Bank celebrates its discrimination against male employees

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

I was answering what I was asked. You even quoted me being asked.

As to your question, a person who makes a choice not to stay in the paid work force, and chooses to sacrifice that so they can do something else, such as raise children, isn't going to earn as much money in the paid work force. That is true whether they are male or female. If you want to value and subsidize their work in raising their family, then do that. You could raise child subsidies or enact many other measures in that direction. As I wrote above, I endorse many of these ideas. These are measures that can be applied fairly and directly. Giving money to people because they have vaginas isn't one of them.

lol @ Derec.... "Vagina Bonus". Seems an apt term here.

 

[Toni]

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?

I was answering what I was asked. You even quoted me being asked.

As to your question, a person who makes a choice not to stay in the paid work force, and chooses to sacrifice that so they can do something else, such as raise children, isn't going to earn as much money in the paid work force. That is true whether they are male or female. If you want to value and subsidize their work in raising their family, then do that. You could raise child subsidies or enact many other measures in that direction. As I wrote above, I endorse many of these ideas. These are measures that can be applied fairly and directly. Giving money to people because they have vaginas isn't one of them.

lol @ Derec.... "Vagina Bonus". Seems an apt term here.

Except, by the link in the OP, no one is being given money because they have a vagina, despite Metaphor's deceptive and inflammatory words.

They are being compensated for having been paid less for their work (according to the article linked) and for earning less because they took time to raise families and care for family members (again, according to the linked article.)

If your argument is that the remedy offered is inadequate and does not address the underlying issues, then I will agree.

But that is not what Metaphor said in the OP.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Of course it could be more clear cut, because if this is an inadequate way of addressing a real problem, it is not sexual discrimination.

 

[Toni]

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.

You need to show the data to support your assertion that the supplements are going to women who have not faced unequal pay or loss of pay while they engaged in unpaid work for child rearing and caring for family.

 

[laughing dog]

They freely chose the disadvantage.

Most likely they choose to engage in a socially approved activity - bearing and raising children.

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?

No one is being 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.

Yes, it does. That does not make it discrimination but an inefficient and ineffective remedy.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

I was answering what I was asked. You even quoted me being asked.

As to your question, a person who makes a choice not to stay in the paid work force, and chooses to sacrifice that so they can do something else, such as raise children, isn't going to earn as much money in the paid work force. That is true whether they are male or female. If you want to value and subsidize their work in raising their family, then do that. You could raise child subsidies or enact many other measures in that direction. As I wrote above, I endorse many of these ideas. These are measures that can be applied fairly and directly. Giving money to people because they have vaginas isn't one of them.

If this is a remedy (regardless of its effectiveness) for past under compensation, it is not giving money to people because they have vaginas. But it is revealing that someone would characterize it in that fashion.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Of course it could be more clear cut, because if this is an inadequate way of addressing a real problem, it is not sexual discrimination.

Huh? The two have zero to do with each other. Sexual discrimination is in no way defined by whether it addresses a real problem. By your logic, a company that refused to hire women is not engaged in sexual discrimination, because such a policy is an inadequate way of addressing a real problem.

In fact, if anything the most clear and indefensible acts and policies of sexual discrimination almost always fails to address any real problem. So, the fact that this policy also has such a failing means it shares that quality too.

BTW, the fact that this policy doesn't address the actual source of the problem of women having less retirement does not at all mean the this policy has no consequences or impact. It does, and they are mostly negative and destructive as the consequences of discrimination usually are.

 

[ronburgundy]

I was answering what I was asked. You even quoted me being asked.

As to your question, a person who makes a choice not to stay in the paid work force, and chooses to sacrifice that so they can do something else, such as raise children, isn't going to earn as much money in the paid work force. That is true whether they are male or female. If you want to value and subsidize their work in raising their family, then do that. You could raise child subsidies or enact many other measures in that direction. As I wrote above, I endorse many of these ideas. These are measures that can be applied fairly and directly. Giving money to people because they have vaginas isn't one of them.

If this is a remedy (regardless of its effectiveness) for past under compensation, it is not giving money to people because they have vaginas. But it is revealing that someone would characterize it in that fashion.

What is the basis for determining who gets money and who does not? Sex/gender is the sole basis. That makes it sexual discrimination by any sane and widely accepted definition of the term. By your "logic", not hiring women because they tend to take more time off for child care is not sexual discrimination, because it is actually a remedy for avoiding employee absenteeism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They are being compensated for having been paid less for their work (according to the article linked) and for earning less because they took time to raise families and care for family members (again, according to the linked article.)

If this is a remedy (regardless of its effectiveness) for past under compensation, it is not giving money to people because they have vaginas. But it is revealing that someone would characterize it in that fashion.

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

 

[Toni]

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

According to the article you linked, it is true. I don't live in Australia and am not good at accessing data pertaining to various demographics there. I took the statement in the article you linked as true.

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.

That may be true but it doesn't seem to be the case in the article you linked as it specifies some women, not all women. To know would require data which I do not have.

