Simon Howard berates the Equal Opportunities Commission for a simplistic view of the gender pay gap, and for its own composition
One of the (many) advantages of writing for The Grocer is that it has seen fit to supply you with a 9ins cut-out of me. This means that, along with my mother, you can see what a nice boy I am and that clearly I would help the infirm across the road, give up my seat for (heavily pregnant) women on the Tube and would only ever spit in the eyes of fools. Or more accurately spit in the eyes of meddling busybodies.
And which busying body has caused the bile to rise up with such vehemence? Why, the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has recently launched its ‘Time to get even’ campaign, inciting women to get even with their employers because average female earnings are less than those of men.
The commission launched the campaign in mid-January with posters such as ‘You were cheap from day one’ and ‘What’s a nice girl like you doing in a pay gap like this?’, accompanied by beer mats (thoughtfully also available in Welsh) which disgruntled women can send away for. These depict a fake payslip with the deduction ‘For being a woman: £559.01’ which also formed part of a leaflet handed out to women on their way to work.
Now, one thing I’m not is misogynist - a quick read of my December Careers File (The Grocer, December 6, p60) will prove that - but I do tire of entrenched activists who fail to see that the world has moved on and who make spurious comparisons in order to argue their corner. As it happens the retail industry is held up as one of the worst sectors in the gender pay gap, with male retail managers earning 32.4% more than their women counterparts. You naughty lot you.
However, it’s not that simple. First, by lumping retail and wholesale managers together, some wide variations are being included. For example, this takes in all high street stores where units are typically small.
There are more smaller stores than bigger ones and they have more managers earning smaller salaries. And, because in many of the high street sectors women are over-represented, the figures will, of course, be skewed.
Another simple reason is that women in retail management positions are typically younger than their male counterparts and so do not yet enjoy a seniority premium. This is true in many management and professional roles, and was highlighted in that December Careers File. Income Data Services also makes that point in its most recent report, while also reporting a slight narrowing in the gender pay gap and finding that female retail cashiers and check-out operators actually earn more than men.
But that’s not to say there aren’t problems. In the grocery trade there is a particular challenge in getting women managers back to work after maternity - not least because of the unsocial and family-unfriendly nature of the hours worked. Indeed, on the wholesaling and logistics side of the industry, the need for shift working is also a challenge to employers, as young families and rotating shifts are not easy to combine.
I’m sure there will be some employers out there whom the law would find guilty of unequal pay. But are there really enough to justify such a hectoring campaign from the commission?
Some of you might recall that it wasn’t so long ago that the commission reported that the number of complaints of job discrimination from men had overtaken those from women.
So why now should we witness this renewed1970s-style unreconstructed feminism by the commission?
Well, perhaps one clue is its makeup. The offices of chair, deputy chair and chief executive are all (white) women and of the 12 commissioners, only three are men.
Strikes me the commission should become a little more equal itself before it starts any more busybodying using taxpayers’ money.
Yes, work with employers to identify problem areas and advise on how they should be resolved, but inciting employees to get even in this manner is no fit use of public money and inevitably tars every employer with the same brush.
But then I guess that’s what they call equality.
n Simon Howard is a founder of Work Communications and writes the Jobfile column for the Sunday Times.
One of the (many) advantages of writing for The Grocer is that it has seen fit to supply you with a 9ins cut-out of me. This means that, along with my mother, you can see what a nice boy I am and that clearly I would help the infirm across the road, give up my seat for (heavily pregnant) women on the Tube and would only ever spit in the eyes of fools. Or more accurately spit in the eyes of meddling busybodies.
And which busying body has caused the bile to rise up with such vehemence? Why, the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has recently launched its ‘Time to get even’ campaign, inciting women to get even with their employers because average female earnings are less than those of men.
The commission launched the campaign in mid-January with posters such as ‘You were cheap from day one’ and ‘What’s a nice girl like you doing in a pay gap like this?’, accompanied by beer mats (thoughtfully also available in Welsh) which disgruntled women can send away for. These depict a fake payslip with the deduction ‘For being a woman: £559.01’ which also formed part of a leaflet handed out to women on their way to work.
Now, one thing I’m not is misogynist - a quick read of my December Careers File (The Grocer, December 6, p60) will prove that - but I do tire of entrenched activists who fail to see that the world has moved on and who make spurious comparisons in order to argue their corner. As it happens the retail industry is held up as one of the worst sectors in the gender pay gap, with male retail managers earning 32.4% more than their women counterparts. You naughty lot you.
However, it’s not that simple. First, by lumping retail and wholesale managers together, some wide variations are being included. For example, this takes in all high street stores where units are typically small.
There are more smaller stores than bigger ones and they have more managers earning smaller salaries. And, because in many of the high street sectors women are over-represented, the figures will, of course, be skewed.
Another simple reason is that women in retail management positions are typically younger than their male counterparts and so do not yet enjoy a seniority premium. This is true in many management and professional roles, and was highlighted in that December Careers File. Income Data Services also makes that point in its most recent report, while also reporting a slight narrowing in the gender pay gap and finding that female retail cashiers and check-out operators actually earn more than men.
But that’s not to say there aren’t problems. In the grocery trade there is a particular challenge in getting women managers back to work after maternity - not least because of the unsocial and family-unfriendly nature of the hours worked. Indeed, on the wholesaling and logistics side of the industry, the need for shift working is also a challenge to employers, as young families and rotating shifts are not easy to combine.
I’m sure there will be some employers out there whom the law would find guilty of unequal pay. But are there really enough to justify such a hectoring campaign from the commission?
Some of you might recall that it wasn’t so long ago that the commission reported that the number of complaints of job discrimination from men had overtaken those from women.
So why now should we witness this renewed1970s-style unreconstructed feminism by the commission?
Well, perhaps one clue is its makeup. The offices of chair, deputy chair and chief executive are all (white) women and of the 12 commissioners, only three are men.
Strikes me the commission should become a little more equal itself before it starts any more busybodying using taxpayers’ money.
Yes, work with employers to identify problem areas and advise on how they should be resolved, but inciting employees to get even in this manner is no fit use of public money and inevitably tars every employer with the same brush.
But then I guess that’s what they call equality.
No comments yet