Bank celebrates its discrimination against male employees

[Metaphor]

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.

I have not read the report that the quote came from, but before I decided if such a statement were true, I'd want to read and be satisfied by the methodology of the analysis.

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.

Huh? The policy will apply to all permanent female employees of ANZ, and no permanent male employees.

How should it be compensated, then?

Society will decide that, but your question is rather like asking "how should volunteer work be compensated".

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).

Australia has a carer's payment pension, if that's what you're enquiring about. It is a means tested payment to full time carers of the disabled and frail-aged.

Australia also has parenting payments, family tax benefit, paid parental leave and child care rebates. These are provided by the government.

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.

So, you do believe it. If a company is unlucky enough that my mother stays alive for the next 25 years, then I'll draw whatever the capped salary is from that company for 25 years, despite not producing anything for the company. Of course, other employees will either have to produce more or be paid less because of it, but maybe they should find someone to care for too?

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.

You can't ensure no poverty any more than you can ensure no cancer. But if that were your goal, it would be society's burden, not the burden and whim of individual employers, surely?

I thought you were against spousal support?

It depends on what you mean, but if you mean the indefinite financial support of an ex-spouse where that support is not related to custody of children, then you'd be right -- that does not make sense to me.

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.

Although ANZ is a big bank in Australia, it may surprise you to learn it is not 'society'.

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?

ANZ is not compensating people who take care of ailing spouses. It is compensating its female employees with super balances < $50,000.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

No: that is not what the OP says. ANZ did not look into who of its employees it had systematically undercompensated.

 

[Metaphor]

If you wish to be all....I don't know: accurate and honest and all, you could amend your OP by stating that the bank is compensating women with low Super balances and not because, as you stated, women have vaginas.

I know you won't. But you could.

You augured it correctly: I won't amend an OP that was accurate.

I did not say that the bank compensated women for 'having vaginas'. (If that needs compensation, then I think the burden falls onto Mother Nature herself).

I said having a vagina was a necessary condition for being eligible for the compensation. Of course, that was a rhetorical flourish. It is probably the case that any person with 'F' on her HR record will be eligible, whether she has a vagina or not.

 

[Metaphor]

If the people are not employed, it cannot reduce employee absenteeism. So it cannot possibly objectively do anything except objectively not hire women. It may avoid potential employee absenteeism. Then again, it may not.

Of course who you decide to hire, and not to hire, will affect the measured rate of employee absenteeism.

 

[Toni]

I have not read the report that the quote came from, but before I decided if such a statement were true, I'd want to read and be satisfied by the methodology of the analysis.

I expect you would. I would also like to read the report. I'm particularly curious to read if it looked at bank employees as a category.

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.

Huh? The policy will apply to all permanent female employees of ANZ, and no permanent male employees.

No, not according to the article. It will apply to all female employees with Super balances under $50,000.

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.

It doesn't even say it will bridge the gap. Just that it's an attempt. It might be a good attempt. It might be a piss poor attempt. I have no way of knowing. But it is telling that apparently only female employees require extra contributions to their Super fund.

How should it be compensated, then?

Society will decide that, but your question is rather like asking "how should volunteer work be compensated".

Not really. You're a young guy, if I remember correctly so you probably have not been at the points in your life when you either have children who need caring nor elderly parents who require caring. I have no idea what your practices are with regards to volunteering. As it happens, being older than you, I've cared for my own young children, cared for ailing elderly parents, including a disabled parent from when I was quite young myself, and done significant volunteer work in my community.

I would not equate raising children with performing volunteer work nor would I equate caring for elderly or disabled family members with volunteer work. Not even close.

If family does not raise the children nor care for aging family, how will society pay for such necessary care? Trust me: it will not fall on 'volunteers.' And it will be considerably more expensive than finding a way to simply stop penalizing people for tending to their personal lives.

Australia has a carer's payment pension, if that's what you're enquiring about. It is a means tested payment to full time carers of the disabled and frail-aged.

Australia also has parenting payments, family tax benefit, paid parental leave and child care rebates. These are provided by the government.

As should all civilized nations. Mine does not, although there is some tax benefit to having children but it does not come close to offsetting the costs of having children.

What all civilized nations should also do is to find a way to not penalize people who undertake such caregiving. It is quite difficult to return to a career after some years spent raising children, and quite difficult to manage the care of ailing parents while working full time or even part time or frankly, if you are not involved in any paid work at all.

