2015 post UK election discussion

[bring the ghost on]

Overall, it's quite possible. Not because men are better, but if you factor in maternity leave and salary negotiations (which men tend to ask for more often) it may be why there is a 'gap'.

You're scraping the barrel now. Women earn 30% less than men in the legal profession because men ask for more pay rises and don't go on maternity leave?

 

[bring the ghost on]

Considering there is an equal pay act, a law firm is one of the last places you'd expect sexist pay. They'd sue the company.

And what do you think suing your employer does for your wage prospects?

 

[bring the ghost on]

show me a firm that offers trainees, NQs or low PQE associates different rates of pay according to their genitals. Please. If you take the industry as a whole, from top to bottom, including every judge and 80-year old senior equity partner then yes, pay is skewed in favour of males - because the current equality at trainee, NQ and low-to-middle PQE has not been in place long enough to address the historical imbalance. But it's working, and the evidence of this was pointed out by yourself: the 60:40 split in favour of females at student level, which I would remind you is also the same at trainee level and only slightly reduced at NQ level.

None of that explains why the trend is actually increasing rather than decreasing.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practic...ice-gender-pay-gap-widens/5040421.fullarticle

Your argument is flawed because NQ/PQE wages are generally at the lower end of the spectrum, more likely to be offered as a non-negotiable figure, etc. It's when you get to associate level and above that you begin to see the difference, as demonstrated in the above article.

Having a 60:40 split in intake doesn't address the unequal pay either. It simply means there are more female solicitors, not that they will be paid more than men.

 

[SNova]

You're scraping the barrel now. Women earn 30% less than men in the legal profession because men ask for more pay rises and don't go on maternity leave?

Men also tend to work longer hours. And women tend to work part time more often.

All these things add up and when you take an overall percentage of the pay.

 

[Tree13]

But a lot of people won't be better off after a few years of waiting. If someone is anywhere near minimum wage how much do you think they can save in a year after the cost of living comes out of it? How long would it take to save for a deposit for a house, then to furnish a house, then to buy all of the stuff they need for a baby, then to save enough to keep them going through the first few years of having the baby? They'd be in their 60's before they could start 'trying'.

Working off a couple of assumptions (37.5 hours a week working; 46 weeks a year), a 21 year old on minimum wage (£6.50 an hour) earns £11,212.50 a year. More than happy to be corrected if I've got my maths wrong.

You are right. £11,212.50pa is not enough to save anything after paying basic living costs. It's not enough to buy a house, or save for a deposit towards one. It's not enough to buy everything needed to raise a child.

So my question to you would be: why on earth would I consider having a child in that situation? Wouldn't I be far more responsible to try to better myself first?

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Didnt know that mate. Seriously. Not an area I am up to speed on if I am honest.

I think you must have missed the post where I said I wouldnt be surprised if they come up with it as an idea.

 

[Tree13]

Isn't law pay often performance based?

At PQE level onwards, yes. It is entirely based on hours billed to clients.

 

[roydo]

I think you must have missed the post where I said I wouldnt be surprised if they come up with it as an idea.

Ah. Soz mate. Tend to pop in and out of this!

 

[Tree13]

Are you suggesting female solicitors perform worse than male solicitors?

He's asking a question. A very simple one, at that.

Try answering it.

 

[neil999]

Working off a couple of assumptions (37.5 hours a week working; 46 weeks a year), a 21 year old on minimum wage (£6.50 an hour) earns £11,212.50 a year. More than happy to be corrected if I've got my maths wrong.

You are right. £11,212.50pa is not enough to save anything after paying basic living costs. It's not enough to buy a house, or save for a deposit towards one. It's not enough to buy everything needed to raise a child.

So my question to you would be: why on earth would I consider having a child in that situation? Wouldn't I be far more responsible to try to better myself first?

what if they aren't intelligent enough to do better?

 

[roydo]

He's asking a question. A very simple one, at that.

Try answering it.

I will. Some solicitors are better than others. Gender has nowt to do with it imo.

 

[Tree13]

You're scraping the barrel now. Women earn 30% less than men in the legal profession because men ask for more pay rises and don't go on maternity leave?

Statisically, both those factors play a part. PQE pay is negotiated and a big part of that negotiation is billable hours. A quantifiable measure of performance.

But you knew that already. Why are you pretending otherwise?

 

[Tree13]

what if they aren't intelligent enough to do better?

Then choosing to have a child in that scenario is going to involve them struggling massively for twenty years, heavily reliant on state handouts which by their very nature are subject to fluctuation. Sounds very risky and pretty inadvisable to me - I wouldn't do it.

 

[neil999]

Then choosing to have a child in that scenario is going to involve them struggling massively for twenty years, heavily reliant on state handouts which by their very nature are subject to fluctuation. Sounds very risky and pretty inadvisable to me - I wouldn't do it.

so your basically saying people on low wages shouldn't have children

 

[bring the ghost on]

He's asking a question. A very simple one, at that.

Try answering it.

I will give a serious answer to a serious question. Nik's question had a sub-text which suggested women perform worse than men in the profession. He then confirmed that this was his meaning when I asked him the question. I can't agree to that at all, so I'm not going to answer it.

At every turn, you and Nik have refused to acknowledge any sort of sexism to explain such a huge disparity in earnings. Here's a question for both you and Nik. The same article I linked to shows that white men earn 25% more than male solicitors from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background.

If you're so confident that pay is based purely on talent and billing targets, what is your explanation for that?