Harriet Harman is intent on destroying fairness in British society
Dear Harriet Harman,
You might not remember this but I wrote to you back in June 2008 about the atrocious Equality Bill that you put forward as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. You and the rest of our beloved Labour government here in the UK were under the illusion that forcing companies to publish bonus payments to individual employees and banning contract secrecy clauses which forbid staff from comparing wages was somehow going to tackle the gender pay gap. Rather than admitting the completely ridiculous nature of your scheme, you’re quietly taking it a stage further while everyone focuses on the economic crisis – only this time you’re going to publish ‘league tables’ of companies with regard to pay gap between men and women.
The original notion of forcing companies to publish bonus data was plainly ridiculous. If a female employee was awarded an annual bonus of £2,000 and a male employee of the same pay grade was awarded £4,000, is that discrimination? You would presumably say it is, whereas the reality is that companies are allowed (and should always be allowed) to award bonuses on the basis of performance and it is entirely plausible that men might outperform women in certain professions in the same way that it is entirely plausible that women might outperform men in other professions. Furthermore, the number of men employed in professions that actually pay bonuses (and there aren’t many of them) is much higher than the number of women, so across the economy it is almost certain that men will get paid more in bonuses because they are more attracted to bonus-driven careers. As John Cridland from the Confederation of Business and Industry (the biggest business lobbying group in the country) pointed out back in June last year, this data would be nothing more than “symbolic figures which are out of context and confuse people” and that “raw figures were meaningless”.
Today’s revelation that companies could be “named and shamed” in league tables revealing pay inequalities between male and female employees is deeply concerning because, just like your plans from last year, it falls at the first hurdle. You are on the verge of using the Equality bill to make companies publish figures in their annual accounts showing the number of men and women in particular pay bands. What precisely would this show? Over the course of their working life, men will stay in a career longer on average because they do not take time out to have children at any point. This means it is pretty much guaranteed that in most careers, men will normally have moved into higher pay bands. Therefore, this data will provide exactly the ammunition you want to attack men in the workplace and bring in new legislation to help women instead. How terribly cynical and devisive. The fact that men get paid 17.1% more than women for full-time work is not evidence of discrimination, much as you would like to think it is. This anomaly largely reflects two factors: men don’t take as much time off to have children (remember that we only get two weeks paternity leave), and men are typically more drawn to higher-paid careers. Saying ‘men get paid more than women’ is a childish and ill-informed use of statistics aimed at disadvantaging men in the workplace. If men are found to get paid more in any company under your plans, the company would be ‘encouraged’ to accept help from agencies, unions and other groups on training and promoting female staff – which represents discrimination in its purest form.
I don’t always agree with the CBI but yet again they have hit the nail on the head by pointing out that forcing companies to produce “meaningless statistics” would do little to tackle the underlying causes of inequality, while the Federation of Small Businesses said the response was “over-prescriptive”. Lady Prosser, deputy chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, supports your measures because it will “give a good picture of which firms are lagging behind when it comes to equality [and] that’s not a good image to have and those firms will just have to do something about it if they don’t want to be embarrassed.” That is blackmail of the first degree. The real solutions to pay inequalities are simple enough. If you adopted the Conservative Party plans to allow parental leave to be divided up between parents however they choose instead of forcing mums to use up most of the leave allowance, more dads would stay at home, more mums could get back to work sooner and the real causes of pay inequality would get addressed. This might not solve the problem overnight, but it’s a hell of a lot better than discriminating against men to end discrimination against women.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
*sigh*
You can add as a PS:
1. It’s not a ‘gender’ pay gap, it’s a ‘mothers vs everyong else’ pay gap. For childless adults, there is no significant difference between men’s and women’s wages.
2. Even if it were somehow administratively possible to ensure that men and women earned the same, for a married couple with kids, what’s the big deal? Mum’s gain is Dad’s loss, and as most couples pool income and expenditure, they would be neither better nor worse off.
3. But single mothers, who are the villains of the piece would make relative gains, and childless men, who are entirely innocent in all of this would lose.
4. The biggest part of the cost of having children is the loss of the mother’s wages. So how about scrapping Child Tax Credits – that are calculated in a way as to primarily benefit single unemployed mothers, thus encouraging the very worst aspects of the Welfare State; and insterad increasing Child Benefit to a flat £25 or £30 per child per week for the first three kids in each family?
5. If an average mother with two kids does indeed earn 20% less than an average man, the extra £2,500 or £3,000 a year makes up for that shortfall.
So there we have it, with one simple administrative step, we can get rid of one of the worst aspects of The Welfare State as well as evening things up between mothers and childless adults.
How about it?
*/sigh*
This is something that really bugs me.
Many retailers and every sales firm operate a commission and basic wage.How would that work as a measure? A man in charge of A earns more than a woman in charge of B? Whats wrong with that? why should a firm have to reduce A and increase B ’s wage to meet nonsensical targets.
Once you move out of minimum pay bands how do you decide what is a similar job?
M+S always used to pay cashiers more than their rivals, say Next. Next paid more than their rivals, say Primark.