However, one does acquire a certain skill set by doing this kind of work and brings to any job the benefits of those skills. A smart manager would recognize that. I was lucky when I was hired for one of my early jobs after raising my kids that the manager who hired me recognized the skills I had gained, self taught all, and the important connections I had within the community and how all would benefit the enterprise I would eventually work for. Of course, she was a woman. I have yet to meet a man who would even notice that I was able to run fundraisers which brought in >$20K for a school in this very working class town. So far,no one has out raised me and that's been...20 years or so.

So, you do believe it. If a company is unlucky enough that my mother stays alive for the next 25 years, then I'll draw whatever the capped salary is from that company for 25 years, despite not producing anything for the company. Of course, other employees will either have to produce more or be paid less because of it, but maybe they should find someone to care for too?

Your company being 'unlucky enough' that your mother stays alive for the next 25 years? Words fail me. No, they don't. You should be ashamed to write such words. Ashamed.

Are you actually providing day to day care for your mother? Or just making stuff up.

Actually, I didn't say that the company should provide 25 years of salary for someone to care for aging parents. But should your mother be so unfortunate as to have seriously failing health for the next year or so and have her care fall to you, I would hate to see you lose your position or suffer financially in a significant way because you cared for your mother.

I thought you were against spousal support?

It depends on what you mean, but if you mean the indefinite financial support of an ex-spouse where that support is not related to custody of children, then you'd be right -- that does not make sense to me.

What about spousal support for a spouse who spent 20 years or so raising children and home making and generally supporting the wage earning spouse's career? Do you suppose that such a spouse would be able to enter the workforce without a significant and permanent loss of future earnings because of her support of the wage earning spouse?

ANZ is not compensating people who take care of ailing spouses. It is compensating its female employees with super balances < $50,000.

So, not ALL female employees. Glad you got that right.

Remind me why they are being compensated again? I believe it had to do with earning less pay because they were paid less and because they took time off/worked fewer hours to care for children/ailing family members. Or am I wrong?

 

[Toni]

If you wish to be all....I don't know: accurate and honest and all, you could amend your OP by stating that the bank is compensating women with low Super balances and not because, as you stated, women have vaginas.

I know you won't. But you could.

You augured it correctly: I won't amend an OP that was accurate.

I did not say that the bank compensated women for 'having vaginas'. (If that needs compensation, then I think the burden falls onto Mother Nature herself).

I said having a vagina was a necessary condition for being eligible for the compensation. Of course, that was a rhetorical flourish. It is probably the case that any person with 'F' on her HR record will be eligible, whether she has a vagina or not.

From YOUR OP:

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.

I guess English works more differently in Australia than I thought it did. Because what you wrote is that having a vagina was the qualifying condition.

 

[ksen]

I too would like to perform actions on which a requirement of the recipient would be to "have a vagina."

Just sayin'.

eta: and on that note time go home and see the wife!

 

[fromderinside]

I too would like to perform actions on which a requirement of the recipient would be to "have a vagina."

Just sayin'.

eta: and on that note time go home and see the wife!

Those are exactly the actions and attitude necessary to put women in the position they are in requiring a forward seeing bank to begin making restitution.

 

[ksen]

Nuh uh, I got a vasectomy.

So if she needs time off for new kids she has some explaining to do.

 

[Metaphor]

I guess English works more differently in Australia than I thought it did. Because what you wrote is that having a vagina was the qualifying condition.

Perhaps you are correct. In Australia, words and sentences have objective meaning. They don't mean whatever strawman fantasy you've decided to come up with.

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina". I cannot fathom how someone whose native language is English would think it would.

 

[Toni]

I guess English works more differently in Australia than I thought it did. Because what you wrote is that having a vagina was the qualifying condition.

Perhaps you are correct. In Australia, words and sentences have objective meaning. They don't mean whatever strawman fantasy you've decided to come up with.

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina". I cannot fathom how someone whose native language is English would think it would.

OK, then. From YOUR OP:

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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Huh? The policy will apply to all permanent female employees of ANZ, and no permanent male employees.

No, not according to the article. It will apply to all female employees with Super balances under $50,000.

Does that somehow make it any less sexist? Or any more based on them having raised children (or cared for elders)? A woman could have a balance under $50,000 for any number of reasons. A man could have a balance of under that amount precisely because he took time out to raise children. This is both sexist and misdirected. Do you disagree?

 

[Toni]

No, not according to the article. It will apply to all female employees with Super balances under $50,000.

