Bank celebrates its discrimination against male employees

[laughing dog]

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.

I don;t know how Australia works, but companies can implement such schemes and continue them until someone complains to the relevant legal authority.

But compensating 'any employee for any reason' does not mean their reasons are above criticism.

Never said it did.

For example, I would think extra pay for having D-cup or larger breasts is a bad reason to compensate an office employee.

Probably. But suppose those physical characteristics improved office productivity?

 

[zorq]

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.

Why should we care about ANZ's motives more than their actions?

If ANZ was donating money to sea life protection charities in hopes that protected sharks would mutate into land walking super predators and end all life on earth, why would I care?

If on the other hand, ANZ was conducting a systematic genocide of all shark life on earth to prevent any future shark fatalities, I would care alot. Not because their motive is more honorable, but because their actions are more dangerous and destructive.

Actions are more important than motives because it is the actions that cause damage in the real world, not motives.

 

[Toni]

It wouldn't matter if it did or it did not.

Of course it matters.

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.

I find it quite odd to think that a bank would compensate a class of employees for past wrongs (which is what the report points out) and to prevent future hardship if it did not engage in practices which harmed that class of employees in the past.

Unless it is misdirecting attention away from worse practices.


W

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

I agree that it is woefuly cackhanded, hamfisted, and absurd. Probably quite inadequate as well.

I don't think that it is discriminatory to compensate a class of employees for past discrimination against those employees.

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

We don't actually know that only female employees with low balances will receive the extra payments. The article was obviously for public relations and was written to appease and appeal and to make the bank look good. If the bank realized they had not been fair in their previous contributions, it would be in their best interests to pony up before being forced to do so and to get the maximum good PR out of it by saying that it is trying to address societal wrongs. With that in mind, they would hardly mention if they also found men who had been shortchanged because it wouldn't fit the narrative they are putting out.

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 am guessing that ANZ is doing this because they have discovered that it is in their best interests to do so--and to make sure the public knows they are doing it.

I doubt they are actually sharing the entire reason for this largesse.

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?

No, it is not. If that is beyond your ken, then please consider whether parents pay others to care for their children.

Or do you think people have guns to their head and are forced to raise children?

No more than you or I have guns put to our heads to force us to go to our jobs. For which we are well compensated.

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.

We cared for our mother for many more than 3 years although at the end, she also required high level institutional care that we could not possibly provide. We were not compensated in any way for the time any of us took to provide her care. One sibling did take a pretty big hit to her career quite explicitly. I did as well as one big reason I delayed returning to work after my children were born is so that I could help provide care for her at home. There is no possible way to 'compensate' me for the loss of income or career progression due to the extra years I remained available for my mother. My sister should have been treated better by her employer, I believe.

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?

I mentioned it because it was on your list. Unfortunately in the US, we do not have many of the social benefits enjoyed by the UK.

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?

I didn't know whether that was a hypothetical. Hence my question.

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

Because you were taking care of your mother. Hypothetically.

You are wrong. They are being paid extra money as a sop to 'bridge the super gap'.

Which exists because women were being paid less than men for the same/comparable work and/or because they earned less because they cared for family members.

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.

I agree.

Whatever part of the gap exists because people took time out of paid work to do other things ANZ has no business 'compensating'.

Apparently ANZ disagrees. In the US, banks are notoriously conservative with regards to maintaining their own assets. I stand by my speculation--and it is only speculation--that ANZ has a reason or reasons it is not being explicit about.

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.

You don't actually know that. You are inferring it from the article. You haven't read the study. Neither have I.

It seems like a fairly simple matter to sift through employment data via computer programs. I know my employer can perform such searches. I don't know how many employees ANZ has but mine has well over 40K.

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.

You are assuming that male employees are not also receiving the extra $500 contributions. That may be a valid assumption but we don't actually know for a fact that the men are not also so compensated.

Which is very curious. WHY would ANZ agree to compensate any one class of employees? Voluntarily? I am certain that it is somehow in the bank's best interests to do so. I am just not certain why or in what manner it is in their best interests.

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.

Another inequity, I agree.

I

t's an astonishingly stupid, discriminatory policy. But since it discriminates by gender, you must be all for it.

It is an astonishlingy stupid, discriminatory policy.

You are also astonishingly stupidly assuming that you know what I feel about the policy. And the reasons.

 

[Metaphor]

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".

I'm not talking about being logically correct (though obviously, I am).

I'm saying that to 'compensate someone for having a vagina' is to give them money because you feel sorry for them for having a vagina or you have harmed them because of their vagina.

