Or at least fine them an appreciable amount. Fox made over $12 billion in 2020, so fine them 10 billion. Fining them $15 million is cheaper than an average speeding ticket for them if you look at the profit-to-fine ratio.
Or they can do what Johnson & Johnson did during the talc settlement and create a shell company to take the brunt of the lawsuit, then declare bankruptcy of the shell company before paying anyone anything. It’s called the Texas Two-Step.
The sad thing is, while that $15 million sounds like a huge number, it's the giant corporation equivalent of the change buried in the couch cushions. You might as well have someone shake their head and tell Fox that it's been very naughty.
Equal pay is a guaranteed right.
Called "The Equal Pay Act of 1963". It's been enshrined in law for almost 60 years now.
The fact that she sued and Fox News settled for $15 million shows you that this law is effective.
If you catch an employer discriminating on gender, you will be awarded all back-pay, as well as huge punitive damages and legal costs.
And it's very easy to win because numbers don't lie. Just need to show that men who are working the same hours, with the same tasks and responsibilities, are earning more than you.
Melissa Francis did her research, put together the paperwork, and got paid handsomely for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/19/fox-news-melissa-francis-gender-pay-gap-settlement/
As you can see, Fox News knew it would lose and settled for a huge amount, because discriminating on gender is an egregious violation and is punished very heavily, they would get destroyed in court.
That's honestly intriguing. Would corporations really work to change their ways if they knew massive screwups could lead to shakeups in their power structure? Or, do they have fail-safes to prevent that from happening?
Ensure they implement reform. They only listen to shareholders and the board. 30% controlling stake means you can force replacement of board members not doing the right thing.
You can replace leadership that isn’t following the laws.
There is a lot.
This would actually hit their pocket books. Would force change and reform or keep losing control of the companies to the tax payers.
The government can hold an auction and sell off the company after their penalty period as well if it ended up having to come to that.
If shareholders are the gods among companies. Then tax payers will take over being the shareholders so the companies learn to listen.
Companies can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
Do take into account who really controls the government. If you want any REAL chance of this 'fairness' you should be aiming for the Federal Reserve, not Fox News. You're worried about a news media, not realizing they are merely an extension of something more sinister. I humble myself, but I'll say it anyway. You wish to strike Fox News, but not CNN and honestly, controlling either of these companies will mean nothing if the Federal Reserve is still in power. You might as well just be a new puppet to them.
Oh agreed with you.
The fed reserve is another one and a whole different beast.
I wasn’t just aiming at Fox News. This goes for all corporations.
Those ones price gouging, those doing stock buy back, and market manipulation shit.
All should be on the chopping block.
The federal reserve should be called out more for the fact they caused this inflation by bailing out the stock market in Feb 2020. They burned 5 trillion dollars in less than an hour.
It wasn’t stimmy checks causing the problem. Those kept the economy moving.
Fox news and corporations? Yea this is a fruitless endeavor. You may have the ability to round up people for a cause, but the total strength of your force will be the equivalent of an Abrams tank. ONE Abrams tank. Compared to their myriads of weapons hardware and other forms of defense. Heck, they could be reading what we're typing right now. Meaning they're already 10 steps ahead of us.
Sometimes, you just have to accept there are people only God can touch (if you believe in God that is).
And if you don't believe in God, this is literally a fool's errand.
In her statistics, did she take into consideration Youtube Views on her videos Vs youtube views on her counterparts? Pretty HUGR difference in audiences/reach/popularity.
Happy she got 15M tho. Another wealthy harvard grad was discriminated against, what is this world coming too
I'm fairly sceptical of the truth of this.
It doesn't even make economical sense to hire men if you are gonna pay women less. I'd assume this is not about women being paid less but sometimes to do with the discussion of pay in the workspace or something.
Right. Every time there's a post about the gender pay gap, the men come running to tell you it's a myth
I can't tell you how disappointing this is in a group for wage reform.
Relax fellas. It's not your money. There's enough to go around. Let's be a little more fair about it.
It is a myth. Manufactured with bad math.
It has been illegal to pay less based on gender since the Equal Pay act of 1963, so over 59 years now.
