| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: Work(NO)choices.......hope you're not a woman! |  |
|
http://www.nfaw.org/media/2007/07-06-02.html
Not suprising really, considering the "back to the 50's" attitude of a lot of Howard policy.
| Quote: | | What Women Want, the Report, released today, shows that under the WorkChoices industrial relations system women are worse off in pay terms compared with men, since WorkChoices was introduced. This is so whatever their occupation or education status, and includes professional and managerial women as well as those in lower paid, less skilled work. |
|
|
|
|
 |
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
With articles like this it's almost worth putting them up in the main forum and pleading ignorance... They're too bloody important to let rot away in this sub-forum.
F%@king outrageous, Australia has gone so far backwards in the last 10 years...
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You've got that right Sheriffe, although I'd almost say over the last 20 years. Ninety years of post-federation nation-building built on the principle of egalitarianism and promotion of equality of opportunity (not outcome!) junked in less than two decades. What have we undone:( |
|
|
|
|
London Dave 
Ješte jedna pivo prosím
Joined: 16 Dec 1998
Location: Iceland on Thames
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| but he'll still win the election |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
With the newspoll results out today, I'm starting to think you may be right....
If that is the case.... who knows, what can we possibly do?
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
London Dave
Ješte jedna pivo prosím
Joined: 16 Dec 1998
Location: Iceland on Thames
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | If that is the case.... who knows, what can we possibly do? |
Live overseas |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I've been hearing about this gender wage gap for years and have yet to see any real evidence. I can't access the report on the link, every time I try my browser crashes, but I'll try again later.
Equal (minimum) pay for equal work is a fundamental principle that should be adhered to. I don't agree with paying everyone the same but the differentiation should be based on performance metrics, not gender.
I personally find that these types of reports compiled by specific interest groups with an agenda, generally find a way to prove what they set out to prove in the first place
Collective arrangements provide a rate of pay for a job regardless of gender. The majority of AWA's are standard documents that again, don't differentiate rates of pay on gender.
That's my preamble, once I manage to open and read the report, I'll see what gems I can glean from it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Mate no offence but your claim of "yet to hear any evidence" is pretty meaningless. I'm betting you haven't been browsing academic journals or doing statistical sampling of workplaces looking for relevant 'evidence'. Fact is, this report has done those things, and comes out with that conclusion.
"The majority of AWA's do not discriminate by gender"? You simply have no basis to make claims like that. You are one person, working at one firm, who due to your politics are more likely to read and remember the very few articles in support of WorkChoices and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary. Consider:
Fact: Women rely on AWA's more then Men for whatever reason.
| Quote: | Women are significantly more dependant on award wages than men. Nearly one third of women workers are entirely dependant upon award payments compared to 17% of men(9). Any changes to the minimum wage that reduce its relativity to full-time median earnings would therefore be likely to increase the gender pay gap.
(9) Advancing Pay Equity - their future depends on it, Report by the Victorian Pay Equity working Party, February 2005, p.3 |
from http://www.airc.gov.au/about_the_commission/speeches/Whelan_2005_04_15.htm
Fact: AWA's are getting worse for workers
| Quote: | | And one in six new contracts paid staff only five basic entitlements, depriving them of 11 other award conditions such as overtime, rest breaks, holiday leave loading, and extra pay to work on public holidays. |
From: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/workplace-laws-start-to-bite-as-employers-cut-into-awards/2006/05/30/1148956347175.html
Conclusion: Women's condition relative to men is going backwards.
From: report linked to at the start of this topic.
Where exactly is your disagreement?
Face it, the only way you can keep your pro-WorkChoices worldview intact is by slandering the organisations that do all the research without having any idea of what they are. "Special-interest groups with an agenda"... are you aware of how cliche'd that response is? It is the typical right-wing fallback statement when a finding goes against their views.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No offence taken Sherrife but a couple of flaws in your argument.
1.
I didn't say "The majority of AWA's do not discriminate by gender". I said, "The majority of AWA's are standard documents that again, don't differentiate rates of pay on gender. "
One of the arguments people make about the lack of flexibility in the AWA's, that they are presented on a take it or leave it basis. Well, a company prepares a standard AWA for a role with a rate of pay commensurate with that role. Any company that had different rates of pay purely for Gender would be up shit creek.
2. You said:
| Quote: | Fact: Women rely on AWA's more then Men for whatever reason.
Quote:
Women are significantly more dependant on award wages than men. Nearly one third of women workers are entirely dependant upon award payments compared to 17% of men(9). Any changes to the minimum wage that reduce its relativity to full-time median earnings would therefore be likely to increase the gender pay gap.
(9) Advancing Pay Equity - their future depends on it, Report by the Victorian Pay Equity working Party, February 2005, p.3
from http://www.airc.gov.au/about_the_commission/speeches/Whelan_2005_04_15.htm
|
Sorry If I'm misunderstanding, but you quote an article that says women are significantly more dependant on award wages than men, then use that to support the heading women rely on AWA's more than men.
Which one is it? AWA's or Awards?
I ackowledge there are inequities between pay for men and women at more senior levels. Exactly the same as women are underrepresented in senior management roles and on company boards.
At lower levels where starting salaries are dictated by either collective arrangements or the employer, I've yet to see any evidence of discrimination.
I don't thnk this is a political issue as such, I have an issue with drawing conclsions from data to support an argument that you set out to support in the first place.
I have read a number of reports on this issue and when you analyse the data, there are a variety of reasons and no simple root cause.
As I said, once I download the report, I'll take the time to read it thoroughly.
Edit.
I've downloaded and read the report. Long on assumption and conjecture, very thin on data.
I then downloaded and read the larger WESKI paper. Same thing. The first thing that struck me was how they say how little useable data there is and create a list of recommendations on what data should be captured and made available.
There are a large number of reasons why there can be inequity in pay between the genders. Workchoices may or may not be a contributing factor, buty there's no hard data here.
But I'm sure that won't mean anything to some people who seem assured that Workchoices is to blame for global warming; the kennedy assasination, the occupation of the west bank, there last partner leaving them and everything else bad that's ever happened. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | the kennedy assasination |
Ah, now I know the truth! Oliver Stone was wrong. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
LOL
I completely misread that bit about women on award wages  allow me to retract most of that post, except perhaps the last paragraph.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hmmmmm, the last paragraph. You mean this bit,
| Quote: | Face it, the only way you can keep your pro-WorkChoices worldview intact is by slandering the organisations that do all the research without having any idea of what they are. "Special-interest groups with an agenda"... are you aware of how cliche'd that response is? It is the typical right-wing fallback statement when a finding goes against their views.
|
So right wing organisations never use data to support their arguments and left wingers never make the same allegation?? You've never accused Howard of cooking the books when he produces data to show how workchoices is doing wonderful things for the country? 
Whenever I read a statistically based report on anything, the first thing I look at is see who conducted/commissioned it. The look at the actal data and wording in the report to see how much of the findings are actually supported or are conjecture.
People believe what they want to believe, so when I read findings that alcohol in moderation is actually good for you, I choose to ignore the small print that the report was commisioned by the liquor industry 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
