Why has the Equal Pay (and Amendment) Act not resulted in equal pay in the UK?

Answer 1

Jobs that employ at least 90% women have at least 7 of the following 8 characteristics:

- Ability to psychologically "check out" at the end of the day
- Physical safety
- Indoors
- Low risk
- Desirable or flexible hours
- No demands to relocate
- High fulfilment relative to training
- Contact with other people

Jobs that fulfil these criteria are highly desirable, and so have lots of applicants; hence, the employer can pay less for them (regardless of whether the successful applicant is male or female).

Conversely, men select jobs based on how much they pay. 24 of the 25 most dangerous jobs (fire-fighting, construction worker, coal-mining, logging, fisherman, etc) are more than 90% male. The conditions of these occupations are not desirable in themselves, so they pay more in order to entice people to do them. 94% of workplace fatalities are male.

The reason the Equal Pay Act has not resulted in equal pay, is that it is based on the fallacious notion that women getting paid less is to do with discrimination. It fails to take into account the fact that men and women generally look for different things in an occupation. Equality of opportunity should be (and is) there, but at the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with men being men and women being women; you can't force women to take jobs they don't want to do, just so it looks good on paper.

Answer 2

I'm not sure if the legislation has changed since my days, but the magic phrase used to be "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value".

The arguments were always based on what it is that constitutes work of equal value and who it was who made the final determination.

Inevitably it boiled down to an Industrial Tribunal, usually chaired by someone from the legal profession, another from the employers side (possibly the CBI, hopefully not the IoD) and the third from the workers side to make up the three. Straightaway you've got a 2-1 against you and unless you have a chair of the tribunal who has integrity, then you've no chance.

Answer 3

The first answer is totally right. Also, the act was set up to *only* get better rights for women; there's no way that this could promote, 'equality'. It's discrimination....... Women normally shy away from high paying jobs- they want [according to psychologists and sociologists, to have emotional comfort first [above financial], that's the pay they seem to like]. Feminists set out to *force* women to work, but women were too strong and resisted this pressure and preferred to take the more relevant role, and more important role that they have always taken. Or at lease the equally as important role.

Answer 4

Equality legislation, and legislation in general, always seems to backfire and do exactly the opposite of what the backers of those laws intended. Bureaucratic governments have a reverse-Midas touch, it seems. Such is the nature of human ignorance, I guess.

Answer 5

Because not everybody has access to the tribunals in order to pursue their complaints. If you are not in a trade union or are not well educated or supported in any other way...your chances of success are limited.

On top of this, the employment tribunals are so heavily biased in favour of employers that even if you are supported, you chances of success are still limited.

The fact is that this society is still in a state of benign acceptance when it comes to discriminating against women.

In short...if your case is against a w****r, and it is heard by a w****r...you are f****d.

Answer 6

Because the kinds of work women traditionally do are grossly undervalued by society.

Answer 7

because ......women are weak ...in business only ..because we let them ...don't think so ....but guess what we are getting there ..patience but sorry guys know its a media thing sure you agree but the media wont let you stand up and be counted why don't you

Answer 8

would it be because the men are in charge??