Bank celebrates its discrimination against male employees

[Metaphor]

This and your previous post are a ridiculous mischaracterisation. Metaphor has been extremely consistent in his posts on FRDB and TF regarding discrimination: he has always stated that discrimination is wrong, and, to my knowledge, has never stated a value judgement about the career and lifestyle decisions made by women. The likening to Derec and Loren is just absurd.

It isn't absurd. The fact that Metaphor does not seem to recognize that someone needs to provide the care of the young, sick and elderly and that care is often cheapest and best provided by a family member, and usually a female provides that care because historically, a female was paid less and had fewer opportunities to earn than did a man, does not make him less like Loren. His attitude seems very much to be: Why can't everybody make the exact same choices that I do?

I'm not telling anyone to make the exact same choices as me. In fact, that would be absurd. People should make the choices that best suit their situation and preferences.

 

[Toni]

You bolded the part that says women are paid less for the same work, but by contrast you do not draw attention to the fact that they also work less in their lifetimes.

Yes, I did. It's important to note that at least some women apparently earn less in Australia than do men for the same work. If retirement funds are dependent upon wages earned during working lifetime, this is clearly unfair.

But, let's simply take it on faith that women are paid less for the same work. Surely the answer is for ANZ to make conscious efforts to investigate what it is doing in its hiring, promotion, and pay systems that cause this disparity and to implement policies and practises to eliminate them.

Yes. But this does not help out a 50 year old woman who has been working for 25+ years earning less than her male counterparts because she is female. The extra funds will help middle aged women and those nearing retirement be able to provide for themselves after they retire, rather than live in poverty (which rate is higher for women than for men in Australia).

I've no idea what it is you're saying. If you're saying 'it's simple arithmetic that a primary carer who works fewer hours in paid work across a lifetime will have earned less money than a similarly situated person who worked more hours in total', then I agree.

Yes, but you seem to be recognizing only the paid work, not the largely unpaid work of raising a family and caring for sick and elderly relatives.

If you're saying people should be paid the same amount of money whether they show up to work or not, then I'm afraid I can't agree.

I'm saying that work is work. Unpaid work such as providing care to the young, sick and elderly needs to be recognized as valuable and those who engage in it should not face a serious financial penalty for providing this care (and relieving society of the cost of hiring someone to do it).

Of course, another way to look at it is why can't men act more like women and contribute more towards caring for children, and for sick and elderly relatives. But that's crazy talk. Who needs family?

Men can do whatever they like. I'm not putting a gun to anyone's head. Are you?

Men to tend to do whatever they like. And are rewarded for it.

Given the serious financial penalties for child rearing and caring for sick and elderly family members, I would disagree that men are not facing a gun to their heads when it comes to choices re: work/life balance.

 

[ksen]

But, if it is true, ANZ should investigate why it is paying women less for the same work and take steps to remedy it, don't you think?

You mean like paying yearly bonuses to help make up the difference?

Also, let's say ANZ did this investigation and concluded that on average they are paying women $1 an hour less than men for the same work. Would you be ok with ANZ just giving women a $1 an hour raise?

 

[Metaphor]

Why should women live more in poverty than do men, when women work as much or more? It's just not always compensated work.

What work do Australian women do that is not compensated?

Note that report refers to poverty in retirement: the aged pension should be raised for everyone, to allow all pensioners to avoid poverty without superannuation.

There is no reason why anyone should live in poverty in retirement.

Actually, the Age Pension in Australia is quite generous, as government pensions go. If it were your sole source of income and you owned your own home, I would not count you as in hardship.

If you have to rent in the private market, however, and the age pension is your only source of income, you are not going to fare well.

(The pension is means tested, and under the absurdly unfair assets test rules, the value of the primary family home does not count as an asset, and the imputed rent you get from living in your own home does not count as income. If however you had instead invested your money in shares, the value of the shares WOULD count against you, AND they would be 'deemed' to earn an income, both of which would count against you in the income and assets test. But the unfairness of the Australian Age Pension is a different thread).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree: Metaphor should not have suggested that women act more like men.

Oh, he didn't. Gosh.