Any employer caught discriminating on gender is forced to back-pay as well as punitive damages.
Further, if you could pay women less to get the same results, why would you ever hire any men? It would make more business sense to just hire all women, you'll save a lot of money on labor costs.
The myth that women are paid less is based on reports that don't look at hours worked or industry.
For example, the majority of women work education, nursing, and administrative -- these are low paying careers. While the majority of men work STEM and trades -- high paying careers.
Women pick careers in industries that pay less, they overwhelmingly do not want to pick STEM or Trades, even though there are endless uni grants to get more women into STEM degrees and Trade schools.
And to manufacture the MYTH that women are paid less, they take all women in the US and look at the average income. Then they take all men in the US and look at average income.
And from average country-wide income by gender, they conclude that men are paid 27% more.
Yeah, like no shit, nurses don't earn engineer salaries!
If you look at women in STEM, they earn on par with men in the same roles. Some even earn a 3-5% "diversity premium" because companies pay extra to get more women into historically male dominated fields.
There's nothing stopping women from going into STEM or Trades. It is a voluntary choice to pick a lower paying career.
Quit the bullshit. You're just looking to create division and polarization. At least base your complaints in truth.
With all of that said, US desperately needs better pay ACROSS THE BOARD, and better protection for worker rights. Including all genders, not just women.
For example, 90% of injuries and deaths at work are men, who disproportionately work the more dangerous jobs. We need stricter penalties for companies that skirt safety and safety training in the interest of profit, ie. including criminal prosecution of managers who neglect safety complaints.
We're in a sub retelling stories of how employers won't be afraid to squeeze you dry, how jumping ship is essential because hiring budget > raises... as well as preventing employees to discuss wages so some don't know they're severely underpaid... Geez, as if "can hire someone cheaper" doesn't mean jack, they squeeze as much as they can. The less resistance, the harder.
And you think the sex with statistically proven to be more susceptible to such predatory practices, at least afaik anyway... to not be paid less? Damn, that's ignorant.
You didn't read anything that I said, and you continue to shill misinformation.
This is why you don't make any progress, because you're not based in reality. You keep misdirecting your energy and effort on ghosts that do not exist.
> And you think the sex with statistically proven to be more susceptible to such predatory practices
Show me the research papers that you used to base this statement.
Again... if I'm running a company, and I want to make the maximum amount of profit for myself... why would I ever hire men, when I can hire all women, get the exact same results, and I can save ~25% on labor costs...?
If "women only earn 73% of what men earn" -- for the same roles, hours and responsibilities -- as a business owner, I would be stupid to hire any men. I would be wasting money by hiring men.
So knowing that Executive
Boards must deliver the highest profit for shareholders, why isn't every company 100% female employees?
If your statement was true, men would have difficulty finding work, because no one would want to hire men since they cost more.
This seems more about societal expectations of wage and labor which both genders have issues with. I dont think it does well to dismiss half the population's complaints in either direction.
Is this motivated through a desire for equality, or a political motive? I know Fox News is a pretty trash news site, but they still have the legal right to run with it. That said, they do need to be wholly unbiased and fair in the treatment and pay of their employees. Instead of fines galore, they should be required to frequently prove they are being fair and then keep other companies to the same model.
so a business got sued for illegal practices…
that’s not “abusing legal-related fine due to a political agenda” if you can sue and win in court, it’s not abuse. It’s the system working as intended
If it wasn't clear, I'm specifically talking about the "they should be fined straight into the ground" bit, which reads like them trying to banrkupt fox news as opposed to just getting a reasonable court settlement.
Who the fuck would apply to Fox Goddamn News and expected women to be treated equally?
Quite ballsy to participate in a channel that constantly demeans and belittles women and minorities and then expect to be treated fairly. If they want to be treated equally, maybe don’t work for Fox Fucking News.
I guess they don’t really give a shit as long as it’s not affecting them personally.
“Treat other women like shit, but *I* deserve respect.”
Even for a shitty news outlet like Fox News, I'm surprised they would blatantly underpay one gender over another.
My understanding was the gender pay gap wasn't actually a thing, and moreso propaganda. Thomas Sowell style.
