Australian Sex Discrimination Commission OKs paying men less for the same work

Funcuz · 2013-08-01T23:00:46+00:00

So basically I do all the work , die earlier , and pay for everything already so it's only fair that we give women more of what I worked for just in case I make the mistake of saving too much.

Yeah ... got to battle that misogyny.

moonlandings · 2013-08-01T22:57:39+00:00

I love when people ignore basic economics. This seems to me to ultimately lead to one conclusion: women are now more expensive to employ, hence there will be relatively fewer women employed in the future than there are now. I can't help but chuckle when radfems shoot themselves in the foot. In a few years they'll be crying for mandatory minimum employment rates akin to affirmative action.

Aaod · 2013-08-02T00:03:17+00:00

Wasn't equal work for equal pay one of the rallying cries of the womens lib movement early on? How is it equal if one works less hours and the other factors the article cited but gets paid more?

Kuonji · 2013-08-01T22:45:27+00:00

"It follows warnings by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and others that many women will face a drastic shortfall in savings in their later years."

You mean the years where their former male co-workers will be (on average) dead already?

rogersmith25 · 2013-08-01T23:09:18+00:00

"Australian women live longer than men but retire, on average, with substantially less superannuation"

Solid logic.

Men die much younger than women so... we should pay women more money!

Revoran · 2013-08-01T23:41:36+00:00

FYI for non-Aussies:

Superannuation is a kind of mandatory savings account that both you and your employer contribute to. By law, you can't access the money until you reach a certain age or retire (whichever comes last). If you die I believe it can be claimed by your spouse/adult children.

The idea is to stop you being a burden on society/the government in your old age because the government has basically forced you to save money. This is especially relevant for Australia because we have universal healthcare and extensive welfare programs that are funded mostly through taxes, and it won't be good to have lots of broke old people put pressure on these systems.

wanked_in_space · 2013-08-02T01:17:21+00:00

This is what institutionalized sexism looks like.

SwordfshII · 2013-08-02T00:45:50+00:00

It follows warnings by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and others that many women will face a drastic shortfall in savings in their later years

Maybe they should plan out when they can retire...you know like anyone with a brain can...

stemgang · 2013-08-01T23:21:47+00:00

The only cure for past injustice is to commit injustice in the present.

/s

AeneaLamia · 2013-08-01T21:48:12+00:00

Why should women be paid for choosing to have children at all? It's entirely their choice, why should anyone else subsidise it?

GhostBeezer · 2013-08-01T23:42:02+00:00

This is wrong on so many levels. I don't see any investigation into why their super is less, it's just assumed to be child rearing - and then fathers are completely ignored.

Women are being paid more for the lifestyle choice of possibly having children. Women who do not make that choice will also be paid more. Fathers and hard-working non-fathers will not be given that choice despite being just as important in the family unit. Instead they are forced to the opposite choice; you must work to support the family.

The article says the men in the company were supportive. I would like to know what other response you would like from a man when you ask about a topic that will threaten his livelihood and continued employment? How many men did they ask, "Would you like an extra 2% superannuation raise?" and that refused on the grounds that they shouldn't be entitled to it? I imagine zero.

This is not giving a special allowance to women in order to balance wage inequality - if their wages were already balanced then the rest is a lifestyle choice and nothing more. It is denying a raise to men based on their gender. You should be paid for work, not having a vagina.

2013-08-01T23:10:43+00:00

10 Years. Banned without reason. Farewell Reddit.

I'll miss the conversation and the people I've formed friendships with, but I'm seeing this as a positive thing.

<3

tazodubya · 2013-08-02T02:38:47+00:00

Yet another reason why the Australian Human Rights Commission is bullshit (Aussie female here)

lukedotv · 2013-08-01T23:34:36+00:00

So lemme get this straight, guys are expected to work longer hours for less money even though we die earlier?

drunkenJedi4 · 2013-08-01T23:43:15+00:00

While I fully support the right of private property owners to discriminate in the use of their property, the double-standard is astounding. This is clearly sex-based discrimination. Women get less retirement benefits for doing less work. Seems fair to me. But of course it doesn't to all those gynocentric egalitarians.

Memento_Mori_Comitis · 2013-08-02T01:17:33+00:00

If the argument is that women live longer wouldn't the logical conclusion simply be that they should just work longer in direct proportionality if they wish to maintain the same standard of living through what would otherwise be an extended retirement?

Ma99ie · 2013-08-02T01:50:40+00:00

Out. Fucking. Rageous.

