TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Australian bank falsely claimed women get paid less for the same work -- will now pay ALL female employees more than men in the exact same job. This is "positive" discrimination apparently!

Ace678

July 28, 2015
194 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/anz-bank-launches-a-super-deal-for-female-employees/story-fn91wd6x-1227460840565
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Australian bank falsely claimed women get paid less for the same work -- will now pay ALL female employees more than men in the exact same job. This is "positive" discrimination apparently!
Author

Ace678

Upvotes 194
Comments 73
Date July 28, 2015 11:55 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3eyr1a/australian_bank_falsely_claimed_women_get_paid/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/australian-bank-falsely-claimed-women-get-paid.974473
https://theredarchive.com/post/974473
Top posts by Ace678

Feminists going crazy because someone suggested a woman might make her husband a snack after sex. Like they did when it was suggested men who did housework got laid more...no wait that was them!

30 upvotes
July 29, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]daqua99 43 points44 points45 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, ANZ, you've lost yourself a customer. I know my measly $10k means very little to you, but I am against any form of discrimination, and I'll be closing my accounts today.

[–]Wargame4life 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

do it, do it

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Next month headline: "ANZ bank profit drops, mass exodus of men from payroll."

[–]ConfirmedCynic 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No kidding, why wouldn't all the men be sending out resumes as fast as they could?

[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

ANZ Bank will beat its rival banks and major corporates today by promising an extra $500 a year employer super contribution for its 12,700 female staff in Australia, as part of a raft of benefits aimed mainly at women.

12,700 x $500 = A$6.35 million. Actually not that much. Also nowhere near the 22% pay gap everyone screeches about. In 2012 they made a A$5.7 billion profit, LOL. They probably just count this as a PR/advertising expense.

The main danger is that non-white-knight male employees get pissed and leave. Or someone sues them.

[–]elwahrio 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The pay gap was never reported to be 22%. Check out the WGEA to find out the latest lies about the "pay gap" in Australia.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Black_caped_man 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The savings system was designed for men.

These kinds of assertions are starting to seriously piss me off. The savings system may have been designed by men but is was designed for people who save money regardless of gender or race or whatever.

It's the same with pretty much all other things where people claim that just because men designed something it was designed specifically for men. Unless we are talking about urinals or something that just isn't true. Things that men have created and designed have been for society and all people.

Gaaah!

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women fail at life and men get the blame.

[–]Sipas 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe that's because women spend more money than men.

I don't even know how they manage that considering they practically never pay for lunch&dinner, holidays and such. Then again a shit tone of $500 dollar heels and $2000 purses might account for that.

[–]SupremeAuthority 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You know nothing. Obviously it's all those solid gold tampons they have to pay for!!

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

First lawsuit starts now.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

This actually needs to be the case. This is blatantly illegal under Australian law.

[–]Dnile1000BC 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Nah, there are exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act for discrimination in favour of women. That's why women's only gyms can exist but men's only golf clubs can't.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Not in relation to pay. No exemptions exist for gender discrimination, they would need to change the law to do so.

[–]Dnile1000BC 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately they can. Under Commonwealth law, exemptions can be applied for the operation of Div 1 or 2 of the Sexual Discrimination Act.

Div 1 is the one that deals with discrimination in employment. In particular s14.

[–]elwahrio 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Don't know what planet these people live in where they think pay discrimination against men would be illegal in Australia. Google Australian EEO act Special Measures, the get back to us. The Australian government including George brandis and the WGEA are aware of this issue because this isn't the first company in Australia to issue such a policy. Australia considers men as less than human.

[–]Dnile1000BC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Don't mention this in /r/australia. You'll be down voted to oblivion.

[–]elwahrio 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/OAGM6

For those playing along at home, a link supporting the claims in my previous comment...

Fuck downvotes, if that what it takes to get equality...

[–]Dnile1000BC -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Financial consultancy firm Rice Warner is believed to be the only company in Australia that pays its female staff more super – an extra 2 per cent – than it pays its male staff, in an effort to address the savings gap.