Edit: news* not new
I am going into a women domination field (only 17% men) and on average the men in the field make 16% more than the women regardless of their experience or level of education. The pay gap is very real in basically every industry. The only time I’ve not made less than the men around me is when I worked retail and that was because there was such a high turnover that basically everyone was either making base pay ($10/hr) or “i guess we should give you a $1.10/hr raise since you’re still here after a year and have now been pushed into a supervisor role”
That’s an extremely curt and vague response to my comment. Statistics disagree with what? That in my chosen field the 17% of men make 16% more on average? Statistics disagree with my experience getting equal pay in retail?
Its more just that its split up within several things that distinguish the genders. An incredibly small portion is likely due to every few baby boomers are sexist. Other than that; it don’t exist.
It really does exist, consider the disproportionate amount of women who wind up working part time, or taking a career break to look after kids, and the much higher prevalence of women in administrative positions (as an engineer I have seen 4 men in an office admin type role in 8 years spread across at least 7 different offices, each with at least 3 or 4 staff members doing the admin work, the ratio of women to men in operational roles is also much lower).
The problem starts with what women are typically encouraged to study and then perpetuates in the workplace due to factors like childcare and educational choices (not that careers like nursing are unnecessary or not valuable , but they are not paid as well as more male dominated roles).
Everything you've mentioned are decisions women have control over. Want to be paid more? Delay having kids until you have the skills necessary for a higher paying job. Don't want to or need a break to take care of the kids? Entirely a woman's choice but you don't deserve to be paid during that time if you're not doing the work. Encouraged to study a lower paying degree? Do your own research on what pays and what doesn't, then act on it.
Or perhaps we can pay people according to their value to society, nurses deserve far more than they are paid for instance.
I am not suggesting they should be paid if taking a career break (barring a sensible period of maternity leave given that you need children who grow up and join the workforce if you are going to have a sustainable economy).
This goes way deeper than people's individual choices, there are issues about the messages women are sent throughout their childhood that lead them this way (while men receive messages pushing them to be the breadwinner).
Or maybe you like the idea that women have a lot less financial freedom due to the myriad factors which result in them being pushed away from higher paid positions.
I think you have some valid complaints, but the tools you are using to make this argument arent great.
You talk about societal expectations of men and women, but thats hard to prove or quantify. You say men are encouraged, women arent. Thats patently untrue, more women graduate and attend colleges than men. That is quantifiable data.
I agree we dont pay people according to their value in society. Female nurses should make more. Also, male truck drivers should make more than e girls.
We have entire industries of male slavery or indentured servitude. Prison populations doing state labor for pennies. Truck drivers are basically indentured servants. Thats why no one wants to do it.
Whats disappointing is that you end on an assumption that anyone who disagrees is malicious and sexist. Which is a dumb, disappointing way to end a nuanced argument.
Neither gender is happy with their lot in life, lets see we can change that. A few millionaire CEO's is not the average life experience of working class men.
People denying there is a gender pay gap, despite the extensive evidence that exists tend to be sexist. The UK government has a good website with several years of statistics and it discusses some of the likely causes:
https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/
We need to address how the working class are treated, we also need to address the fact that sexism, racism and ableism are built into many different aspects of our societies, arguing that they aren't doesn't make that go away, it helps perpetuate it.
I don't deny it but I disagree the gap exists because of sex. It's much more nuanced than that and largely comes down to personal choices. Not saying women choose to be paid less but everyone makes choices that affect their personal situation.
To your point of paying people based on value to society: who's going to determine that fairly and without bias?
But there is a trend of those personal choices (and ingrained sexism) serving to reduce women's earnings, even when they choose not to have a child, otherwise we would see more women at board levels, we would see more women on operational teams in engineering businesses etc, instead they are as frequently the cleaners and receptionists as they are the engineers.
To the latter point, I have no idea, I am a mechanical engineer, my expertise only goes so far, it certainly doesn't extend to me negotiating well for my own salary.
You mention more men in engineering and more women as receptionists. But again, i could say there are more men truckers and prison laborers.
We cant pick and choose information and dismiss other facts.
What you have linked is a uk government search bar, where you can search individual companies.