Well, sure he did. He's like Derek and Loren and others: women earn less (even when they are paid less for the same work as stated in HIS link) because they do stupid stuff like have babies and want time off to you know, recover and breast feed and raise the kid. Also to take care of elderly and sick relatives. Stupid stuff that could better be done by, I don't know: robots. Immigrants.

Lazy women deserve what they get.

You are being disingenuous. I haven't seen anybody write that here. I have seen people write that women often opt out of careers that would pay more so they can spend more time raising children. I've seen that in my own career. There were more women than men in the law school I went to 10 years ago. There were more women than men practicing in my particular area as well, and more practicing as sole practitioners. Many started their own firms. Today, 10 years later, it is mostly men that remain. No, it wasn't because men got promoted over women. We mostly work for ourselves in my field. It was because many women decided to drop out of the field so they could spend more time having and raising children (many as single moms). There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make them lazy. It is just a life choice that they made. They are not going to earn as much money as the women who didn't make that choice. They opted instead for something more valuable to them.

The more reasoned response is that Metaphor, like many other people, thinks that the only 'fair' thing to do is to follow the model in place, keeping in mind that the model most closely resembles life in the 1950's and 60's. For white collar men anyway.

This is also disingenuous. In the 1950s and before that women were often prohibited from good paying work, and if not prohibited, they were discouraged and not treated equally. It is quite the opposite today. The OP is a good example of unfair treatment benefiting women today instead of holding them back.

That neglects to take into account the reality that there are children to be carried, birthed, raised. Sick and elderly family members to be cared for.

That is a choice. It is rare that a gun is held to a woman's head as she is forced to make and raise babies. This usually stems from a maternal instinct and desire to have and raise kids. This is biological and cultural. It isn't the law. And it isn't just something felt by women. The number of stay at home dads is increasing, as their wives go out and work.

What is the best way to handle the entirety of the work that needs to be done? Should society not recognize the value in raising children, caring for family that needs caring?

I would lean towards yes. I already live in a more socialist country than most of you, and I would like to see my country go further in that direction. But no matter how this question is answered, it doesn't address the blatant discrimination by the bank in the OP. Having a vagina does not mean you raised children or that you spent a lot of time caring for family that needs caring for. Having a penis does not mean you didn't.

 

[ksen]

That is a choice. It is rare that a gun is held to a woman's head as she is forced to make and raise babies.

Aren't there men involved in this too?

 

[Metaphor]

But, if it is true, ANZ should investigate why it is paying women less for the same work and take steps to remedy it, don't you think?

You mean like paying a one time bonus to help make up the difference?

It's not a one time bonus: it applies every year until your super balance reaches $50,000 or more.

Also, let's say ANZ did this investigation and concluded that on average they are paying women $1 an hour less than men for the same work. Would you be ok with ANZ just giving women a $1 an hour raise?

It depends on what the investigation uncovered. If the investigation concluded that some women were on par for the same work, and other women were being underpaid, I would expect the underpaid women to get a raise (and back-compensation), but not the women who were on par. If their investigation uncovered that some people (regardless of gender) were undercompensated (but most of them women and hence the average difference), I'd expect those people's compensation to be raised to the fair level.

I would also expect that they would change their processes to ensure that people get comparable pay for comparable output.

 

[bigfield]

Men to tend to do whatever they like. And are rewarded for it.

If men who do whatever they like are rewarded for it, then men who do whatever they like are not punished for it.

Reality begs to differ with your hyperbole.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That is a choice. It is rare that a gun is held to a woman's head as she is forced to make and raise babies.

Aren't there men involved in this too?

Aside from some extreme cases you may have seen Derec report on, I am not aware of many men having guns held to their heads as they are forced to make and raise babies, no.

 

[ksen]

You mean like paying a one time bonus to help make up the difference?

It's not a one time bonus: it applies every year until your super balance reaches $50,000 or more.

Yeah, I caught that and corrected my post.

But not fast enough apparently!

 

[laughing dog]

ANZ Bank -- one of the 'Big 4' Australian banks -- has launched an initiative which will give employees with less than $50,000 in superannuation an extra $500 a year. If that employee has a vagina.