Are they discriminating against everyone or are they trying to attract and retain staff?
The Golden Age for tribunals is just around the corner.
Thanks for the input, Mark. I’m not sure whether it’s ignorance or manipulation on the part of Harriet Harman but her simplistic attitude is clearly just a ploy to lure the women voters towards Labour.
I agree that tax credits are part of the problem. Personally, I’d increase child benefit more than you suggest but only have it for two children, and also ‘front-load’ child benefit so that a greater proportion is received when a child is very young versus their teenage years.
Bill, I did read something today about the government consulting on the enormous legal implications of such a move. No doubt employment lawyers are rubbing their hands at this upcoming legislation.
I know I’m a suspicious old sod but does anyone else see this as a ruse to make business pay women to take time off to look after children (by compensating them for the lost career time) rather than providing the kind of childcare provision they’ve promised since 1997 which would allow parents of all stripes to go back to work?
“I have a dream that my little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character, but by gender and the colour of their skin.”
Extract from an inspirational speech by Harriet Harman.
Obviously a meritocrcy discriminates against those with little merit. We can’t have that, everyone should be the same, regardless of their ability. Unless they are ZaNuLab supporters in which case they can have special treatment which isn’t meritocratic at all. So, they tell us, its forced, false equality for you lot and a life of privillege for our cronies and us. What’s wrong with that?
“I’m not sure whether it’s ignorance or manipulation on the part of Harriet Harman…”
A little from column A, a little from column B…
“..does anyone else see this as a ruse to make business pay women to take time off to look after children..”
If so, then I think the unemployment figures are going to gradually skew one way, sex/age-wise. Why should businesses employ women of childbearing age if they have to pay more for them?
“Personally, I’d increase child benefit more than you suggest but only have it for two children, and also ‘front-load’ child benefit so that a greater proportion is received when a child is very young versus their teenage years.”
That’s such a sensible suggestion, it’s hard to see who could find any fault with it. Bet there’s someone, though!
Where men and women do the same job for different money there is discrimination. I have always demanded, and got, the same rate of pay as a male worked who is doing the same job.
Where I have been told that men were paid more for the same job because men are stronger and therefore more competent in certain aspect of the requirements, I have always countered by saying I would then accept the same rate of pay as weak men seeing as they would be less competent … I got the same rate of pay.
I have always belief that any child allowance (or what you now call it) should be paid for the first child, a little less for the second child, slightly less for the third and stop. Any future children born should be at the parent’s expense.
However as this is reasonable and logical I expect a chorus of outrage.
LFAT,
Harman really is a terrible woman, agreed.
But there is a problem sometimes for women being accepted for jobs. I have known employers who have admitted to me that if they have a choice between a man and a woman (particularly if the woman is in her 20s or 30s) they would employ the man, even if the man was less qualified. They do it because the woman may be having kids and lots of time off soon. It’s not sexism, it’s a logical business decision made not just by men, but by logically-minded businesswomen too.
Your idea of sharing the leave might help employers to judge more on merit, though, I guess.
PP, you will get no outrage from me for suggesting that men and women who do the same job (and do it equally well) should get paid the same amount.
What Harriet Harman has done is taken the entire economy as a whole and made outrageous and statistically incorrect inferences about why men get paid more than women across the entire economy. My letter and your views are perfectly compatible, as far as I can see.
Where men and women do the same job for different money there is discrimination. I have always demanded, and got, the same rate of pay as a male worked who is doing the same job.
I agree with this, of course. Where it gets trickier is women demanding more pay that, or equal bonuses to, men whose competence or performance they can’t match because of a child-rearing career break or grumbles about the ‘work life balance’. TBH, I’ve seen this preferential nonsense for anyone with a child, male or female, special treatment, special consideration, extra rights and so on and as a married, childless man with MS, I find it offensive. Why should reproducing – shooting sperm out of your willy into an woman without any contraception resulting in a delivered foetus net you extra rights?
Having children is voluntary at all sorts of stages. You can choose to have sex. You can choose to have safe sex. You can choose to abort the child or you can choose to have it adopted. So why should all those choices ultimately end up with you gaining money at my expense. Its not free money; I and other workers pay for it because we are deemed less worthy than people who breed. Nice.
I had a really interesting conversation with my Mum the other day about this. She works for a very (very) large accountancy firm and is often working with other women in the firm to help them compete (her gender diversity lunches are often over-subscribed, you know…) They’ve found that despite the companies best efforts, more promotions still tend to go to the male workforce than the female.
According to her, the biggest difficulties women face in the workplace are not so much spending time away for pregnancy (my Mum didn’t start professional work until she was into her 30’s, and she’s been very successful), but rather that women are (in general) by nature less aggressively competitive, less likely to take credit for their own hard work (preferring to pass credit on to their team mates/members), less likely to take risks (such as accepting work that they aren’t confident that they can complete), and less ruthless. It’s left to the reader to decide whether these are negative or positive qualities. The outcome of these is that women tend to be less suited to the competitive work environment than men.
