Bank celebrates its discrimination against male employees

[Toni]

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.

Eh, I DID miss that. Sorry.

However, it does clearly state that some women were paid less. The difference in earnings is not solely because women take time off to raise kids (which are fathered by men who won't take time off to raise them).

I would not be so sanguine that ANZ did not engage in discriminatory employment practices in the past. Most employers have done so, if they've been around long enough. In fact, I have been told --to my face--that women did not need as much money as men do, in justification for why I was being paid less and why only men were hired for certain better positions. And I'm not at retirement age.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I imagine the reason women have less savings than men is because they work in lower paying positions and have less work years, on average, which of course means they have less money to contribute to their fund. That's ordinary reason given.

Maybe the bank could pay the men less and put a limit on the number of consecutive years they can work, in the interest of ending discrimination.

Anything to assume discrimination is the cause behind any difference that's measured.

In the US at least the vast majority of the difference has been shown to be due to factors unrelated to discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

From the link in the OP:

The report found women were 15 per cent more likely to experience poverty in retirement and, across a lifetime, full-time working women earned $700,000 less than men.

"This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

But really, I think that Metaphor is our own Henry Higgens. Why indeed cannot a woman be more like a man?

Children do not need to be raised by actual humans who love them. Old people are going to die anyway so why should a woman give up the potential to earn money for someone she loves?

Women just need to suck it up and act like men!

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?

It's not the employer's job to subsidize your choice to raise children.

 

[Toni]

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.

Let's be totally honest: The guy (and it is a guy) firing the starter's pistol went to school with the man and the guy judging at the finish line was his frat brother.

- - - Updated - - -

I imagine the reason women have less savings than men is because they work in lower paying positions and have less work years, on average, which of course means they have less money to contribute to their fund. That's ordinary reason given.

Maybe the bank could pay the men less and put a limit on the number of consecutive years they can work, in the interest of ending discrimination.

Anything to assume discrimination is the cause behind any difference that's measured.

In the US at least the vast majority of the difference has been shown to be due to factors unrelated to discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

From the link in the OP:

The report found women were 15 per cent more likely to experience poverty in retirement and, across a lifetime, full-time working women earned $700,000 less than men.

"This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

But really, I think that Metaphor is our own Henry Higgens. Why indeed cannot a woman be more like a man?

Children do not need to be raised by actual humans who love them. Old people are going to die anyway so why should a woman give up the potential to earn money for someone she loves?

Women just need to suck it up and act like men!

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?

It's not the employer's job to subsidize your choice to raise children.

So you will be forgoing your SS payments when the time comes, Loren? Because it is MY children who will be paying them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I don't trust the "same work" claim. That's usually based on a couple of false pretenses:

1) Comparing age rather than time in the labor force.

2) Not comparing hours actually worked. "Full time" commonly hides this difference.

 

[ksen]

Let's be totally honest: The guy (and it is a guy) firing the starter's pistol went to school with the man and the guy judging at the finish line was his frat brother.

Yes, that too.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don't trust the "same work" claim. That's usually based on a couple of false pretenses:

1) Comparing age rather than time in the labor force.

2) Not comparing hours actually worked. "Full time" commonly hides this difference.

Well of course you don't trust any claim that doesn't support what you already believe.

The truth is that women who are my age--still in the work force--HAVE been paid less than a man in the same position would have been paid. And have been refused the right to apply to positions for which they were qualified BECAUSE THEY ARE FEMALE.

How do I know? It happened to me. And also to my sister who was performing exactly the same job with the same amount of education or better, same responsibilities as her male co-workers but under a different job title. A friend successfully sued for pay discrimination--and won.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Eh, I DID miss that. Sorry.

However, it does clearly state that some women were paid less. The difference in earnings is not solely because women take time off to raise kids (which are fathered by men who won't take time off to raise them).