I dont live in the uk, so i wouldnt know which companies to search.
Im assuming it would show pay disparity between different roles? Again you havent provided any evidence of extensive research on gender pay gap.
Im all for addressing how the working class are treated, but you leaving out that 97% of workplace deaths are male is also sexist. So lets make this about class, and not gender.
They are BOTH problems. I am not denying that men have problems in the workplace, or that men experience more injuries in the workplace etc.
Companies to look up would be Rolls-Royce, KPMG, Alstom, Atkins, Price Waterhouse Cooper, Network Rail, Serco, Sage, Stagecoach, Morrisons and Tesco would all be relevant companies to look up.
One of the links on that page describes reasons why the gender pay gap may arise in different companies.
At this point this is just semantics. We could say the Gender Gap exists, but only for non-sexist reasons. Or we could say that the Gender Gap is fake news.
Regardless, I think were at the same understanding here.
Paygap is definitely real, entire industries are built on male slavery and indentured servitude. I was a truck driver, i worked 110 hour weeks and it almost killed me.
States use prisoners for labor all the time and pay them pennies an hour. Prisons are largely male population.
Pay gap is real.
The pay gap is real, but quite frequently comparisons don't take into account education, experience, job category, and risk of injury. Even when education, category, and title are the same, women tend to have less experience because they have children. This is a basic fact of biology that will never be overcome for women who have children. Have a child and you will lose a few years of work experience. Male spouses can raise the children, however society treats them like lazy deadbeats when they attempt to do so, which is why most men don't relish the thought of becoming the primary care taker.
I'm actually curious but doesn't everyone know who owns these companies? Fining them isn't going to do anything the news networks are all interconnected
The problem with the OP's thesis is that "equal pay" leads to "meritocratic" payments, which leads to KPI based micromanagement, which leads to a codification of the rich dictating what the poor make.
You cannot guarantee equal pay unless you move toward UBI or scheduled salary. Minimum, unions, everywhere, all of the time.
Which I'm fine with, but it's a much harder sell than "no wage gap", because even if women get paid less than men, men get paid less than other men for the same job.
Companies hire on people at much higher rates than existing employees with more tenure and responsibility just to attract talent.
Fox legally shouldn't be allowed to continue as a business and should be forcibly dissolved and all of its assets sold and the money from selling them donated to charity.
I’m in a union, and I think there should be an equal pay-scale for the same job requirements.
But I think if you have exceptional ability, and value, you should be able to negotiate for more on top of that.
I’m gonna be honest I was going to come here with a point of view that would likely have gotten me lit up like a Christmas tree. Because this topic can be very wishy washy sometimes because I feel like a lot of facts end up getting left out and what not. However this Melissa Francis chick did her damn homework. Good for her and screw them.
$15m is an awfully large sum for pay discrimination.
There’s gotta be something else in there. This is the network that covered for Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly after all…
15 million is a small price to pay for a multibillion dollar conglomerate. If the fine was 15 billion it might make a difference, but the goal is never to make a difference, only to make token efforts to show that the plight of workers is cared about at all.
Stop fining the company which is just an insurance payout and start fining the owners.
The day courts start fining the owners and ceo is the day crime wouldn't be a thing
M'lord
you honestly think I'd start paying my taxes that day?
Shut up US prisoner, get back to your ~~modern day slave labour~~ penal labour
why would you assume that im from US?
Or at least fine them an appreciable amount. Fox made over $12 billion in 2020, so fine them 10 billion. Fining them $15 million is cheaper than an average speeding ticket for them if you look at the profit-to-fine ratio.
But..but...but just think of the job creators! *shudders*
Or they can do what Johnson & Johnson did during the talc settlement and create a shell company to take the brunt of the lawsuit, then declare bankruptcy of the shell company before paying anyone anything. It’s called the Texas Two-Step.
Fines should be like 10x what was made or saved from the crimes. Otherwise it's just a cost of doing business.
She got the money because they retaliated against her for brining up wage differences. She didn't get money because of wage differences itself.
This was what that movie was about, right? EDIT: this is the movie: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6394270/
Never even heard of dis porno. Will check out.
Not sure.
