Bank celebrates its discrimination against male employees

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

Oy vey.

 

[ksen]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ich5IlYm3PY[/youtube]

 

[Metaphor]

What an articulate and thoughtful response.

 

[ksen]

You're just jealous you didn't think to include that vid in the OP.

 

[Bronzeage]

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

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

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

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

Oy vey.

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.

 

[dismal]

If that employee has a vagina.

Remember, not all women have vaginas, and not all who have vaginas are women.

Though there may still be a positive correlation.

 

[bigfield]

One of the solutions that has long been available to companies like ANZ is to implement flexitime, which would attract and retain more people who would otherwise choose personal commitments over their career, including mothers.

Instead, they've thrown around a bit of cash for an easy PR win.

ANZ, you cheap, lazy, morally-bankrupt bastards.

 

[Toni]

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?

 

[dismal]

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

I dunno was there ever a leftist movie character who believed in principles like "equality" and started to become uncomfortable as the other lefitsts around him revealed themselves to be unprincipled hacks?

Fielding Mellish?

 

[Toni]

One of the solutions that has long been available to companies like ANZ is to implement flexitime, which would attract and retain more people who would otherwise choose personal commitments over their career, including mothers.

Instead, they've thrown around a bit of cash for an easy PR win.

ANZ, you cheap, lazy, morally-bankrupt bastards.

You are much more familiar with ANZ than am I, but it occurs to me that your solution, which is a good one, would do little or nothing to help women who are middle aged or near retirement today and who have foregone earning income to take care of family obligations.

I wonder if anyone has done an economic analysis of what it actually costs to pay for a non-family member to provide care for children on an annual basis and what it costs to pay someone to provide care or supervise/manage care for a person who is ill or frail and elderly? In Australia, who bears those costs? Is it actually more cost effective for the current system of a family member (in reality, usually a woman) to provide this care vs society providing the care? I don't know.

I do know from talking to women with young families in my work place that the cost of full time child care is nearly as high as paying for university (at a state university, not a private one). For one child. It's more for infants and less expensive as the child gets older. For this reason, I see a lot of mothers of young children working off shifts to minimize the cost of day care. It can be really tough on a marriage, though. And comes with health consequences as well.

 

[bigfield]

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!

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

Oh, he didn't. Gosh.

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

 

[bigfield]

You are much more familiar with ANZ than am I, but it occurs to me that your solution, which is a good one, would do little or nothing to help women who are middle aged or near retirement today and who have foregone earning income to take care of family obligations.

They will have to settle for the aged pension, then. Or keep working past the age of 65.

What more should be done for them?

I wonder if anyone has done an economic analysis of what it actually costs to pay for a non-family member to provide care for children on an annual basis and what it costs to pay someone to provide care or supervise/manage care for a person who is ill or frail and elderly? In Australia, who bears those costs?

People who give care to disabled or frail, aged family members are paid an allowance by the government.

People with children are paid allowances regardless of whether of who provides the care.

Is it actually more cost effective for the current system of a family member (in reality, usually a woman) to provide this care vs society providing the care? I don't know.

Generally, volunteers are cheaper than dedicated professionals.

 

[Toni]

From the link in the OP:



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!

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

Oh, he didn't. Gosh.

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

Lazy women deserve what they get.

Which is my snarky reply since apparently that's what we are doing.

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

Work your 38.5 hrs/week from graduation to retirement, taking only the exact same vacation and holiday leave as every other person. Someone will take care of the children, the sick, the elderly. Not a responsible worker, of course. But someone. Of course back then, it was women. It still is, more often than not.

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

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

 

[Toni]

They will have to settle for the aged pension, then. Or keep working past the age of 65.

What more should be done for them?

I think the catch up bonus is a good start.

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

Generally, volunteers are cheaper than dedicated professionals.

Yes, they are. So why not make it easier to do by recognizing the value of that work in the form of contributions to retirement?

 

[ksen]

The pro family values position should be to enact things like mandatory paid leave to care for a new child or sick family member. But oddly enough allowing people to be penalized for taking care of family members and being against pro family labor regulations seems to be the default position of most family values candidates.

It's quite odd.

 

[bigfield]

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.

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

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

Department of Humans Services: Payment Finder
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/payment-finder/?q=15000000000000000000000000

 

[Toni]

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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)

"Paid less for the same work" was a statement in the provided link; that does not mean I agree to the truth of that statement, nor that even if it is true, that all of the gender pay gap is due to it.

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

Or, if ANZ discovers that it is not, in fact, paying women less for the same work, then they've taken no actions that warrant fixing.

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.

If I took time off to be a full time carer, I would not expect to have my employer continue paying my wages and superannuation while I did it, nor would I expect to have earned as much money in paid work by the end of my lifetime had I not taken the time off.

But ANZ isn't topping up the super accounts of people who were full time carers. It's topping up accounts of women who have less than $50,000 in super.

Lazy women deserve what they get.

I think by this you mean "people who work fewer hours in paid work get subsequently lower total compensation", then I agree.

But if you mean I think people who are not in the labour force are necessarily "lazy", I don't know what to say to you. I didn't say it and I don't believe it.

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

The model where if you work 38.5 hours a week and I work 25 hours a week, you should be paid for 38.5 and I should be paid for 25? Yes, I support a model where people are paid for the hours they've worked.

Work your 38.5 hrs/week from graduation to retirement, taking only the exact same vacation and holiday leave as every other person. Someone will take care of the children, the sick, the elderly. Not a responsible worker, of course. But someone. Of course back then, it was women. It still is, more often than not.

I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. Are you?

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

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

I did not realise "ANZ" was society.

If you worked 25 hours a week at widget factory A and I worked 38.5 hours a week at widget factory A alongside you, do you think you should be paid the same as me for doing 65% of the hours?

 

[bigfield]

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

What work do Australian women do that is not compensated?

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

There is no reason why anyone should live in poverty in retirement, regardless of how much they work for their families or volunteer in the community as opposed to paid work.