2013-08-02T02:50:22+00:00

This is getting outrageous. Shouldn't we be looking at why men die earlier rather? That seems to be the real issue here.

Raudskeggr · 2013-08-02T03:53:48+00:00

Well, the Sex Discrimination Commission surely has lived up to its name.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-08-01T22:32:39+00:00

Duh?!

macrocephalic · 2013-08-02T05:27:20+00:00

If they were worried that women wouldn't have enough savings then they should raise the rate of super that they pay. Raising it for only one gender is sexist.

p3ngwin · 2013-08-02T07:16:08+00:00

Australian women live longer than men but retire, on average, with substantially less superannuation - due to their smaller average pay packets and years spent out of the workforce or in part-time work raising children. According to Rice Warner, today's 65-year-old women leave work with about $40,000 less than men of the same age, while the super balances of women aged between 40 and 44 are already, on average, $28,400 smaller than those of men in the same age group.

wtf ?

so basically because women CHOOSE to have children, and hence have less work experience and/or eduction, they have less money than someone (a man it seems) who CHOOSES not to have children.

so basically "here's some extra money to compensate for the fact you chose to take yourself out of education and work experience to raise kids"

ok, can i ask for compensation too because i similarly CHOOSE to take myself out of work and education to go on a cruise ship traveling the world for 6 months ?

or maybe i choose to sit on the couch for 6 months, or build a matchstick replica of the Eiffel Tower in my basement, or maybe i'll play video-games and basically be unemployed for 6 months, etc.

you work to get paid, that's the basic idea.

why should someone be paid for choosing NOT to work?

can i have compensation for basically NOT working as much as other people ?

2013-08-02T08:38:47+00:00

Why can't I choose to just take 5 months vacation a year and have my employer pay me more since I'll have less money when I retire. This is not fair!

nathan8999 · 2013-08-02T01:34:09+00:00

Sickening.

Thewisebmwdriver · 2013-08-01T22:47:40+00:00

well not moving or working in Australia then

marcm6246 · 2013-08-02T07:14:32+00:00

What the fuck is this shit?

Vandredd · 2013-08-02T02:22:58+00:00

This is the end game

2013-08-02T01:39:11+00:00

Just one more reason never to give any of my money to their economy...

2013-08-02T02:41:21+00:00

[permanently deleted]

jeffmacentire · 2013-08-02T02:49:02+00:00

World approves female discrimination for lower pay and rights.

Kalfos · 2013-08-02T03:53:41+00:00

I though they fought for equality not for stuff like this...This is sickening.

CatsAndSwords · 2013-08-02T10:59:00+00:00

These policies are not only bad (as in discriminatory - but other people have already talked about that), but also kind of stupid. Even from a feminist or egalitarianist standpoint, they do not make sense.

Let us assume that we are looking for policies that try, to some extent, to abolish the traditional gender roles. For instance, you would like women to work as much as men, be as well paid (no more or less), and you would like men to care for their children as much as women.

Now, imagine a young couple which just had a child. Who will care for the infant? It could be equally the man and the woman... Oh, but the woman works at Rice Warner Actuaries, whose policies concerning women include:

paying them an extra 2 per cent superannuation, granting 18 weeks' parental leave at full pay, and paying full super during parental leave, including unpaid leave, for up to 12 months.

I guess it's much better for the woman to care for the child, after all. She has paid leave and compensations!

In the end, they are actually promoting the traditional gender roles. So, discriminatory and counter-productive.

2013-08-02T11:53:32+00:00

But all of the internet feminists on here keep telling me that they represent the true feminism, not all of these nobodies who hold all of the government and academic positions. so there's obviously nothing to worry about.

IhannerI · 2013-08-02T15:54:20+00:00

Stop the discrimination against women! Start the discrimination against men! This is the solution to discrimination, duh...

redstarpirate · 2013-08-02T05:37:13+00:00

I understand that adjusting superannuation contributions will equalise the total payout later down the line, but surely equalising parental leave time and payments for both sexes would have the same effect. Granting males equal parental leave rights would bring the average super payment for males down by the same amount, and increase the time males spend out of the workforce, a key reason for income and super inequality in the first place.

It's just one company making this change, but it seems like it's an effort to create the appearance of equality in the long run, rather than creating actual equality. There would still be inequality in all other aspects of job retention and career advancement.

Or am I missing something?

LOL_Cool_J · 2013-08-02T08:27:29+00:00

The only way to achieve equality is to make things less equal. Obviously.