So, gender diversity ends up coming in two different flavours: women learning what makes men more successful in gaining promotions and then emulating those attributes; or workplaces rewarding the unique skills and attributes which women can bring. Since the former isn’t really gender diversity, it’s the masculinisation of the workforce, it’s better to concentrate on the latter.
There’s a form of non-deliberate gender discrimination which is hard to attack, and it doesn’t boil down to a single cause like having children. It is definitely worthwhile aiming to counter that. On that point I agree with Harriet Harman. That said, Harman does, as you say, make overblown statements and gross generalisations which aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
She is a big supporter of 5 a day too.
often having apples and Oranges at the same time..
From June 08.
Female PART-TIME workers still earned 40% less per hour than their FULL-TIME male counterparts”, Ms Harman told Today BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“…and in other news, reports today confirm that chalk is different from cheese.”
It’s a bit of a shame that it all comes down to this. After all a man could father hoards of children and not suffer from the same pay cuts that the women in this situation would. Of course biologically women would have to take time of from work but I do think that splitting parental leave would partly reduce the gender bias in employment of 20-30 year olds. Women do tend to get the rough end of the stick these days by being the housewife, childminder and hold down a career – it’s just a shame that the first two don’t pay.
I agree with Stu as there are other factors contributing to the pay gap. Women just aren’t as pushy, selfish or arrogant as men and so do not ruthlessly go for promotions or try to oust others. This must significantly contribute to the difference in wages. And Stu os right it would be difficult to overturn this, for although there are tough women out there evolution has led the majority of females to be a lot more co-operative than males.
My own personal solution would be to increase the wages of males and allow all women to stay at home. I’m sure this will be shot down in many ways, rightly so, but it would make life so much simpler.
No10 Petition – Gordon Brown to resign for economic incompetence.
Today’s revelation that companies could be “named and shamed” in league tables revealing pay inequalities between male and female employees is deeply concerning because, just like your plans from last year, it falls at the first hurdle.
… or alternatively can be seen as the thin edge of the wedge.
BQ, comment 17. Don’t forget Harriet Harperson’s Dumbest Proposal Of All Time.
Mark Wadsworth..
Yes, remember that one.
I recommend all to check this then click on Mark’s Harriet links.They are all good.
{I had forgotten that picture you drew.Excellent.}
[+Some anon has ripped off my quote from elsewhere!]
This sort of ******** has been going on in local government for decades. From the unions point of view they don’t like the idea of their being labour market so they support it. From the managers’ points of view it is an opportunity to try and shaft each other’s departments and get their sticky fingers on each other budgets.
They call it ’single status’ in local government. Years ago the ruse was to try and make ‘blue collar’ and ‘white collar’ workers ‘equal’. Now the ruse is gender and ‘equal pay’. It’s the same thing, the unions are happier when there is a paper-shuffling, box-ticking nonsensical and overly-bureaucratic way of deciding who gets paid what as opposed to letting the market decide, which they think is ‘unfair’.
The Labour movement would love to extend this nonsense, and their trade unions, into the private sector and abolish the labour market for good. They believe that the labour market discriminates against people and can’t be trusted.
Further reading:
http://www.unison.org.uk/localgov/gettingequal/
http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0508/singstat1.html
http://www.labouruniondigest.org.uk/index.php?page_id=13
[...] Tory presents Harriet Harman is intent on destroying fairness in British society | Letters From A Tory posted at Letters From A Tory, saying, “Not content with destroying the British economy, the [...]
I’ve noticed that there are lots of black Boxers who are world champions, I feel that this is because of institutionalised discrimination against white non boxers such as myself.
Were such clear discrimination against white non boxers not in place I myself might we have been world Boxing champion with all the associated benefits and wealth, women, cars etc.
I’m thinking of suing the Boxing federation for discrimination against White Non boxers.
White Non Boxers deserve to be world champions too, it’s only fair.
I hear that Harriet Harmthem is also considering making it law that at the conclusion of all poker tournaments, the winner must share all his winnings with all the other players.
Why all this hysteria over the notion that women should get equal pay and equal promotion for equal work? Just look at these comments — the sum effect is that clearly women are asking for something totally unreasonable.
Where reasons are given, they are laughable. Spending any time at home looking after a man’s child apparently disqualifies you from ever again earning anything sensible — no-one has ever managed to work out that “equal work” implies equal numbers of years of relevant experience should be used in the comparison? And there is plain ignorance — childless women would love to have pay equality with men.
No Janey – equal; pay for equal work is fine. What’s not fine is rocking up to meetings as a Project Manager and then underperforming (not knowing what work is to be done by who or when, for instance) and then blaming it on your period (as happened to me as a QA manger in 2000). What’s not fine is demanding the right to leave work habitually early but then not expect that to impact on your pay packet or performance because you have to collect your kid from school. What’s certainly not fine is taking a year off to have a baby and then expecting your career to continue as if you hadn’t lost a years worth of experience and commerical relationships.
So yeah, equal work for equal pay is absolutely a great thing. Extra privilleges for biologically dependent lifestyle choices isn’t.