THE banking giant will provide top-up superannuation contributions of $500 a year for female staff with less than $50,000 in their super funds in an attempt to reduce the gap in retirement savings between men and women.

Super contributions on parental leave will also be paid by the bank for up to 24 months.

Remember kids, the best way to end discrimination by sex is to actively and consciously discriminate by sex.

Oy vey.

If women at ANZ are paid less, on average, than men for the same work, this is probably a less expensive "solution" than giving back pay to all the underpaid women. In essence, this underpaid women are still screwed, just a somewhat less screwed.

 

[ksen]

Aren't there men involved in this too?

Aside from some extreme cases you may have seen Derec report on, I am not aware of many men having guns held to their heads as they are forced to make and raise babies, no.

My point was that making babies is not a female only act. Yet females are the ones that are still (expected?) to provide most of the care which forces them out of the paid workforce for a period of time.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, I did. It's important to note that at least some women apparently earn less in Australia than do men for the same work. If retirement funds are dependent upon wages earned during working lifetime, this is clearly unfair.

If it is the case that women are paid less for comparable work, I agree.

Yes. But this does not help out a 50 year old woman who has been working for 25+ years earning less than her male counterparts because she is female. The extra funds will help middle aged women and those nearing retirement be able to provide for themselves after they retire, rather than live in poverty (which rate is higher for women than for men in Australia).

ANZ's little 'bonus' was not for women 50 and older. It was not for people near retirement. It is for women who have less than $50,000 in super, which is, in fact, likely to be younger women who simply haven't been in the workforce as long and who never faced the barriers that older women did.

Yes, but you seem to be recognizing only the paid work, not the largely unpaid work of raising a family and caring for sick and elderly relatives.

What do you mean by 'recognise'? "Not in the labour force" means someone is not in paid work. It does not mean that I think that unpaid work is worth nothing.

I'm saying that work is work. Unpaid work such as providing care to the young, sick and elderly needs to be recognized as valuable and those who engage in it should not face a serious financial penalty for providing this care (and relieving society of the cost of hiring someone to do it).

You don't really believe this, do you? If I were a CEO on a million dollars a year, and I took indefinite leave to personally take care of my frail-aged mother, do you think the company should continue to pay me a million dollars a year to do that?

Men to tend to do whatever they like. And are rewarded for it.

Given the serious financial penalties for child rearing and caring for sick and elderly family members, I would disagree that men are not facing a gun to their heads when it comes to choices re: work/life balance.

If a couple decide that one of them is going to be the primary breadwinner and the other is going to be a primary carer, that's for them to decide between them. It's certainly the case that most jurisdictions will split financial assets fairly evenly (no matter who did the paid work) in the case of divorce or separation.

 

[Metaphor]

ANZ Bank -- one of the 'Big 4' Australian banks -- has launched an initiative which will give employees with less than $50,000 in superannuation an extra $500 a year. If that employee has a vagina.



Remember kids, the best way to end discrimination by sex is to actively and consciously discriminate by sex.

Oy vey.

If women at ANZ are paid less, on average, than men for the same work, this is probably a less expensive "solution" than giving back pay to all the underpaid women. In essence, this underpaid women are still screwed, just a somewhat less screwed.

That makes it worse, not better. This 'solution' rewards most heavily women who suffered the least number of barriers (younger women with super balance of less than $50,000) and it does nothing to actually evaluate the policies and practises that may have led to underpayment.

If people have been discriminated against and underpaid for producing work of comparable value, their remuneration needs to be properly assessed and aligned, and they need to be back-compensated.

 

[laughing dog]

If women at ANZ are paid less, on average, than men for the same work, this is probably a less expensive "solution" than giving back pay to all the underpaid women. In essence, this underpaid women are still screwed, just a somewhat less screwed.

That makes it worse, not better. This 'solution' rewards most heavily women who suffered the least number of barriers (younger women with super balance of less than $50,000) and it does nothing to actually evaluate the policies and practises that may have led to underpayment.