I would not be so sanguine that ANZ did not engage in discriminatory employment practices in the past. Most employers have done so, if they've been around long enough. In fact, I have been told --to my face--that women did not need as much money as men do, in justification for why I was being paid less and why only men were hired for certain better positions. And I'm not at retirement age.

I don't assume that ANZ didn't discriminate, but you are the one that said we cannot presume that any men at all took leave to care for kids or others, which is more unreasonable than presuming that ANZ itself never discriminated against females. You cannot dismiss a reasonable assumption that goes against the policy and then accept another assumption for which there is also no direct evidence just because it supports the policy.
The reasonable position and the one supported by the overall evidence (not just ANZs limited study) about these things is that there are both men and women who took leave and both men and women who unfairly got paid less for reasons other than merit, but that in the aggregate this happened to more women than men, but not all of either.
Based on that reasonable assumption, the policy of giving every women more $ but no men is unfair, discriminatory, fails to target the actual problem, gives rewards to many women that don't deserve it and fails to compensate those men that do.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How do I know? It happened to me. And also to my sister who was performing exactly the same job with the same amount of education or better, same responsibilities as her male co-workers but under a different job title. A friend successfully sued for pay discrimination--and won.

Good for your friend. That is how it should be done. And I would take it one further and sanction the company for letting it happen in the first place. They should be made an example of. Punitive damages seem appropriate.

What I would not do is award bonus "vagina money" (as Derec put it) to other women who have no such history, just because they too are women.

Based on that reasonable assumption, the policy of giving every women more $ but no men is unfair, discriminatory, fails to target the actual problem, gives rewards to many women that don't deserve it and fails to compensate those men that do.

Well said. Why these people can't directly address the issues they claim to address... I never understood that. If you want to offset the disruption in income for raising a child, a child subsidy seems to be a direct way to do that.

This is a phenomenon that reaches further than this issue too. You see the same with lowering or raising admission criteria based on race, etc.

Is there a name for this failure in reasoning, where you treat people based on their perceived group membership instead of who they actually are? Oh yes, there is. It is called prejudice.

 

[ksen]

coincidentally "vagina money" is what I call my hooker fund

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

So what if they are? It was their choice, the company doesn't owe them anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Eh, I DID miss that. Sorry.

However, it does clearly state that some women were paid less. The difference in earnings is not solely because women take time off to raise kids (which are fathered by men who won't take time off to raise them).

I would not be so sanguine that ANZ did not engage in discriminatory employment practices in the past. Most employers have done so, if they've been around long enough. In fact, I have been told --to my face--that women did not need as much money as men do, in justification for why I was being paid less and why only men were hired for certain better positions. And I'm not at retirement age.

But it doesn't say that the lesser pay wasn't because of lesser hours or time taken off for childbearing. Thus we have no evidence of discrimination here.

- - - Updated - - -

So you will be forgoing your SS payments when the time comes, Loren? Because it is MY children who will be paying them.

If having more children is a benefit to society that's worth paying extra for then it should be government money doing that paying, not the usual liberal enron-economics game of moving government costs off onto business.

 

[Toni]

Eh, I DID miss that. Sorry.

However, it does clearly state that some women were paid less. The difference in earnings is not solely because women take time off to raise kids (which are fathered by men who won't take time off to raise them).

I would not be so sanguine that ANZ did not engage in discriminatory employment practices in the past. Most employers have done so, if they've been around long enough. In fact, I have been told --to my face--that women did not need as much money as men do, in justification for why I was being paid less and why only men were hired for certain better positions. And I'm not at retirement age.

But it doesn't say that the lesser pay wasn't because of lesser hours or time taken off for childbearing. Thus we have no evidence of discrimination here.

Yes it does. The 'and' means two different reasons.

This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well said. Why these people can't directly address the issues they claim to address... I never understood that. If you want to offset the disruption in income for raising a child, a child subsidy seems to be a direct way to do that.

That would cost money. They can pretend it doesn't cost money when they push the cost off onto business.