Having a remuneration decision affected by gender is a textbook definition of gender discrimination. I don't know how you could think otherwise.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Then why do we keep hearing people (I think rightly) complaining where women get paid less than men for the same work? If the employer can compensate any employee for any reason and it is their perogative, then why is this an issue to begin with?

 

[Toni]

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.

Thank you for offering a reasonable explanation for ANZ's policy. It makes sense and is less nefarious than anything I imagined. I certainly didn't imagine that they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't think banks in Australia are that different than the ones here stateside.

 

[Metaphor]

We don't actually know that only female employees with low balances will receive the extra payments.

We do know it. It says it explicitly.

You don't actually know that. You are inferring it from the article. You haven't read the study. Neither have I.

I do know it, because the article states explicitly the policy. Ongoing annual super top ups of $500 to permanent female employees whose super balances are <$50,000.

You are assuming that male employees are not also receiving the extra $500 contributions.

We do know it. It says it explicitly.

Please read the article again. Please google 'ANZ super women' and look for different articles.

 

[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.

- - - 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.

Hasn't anybody explained to you how social security works, Loren?

And yes, it does say that women were paid less money AND also earned less due to leaves, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Having a remuneration decision affected by gender is a textbook definition of gender discrimination. I don't know how you could think otherwise.

If it compensatory for prior discrimination based upon gender.

 

[Metaphor]

Probably. But suppose those physical characteristics improved office productivity?

If they did, then there'd be a defensible business case to do it.

But even defensible business cases need to be viewed in the light of individual fairness.

For example, it is probably the case that people trust male surgeons more than female surgeons, and white surgeons more than black surgeons. Doctor-patient trust is an important variable in patient health and outcomes.

But I wouldn't discriminate against female or black applicants if I were admitting people into a surgery internship, no matter what the discriminatory preferences of the general public were. It would be morally wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

If it compensatory for prior discrimination based upon gender.

A policy that did that would look nothing like the actions that ANZ has taken.

To begin with, the very least that a real compensation policy would do is compensate people commensurate with the amount of discrimination experienced.

 

[thebeave]

How about instead of giving more money to the women, we just cut men's pay to equal it all out? Jessica Valenti thinks its a good idea.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

The answer to the world’s grossly gendered wage gap finally may be within our grasp. Only problem is, half the population may not be too pleased with how we can fix it.

Over the last few years, disparity between men and women’s pay – and workplace gender inequality more generally – has inspired all sorts of solutions that focus on how women can rise in the ranks and make more money: Ask for raises! Don’t leave before you leave. Count on karma?

But what if the boldest solution for the wage gap isn’t about raising women’s salaries at all? What if we paid men less?

Over the weekend, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson – fired in part, she says, over conversations about pay disparity – told a reporter that the best way for newsroom leaders with a limited budget to fix salary inequalities is to “bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls”.

“I did that at The Times. No one’s happy to get a cut, but too bad.”

 

[Toni]

If it compensatory for prior discrimination based upon gender.

A policy that did that would look nothing like the actions that ANZ has taken.

To begin with, the very least that a real compensation policy would do is compensate people commensurate with the amount of discrimination experienced.

I'm sorry if you were confused and thought that I believed ANZ was attempting to institute a genuine and fair policy to redress prior wrongs.

It seemed pretty clear to me from the beginning that the article in the OP was mostly a press release and therefore not trustworthy.

Bilby offered a rational explanation to ANZ's actions. I don't know if he is right in his assumptions but at least it makes sense.

 

[bigfield]

The report:
http://www.women.anz.com/content/dam/Women/Documents/pdf/ANZ-Womens-Report-July-2015.pdf

 

[laughing dog]

A policy that did that would look nothing like the actions that ANZ has taken.

To begin with, the very least that a real compensation policy would do is compensate people commensurate with the amount of discrimination experienced.

I'm sorry if you were confused and thought that I believed ANZ was attempting to institute a genuine and fair policy to redress prior wrongs.

It seemed pretty clear to me from the beginning that the article in the OP was mostly a press release and therefore not trustworthy.

Bilby offered a rational explanation to ANZ's actions. I don't know if he is right in his assumptions but at least it makes sense.

I don't know. If bilby's explanation is accurate, I've lost a lot of respect for Australian women.

 

[Metaphor]

How about instead of giving more money to the women, we just cut men's pay to equal it all out? Jessica Valenti thinks its a good idea.