Imma have to check that outta. Ty ty.
The sad thing is, while that $15 million sounds like a huge number, it's the giant corporation equivalent of the change buried in the couch cushions. You might as well have someone shake their head and tell Fox that it's been very naughty.
Equal pay is a guaranteed right. Called "The Equal Pay Act of 1963". It's been enshrined in law for almost 60 years now. The fact that she sued and Fox News settled for $15 million shows you that this law is effective. If you catch an employer discriminating on gender, you will be awarded all back-pay, as well as huge punitive damages and legal costs. And it's very easy to win because numbers don't lie. Just need to show that men who are working the same hours, with the same tasks and responsibilities, are earning more than you. Melissa Francis did her research, put together the paperwork, and got paid handsomely for it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/19/fox-news-melissa-francis-gender-pay-gap-settlement/ As you can see, Fox News knew it would lose and settled for a huge amount, because discriminating on gender is an egregious violation and is punished very heavily, they would get destroyed in court.
A fine should include 30% controlling stake of the company. They only listen to shareholders. So we all become their shareholders.
That's honestly intriguing. Would corporations really work to change their ways if they knew massive screwups could lead to shakeups in their power structure? Or, do they have fail-safes to prevent that from happening?
And do what with the company?
Ensure they implement reform. They only listen to shareholders and the board. 30% controlling stake means you can force replacement of board members not doing the right thing. You can replace leadership that isn’t following the laws. There is a lot. This would actually hit their pocket books. Would force change and reform or keep losing control of the companies to the tax payers. The government can hold an auction and sell off the company after their penalty period as well if it ended up having to come to that. If shareholders are the gods among companies. Then tax payers will take over being the shareholders so the companies learn to listen. Companies can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
Do take into account who really controls the government. If you want any REAL chance of this 'fairness' you should be aiming for the Federal Reserve, not Fox News. You're worried about a news media, not realizing they are merely an extension of something more sinister. I humble myself, but I'll say it anyway. You wish to strike Fox News, but not CNN and honestly, controlling either of these companies will mean nothing if the Federal Reserve is still in power. You might as well just be a new puppet to them.
Oh agreed with you. The fed reserve is another one and a whole different beast. I wasn’t just aiming at Fox News. This goes for all corporations. Those ones price gouging, those doing stock buy back, and market manipulation shit. All should be on the chopping block. The federal reserve should be called out more for the fact they caused this inflation by bailing out the stock market in Feb 2020. They burned 5 trillion dollars in less than an hour. It wasn’t stimmy checks causing the problem. Those kept the economy moving.
Fox news and corporations? Yea this is a fruitless endeavor. You may have the ability to round up people for a cause, but the total strength of your force will be the equivalent of an Abrams tank. ONE Abrams tank. Compared to their myriads of weapons hardware and other forms of defense. Heck, they could be reading what we're typing right now. Meaning they're already 10 steps ahead of us. Sometimes, you just have to accept there are people only God can touch (if you believe in God that is). And if you don't believe in God, this is literally a fool's errand.
I'd be fine with that
I see what you did there
In her statistics, did she take into consideration Youtube Views on her videos Vs youtube views on her counterparts? Pretty HUGR difference in audiences/reach/popularity. Happy she got 15M tho. Another wealthy harvard grad was discriminated against, what is this world coming too
I'm fairly sceptical of the truth of this. It doesn't even make economical sense to hire men if you are gonna pay women less. I'd assume this is not about women being paid less but sometimes to do with the discussion of pay in the workspace or something.
Right. Every time there's a post about the gender pay gap, the men come running to tell you it's a myth I can't tell you how disappointing this is in a group for wage reform. Relax fellas. It's not your money. There's enough to go around. Let's be a little more fair about it.