Off-the-books economics is categorically wrong. If something is worth doing it should be on the budget so people can evaluate it fairly.

 

[ronburgundy]

But it doesn't say that the lesser pay wasn't because of lesser hours or time taken off for childbearing. Thus we have no evidence of discrimination here.

Yes it does. The 'and' means two different reasons.

This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

The second reason refers only to taking "part-time jobs", which has nothing to do with taking leave from or temporarily reducing one's hours in an otherwise full time position and/or being out of the job market completely for a period due to child rearing activities. Thus, such leave for childbearing could easily be a major contributor to the "lesser pay for the same work", which only deals with the nature of the current work being done and not differences in level of prior work experience, etc..

Also, even in regard to taking "part time jobs" that could still be a factor. These variables are naturally confounded. The fact that this journalist used the word "and" in no way supports whether the actual researchers did the specific analyses that would be required to conclude that the lesser pay was separate from part time work, and given how poorly most such research is usually done, its highly plausible they didn't perform such analyses, and just looked at a bunch of overlapping variables that men and women differ on, and are listing them.

 

[Toni]

Yes it does. The 'and' means two different reasons.

This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

The second reason refers only to taking "part-time jobs", which has nothing to do with taking leave from or temporarily reducing one's hours in an otherwise full time position and/or being out of the job market completely for a period due to child rearing activities. Thus, such leave for childbearing could easily be a major contributor to the "lesser pay for the same work", which only deals with the nature of the current work being done and not differences in level of prior work experience, etc..

Also, even in regard to taking "part time jobs" that could still be a factor. These variables are naturally confounded. The fact that this journalist used the word "and" in no way supports whether the actual researchers did the specific analyses that would be required to conclude that the lesser pay was separate from part time work, and given how poorly most such research is usually done, its highly plausible they didn't perform such analyses, and just looked at a bunch of overlapping variables that men and women differ on, and are listing them.

The second part:working fewer hours does not negate the first part: paying women less than men for the same work.

Paying women less for the same work DOES contribute to them working fewer hours. So does limiting their opportunities for career advancement and development. Most partners make rational choices about which person should cut back on working to deal with (whatever family issue). Usually, it is the person who earns less will work less because a loss of their income has a smaller impact on the overall family budget.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes it does. The 'and' means two different reasons.

This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

The second reason refers only to taking "part-time jobs", which has nothing to do with taking leave from or temporarily reducing one's hours in an otherwise full time position and/or being out of the job market completely for a period due to child rearing activities. Thus, such leave for childbearing could easily be a major contributor to the "lesser pay for the same work", which only deals with the nature of the current work being done and not differences in level of prior work experience, etc..

Also, even in regard to taking "part time jobs" that could still be a factor. These variables are naturally confounded. The fact that this journalist used the word "and" in no way supports whether the actual researchers did the specific analyses that would be required to conclude that the lesser pay was separate from part time work, and given how poorly most such research is usually done, its highly plausible they didn't perform such analyses, and just looked at a bunch of overlapping variables that men and women differ on, and are listing them.

The second part:working fewer hours does not negate the first part: paying women less than men for the same work.

Paying women less for the same work DOES contribute to them working fewer hours. So does limiting their opportunities for career advancement and development. Most partners make rational choices about which person should cut back on working to deal with (whatever family issue). Usually, it is the person who earns less will work less because a loss of their income has a smaller impact on the overall family budget.

Yes, women work less hours for many reasons, and people (man or woman) that work fewer hours have less experience, by definition, and thus are usually paid less, even if the work they are doing at that time is "the same' as what someone with more experience is doing. Teachers on the job for 30 years get more pay than a first year teacher, even if they are doing the "same job". It is perfectly reasonable and not at all sexual discrimination for companies to pay people with less experience less money for doing the same job, and this alone could account for the finding that women are "paid less for the same job". The report presents nothing to suggest that this is not the reason.