Does that somehow make it any less sexist? Or any more based on them having raised children (or cared for elders)? A woman could have a balance under $50,000 for any number of reasons. A man could have a balance of under that amount precisely because he took time out to raise children. This is both sexist and misdirected. Do you disagree?

We don't know enough from the article to know whether men with low balances would get the extra in their accounts or not. It isn't mentioned but we don't actually know.

We do know that according to the bank, some women haven't been paid as much as men for the same work. Not just because of family leave. We also know that not all women take family leave. While the article does not explicitly state that they ( the bank) paid women less, it is hard to believe that they would compensate an entire class of employees for a practice the bank did not engage in.

I believe that no one should be unfairly penalized for caring for family members when necessary. Regardless of gender.

 

[Metaphor]

I expect you would. I would also like to read the report. I'm particularly curious to read if it looked at bank employees as a category.

It wouldn't matter if it did or it did not. The report is not about ANZ's current or past practices. If people are going to be compensated for underpayment for comparable work, you should demonstrate where that has happened and compensate those people accordingly.

As to whether ANZ should 'compensate' people for not working (that is, taking out time from paid work) is another matter.

What it's doing now, though, if it is meant to address its past discrimination practices, is a woefully cackhanded, hamfisted, discriminatory absurdity.

No, not according to the article. It will apply to all female employees with Super balances under $50,000.

And only female employees. Are you suggesting this isn't discrimination based on gender?

It doesn't even say it will bridge the gap. Just that it's an attempt. It might be a good attempt. It might be a piss poor attempt. I have no way of knowing. But it is telling that apparently only female employees require extra contributions to their Super fund.

Where a gap exists because ANZ unfairly discriminated against people who produced comparable work, then ANZ has the moral obligation to compensate those people. Where a gap exists because people have taken time out of paid work or because they are in more junior roles, why on earth would or should ANZ 'compensate' that?

I don't expect my super balance to be commensurate with the CEO's. There's a 'gap' there. It makes sense that there's a gap.

Not really. You're a young guy, if I remember correctly so you probably have not been at the points in your life when you either have children who need caring nor elderly parents who require caring. I have no idea what your practices are with regards to volunteering. As it happens, being older than you, I've cared for my own young children, cared for ailing elderly parents, including a disabled parent from when I was quite young myself, and done significant volunteer work in my community.

I would not equate raising children with performing volunteer work nor would I equate caring for elderly or disabled family members with volunteer work. Not even close.

If family does not raise the children nor care for aging family, how will society pay for such necessary care? Trust me: it will not fall on 'volunteers.' And it will be considerably more expensive than finding a way to simply stop penalizing people for tending to their personal lives.

I'm not 'equating' anything. I'm saying volunteer activities are volunteer activities. They are not jobs. Raising children is a volunteer activity, is it not? Or do you think people have guns to their head and are forced to raise children?

My father had a stroke and was bedbound for three years before he died. He needed high-level institutional care that no family member could hope to provide. This care was provided by government. But if instead he needed full time care that I could manage, I would not expect to be paid my current salary and get my current super for taking time off work to do it.

Mine does not, although there is some tax benefit to having children but it does not come close to offsetting the costs of having children.

Is there any reason why it should? Did you have children because you wanted to have children, or because you imagine you're sacrificing your lifestyle for the greater good and need to be fully reimbursed?

Your company being 'unlucky enough' that your mother stays alive for the next 25 years? Words fail me. No, they don't. You should be ashamed to write such words. Ashamed.

Yes, from my employer's perspective, they have an ongoing cost even though I'm producing nothing for them. Why should that cost be borne by my employer and not society?

I want my mother to live forever in perfect health. That has nothing to do with my employer paying me to take care of her.

Are you actually providing day to day care for your mother? Or just making stuff up.

No, my mother still lives independently. You know what a hypothetical is, right? Or must you imagine I've claimed things that I haven't claimed?

Actually, I didn't say that the company should provide 25 years of salary for someone to care for aging parents. But should your mother be so unfortunate as to have seriously failing health for the next year or so and have her care fall to you, I would hate to see you lose your position or suffer financially in a significant way because you cared for your mother.

I'd be suffering financially because I wasn't in paid work, not because I cared for my mother.

So, not ALL female employees. Glad you got that right.

Remind me why they are being compensated again? I believe it had to do with earning less pay because they were paid less and because they took time off/worked fewer hours to care for children/ailing family members. Or am I wrong?