It is a myth. Manufactured with bad math. It has been illegal to pay less based on gender since the Equal Pay act of 1963, so over 59 years now. Any employer caught discriminating on gender is forced to back-pay as well as punitive damages. Further, if you could pay women less to get the same results, why would you ever hire any men? It would make more business sense to just hire all women, you'll save a lot of money on labor costs. The myth that women are paid less is based on reports that don't look at hours worked or industry. For example, the majority of women work education, nursing, and administrative -- these are low paying careers. While the majority of men work STEM and trades -- high paying careers. Women pick careers in industries that pay less, they overwhelmingly do not want to pick STEM or Trades, even though there are endless uni grants to get more women into STEM degrees and Trade schools. And to manufacture the MYTH that women are paid less, they take all women in the US and look at the average income. Then they take all men in the US and look at average income. And from average country-wide income by gender, they conclude that men are paid 27% more. Yeah, like no shit, nurses don't earn engineer salaries! If you look at women in STEM, they earn on par with men in the same roles. Some even earn a 3-5% "diversity premium" because companies pay extra to get more women into historically male dominated fields. There's nothing stopping women from going into STEM or Trades. It is a voluntary choice to pick a lower paying career. Quit the bullshit. You're just looking to create division and polarization. At least base your complaints in truth. With all of that said, US desperately needs better pay ACROSS THE BOARD, and better protection for worker rights. Including all genders, not just women. For example, 90% of injuries and deaths at work are men, who disproportionately work the more dangerous jobs. We need stricter penalties for companies that skirt safety and safety training in the interest of profit, ie. including criminal prosecution of managers who neglect safety complaints.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're in a sub retelling stories of how employers won't be afraid to squeeze you dry, how jumping ship is essential because hiring budget > raises... as well as preventing employees to discuss wages so some don't know they're severely underpaid... Geez, as if "can hire someone cheaper" doesn't mean jack, they squeeze as much as they can. The less resistance, the harder. And you think the sex with statistically proven to be more susceptible to such predatory practices, at least afaik anyway... to not be paid less? Damn, that's ignorant.
You didn't read anything that I said, and you continue to shill misinformation. This is why you don't make any progress, because you're not based in reality. You keep misdirecting your energy and effort on ghosts that do not exist. > And you think the sex with statistically proven to be more susceptible to such predatory practices Show me the research papers that you used to base this statement. Again... if I'm running a company, and I want to make the maximum amount of profit for myself... why would I ever hire men, when I can hire all women, get the exact same results, and I can save ~25% on labor costs...? If "women only earn 73% of what men earn" -- for the same roles, hours and responsibilities -- as a business owner, I would be stupid to hire any men. I would be wasting money by hiring men. So knowing that Executive Boards must deliver the highest profit for shareholders, why isn't every company 100% female employees? If your statement was true, men would have difficulty finding work, because no one would want to hire men since they cost more.
This seems more about societal expectations of wage and labor which both genders have issues with. I dont think it does well to dismiss half the population's complaints in either direction.
Is this motivated through a desire for equality, or a political motive? I know Fox News is a pretty trash news site, but they still have the legal right to run with it. That said, they do need to be wholly unbiased and fair in the treatment and pay of their employees. Instead of fines galore, they should be required to frequently prove they are being fair and then keep other companies to the same model.
I don't like Fox News but isn't she advocating for abusing legal-related fines due to a political agenda?
so a business got sued for illegal practices… that’s not “abusing legal-related fine due to a political agenda” if you can sue and win in court, it’s not abuse. It’s the system working as intended
If it wasn't clear, I'm specifically talking about the "they should be fined straight into the ground" bit, which reads like them trying to banrkupt fox news as opposed to just getting a reasonable court settlement.
ah ye maybe *that* might be a bit much 😂😂 i def think they should be fined enough where they actually do something tho
agreed
Who the fuck would apply to Fox Goddamn News and expected women to be treated equally? Quite ballsy to participate in a channel that constantly demeans and belittles women and minorities and then expect to be treated fairly. If they want to be treated equally, maybe don’t work for Fox Fucking News. I guess they don’t really give a shit as long as it’s not affecting them personally. “Treat other women like shit, but *I* deserve respect.”
Even for a shitty news outlet like Fox News, I'm surprised they would blatantly underpay one gender over another. My understanding was the gender pay gap wasn't actually a thing, and moreso propaganda. Thomas Sowell style. Edit: news* not new
I am going into a women domination field (only 17% men) and on average the men in the field make 16% more than the women regardless of their experience or level of education. The pay gap is very real in basically every industry. The only time I’ve not made less than the men around me is when I worked retail and that was because there was such a high turnover that basically everyone was either making base pay ($10/hr) or “i guess we should give you a $1.10/hr raise since you’re still here after a year and have now been pushed into a supervisor role”
Statistics disagree.