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.

How should it be compensated, then?

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?

I doubt that many people get to be million dollar a year CEOs by having the compassion or desire to raise children or care for aging relatives.

More to the point, certainly I believe there should be a reasonable cap on compensation for extended family leaves. Cap would be a dollar amount and not a percentage amount.

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.

Splitting assets acquired during a marriage is not the same thing as ensuring that those who take extended leaves to care for family do not fall into poverty for having shown compassion and caring by doing so.

I thought you were against spousal support?

And why should the family alone bear the cost? Doesn't society pay a larger cost for elderly who are not cared for by family? For children who are not cared for adequately? Doesn't society as a whole benefit from a structure that ensures that all receive adequate care and that any individual does not pay too great a cost for taking care of family as needed? If society as a whole benefits from happy, healthy citizens and having those who are very young, frail or very old cared for, then society as a whole should help bear the cost.

If your point from the beginning is that the bank was being disingenuous about adequately compensating a class of workers who had faced discrimination and penalties in the work place, then I would be not aghast at your suggestion that any corporation was disingenuous about anything.

Are there no single mothers in Australia? No women who need extended family leaves to care for their ailing spouse? No single women (or men) caring for elderly parents?

 

[Toni]

If this is a remedy (regardless of its effectiveness) for past under compensation, it is not giving money to people because they have vaginas. But it is revealing that someone would characterize it in that fashion.

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

The article does not present data that indicates whether any men have taken such leaves. It DOES say that women have been paid less for their work.

I took the article to mean that ANZ Bank had previously only discriminated against men and that men who worked for ANZ did not take such leaves. Without data, it would be impossible to know.

If your point is that this is a shallow and inadequate solution to a long term problem, I will agree. I will also assume that those more familiar with ANZ bank know what they are talking about when they say that this is more or less for publicity. And would not be shocked at all.

Again, I don't have data as none was presented in the article and I never have much luck with looking up Australian data.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Kind of like paying women less for the same work, something that they admitted they had done.

 

[ronburgundy]

If this is a remedy (regardless of its effectiveness) for past under compensation, it is not giving money to people because they have vaginas. But it is revealing that someone would characterize it in that fashion.

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

You are correct. The article does not present any data about ANZ employees at all, male or female. There is reference to general society/world level stats that, on average, females take more leave and are paid less, thus on average wind up with lower retirement funds. That appears to be the sole basis for this policy which ignores who actually took leave and was paid less, and just assumes that all women did so and no men did so, thus given extra $ to all women just for being women and refuses it to all men because they are not women.

 

[laughing dog]

If this is a remedy (regardless of its effectiveness) for past under compensation, it is not giving money to people because they have vaginas. But it is revealing that someone would characterize it in that fashion.

What is the basis for determining who gets money and who does not? Sex/gender is the sole basis. That makes it sexual discrimination by any sane and widely accepted definition of the term.

We disagree. According to your "reasoning", any remedy that addresses the under-compensation of women is "sexual discrimination".

[
By your "logic", not hiring women because they tend to take more time off for child care is not sexual discrimination, because it is actually a remedy for avoiding employee absenteeism.

Since people who are not hired are not employees, your example fails the basic reasoning test.

 

[Toni]

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

You are correct. The article does not present any data about ANZ employees at all, male or female. There is reference to general society/world level stats that, on average, females take more leave and are paid less, thus on average wind up with lower retirement funds. That appears to be the sole basis for this policy which ignores who actually took leave and was paid less, and just assumes that all women did so and no men did so, thus given extra $ to all women just for being women and refuses it to all men because they are not women.

Then you didn't read the article which states the other reason for the 'make up' contributions to the funds: women were paid less.

 

[ronburgundy]

What is the basis for determining who gets money and who does not? Sex/gender is the sole basis. That makes it sexual discrimination by any sane and widely accepted definition of the term.

We disagree.

Correct, I agree with the widely accepted dictionary and EEOC definitions of the term, and you just make up your own absurd definition that defines it as only policies that you don't like.

According to your "reasoning", any remedy that addresses the under-compensation of women is "sexual discrimination".

Completely false. I gave a specific definition of it that like all widely accepted and legal definitions has zero to do with whether or not it addresses under-compensation of women. Your definition ignores everything about the actual basis on which people are treated under the policy and instead defines discrimination as only actions that are done for motives you personally disapprove of. By my definition, some acts of sexual discrimination address under-compensation and some do not, whether they do and whether they produce outcomes I approve of is irrelevant to whether they are discrimination. Your problem is that you pervert reality so that any claim of fact is consistent with your subjective tastes and preferences and your preferred outcomes.

By your "logic", not hiring women because they tend to take more time off for child care is not sexual discrimination, because it is actually a remedy for avoiding employee absenteeism.

Since people who are not hired are not employees, your example fails the basic reasoning test.