ThePigman · 2013-08-02T02:06:11+00:00

If Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism, Australia is the Sweden of the southern hemisphere.

4man · 2013-08-02T02:09:38+00:00

I think a more equitable solution would be to raise the voluntary contribution ceiling by 2% for all workers. Those women, and men, who wish to save more for retirement could then do so without higher taxation.

Edit: I was looking at this as a whole-of-employment issue, not just one company. In the case of this one company, I think the men have made a mistake they may regret later.

iMADEthis2post · 2013-08-02T02:57:37+00:00

Do men and women in Australia retire at the same age? It would be less annoying if they do.

Really though if they are expected to live 5 or 10 years longer than males wouldn't it be advisable to cater retirement packages to the gender and recommend they pay more to sustain them in later life?

lowercase_capitalist · 2013-08-02T03:13:00+00:00

Can we at least take the moral and intellectual high ground by not demanding equal pay for equal work? Friedman beautifully nullifies the debate.

2013-08-02T08:41:03+00:00

Everyone at my workplace gets paid the same rate regardless of gender, the main difference between pay rates is the total hours worked, men generally work around 42 hours a week whereas women 38, so its no mystery that the TOTAL income is less, using the total as a lever to make the actual flat rate seem lower is just plain skewing of statistics

rapscallionx · 2013-08-02T10:47:51+00:00

um... what the fuck australia? get your shit together...

texasjoe · 2013-08-02T10:52:26+00:00

Ah, something more important in Australia than the Saint's Row 4 rating debacle.

2013-08-02T11:02:57+00:00

this is a sick joke.

gsettle · 2013-08-02T11:53:45+00:00

Brain damage runs rampant in committees. This is an obvious example.

nickmista · 2013-08-02T13:34:06+00:00

I can see the reasoning behind it. It is true that women tend to do more unpaid house work (eg looking after kids). However I don't think paying them more for the same work is the right way to go about it. It flies in the face of all equality for one of two people to get paid more for the same work based purely on their gender. Differences in pay based on gender alone were all but gone in Australia, now their legalising the pay difference? No one forces them to have kids or stay at home its their choice. Paying women more to fund them for living past the age of most men is flawed logic. Perhaps instead they should put the money towards equalising life spans?

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-08-02T14:09:58+00:00

The funny part about this is that with such a bonus given to women, now there is much less of an incentive to actually go into higher paying fields or stay in the work force longer.

But politicians will tell you "more needs to be done" to have the rest of society bear the costs of women's decisions, which means men will be.

This is a recipe for economic stagnation if not collapse.

McFeely_Smackup · 2013-08-02T15:26:27+00:00

There seems to be a sumbag meme in there somewhere:

Austrailian Human Rights Commission warns against sex discrimination.

Approves of most blatantly sex based discrimination policy ever.

scanspeak · 2013-08-03T12:10:00+00:00

The man works more, his wife spends the majority of his income, he dies younger and she inherits everything.

Ain't male privilege grand?

selfsufficientnigga · 2013-08-06T19:22:19+00:00

I found this very sinister, not only because of 'this is not inequality but equality' doublespeak, but because of the typical feminist bungling and abuse of statistics:

'Australian women live longer than men but retire, on average, with substantially less superannuation'

This 'women live longer than men' argument was pushed quite a few times as reason for giving them more money, but it's fake!

Why? Because on average, women DO live longer than men, but many men die before the age of retirement, because of work related accidents, accidents related to showing off trying to prove themselves to females, suicide etc. So, while the average life expectancy differs some 4-5 years, I think that the life expectancy for people who have reached retirement age does not differ that much between the sexes.

Jacksambuck · 2013-08-01T23:13:27+00:00

just what it says on the tin

Disorderly-Conduct · 2013-08-01T21:50:17+00:00

Progress!

Vandredd · 2013-08-02T02:14:39+00:00

Did you guys read the article? First of all its just ONE company doing it. Second, it's correcting the already well-known income gap between men and women. What exactly is the problem here? Maternity leave? Okay, but that's sort of a different monster, and one that is more complicated than simple misogyny.

Usually like the posts here but...come on, approach this reasonably

Title	Australian Sex Discrimination Commission OKs paying men less for the same work
Author	qemist
Upvotes	759
Comments	200
Date	August 1, 2013 9:38 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jiu15/australian_sex_discrimination_commission_oks/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/australian-sex-discrimination-commission-oks.1167407 https://theredarchive.com/post/1167407

Comments