If people have been discriminated against and underpaid for producing work of comparable value, their remuneration needs to be properly assessed and aligned, and they need to be back-compensated.

My point is that this need not be viewed as discrimination against men, but as a shabby PR stunt which obscures a cheap ass evasion of their responsibilities.

 

[ronburgundy]

This and your previous post are a ridiculous mischaracterisation. Metaphor has been extremely consistent in his posts on FRDB and TF regarding discrimination: he has always stated that discrimination is wrong, and, to my knowledge, has never stated a value judgement about the career and lifestyle decisions made by women. The likening to Derec and Loren is just absurd.

It isn't absurd. The fact that Metaphor does not seem to recognize that someone needs to provide the care of the young, sick and elderly and that care is often cheapest and best provided by a family member, and usually a female provides that care because historically, a female was paid less and had fewer opportunities to earn than did a man, does not make him less like Loren. His attitude seems very much to be: Why can't everybody make the exact same choices that I do?

So your response to being called out for gross mischaracterization is to make addition gross mischaracterizations? Do have a single thing in your rhetorical toolbox other than strawmen that you use to falsely attribute attitudes and beliefs to others that have zero logical relevance to anything they actually said?

Nothing in the OP at all implies that women are not paid less or that caring for children and others is not important or that women are the one's to whom this burden typically falls. Metaphor simply pointed out the objective fact that ANZ is engaging in the very definition of sexual discrimination, and he thinks such policies are wrong and not a good solution to counter other forms of sexual discrimination (such as less work for less pay).
That in no way implies that he denies the realities, including pay discrimination, the lead to women having less retirement savings. It just means he thinks that sex discrimination is wrong, even when attempting to counter other sex discrimination.

ANZ is not correcting the problems that lead to women with less retirement. They are not compensating people who have actually been disadvantaged by the various factors listed, which would then happen to compensate more women than men. They are compensating all people who have a vagina an no one that doesn't, despite the fact that those various factors are far from perfectly correlated with having a vagina. That is the epitome of discrimination and treating people differently because of the biological sex rather than actual individual characteristics that may covary with biological sex. Thus, ANZ (like all affirmative action type of policies) is endorsing the group level discrimination on the rationalization that group membership is correlated with factors that warrant different treatment. IOW, the same rationalization that bigots use.

IT is a sloppy, lazy, short-sighted, and destructive method of countering the effects of past wrongs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My point was that making babies is not a female only act. Yet females are the ones that are still (expected?) to provide most of the care which forces them out of the paid workforce for a period of time.

Says who? Nobody is forcing this. This is a choice many women make. Other women choose otherwise and have stay at home husbands who raise the kids or opt not to have kids at all. There is nothing wrong with any of these choices.

 

[laughing dog]

My point was that making babies is not a female only act. Yet females are the ones that are still (expected?) to provide most of the care which forces them out of the paid workforce for a period of time.

Says who? Nobody is forcing this. This is a choice many women make. Other women choose otherwise and have stay at home dads who raise the kids or opt not to have kids at all. There is nothing wrong with any of these choices.

What does this have to do with the fact that women who choose to work less in order to raise children or maintain a household are economically disadvantaged because of those choices?

- - - Updated - - -

IT is a sloppy, lazy, short-sighted, and destructive method of countering the effects of past wrongs.

It is . But that does not make it discrimination.

 

[Derec]

What does this have to do with the fact that women who choose to work less in order to raise children or maintain a household are economically disadvantaged because of those choices?

They freely chose the disadvantage.
Why should people who didn't make that choice be punished? Why should people who have a certain set of genitals (as a proxy for people who didn't make that choice) be punished?
Also that means that women who didn't choose to take time off work are rewarded twice - both with higher lifetime earnings and with the vagina bonus.

 

[ronburgundy]

IT is a sloppy, lazy, short-sighted, and destructive method of countering the effects of past wrongs.

It is . But that does not make it discrimination.

It is destructive precisely because it is discrimination. It is discrimination because it is the very definition of discrimination. Biological sex is being used as the sole basis for whether how a business treats it employees or customers. It could not possibly be a more clear cut instance of sexual discrimination.