If Jessica Valenti thought avoiding the ingestion of cyanide was a good idea, I'd be forced to rethink my views on cyanide ingestion.

I expect the idea will gain as much traction as other unhinged feminist lunacies, like not sending women to jail for any crime.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[Metaphor]

The report:
http://www.women.anz.com/content/dam/Women/Documents/pdf/ANZ-Womens-Report-July-2015.pdf

I've looked at Chapter 2, and I cannot for the life of me see where they get the idea that women in identical jobs to men get paid less. The data do not support that.

 

[bigfield]

The report:
http://www.women.anz.com/content/dam/Women/Documents/pdf/ANZ-Womens-Report-July-2015.pdf

I've looked at Chapter 2, and I cannot for the life of me see where they get the idea that women in identical jobs to men get paid less. The data do not support that.

From the report

Historically, female-dominated industries and jobs have attracted lower wages than male dominated industries and jobs. Moreover, women doing the same work as men tend to earn a lower salary, including lower penalty rates, overtime, performance payments, bonuses and superannuation contributions.

^{[citation needed]}

American studies on the pay gap, such as the CONSAD report for the US Department of Labor and several reports by the American Association of University Women, present a ton of data and are still unable to make a 'same work' comparison between men and women, because they are unable to precisely control for various factors such as hours worked, seniority etc. Yet the ANZ feels they can make assert their conclusion without any data whatsoever--not even a citation.

It would be foolish to consider them credible when they are so obviously concerned with simply telling people what they want to hear, and scoring the resultant public relations boost.

 

[ronburgundy]

"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.

The "because" in your quote is their presumed explanation for why Australian women in general earn less on average. But whether an ANZ employee actually earned less due to being a woman, or to childcare, or being paid less for the same work had zero to do with the criteria for determining who was actually given this extra money and who was not. The bank has no such information about their actual employees. The sole basis for getting the money was if you a women and had less $ in your account (for any reason at all), and you got zero $ if you were a man, no matter how little money in your account and no matter whether it was due to childcare, discrimination by a female supervisor, etc..

The "because" in the OP refers to the actual criteria used to determine who got the money (being a woman), not the hypothetical rationalization for using this criteria that objectively has weak reliability as an index of the variables in their rationalization.

If a man's wife cheats on him, so he goes out and kills 5 random women, and says "I killed them because women are cheating whores", would you deny the fact that those people he killed were actually killed because they are women and had they been men, he would not have killed them? He has no knowledge if they were cheating whores, so that cannot be why they were killed. "Cheating whore" is just a property he associates with being a women, but not the actual criteria used to determine who would be killed.

I use this unpleasant example because the rational conclusion happens to be consistent with a feminist bias toward seeing the anti-women misogyny in his thinking. Thus, you'll be less likely to go out of your way not to grasp the obvious logic that makes the conclusion valid. Although the feminist bias is against the rational conclusion in the OP, the underlying logic is identical to this example. The bank has no knowledge of which employees were actually paid less for the same work and they know that it was not all women, so that cannot be the basis they used to determine who got the $. Gender was the determinant, and their rationale is that at a general level they associate gender (rather imperfectly and unreliably) with the property of being paid less for the same work.

If you wish to be accurate and honest you would amend every post you've made in this thread to acknowledge the undeniable objective fact that among employees with <$50K in their account the sole criteria the bank used determine who would get the $ was gender. Of course they rationalized treating genders differently by its unreliable association with some other factor, but that is almost always true of all acts of sexism and discrimination, and whether the association is real or imagined is irrelevant to the fact that it is the definition of sexual discrimination in the workplace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

In America we have found it reported as "same work" when it was less hours and less years of experience. I see no reason to assume the Australian data is any more honest.

Edit: Having seen the report I would say it's less honest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Hasn't anybody explained to you how social security works, Loren?

And yes, it does say that women were paid less money AND also earned less due to leaves, etc.

Of course I know how social security works. This has nothing to do with whether a social welfare cost is being pushed off onto business or not. Whether society should encourage reproduction is a totally separate issue. Cooked books are evil, period--saying it's for a good cause doesn't justify cooked books.

And without the report (which I doubt we will see) we don't know if it's nothing more than the usual less hours/less experience => less money being reported as discrimination that we see time and again.

 

[Toni]

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.

In America we have found it reported as "same work" when it was less hours and less years of experience. I see no reason to assume the Australian data is any more honest.

You are incorrect. The conclusion reached by multiple studies, including one aluded to in this thread finds some discrepancy which cannot be explained by any other reason than discrimination.