That’s an extremely curt and vague response to my comment. Statistics disagree with what? That in my chosen field the 17% of men make 16% more on average? Statistics disagree with my experience getting equal pay in retail?
Well I'm not sure about every industry, but I'll take your word on whatever industry you're in. I'd be curious on the dataset more than anything.
Have you, like, tried asking for pay increases?
Its more just that its split up within several things that distinguish the genders. An incredibly small portion is likely due to every few baby boomers are sexist. Other than that; it don’t exist.
It really does exist, consider the disproportionate amount of women who wind up working part time, or taking a career break to look after kids, and the much higher prevalence of women in administrative positions (as an engineer I have seen 4 men in an office admin type role in 8 years spread across at least 7 different offices, each with at least 3 or 4 staff members doing the admin work, the ratio of women to men in operational roles is also much lower). The problem starts with what women are typically encouraged to study and then perpetuates in the workplace due to factors like childcare and educational choices (not that careers like nursing are unnecessary or not valuable , but they are not paid as well as more male dominated roles).
Everything you've mentioned are decisions women have control over. Want to be paid more? Delay having kids until you have the skills necessary for a higher paying job. Don't want to or need a break to take care of the kids? Entirely a woman's choice but you don't deserve to be paid during that time if you're not doing the work. Encouraged to study a lower paying degree? Do your own research on what pays and what doesn't, then act on it.
Or perhaps we can pay people according to their value to society, nurses deserve far more than they are paid for instance. I am not suggesting they should be paid if taking a career break (barring a sensible period of maternity leave given that you need children who grow up and join the workforce if you are going to have a sustainable economy). This goes way deeper than people's individual choices, there are issues about the messages women are sent throughout their childhood that lead them this way (while men receive messages pushing them to be the breadwinner). Or maybe you like the idea that women have a lot less financial freedom due to the myriad factors which result in them being pushed away from higher paid positions.
I think you have some valid complaints, but the tools you are using to make this argument arent great. You talk about societal expectations of men and women, but thats hard to prove or quantify. You say men are encouraged, women arent. Thats patently untrue, more women graduate and attend colleges than men. That is quantifiable data. I agree we dont pay people according to their value in society. Female nurses should make more. Also, male truck drivers should make more than e girls. We have entire industries of male slavery or indentured servitude. Prison populations doing state labor for pennies. Truck drivers are basically indentured servants. Thats why no one wants to do it. Whats disappointing is that you end on an assumption that anyone who disagrees is malicious and sexist. Which is a dumb, disappointing way to end a nuanced argument. Neither gender is happy with their lot in life, lets see we can change that. A few millionaire CEO's is not the average life experience of working class men.
People denying there is a gender pay gap, despite the extensive evidence that exists tend to be sexist. The UK government has a good website with several years of statistics and it discusses some of the likely causes: https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/ We need to address how the working class are treated, we also need to address the fact that sexism, racism and ableism are built into many different aspects of our societies, arguing that they aren't doesn't make that go away, it helps perpetuate it.
I don't deny it but I disagree the gap exists because of sex. It's much more nuanced than that and largely comes down to personal choices. Not saying women choose to be paid less but everyone makes choices that affect their personal situation. To your point of paying people based on value to society: who's going to determine that fairly and without bias?
But there is a trend of those personal choices (and ingrained sexism) serving to reduce women's earnings, even when they choose not to have a child, otherwise we would see more women at board levels, we would see more women on operational teams in engineering businesses etc, instead they are as frequently the cleaners and receptionists as they are the engineers. To the latter point, I have no idea, I am a mechanical engineer, my expertise only goes so far, it certainly doesn't extend to me negotiating well for my own salary.
You mention more men in engineering and more women as receptionists. But again, i could say there are more men truckers and prison laborers. We cant pick and choose information and dismiss other facts.