You are wrong. They are being paid extra money as a sop to 'bridge the super gap'. Whatever part of the gap exists because ANZ unfairly discriminated against employees by paying them less for work of comparable value, ANZ has a moral obligation to compensate. Whatever part of the gap exists because people took time out of paid work to do other things ANZ has no business 'compensating'.

ANZ did not investigate which individuals, if any, were underpaid. ANZ did not compensate said individuals in a manner proportionate to their underpayment. ANZ did not sift through its administrative data to see who had taken time out of paid work for caring duties and make up the gap.

What ANZ did was decide it would give $500 to female employees with super less than $50,000. This means that a male graduate and a female graduate, both with no work history and both with zero super balances would be compensated differently, even though neither graduate has taken time out of the workforce to do anything and neither has been discriminated against by ANZ.

It also means that anyone who was discriminated against by ANZ but has been there for decades (and is therefore almost certain to have a super balance > $50,000) won't get any compensation at all.

It's an astonishingly stupid, discriminatory policy. But since it discriminates by gender, you must be all for it.

 

[laughing dog]

You are wrong. They are being paid extra money as a sop to 'bridge the super gap'. Whatever part of the gap exists because ANZ unfairly discriminated against employees by paying them less for work of comparable value, ANZ has a moral obligation to compensate. Whatever part of the gap exists because people took time out of paid work to do other things ANZ has no business 'compensating'.

ANZ can compensate any employee for any reason, so whether they have any business doing so is really their perogative.

 

[Metaphor]

We don't know enough from the article to know whether men with low balances would get the extra in their accounts or not. It isn't mentioned but we don't actually know.

The article says quite explicitly that only women are entitled to the top-up.

 

[bilby]

Geez, you lot are so fucking gullible.

ANZ didn't do this because they give a shit about pay equality, pay inequality, women's rights, men's rights, fairness, discrimination, sexism or any other superficial reason.

ANZ gave a stated reason for doing something, and you all accepted their position without question, and started arguing over whether that position was fair, or right, or acceptable or whatever. Which misses the real reason for this:

ANZ ONLY want to increase their total customer base, their revenue, and, ultimately, their profits. If doing so involves discrimination, they will discriminate. If it involved feeding babies into a mincing machine, they would do that too, if they think that they can get away with it.

Here's how it works:

Some guy at ANZ is in charge of getting young people (particularly the middle classes) to choose ANZ for their first bank account, rather than one of the other banks. Banks know that customer loyalty is a big thing - people are quite reluctant to change banks, and if they have their first account (perhaps a savings account for their first paycheck to go into, but more likely in the upper middle classes, a savings account opened by their mum) with ANZ, then it is very likely that they will get a home loan, credit card, and other services from ANZ, rather than choosing a different bank, in the future.

Attracting (and retaining) young middle class customers - particularly young middle class mothers - is therefore a major priority for the banks. So they employ a guy (in fact, a big team of guys) to come up with ways to get those young, middle class, mothers to choose ANZ, rather than CommBank or Westpac or NAB. Sadly, there is no particular difference between these options; (for example, If ANZ start to offer a better interest rate on deposits, or a nice free gift for new account holders, then so will the other three) so, as they can't manipulate the facts. But they can manipulate emotions.

Young women - particularly young, middle class, Australian women - consider pay inequality to be a BIG issue (whether it is in fact a big issue is irrelevant). So by making this move, ANZ hope to engender a warm glow in the hearts of these young women, so that when their kids get their first job, or when they open the first savings account for their offspring's pocket money - they pick ANZ "because ANZ cares about women's rights".

Someone at ANZ has determined that young women, and particularly young middle class mothers, are influential in deciding which bank their children (or they themselves) will patronise. They have come up with an idea to make that target demographic feel good about the ANZ brand, at little cost. They know that few men give a shit either way - Metaphor isn't part of their target demographic, and his viewpoint is rare in that demographic - and by making a fuss, those few people who oppose this kind of move simply draw more attention to it, and increase the commitment of the target demographic to supporting ANZ.

This is a way to gain customers for ANZ that is likely far cheaper than a big nationwide advertising campaign, and also likely far more effective.

I despise the cynicism of the move, while having a certain grudging admiration for the rat cunning behind it; and meanwhile, the rest of you are so busy arguing about the sideshow that you haven't even looked for the man behind the curtain.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps you are correct. In Australia, words and sentences have objective meaning. They don't mean whatever strawman fantasy you've decided to come up with.

