobs posted in the science, engineering & supply chain segment showing the strongest growth since early 2013.

What, one wonders, is the definition of ‘accept’ used in that statement?

About these ads

Comments»

1. ivorthorne - April 15, 2014

In the past, I’ve interviewed people for positions with organisations I’ve worked with – not a large number but a reasonable enough number.

Lots of people accept the first salary offer they receive, but only male applicants ever requested that the employer re-consider their offer. These people were generally successful. That’s an anecdote, so take it with a pinch of salt, but under the “negotiate your salary with HR” system you really don’t stand a chance of getting a decent salary unless you fight and most people don’t.

I guess what we have to realise is that collective bargaining means that you are better. People who might be more vulnerable when negotiating as an individual (lone parents, people with disabilities, people with debts, carers etc) can be protected and strengthened by membership of a group.

It is strange (if completely understandable) that we live in a world where management will admire the individual who fights for a better salary but the person who attempts to fight for the terms of the group is pushed out the door.

Like

WorldbyStorm - April 15, 2014

A couple of thoughts strike me, is it realistic that in this work environment people taking new jobs will haggle over wages? It was one thing when there was very low unemployment and if people are coming from a job. And yet even then most of us, as you appear to imply – men or women – would be unlikely to haggle. Again anecdotally, but I don’t think ahyone in my peer group haggled over wages at a job interview, just wasn’t done.

I agree though re collective bargaining.

But above and beyond that the fact women are lower paid and to what appears a considerable degree percentage wise is the responsibility first and foremost of employers I’d have thought.

Like

ivorthorne - April 15, 2014

I’ve worked in a few different areas. Haggling was an important part of the getting a job in some sectors but not so much in others. It would never happen at the interview, it was something that happened after the offer.

At the height of the boom, I remember turning down one job offer again and again because the HR person thought I was just haggling. I would tell them “no” and they would phone back the next day or in a few days time after adding another thousand on to the annual salary. In the end, what had seemed like a perfectly okay first offer just seemed insulting when I realised what they were willing to pay to fill the role.

In another job i worked in around the same time, it was common practice to had in one’s notice every six months or so in order to renegotiate your salary.

I doubt it is quite the same these days, but I imagine that in the sectors of the economy that have been protected from the worst of the recession (e.g. tech sector), the practice may have survived.

Like

WorldbyStorm - April 15, 2014

I always found sales reps were fond of the haggling. But then a lot of the time they were all but head-hunted so they could afford to. I agree entirely in certain areas it was prevalent – and as you say probably in tech too (or where one appears to be pivotal to an enterprise), but overall, I’d wonder.

re the handing in of notice, yep, was in that position for a number of years in one company. And the stupidity of it was that it worked. If the owners had simply codified wage increases every year they’d have paid lots less out than having staff coming back every 18 months to the well (and as the boom took hold they got into worse and worse situation because there genuinely were better paying alternative jobs and they couldn’t hold the threat of unemployment over people).

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,381 other followers

%d bloggers like this: