Is the gender wage gape a problem of unequal opportunity or

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:51:43 GMT -5 techguy said:

Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time?  Maybe the jobs yo  had could tolerate missing workers.  Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team.

I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent.

Considering she is a teacher there is no way she had to pick up the slack for another teacher.  A substitute was called in to cover the classes. 

That's like your temp.  A substitute covers supervision.  That's it.

ETA:  I forgot.  You don't have to know anything to teach twelfth grade English.  You just have to have a pulse.  

[swamp]

Mar 10, 2016 15:19:52 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Considering she is a teacher there is no way she had to pick up the slack for another teacher.  A substitute was called in to cover the classes. 

That's like your temp.  A substitute covers supervision.  That's it.

so if a teacher is out for 3 months maternity leave, the substitute only supervises for the whole 3 months? That doesn't sound right. 

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2016 15:22:28 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 10, 2016 15:19:52 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

That's like your temp.  A substitute covers supervision.  That's it.

so if a teacher is out for 3 months maternity leave, the substitute only supervises for the whole 3 months? That doesn't sound right. 

No, they have to hire a certified teacher.  When they couldn't find one, the other teachers had to take up the slack.

ETA:  They are called "long-term" substitutes.  They don't make substitute salary ($75 a day).  They are paid according to the teachers' pay scale although it is usually at 0 experience since the district has to pay two teachers.

Ask your kids sometimes what they do when a substitute is in the classroom . . . not a long-term substitute, but a short term.  They do something that the regular teacher planned whether it is a movie, worksheets, reading, whatever.  A short-term substitute teacher doesn't have to know French to substitute in a French classroom.  

[siralynn]

Mar 10, 2016 14:51:46 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:45:14 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

But, i think that is an issue with your company not providing the appropriate help when it's needed.   I have a similar issue where I work.  I work for a small company and when someone goes on maternity leave it often means that I get to work another full-time job when they are gone.  I have issues with it, but the issues these days are with my employer.   They are the ones who are responsible for making sure that there is adequate enough staffing to make sure everything gets completed.

I think the higher you go up the ladder the harder it is to replace someone temporarily without a lot of pain by others.  If my AP clerk went out for 6-12 weeks, it would suck because she is super efficient but realistically we could train someone and have them up and running ok in about a week.  When my Senior Financial Reporting person goes out it isn't like I can call the temp agency and get someone to cover.  It took me months to train her so that she was able to function independently.  At that level, unless someone was between jobs who is going to take a higher level temp position?  For a year or so maybe, but 6 weeks?  I think it would be a miracle to find a qualified person willing to do that...who wouldn't bail if a great full-time opportunity opened up.

So we can all sit here and bitch about people like me who are sick of dealing with maternity leaves or we can admit that at higher level positions it really IS a huge burden on those left behind and understand why someone like me might lean towards someone that probably won't pop out a baby in the next year....

My (admittedly slightly progressive) company gives six weeks paid paternity leave. If you company provided extensive paternity leave like that, would you also hesitate to hire a man who might father a child and decide to take leave?

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 10, 2016 15:19:52 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Considering she is a teacher there is no way she had to pick up the slack for another teacher.  A substitute was called in to cover the classes. 

That's like your temp.  A substitute covers supervision.  That's it.

ETA:  I forgot.  You don't have to know anything to teach twelfth grade English.  You just have to have a pulse.  

My point was...if a teacher is out on maternity leave do the rest of you have to take over her classes, grade her papers, etc? If so, I stand corrected. That isn't how it works locally. We get long term subs in until the teacher returns from maternity leave

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 10, 2016 18:11:15 GMT -5 siralynn said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:51:46 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I think the higher you go up the ladder the harder it is to replace someone temporarily without a lot of pain by others.  If my AP clerk went out for 6-12 weeks, it would suck because she is super efficient but realistically we could train someone and have them up and running ok in about a week.  When my Senior Financial Reporting person goes out it isn't like I can call the temp agency and get someone to cover.  It took me months to train her so that she was able to function independently.  At that level, unless someone was between jobs who is going to take a higher level temp position?  For a year or so maybe, but 6 weeks?  I think it would be a miracle to find a qualified person willing to do that...who wouldn't bail if a great full-time opportunity opened up.

So we can all sit here and bitch about people like me who are sick of dealing with maternity leaves or we can admit that at higher level positions it really IS a huge burden on those left behind and understand why someone like me might lean towards someone that probably won't pop out a baby in the next year....

My (admittedly slightly progressive) company gives six weeks paid paternity leave. If you company provided extensive paternity leave like that, would you also hesitate to hire a man who might father a child and decide to take leave?

I honestly don't think many men would take it. At least the men I've worked with. They are way too ambitious to take 6 weeks off.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 10, 2016 15:19:23 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:51:43 GMT -5 techguy said:

Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time?  Maybe the jobs yo  had could tolerate missing workers.  Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team.

I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent.

Yes, I've picked up the slack.  We couldn't find a qualified substitute for one teacher, so the other twelfth grade teachers had to prepare the lesson plans, show the substitute how to do them, and grade the papers/talk to the parents/etc.

But we just did it because we are a department.  The next time the situation came up, it could be one of us.  And certainly no one was willing to trade places with the teacher.  Her child had been born with Downs so they were facing a series of heart operations as soon as he was old/healthy enough.

Sure, it sucks.  But to penalize someone because it might happen . . . ?  To give an equally qualified guy the advantage because he doesn't have a uterus?

I have never seen teachers do that so your school must be tr exception. When a teacher is out the sub covers everything. Our teachers are Union so maybe that is the difference?

The key is "equally qualified"...if they are equally qualified are you saying I should hire the woman? How do you decide to hire at that point? Me, Im going to hire the one that will cause me the least amount of pain.

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2016 18:12:35 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 10, 2016 15:19:52 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

That's like your temp.  A substitute covers supervision.  That's it.

ETA:  I forgot.  You don't have to know anything to teach twelfth grade English.  You just have to have a pulse.  

My point was...if a teacher is out on maternity leave do the rest of you have to take over her classes, grade her papers, etc? If so, I stand corrected. That isn't how it works locally. We get long term subs in until the teacher returns from maternity leave

We get long term subs, too.  But they aren't always available.  The math dept. had to do it one time; the English dept. another more recently.  It has to be a certified teacher, and they just couldn't find one.  For the English one, they ended up hiring a college English teacher (adjunct) and had to hire a substitute to be in the room with him until he could get his substitute license (about three weeks).  But there was still a lot he wasn't allowed to do for legal reasons.  A certified teacher had to deal with the special education students, deal with records, deal with parents, etc. 

It's not often at all (twice in the last ten years), but your people getting pregnant isn't often either. 

It is what it is.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 10, 2016 18:21:23 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Mar 10, 2016 18:12:35 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

My point was...if a teacher is out on maternity leave do the rest of you have to take over her classes, grade her papers, etc? If so, I stand corrected. That isn't how it works locally. We get long term subs in until the teacher returns from maternity leave

We get long term subs, too.  But they aren't always available.  The math dept. had to do it one time; the English dept. another more recently.  It has to be a certified teacher, and they just couldn't find one.  For the English one, they ended up hiring a college English teacher (adjunct) and had to hire a substitute to be in the room with him until he could get his substitute license (about three weeks).  But there was still a lot he wasn't allowed to do for legal reasons.  A certified teacher had to deal with the special education students, deal with records, deal with parents, etc. 

It's not often at all (twice in the last ten years), but your people getting pregnant isn't often either. 

It is what it is.

I would say twice in 3 years is actually kind of a lot.

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2016 18:17:08 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 10, 2016 15:19:23 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Yes, I've picked up the slack.  We couldn't find a qualified substitute for one teacher, so the other twelfth grade teachers had to prepare the lesson plans, show the substitute how to do them, and grade the papers/talk to the parents/etc.

But we just did it because we are a department.  The next time the situation came up, it could be one of us.  And certainly no one was willing to trade places with the teacher.  Her child had been born with Downs so they were facing a series of heart operations as soon as he was old/healthy enough.

Sure, it sucks.  But to penalize someone because it might happen . . . ?  To give an equally qualified guy the advantage because he doesn't have a uterus?

I have never seen teachers do that so your school must be tr exception. When a teacher is out the sub covers everything. Our teachers are Union so maybe that is the difference?

The key is "equally qualified"...if they are equally qualified are you saying I should hire the woman? How do you decide to hire at that point? Me, Im going to hire the one that will cause me the least amount of pain.

I don't believe any two people are "equally" qualified.  One has more experience in your industry.  One is more personable.  One is whatever.  No two people are the same.  So you base it on whatever difference they bring to the table that is important to you.

I just don't think the lack of a uterus should be it. 

Can I ask you something personal?  You don't have to answer.  If you are spending 70 hours a week at work, when do you have time to spend with your family?  If you are traveling as much as you say? 

And how would you feel if an employer, all things being equal, decided not to hire you . . . or maybe even found an excuse to fire you . . . because you could be a candidate someday for a hysterectomy?  That's a six week recovery time.  Or because you are now a single mother and it is more likely that you would have to take off work if/when your children are sick?  Or anyone of a number of things that are traditionally women's problems?

I am probably biased because I got fired in 1976 for no other reason than being pregnant.  I had actually been rehired for the next school year.  But being pregnant was a problem for the private school, which was low-paying, because in the past they had found it difficult to find qualified substitutes.  Sound familiar?  Only then, being fired for being pregnant wasn't illegal.  They freely admitted it.  I qualified for unemployment, but I would have rather worked.  Women worked hard to have that choice codified in laws, but your hidden sexism negates that.  [ETA so it makes sense . . . I told them in July that I would be taking maternity leave in March.  I should have kept my mouth shut as the young woman you hired did.]

It just makes me sad for young women that being female in this case is being held against them, and being male works in the guy's favor.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 10, 2016 18:35:26 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Mar 10, 2016 18:17:08 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I have never seen teachers do that so your school must be tr exception. When a teacher is out the sub covers everything. Our teachers are Union so maybe that is the difference?

The key is "equally qualified"...if they are equally qualified are you saying I should hire the woman? How do you decide to hire at that point? Me, Im going to hire the one that will cause me the least amount of pain.

I don't believe any two people are "equally" qualified.  One has more experience in your industry.  One is more personable.  One is whatever.  No two people are the same.  So you base it on whatever difference they bring to the table that is important to you.

I just don't think the lack of a uterus should be it. 

Can I ask you something personal?  You don't have to answer.  If you are spending 70 hours a week at work, when do you have time to spend with your family?  If you are traveling as much as you say? 

And how would you feel if an employer, all things being equal, decided not to hire you . . . or maybe even found an excuse to fire you . . . because you could be a candidate someday for a hysterectomy?  That's a six week recovery time.  Or because you are now a single mother and it is more likely that you would have to take off work if/when your children are sick?  Or anyone of a number of things that are traditionally women's problems?

I am probably biased because I got fired in 1976 for no other reason than being pregnant.  I had actually been rehired for the next school year.  But being pregnant was a problem for the private school, which was low-paying, because in the past they had found it difficult to find qualified substitutes.  Sound familiar?  Only then, being fired for being pregnant wasn't illegal.  They freely admitted it.  I qualified for unemployment, but I would have rather worked.  Women worked hard to have that choice codified in laws, but your hidden sexism negates that.  [ETA so it makes sense . . . I told them in July that I would be taking maternity leave in March.  I should have kept my mouth shut as the young woman you hired did.]

It just makes me sad for young women that being female in this case is being held against them, and being male works in the guy's favor.

I don't work 70 hours a week now except for year end and maybe a really bad reporting period. 50 hour weeks are the norm. I did work 70 hour weeks before kids when I was in public accounting. I resigned once I had my daughter because I wasn't putting my career above my family. They offered me a part time gig to stay so I stayed.

I work long days on the days I don't have my kids or sometimes from home at night. I've also had to bring the youngest back with me if something blows up. At the end of the day I have deadlines and I either meet them or the person that replaces me will

As for traveling, luckily I was promoted before my divorce so I no longer have to travel to brazil. Not sure how I would have made that work. I probably would have looked for a new job because my family circumstance is not my employers issue. I will have some travel coming up but only for a few days here and there. I work that around my custody arrangements.

The woman i hired started in May and delivered 2/29 on her due date. She didn't know she was pregnant when she started.

[zibazinski]

With the blessing of computers public accounting has changed a lot as well. You can do a lot without having to physically be there all the time.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 10, 2016 9:34:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 9, 2016 20:49:52 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

You've always been competent in my eyes swamp.

that's because you know me through my posts.

If you walked in my office, would you automatically assume I am the secretary or the lawyer?

Hard to know for sure. Its possible I could confuse you for the secretary in certain situations, I suppose. But I could most likely figure it out, based on where you're located.

I would assume the secretary would be out front and the lawyer in the office in back. I'd expect to check in with the secretary out front and wait in the waiting room until I'm called to see the lawyer. At least that's how it worked when I hired a lawyer to represent me against an old employer.

[swamp]

If the secretary is out, I will greet you. 

[Phoenix84]

Mar 10, 2016 9:49:23 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Mar 10, 2016 0:54:02 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I offer no qualifications or opinions, just stating facts.

...which adds nothing to the conversation, as nobody else latched onto it. I'm curious as to your opinion of your fact.

My opinion on the fact is that women often make choices that limit their earnings, which is not accounted for in the statistic.

But I also recognize that unfair biases and societal pressures. play a role as well.

I think the gender wage gap is some combination of voluntary choices women want to make for their lives and families, and unfair biases and pressures that persist.

I guess the challenge is to let women (and for that matter) make the choices they while eliminating the unfair biases.

[teen persuasion]

Mar 9, 2016 17:18:51 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Mar 9, 2016 15:57:07 GMT -5 techguy said:

Yup!  If women did get paid significantly less than men for the same job, why don't companies hire only women to save on payroll ??  I don't see this happening!

Actually, there are some 'traditional' women's work type jobs that are still relatively low paid AND held by mostly by women - even though men could do the work. (dental assistants, hotel maids, grade school teachers, pre school teachers, librarians).  Admin Assistants (ie secretaries), Legal assistants, nurses, and any sort of front office support are generally women.  

But if you look at types of work and pay overall - the  "mostly women workers" type jobs are generally lower paid jobs (sometimes dead end jobs).  A woman may also get 'pidgeon holed' in a job and have trouble moving out of a lower paid position even though she may get more responsibility/authority than the job requires without getting an increase in pay.

  

Yep, my job is definitely a second (class citizen) job.  No benefits, part time only, poor pay.  The assumption is that a married woman will work there, and their husband will have real benefits thru his employer.  To a large degree we are subsidizing services for the good of the community, thru our semi-volunteer pay.

When the director passed away suddenly and the board needed to interview to replace her there was one male applicant.  It was clear from talking with the retired director (who filled in for a while, and was on the board) that he was not considered.  He would have wanted too high of a salary AND benefits.

I believe it is generational.  The director they hired is much younger, and single.  While she had to take a pay cut and loss of benefits for the title and responsibilities (and for personal reasons), she is working to find the resources to improve our compensation (and hers) to more professional levels.  It's going to take a while for her to bring the board around to another public budget vote, but the ball is rolling.

[spartan7886]

Mar 10, 2016 21:49:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

My opinion on the fact is that women often make choices that limit their earnings, which is not accounted for in the statistic.

But I also recognize that unfair biases and societal pressures. play a role as well.

I think the gender wage gap is some combination of voluntary choices women want to make for their lives and families, and unfair biases and pressures that persist.

I guess the challenge is to let women (and for that matter) make the choices they while eliminating the unfair biases.

And yet you chose that statistic to quote, not the statistic that does account for those choices, which is readily available  - 93-95%, depending on the industry.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 10, 2016 22:07:55 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Mar 9, 2016 17:18:51 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Actually, there are some 'traditional' women's work type jobs that are still relatively low paid AND held by mostly by women - even though men could do the work. (dental assistants, hotel maids, grade school teachers, pre school teachers, librarians).  Admin Assistants (ie secretaries), Legal assistants, nurses, and any sort of front office support are generally women.  

But if you look at types of work and pay overall - the  "mostly women workers" type jobs are generally lower paid jobs (sometimes dead end jobs).  A woman may also get 'pidgeon holed' in a job and have trouble moving out of a lower paid position even though she may get more responsibility/authority than the job requires without getting an increase in pay.

  

Yep, my job is definitely a second (class citizen) job.  No benefits, part time only, poor pay.  The assumption is that a married woman will work there, and their husband will have real benefits thru his employer.  To a large degree we are subsidizing services for the good of the community, thru our semi-volunteer pay.

When the director passed away suddenly and the board needed to interview to replace her there was one male applicant.  It was clear from talking with the retired director (who filled in for a while, and was on the board) that he was not considered.  He would have wanted too high of a salary AND benefits.

I believe it is generational.  The director they hired is much younger, and single.  While she had to take a pay cut and loss of benefits for the title and responsibilities (and for personal reasons), she is working to find the resources to improve our compensation (and hers) to more professional levels.  It's going to take a while for her to bring the board around to another public budget vote, but the ball is rolling.

But the issue is that apparently women WILL take the position for less pay.  I'm not trying to be harsh but if they couldn't find anyone willing to take the job at such a low salary they would have to increase it.  You have a choice...you can either stay for the crap wages or leave.  You chose to stay, which only reinforces the fact that they can get away with shit wages because someone work for them.

This is why I struggle with accepting that females make less because of gender bias versus our own choices.  I really do think women are willing to accept lower pay than men...whether it is for flexibility, due to self-confidence, or other reasons, a company will pay what they can get away with paying.  I'm giving a range when I'm hiring...I always start at the low-end and negotiate up from there.  Men rarely take the starting salary I offer but women almost always do...that isn't the company's fault.  Just like it isn't the library's fault that you, a woman, is willing to work for lower wages.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 11, 2016 9:10:41 GMT -5 spartan7886 said:

Mar 10, 2016 21:49:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

My opinion on the fact is that women often make choices that limit their earnings, which is not accounted for in the statistic.

But I also recognize that unfair biases and societal pressures. play a role as well.

I think the gender wage gap is some combination of voluntary choices women want to make for their lives and families, and unfair biases and pressures that persist.

I guess the challenge is to let women (and for that matter) make the choices they while eliminating the unfair biases.

And yet you chose that statistic to quote, not the statistic that does account for those choices, which is readily available  - 93-95%, depending on the industry.

It's interesting that some posters seem to assume I have some sort of agenda or I'm making some sort of statement by quoting a often used statistic.  Were you this suspicious when Barack Obama used this statistic in his state of the union speech?  Why do YOU take such issue with my post?  What are you really getting at?

If you must know, I quoted that stat because it's always bugged me that politicians and activists use it, when it's misleading. I guess you could call it a pet peeve. As someone with a educational background in the sciences, I know you control for every factor you can and isolate the variable you're studying. 

I was aware that the gender pay gap shrinks significantly when other factors are controlled. But the fact that it still exists indicates that there is unfair bias still. In addition, it's possible that the "choices" that are controlled for are not really "choices" as women sometimes face societal pressure to put their family over their careers, when otherwise they might do the opposite.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 10, 2016 22:07:55 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Mar 9, 2016 17:18:51 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Actually, there are some 'traditional' women's work type jobs that are still relatively low paid AND held by mostly by women - even though men could do the work. (dental assistants, hotel maids, grade school teachers, pre school teachers, librarians).  Admin Assistants (ie secretaries), Legal assistants, nurses, and any sort of front office support are generally women.  

But if you look at types of work and pay overall - the  "mostly women workers" type jobs are generally lower paid jobs (sometimes dead end jobs).  A woman may also get 'pidgeon holed' in a job and have trouble moving out of a lower paid position even though she may get more responsibility/authority than the job requires without getting an increase in pay.

  

Yep, my job is definitely a second (class citizen) job.  No benefits, part time only, poor pay.  The assumption is that a married woman will work there, and their husband will have real benefits thru his employer.  To a large degree we are subsidizing services for the good of the community, thru our semi-volunteer pay.

When the director passed away suddenly and the board needed to interview to replace her there was one male applicant.  It was clear from talking with the retired director (who filled in for a while, and was on the board) that he was not considered.  He would have wanted too high of a salary AND benefits.

I believe it is generational.  The director they hired is much younger, and single.  While she had to take a pay cut and loss of benefits for the title and responsibilities (and for personal reasons), she is working to find the resources to improve our compensation (and hers) to more professional levels.  It's going to take a while for her to bring the board around to another public budget vote, but the ball is rolling.

Good luck Teen Persuasion.  Everyone should get paid what they're really worth.  I worked in a library when I was in college, it's definitely a professional job.

[muttleynfelix]

Mar 10, 2016 14:51:43 GMT -5 techguy said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:28:17 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm.  Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt.  She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man.

That is so wrong.  This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today.  The really ironic part is that you are a woman.  

Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time?  Maybe the jobs yo  had could tolerate missing workers.  Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team.

I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent.

At my former company (5-8 people over my 9 years there), yes people picked up the "slack" while I was on maternity leave. However, I picked up the slack when they had a heart attack, when my boss was in Ireland, Africa (three times), Mexico (yearly), and the beach. I was available by phone and came into the office at least weekly. When DD was 3 days old, I had to walk a co-worker through an AutoCAD function so he could finish the project.

So, yeah I more than picked my fair share of the slack.

The comment from Miss T on every couple years, I think is disingenuous. How many higher level wormers have more than 2 kids. Many are one and done. Not too many are popping out kids every other year for 10 years.

[muttleynfelix]

Mar 10, 2016 21:33:24 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 10, 2016 9:34:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

that's because you know me through my posts.

If you walked in my office, would you automatically assume I am the secretary or the lawyer?

Hard to know for sure. Its possible I could confuse you for the secretary in certain situations, I suppose. But I could most likely figure it out, based on where you're located.

I would assume the secretary would be out front and the lawyer in the office in back. I'd expect to check in with the secretary out front and wait in the waiting room until I'm called to see the lawyer. At least that's how it worked when I hired a lawyer to represent me against an old employer.

That explains why I would get odd looks when I greet people if there is no one else and then explain that I am the engineer. Of course, they don't think that when a man greets them

[swamp]

I went out on maternity leave twice. I worked untilthe day I delivered, I worked from home during leave. My partner picked up the slack. However, my partner played a lot of golf and went on vacation much more than me. I covered for him.

[spartan7886]

Mar 11, 2016 9:45:04 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 11, 2016 9:10:41 GMT -5 spartan7886 said:

And yet you chose that statistic to quote, not the statistic that does account for those choices, which is readily available  - 93-95%, depending on the industry.

It's interesting that some posters seem to assume I have some sort of agenda or I'm making some sort of statement by quoting a often used statistic.  Were you this suspicious when Barack Obama used this statistic in his state of the union speech?  Why do YOU take such issue with my post?  What are you really getting at?

If you must know, I quoted that stat because it's always bugged me that politicians and activists use it, when it's misleading. I guess you could call it a pet peeve. As someone with a educational background in the sciences, I know you control for every factor you can and isolate the variable you're studying. 

I was aware that the gender pay gap shrinks significantly when other factors are controlled. But the fact that it still exists indicates that there is unfair bias still. In addition, it's possible that the "choices" that are controlled for are not really "choices" as women sometimes face societal pressure to put their family over their careers, when otherwise they might do the opposite.

Dude, chill out. Making one comment is "taking such issue with your post"? 

I wasn't this suspicious at the SOTU because I didn't watch it. Generally, though, I find I hear that 78% number quoted more often by those who want to point out that it is misleading than those who think it accurate. It sets up a nice, simple strawman argument. If you know a statistic is wrong, why not go find the correct number to cite in its place rather than just shooting down the wrong one? Would that not add much more to the conversation? At least your later post you expounded a bit more, but the initial post was just a drive-by that I, like chiver78, didn't see add much value.

[Phoenix84]

Fair enough. I'll be more specific next time. This topic will come up soon enough again, I'm sure.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 11, 2016 10:23:26 GMT -5 muttleynfelix said:

Mar 10, 2016 14:51:43 GMT -5 techguy said:

Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time?  Maybe the jobs yo  had could tolerate missing workers.  Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team.

I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent.

At my former company (5-8 people over my 9 years there), yes people picked up the "slack" while I was on maternity leave. However, I picked up the slack when they had a heart attack, when my boss was in Ireland, Africa (three times), Mexico (yearly), and the beach. I was available by phone and came into the office at least weekly. When DD was 3 days old, I had to walk a co-worker through an AutoCAD function so he could finish the project.

So, yeah I more than picked my fair share of the slack.

The comment from Miss T on every couple years, I think is disingenuous. How many higher level wormers have more than 2 kids. Many are one and done. Not too many are popping out kids every other year for 10 years.

Are you calling me a liar? Because this is the second time in 3 years that I've had to cover for someone on maternity. Last time it was 4 months and many trips to Brazil. Luckily this time the employee got pregnant as soon as she started so she doesn't quality under FMLA so it will only be 6 weeks

And I think covering for vacation is expected. We all get vacation but we schedule it around month end, filin deadlines etc. Quite a bit different than covering for someone for 3-4 months...even just 6 weeks is a lot of stress on me.

Like it or not, a lot of American companies are run super lean so when someone is out for an extended period it causes pain for those left behind. Maybe not at lower levels but at higher levels

[muttleynfelix]

Mar 11, 2016 12:11:05 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 11, 2016 10:23:26 GMT -5 muttleynfelix said:

At my former company (5-8 people over my 9 years there), yes people picked up the "slack" while I was on maternity leave. However, I picked up the slack when they had a heart attack, when my boss was in Ireland, Africa (three times), Mexico (yearly), and the beach. I was available by phone and came into the office at least weekly. When DD was 3 days old, I had to walk a co-worker through an AutoCAD function so he could finish the project.

So, yeah I more than picked my fair share of the slack.

The comment from Miss T on every couple years, I think is disingenuous. How many higher level wormers have more than 2 kids. Many are one and done. Not too many are popping out kids every other year for 10 years.

Are you calling me a liar? Because this is the second time in 3 years that I've had to cover for someone on maternity. Last time it was 4 months and many trips to Brazil. Luckily this time the employee got pregnant as soon as she started so she doesn't quality under FMLA so it will only be 6 weeks

And I think covering for vacation is expected. We all get vacation but we schedule it around month end, filin deadlines etc. Quite a bit different than covering for someone for 3-4 months...even just 6 weeks is a lot of stress on me.

Like it or not, a lot of American companies are run super lean so when someone is out for an extended period it causes pain for those left behind. Maybe not at lower levels but at higher levels

Woah. No, i was not calling you a liar at all. Yes in your experience twice with apparently 2 different women you are covering in 2 years, but generalities, how many women at these higher levels have more than 2 kids?

As for vacation, my boss' trips to Africa were more than just a standard vacation. There was absolutely no contact with him during those 2 weeks. He was the owner he took a lot more vacation/days off than the rest of us were allowed. I get that is the perk of being the owner, but don't feel bad when you take 6 weeks vacation and your employees only have 3 weeks PTO that you have to cover maternity leave.

But at the end of the day, this is anecdotal. I've been on one side, covering for male coworker who had a heart attack and working/being available on my maternity leave. You are on the other side. I doubt either example is typical.

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 11, 2016 12:38:13 GMT -5 muttleynfelix said:

Mar 11, 2016 12:11:05 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Are you calling me a liar? Because this is the second time in 3 years that I've had to cover for someone on maternity. Last time it was 4 months and many trips to Brazil. Luckily this time the employee got pregnant as soon as she started so she doesn't quality under FMLA so it will only be 6 weeks

And I think covering for vacation is expected. We all get vacation but we schedule it around month end, filin deadlines etc. Quite a bit different than covering for someone for 3-4 months...even just 6 weeks is a lot of stress on me.

Like it or not, a lot of American companies are run super lean so when someone is out for an extended period it causes pain for those left behind. Maybe not at lower levels but at higher levels

Woah. No, i was not calling you a liar at all. Yes in your experience twice with apparently 2 different women you are covering in 2 years, but generalities, how many women at these higher levels have more than 2 kids?

As for vacation, my boss' trips to Africa were more than just a standard vacation. There was absolutely no contact with him during those 2 weeks. He was the owner he took a lot more vacation/days off than the rest of us were allowed. I get that is the perk of being the owner, but don't feel bad when you take 6 weeks vacation and your employees only have 3 weeks PTO that you have to cover maternity leave.

But at the end of the day, this is anecdotal. I've been on one side, covering for male coworker who had a heart attack and working/being available on my maternity leave. You are on the other side. I doubt either example is typical.

Fair enough. 

It is times like this that I long to be a "clock in and out" worker...because then someone going out wouldn't be my issue to deal with!lol

At this point, I have the one already out on maternity, two older women, a lesbian who I don't think would be having kids and a man...fingers crossed this is my last time dealing with maternity leave!

[siralynn]

Mar 10, 2016 18:13:54 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Mar 10, 2016 18:11:15 GMT -5 siralynn said:

My (admittedly slightly progressive) company gives six weeks paid paternity leave. If you company provided extensive paternity leave like that, would you also hesitate to hire a man who might father a child and decide to take leave?

I honestly don't think many men would take it. At least the men I've worked with. They are way too ambitious to take 6 weeks off.

I think that's a cop-out. Attitudes are changing, and more and more men ARE taking their leave (especially in California where they pay into paid family leave benefits from the state). In a hypothetical future in which the men of your company would take paternity leave, would you start only hiring men and women in their 50s and older? Or would the women "of child-bearing age" still take the brunt of the backlash?

[Miss Tequila]

Mar 11, 2016 13:55:31 GMT -5 siralynn said:

Mar 10, 2016 18:13:54 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I honestly don't think many men would take it. At least the men I've worked with. They are way too ambitious to take 6 weeks off.

I think that's a cop-out. Attitudes are changing, and more and more men ARE taking their leave (especially in California where they pay into paid family leave benefits from the state). In a hypothetical future in which the men of your company would take paternity leave, would you start only hiring men and women in their 50s and older? Or would the women "of child-bearing age" still take the brunt of the backlash?

I guess you missed the part where I have hired women and 2 of them have gone out on materinity leave in the last 3 years...so it isn't that I'm not hiring them. 

And call it a cop-out if you want but I know the type of workaholics that I have worked with.  I can't imagine any of them taking paternity leave, at least not the ones that made it past the first couple years.  They had one mission and that was to make partner.  You aren't going to make partner if you are on the mommy or daddy track. 

I don't live in California so perhaps things are different there.