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina". I cannot fathom how someone whose native language is English would think it would.

OK, then. From YOUR OP:

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.

I'd say you were trolling me were it not for your demonstrated history of failures to grasp the English language. Quoting my OP where I did not say what you claim I said makes it clear that I did not say what you claim I said. I can only repeat myself.

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina".

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina".

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina".

 

[Metaphor]

You are wrong. They are being paid extra money as a sop to 'bridge the super gap'. Whatever part of the gap exists because ANZ unfairly discriminated against employees by paying them less for work of comparable value, ANZ has a moral obligation to compensate. Whatever part of the gap exists because people took time out of paid work to do other things ANZ has no business 'compensating'.

ANZ can compensate any employee for any reason, so whether they have any business doing so is really their perogative.

Seemingly, it doesn't even have to obey the Sex Discrimination Act when deciding how to compensate.

But compensating 'any employee for any reason' does not mean their reasons are above criticism. For example, I would think extra pay for having D-cup or larger breasts is a bad reason to compensate an office employee.

- - - Updated - - -

Geez, you lot are so fucking gullible.

ANZ didn't do this because they give a shit about pay equality, pay inequality, women's rights, men's rights, fairness, discrimination, sexism or any other superficial reason.

ANZ gave a stated reason for doing something, and you all accepted their position without question, and started arguing over whether that position was fair, or right, or acceptable or whatever. Which misses the real reason for this:

ANZ ONLY want to increase their total customer base, their revenue, and, ultimately, their profits. If doing so involves discrimination, they will discriminate. If it involved feeding babies into a mincing machine, they would do that too, if they think that they can get away with it.

Here's how it works:

Some guy at ANZ is in charge of getting young people (particularly the middle classes) to choose ANZ for their first bank account, rather than one of the other banks. Banks know that customer loyalty is a big thing - people are quite reluctant to change banks, and if they have their first account (perhaps a savings account for their first paycheck to go into, but more likely in the upper middle classes, a savings account opened by their mum) with ANZ, then it is very likely that they will get a home loan, credit card, and other services from ANZ, rather than choosing a different bank, in the future.

Attracting (and retaining) young middle class customers - particularly young middle class mothers - is therefore a major priority for the banks. So they employ a guy (in fact, a big team of guys) to come up with ways to get those young, middle class, mothers to choose ANZ, rather than CommBank or Westpac or NAB. Sadly, there is no particular difference between these options; (for example, If ANZ start to offer a better interest rate on deposits, or a nice free gift for new account holders, then so will the other three) so, as they can't manipulate the facts. But they can manipulate emotions.

Young women - particularly young, middle class, Australian women - consider pay inequality to be a BIG issue (whether it is in fact a big issue is irrelevant). So by making this move, ANZ hope to engender a warm glow in the hearts of these young women, so that when their kids get their first job, or when they open the first savings account for their offspring's pocket money - they pick ANZ "because ANZ cares about women's rights".

Someone at ANZ has determined that young women, and particularly young middle class mothers, are influential in deciding which bank their children (or they themselves) will patronise. They have come up with an idea to make that target demographic feel good about the ANZ brand, at little cost. They know that few men give a shit either way - Metaphor isn't part of their target demographic, and his viewpoint is rare in that demographic - and by making a fuss, those few people who oppose this kind of move simply draw more attention to it, and increase the commitment of the target demographic to supporting ANZ.

This is a way to gain customers for ANZ that is likely far cheaper than a big nationwide advertising campaign, and also likely far more effective.

I despise the cynicism of the move, while having a certain grudging admiration for the rat cunning behind it; and meanwhile, the rest of you are so busy arguing about the sideshow that you haven't even looked for the man behind the curtain.

Whatever makes you think I think ANZ's real intentions were its stated intentions? Indeed, I've already said its stated intentions were completely bogus, since they didn't do what you'd do if you were actually worried you'd discriminated against people.

 

[laughing dog]

OK, then. From YOUR OP:

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.

I'd say you were trolling me were it not for your demonstrated history of failures to grasp the English language. Quoting my OP where I did not say what you claim I said makes it clear that I did not say what you claim I said. I can only repeat myself.

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina".

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina".

"Vagina as a necessary condition" does not equal "compensated for having a vagina".

You did write if an employee has a vagina and has less than $50,000 in superannuation that employee gets $500. While your claim is technically correct from a formal logic point of view, you are splitting a rather very small hair. Especially coupled with your indignation over the alleged "discrimination".