BTW, other research does show evidence that this is part of but not the only reason for the lesser pay, and that a % of the lesser pay appears to have no other explanation besides gender bias. However, the point being made was that nothing in the report presented so far actually shows this.

 

[Toni]

Yes it does. The 'and' means two different reasons.

This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

The second reason refers only to taking "part-time jobs", which has nothing to do with taking leave from or temporarily reducing one's hours in an otherwise full time position and/or being out of the job market completely for a period due to child rearing activities. Thus, such leave for childbearing could easily be a major contributor to the "lesser pay for the same work", which only deals with the nature of the current work being done and not differences in level of prior work experience, etc..

Also, even in regard to taking "part time jobs" that could still be a factor. These variables are naturally confounded. The fact that this journalist used the word "and" in no way supports whether the actual researchers did the specific analyses that would be required to conclude that the lesser pay was separate from part time work, and given how poorly most such research is usually done, its highly plausible they didn't perform such analyses, and just looked at a bunch of overlapping variables that men and women differ on, and are listing them.

The second part:working fewer hours does not negate the first part: paying women less than men for the same work.

Paying women less for the same work DOES contribute to them working fewer hours. So does limiting their opportunities for career advancement and development. Most partners make rational choices about which person should cut back on working to deal with (whatever family issue). Usually, it is the person who earns less will work less because a loss of their income has a smaller impact on the overall family budget.

Yes, women work less hours for many reasons, and people (man or woman) that work fewer hours have less experience, by definition, and thus are usually paid less, even if the work they are doing at that time is "the same' as what someone with more experience is doing. Teachers on the job for 30 years get more pay than a first year teacher, even if they are doing the "same job". It is perfectly reasonable and not at all sexual discrimination for companies to pay people with less experience less money for doing the same job, and this alone could account for the finding that women are "paid less for the same job". The report presents nothing to suggest that this is not the reason.

BTW, other research does show evidence that this is part of but not the only reason for the lesser pay, and that a % of the lesser pay appears to have no other explanation besides gender bias. However, the point being made was that nothing in the report presented so far actually shows this.

Man I'm having a bad day because I can't actually read the report.

I'm going by what the article says which is supported by your own admission: some women were paid less and some of the lower pay is due to discrimination.

This may just be the cynic in me but when I consider banks in the US, if I read that a bank is going to make contributions to the retirement funds of a particular class of employees based upon a study commissioned by the bank, I admit that I 'd assume they are deflecting attention away from just how badly they were screwing over that class of employee. Maybe Australian banks are better citizens and less beholden to shareholders.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You may think you agree with whatever, but your application of the definitions is logically faulty.

[
Completely false...<lots of word salad> ....

Nope.

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.....blah blah blah.....

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You are simply wrong. ANZ did not measure who and why it undercompensated for past and present work, nor did it target the bonus to people who had career gaps/part-time work due to caring responsibilities.

It 'compensated' women with super balances < $50,000, and that's it.

 

[Toni]

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.

You are simply wrong. ANZ did not measure who and why it undercompensated for past and present work, nor did it target the bonus to people who had career gaps/part-time work due to caring responsibilities.

It 'compensated' women with super balances < $50,000, and that's it.

The reason they cited for compensating (some) women was based evidence from the study THEY COMMISSIONED that suggested women had been discriminated against in the past. If they are basing their compensation on a study they commissioned, my first guess is that they are trying to deflect attention away from more egregious unfair treatment. But that's just the cynic in me.

According to your link. Here's the quote:

The measures come after a new report commissioned by ANZ found Australian women retired with, on average, half the amount of super of men.

The report found women were 15 per cent more likely to experience poverty in retirement and, across a lifetime, full-time working women earned $700,000 less than men.

"This is largely because they are paid less for the same work and they often revert to part-time jobs to assume child rearing or family responsibilities at some point in their lives," the report said.

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.