Let's start with a sentence from a hot off the press press release just out of the Human Rights Commission office.
Of course the paid on average $5000 less is an easily modifiable number based upon how you adjust the membership of your entirely female subset. In reality the number has almost certainly been plucked out of the thin air and is unchallengeable given the weasel word some in the sentence.
Anyway the statement has this
So we can look up the average female and male salaries and be told quite plainly that they are $59,522 and $69,544 respectively or that the average female salary is just 85.6% of the average male salary.
Clear cut - no?
Well no actually.
See there is a gender imbalance in the Public Service, there are more females than males on the public payroll.
And my friends it turns out that if you look across age groups that this imbalance is far more marked amongst the younger and hence less well remunerated employees.So while 59% of those on the public payroll are female, this percentage increases for those under thirty to 67%. Or if you prefer in this age group there two females for every male, which of course will have the effect of reducing the "average" female salary.
So what is the truth about the gender gap? Well sadly in trying to determine this you will always end up comparing "apples with oranges" there is no meaningful answer in my opinion.
But I think we can safely assume that EEO Commissioner Dr Judy McGregor of Human Rights commission is far better remunerated than the vast majority of her fellow citizens be they male or female.
Surely this press release is nothing more than political activism funded from the public purse.
Why are some female new graduates paid on average $5000 less than male graduates with the same qualification?This sentence is nonsensical. The word "some" implies a subset of "female graduates" defined exactly how? I don't have a clue and neither probably did the writer of this sentence.
Of course the paid on average $5000 less is an easily modifiable number based upon how you adjust the membership of your entirely female subset. In reality the number has almost certainly been plucked out of the thin air and is unchallengeable given the weasel word some in the sentence.
Anyway the statement has this
The Commission has committed to the following:So how are we doing in the public service on these matters. It just so happens I have the State Services Commission Public Service Trend Report 2010. Very interesting. Of course the Public Service is very interested in EEO and break things down according to identity politics best practice.
- to monitor and report on the new Top 20 equality at work indicators
- to promote the Pay Equality Bill with politicians, employer organisations and trade unions
- to advocate for the new Equality at work framework with unions and community groups
- To continue efforts to eliminate discrimination and barriers to work for disadvantaged groups.
So we can look up the average female and male salaries and be told quite plainly that they are $59,522 and $69,544 respectively or that the average female salary is just 85.6% of the average male salary.
Clear cut - no?
Well no actually.
See there is a gender imbalance in the Public Service, there are more females than males on the public payroll.
And my friends it turns out that if you look across age groups that this imbalance is far more marked amongst the younger and hence less well remunerated employees.So while 59% of those on the public payroll are female, this percentage increases for those under thirty to 67%. Or if you prefer in this age group there two females for every male, which of course will have the effect of reducing the "average" female salary.
So what is the truth about the gender gap? Well sadly in trying to determine this you will always end up comparing "apples with oranges" there is no meaningful answer in my opinion.
But I think we can safely assume that EEO Commissioner Dr Judy McGregor of Human Rights commission is far better remunerated than the vast majority of her fellow citizens be they male or female.
Surely this press release is nothing more than political activism funded from the public purse.
If an employer hires four workers at the same level to carry out the same job and the output of one is 50% greater than the others, how do you reward the outstanding individual if all the salaries must be equal?
ReplyDeleteIt's not equal work for equal pay that is being discussed, it's equal positions for equal pay which brings public service style problems where pay increases are based on time served and qualifications not ability.
In other words a typical marxist agenda brings the usual result of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator as ability can't be rewarded.