No, as always, you fail the basic reasoning test. Not making women employees can be and often is rationalized on the grounds that it reduces employee absenteeism, which it objectively does. Women take more time off work, for legit reasons already stated in this thread by you and others.
That means it is an objective fact that hiring only men will lead to less employee absenteeism on average. Thus, since you claim that "discrimination" is not actually discrimination so long as gender by itself is not THE underlying motive, then such refusal to hire women is not discrimination.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

You are correct. The article does not present any data about ANZ employees at all, male or female. There is reference to general society/world level stats that, on average, females take more leave and are paid less, thus on average wind up with lower retirement funds. That appears to be the sole basis for this policy which ignores who actually took leave and was paid less, and just assumes that all women did so and no men did so, thus given extra $ to all women just for being women and refuses it to all men because they are not women.

Then you didn't read the article which states the other reason for the 'make up' contributions to the funds: women were paid less.

No, you didn't comprehend the report, which says that those stats refer only to "Australian women" at the aggregate national level, and are not about ANZ employees in particular. They present zero data that any of their own staff that they are giving the $ to took leave or were paid less.

Regardless, all the data reflects mere aggregate differences that do not apply to all women or all men. They are differences in probabilities. Thus, any policy that uses gender itself as the basis for who gets the $ is the definition of sexual discrimination, and is failing to actually target the $ toward the actual people that actually have less retirement due to being treated unfairly during their career.

 

[Toni]

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

You are correct. The article does not present any data about ANZ employees at all, male or female. There is reference to general society/world level stats that, on average, females take more leave and are paid less, thus on average wind up with lower retirement funds. That appears to be the sole basis for this policy which ignores who actually took leave and was paid less, and just assumes that all women did so and no men did so, thus given extra $ to all women just for being women and refuses it to all men because they are not women.

Then you didn't read the article which states the other reason for the 'make up' contributions to the funds: women were paid less.

No, you didn't comprehend the report, which says that those stats refer only to "Australian women" at the aggregate national level, and are not about ANZ employees in particular. They present zero data that any of their own staff that they are giving the $ to took leave or were paid less.

Regardless, all the data reflects mere aggregate differences that do not apply to all women or all men. They are differences in probabilities. Thus, any policy that uses gender itself as the basis for who gets the $ is the definition of sexual discrimination, and is failing to actually target the $ toward the actual people that actually have less retirement due to being treated unfairly during their career.

NO, I read and was referring to the OP article. Which refers to ANZ employees. And ANZ action.

I missed the link to the report you are referencing.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

I didn't not go through the link with a fine toothed comb, but this quote seems to indicate that this is for female staff only. Men who take time away to raise a family and suffer a gap in retirement savings need not apply? Is that incorrect?

You are correct. The article does not present any data about ANZ employees at all, male or female. There is reference to general society/world level stats that, on average, females take more leave and are paid less, thus on average wind up with lower retirement funds. That appears to be the sole basis for this policy which ignores who actually took leave and was paid less, and just assumes that all women did so and no men did so, thus given extra $ to all women just for being women and refuses it to all men because they are not women.

Then you didn't read the article which states the other reason for the 'make up' contributions to the funds: women were paid less.

No, you didn't comprehend the report, which says that those stats refer only to "Australian women" at the aggregate national level, and are not about ANZ employees in particular. They present zero data that any of their own staff that they are giving the $ to took leave or were paid less.

Regardless, all the data reflects mere aggregate differences that do not apply to all women or all men. They are differences in probabilities. Thus, any policy that uses gender itself as the basis for who gets the $ is the definition of sexual discrimination, and is failing to actually target the $ toward the actual people that actually have less retirement due to being treated unfairly during their career.

NO, I read and was referring to the OP article. Which refers to ANZ employees. And ANZ action.

I missed the link to the report you are referencing.

Then you couldn't have missed it, because it is the OP article that I am referencing and quoting. It is the sentence you didn't quote right before the ones you did. It says that the report was "commissioned by ANZ" (paid for), but actually was a study of "Australian women", and the stats you quoted refer to Australian women and NOT to ANZ employees. I can see how you failed to grasp this important fact, because it would seem absurd and discriminatory for ANZ to treat its own male and female employees differently based on probabilistic differences at the National level that may not even apply to their own employees. But that is what they did and that is why it is unethical and stupid, in addition to being the definition of sexual discrimination in the workplace.

 

[Toni]

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.

But according to the OP, women earned less at that particular employer because a) they were paid less for the same work and b) did take time off to meet family obligations.

This is one solution--albeit a poor one--to remedy a long standing wrong by this employer.

The other thing that isn't addressed is this:

You have two people starting a race at the same time. One runs freely by his own talents. The other carries a weight equal to 30% of her weight on her shoulder. Halfway through the race, everybody notices that the runner with the additional weight on her shoulders is running under a handicap so the weight is removed. Is it still a fair race? Or did the runner with no additional burden have an unfair advantage from the beginning? How is this addressed?

 

[ksen]

It's not that the man in your scenario had an unfair advantage but that the woman had an unfair disadvantage.

But your point stands.