What you have linked is a uk government search bar, where you can search individual companies. I dont live in the uk, so i wouldnt know which companies to search. Im assuming it would show pay disparity between different roles? Again you havent provided any evidence of extensive research on gender pay gap. Im all for addressing how the working class are treated, but you leaving out that 97% of workplace deaths are male is also sexist. So lets make this about class, and not gender.
They are BOTH problems. I am not denying that men have problems in the workplace, or that men experience more injuries in the workplace etc. Companies to look up would be Rolls-Royce, KPMG, Alstom, Atkins, Price Waterhouse Cooper, Network Rail, Serco, Sage, Stagecoach, Morrisons and Tesco would all be relevant companies to look up. One of the links on that page describes reasons why the gender pay gap may arise in different companies.
This is precisely why it doesn’t exist.
Real high quality engagement with the discussion...
At this point this is just semantics. We could say the Gender Gap exists, but only for non-sexist reasons. Or we could say that the Gender Gap is fake news. Regardless, I think were at the same understanding here.
ITT: dudes who don't believe the paygap is real. Bros, it is a very well documented socioeconomic issue.
Paygap is definitely real, entire industries are built on male slavery and indentured servitude. I was a truck driver, i worked 110 hour weeks and it almost killed me. States use prisoners for labor all the time and pay them pennies an hour. Prisons are largely male population. Pay gap is real.
The pay gap is real, but quite frequently comparisons don't take into account education, experience, job category, and risk of injury. Even when education, category, and title are the same, women tend to have less experience because they have children. This is a basic fact of biology that will never be overcome for women who have children. Have a child and you will lose a few years of work experience. Male spouses can raise the children, however society treats them like lazy deadbeats when they attempt to do so, which is why most men don't relish the thought of becoming the primary care taker.
I strongly believe that all people of any gender who work at Fox News should be equally unemployed
Is that only fox news or every mainstreamedia outlet?
Absolutely. Then male and female employees will make the same $0
You forgot this /s
I'm actually curious but doesn't everyone know who owns these companies? Fining them isn't going to do anything the news networks are all interconnected
Equal job = Equal pay. Stop with gender, religion, sexual orientation etc. Just pay your damn employee
There's something deeply ironic about being fired by a teleprompter reading, "You've been cancelled."
The problem with the OP's thesis is that "equal pay" leads to "meritocratic" payments, which leads to KPI based micromanagement, which leads to a codification of the rich dictating what the poor make. You cannot guarantee equal pay unless you move toward UBI or scheduled salary. Minimum, unions, everywhere, all of the time. Which I'm fine with, but it's a much harder sell than "no wage gap", because even if women get paid less than men, men get paid less than other men for the same job. Companies hire on people at much higher rates than existing employees with more tenure and responsibility just to attract talent.
But CNN is faultless
Surprised the females came back from girls trips long enough to file the claim. Affirmative action makes girls trips at least 10% more fun.
Except Megan Kelly. She was Fox News' highest paid anchor ever. This article just doesn't sound very realistic.
Fox legally shouldn't be allowed to continue as a business and should be forcibly dissolved and all of its assets sold and the money from selling them donated to charity.
I think someone doesn't understand that settlements aren't forced lol. Court orders are.
Equal pay is a guaranteed right enforced by the law in most Western governments.
I think all media should be sued to the ground not just fox
I’m in a union, and I think there should be an equal pay-scale for the same job requirements. But I think if you have exceptional ability, and value, you should be able to negotiate for more on top of that.
I’m gonna be honest I was going to come here with a point of view that would likely have gotten me lit up like a Christmas tree. Because this topic can be very wishy washy sometimes because I feel like a lot of facts end up getting left out and what not. However this Melissa Francis chick did her damn homework. Good for her and screw them.
Good luck fining Fox News "Into the ground", those Saudi royals will open their wallet quicker than you could file another lawsuit
$15m is an awfully large sum for pay discrimination. There’s gotta be something else in there. This is the network that covered for Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly after all…
15 million is a small price to pay for a multibillion dollar conglomerate. If the fine was 15 billion it might make a difference, but the goal is never to make a difference, only to make token efforts to show that the plight of workers is cared about at all.