Political correctness ...again

I don't understand the banning of grid girls. They no longer wear skimpy clothing and actually serve a purpose in that hey hold umbrellas and hold the grid slot boards. If they don't hold the umbrellas then a man is going to do it so how exactly has that created equality? Surely all it's done is caused the man to do a job deemed too demeaning for a woman.
They also do have grid men occasionally, I've seen them but theyve all been banned. Plus there's the fact that no grid girls have complained. They've been denied work because someone else got offended on their behalf.

Also if you ban grid girls because you feel that using a woman to advertise a product or to look pretty is wrong then all magazines need scrapping don't they? Female editors instructing female photographers to take photos of willing paid females will all lose their jobs because apparently women can't make decisions for themselves. Utterly ridiculous.

 

Just a point on the gender pay gap that is starting to hit the news company by company and seems to have mired the BBC down in particular...

The measure being reported that the government have made mandatory is truly ridiculous and doesn't provide an accurate assessment at all. Firstly, the figures are dated to 5th April 2017 so are already well out of date and don't take account of the shift the last 9 months or so. But more importantly, they don't compare like for like roles. So for example, lets say a company has lots of part time roles which have been naturally filled by women, and lots of full time roles that are naturally filled by men, the gender pay gap data would suggest their is a huge issue.

Granted you could say where are more women not working in the typically male roles and vice versa, but that's a separate point. A lot of companies, wrongly, are going to be perceived to pay women much less for the same job as men, when the data isn't capturing that.

Try and even out pay discrimination absolutely... but don't create distortion that isn't as bad as its portrayed because of a ridiculous formula to calculate the gender pay gap stats.

 

It's sexist though, if you want true equality they should be pit people and gender should not come into it.

Remember, equality means coming down to the lowest level, not the highest.

 

It also doesn't take into account how many women are paid different to other women. In fact in all the articles and interviews I've seen with a woman moaning that she isn't paid as much as a man I've never seen them say ''nd it's disgraceful that I'm paid more than Sharon'. That's forgotten about isn't it.

What about all the men who are paid less than another man because they have different experience levels of are simply not as good at negotiations when they got the job?

 

Employing a female isn't sexist. Women can face in formula one. They can be mechanics they can be team principles. Men HAVE been grid boys. Was that sexist? Why is employing a woman to do something she enjoys sexist?

 

Let's not forget that there have been poor practices and discrimination and opaque rewards in many organisations. And if skills and experience are used to distinguish reward, that's fair. what isn't fair is to use gender, sexuality or ethnicity to decide how much someone is to be paid.

I welcome the sentiment of equality, I don't welcome a ridiculous way of calculating it that will create hostility in some companies that have an imbalance of job roles at this time.

 

It does appear that our age of enlightenment is at a close, where hard fought for freedoms are to be controlled now by a mixture of Prudes, Religious Zealots and "Feminazis". I remember at work a few years ago I had a Dali calendar on my desk wall and one month just so happened to have a picture of his Wife's bum if you looked really, really closely. Nevertheless I was told to take it down less I offended some mythical person, who can never actually be found.

 

Wasn't a former US president a Cheerleader, or did I imagine it. The Dubb, I believe

 

I'd not call this political correctness, I'd call it puritanical. And bloody stupid.

 

I feel sorry for the girls who due to Nature have been blessed with good looks and who now find themselves out of "work".
The up side of it is they'll now have time to put the kettle on and get some hoovering done.

 

May as well become a communist state, u can't fart in the wrong place, including on here! Lololol

 

That's not communism.

 

Should they measure the gender pay gap based on hourly rate? If the women are working on average 3 days per week at £x per hour, and the men in the same role are working 5 days per week at £y per hour, then £x should trend towards £y for people in the same role, even if the men are earning 2/3 more for working the extra hours.

 

I would agree. It's more a behaviour of totalitarian state than a communist one.

 

What I meant was that the people doing the same job should be on a similar hour rate. The two chartered engineers should be paid £x +/-% to account for skills, qualifications, experience, etc. irrespective of the gender of the people doing the role. Same with admin, accounts, call handlers, or any other job role within any organization. Yes, women will often do part-time jobs, these are often lower-skilled and lower-salaried, but a 30 year old man with five years in the role should be paid the same hourly rate as his female colleague with exact the same experience.

 

If they want to do it properly rather than typical lip service, yes, it should be compared like for like. Would be more complex to calculate, but it would be accurate. I know a lot of companies who have been doing huge amounts to change their structures and bring more diversity into their organisations and bridge parity that may have existed. This is going to create a lot of anger in companies as the figures are so misleading. PT and FT have to be separate, and if they at least broke into categories to try and make it more meaningful and accurate.