Oh wow ANZ isn't the first company to do this. There's already a precedent.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The government specifically stating he's bullshit is a "precedent"?

So rejecting it is now "supporting" it?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Don't know what planet these people live in where they think pay discrimination against men would be illegal in Australia.

Section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act. It is illegal.

Applying an unrelated law that isn't applicable to pay and wouldn't stand up in court as women are paid the exact same for the same work is deliberate ignorance at this point.

It's pretty messed up here that we've got more than one person desperately trying to defend sexism against men like you are.

[–]Dnile1000BC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's pretty messed up here that we've got more than one person desperately trying to defend sexism against men like you are.

Is this what you think we're doing? I can assure you we're doing nothing of the sort. We're trying to show you the situation as it stands now in Australia and that ANZ's actions are not unusual nor is it illegal.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

actions are not unusual nor is it illegal.

You've been directly refuted regarding this. Which means your continued attempts to defend the illegal gender discrimination means you support sexism against men.

/r/MensRights isn't really the best place for you to try and claim that gender discrimination against men is "totally legit you guyz".

[–]elwahrio 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

HAHAHAH

It's pretty messed up here that we've got more than one person desperately trying to defend sexism against men like you are.

How exactly the fuck am I defending sexism against men? I think this is absolute bullshit. But I don't make the laws.

Why are you being such a tool? Why are you so desperate to strawman?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HAHAHAH

What an inciful counter from you.

how am I defending sexism

You've repeatedly defended the clear and open sexism against men by paying them less than women. I'm afraid your deliberate ignorance isn't really going to work at this point.

YOU'RE A TOOL! STRAWMAN

You've been thoroughly refuted with the EOA. So crying about "strawmen" isn't going to actually give you an argument.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The Sexual Discrimination Act applies to inequality and cannot apply by law to pay grades.

This has been blatantly pointed out to you and at this point you're deliberately lying.

For the SEA to apply in the first place, which it doesn't, it needs to:

  • Actually relate to inequality. Which is a factually disprovable claim in court as women are paid the exact same for the same work as men.

  • Not relate to exemptions. As it currently does not relate to payment, incentives or retirement. Under law.

Section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act clearly details that no gender discrimination can occur in an employees pay.

Discrimination in employment does not apply to pay.

[–]Dnile1000BC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The Sexual Discrimination Act applies to inequality and cannot apply by law to pay grades.

Show me the law that limits the application of the Sexual Discrimination Act in this way.

s14 of the Sexual Discrimination Act says:

(1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities: (a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment; (b) in determining who should be offered employment; or (c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered. 

c) cover benefits, pay, super, leave etc. etc.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

(a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment

Which has nothing to do with pay.

(b) in determining who should be offered employment

Again, nothing to do with pay.

(c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered.

And once again, nothing to do with pay.

Your deliberate fucking ignorance at this point is just astounding. You realize people can read, right?

Comparing EMPLOYMENT to PAYMENT isn't just ignorance, you're deliberately lying.

The SDA is completely unrelated to payment and wouldn't be able to apply if it did because it can be factually shown that women are not paid less for the same work.

So **again: Section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act clearly details that no gender discrimination can occur in an employees pay.

'An employer must not discriminate against an employee (a) by denying or limiting access by the employee to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or to any other benefits connected with the employment'

Seems the related law refutes you. Sorry.

[–]JoeIsNotMyName 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Serious question: wouldn't "terms or conditions on which employment is offered" include pay? Or is there a legal distinction?

[–]Dnile1000BC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act clearly details that no gender

Give me a link to this legislation.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a nice little twist. Especially when it's been specifically addressed repeatedly.

Perhaps you can first explain how (a), (b) and (c), all of which specifically do not in any way relate to PAY but relate to EMPLOYMENT before trying that little deflection?

[–]CrustythePrawn 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"The only complication to date is that organisations planning to do so have to get a waiver from the Human Rights Commission to be allowed to discriminate in that way."

Permission to discriminate against men? I'm thinking that's going to be a slam dunk - see http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

[–]chocoboat 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The savings system was ­designed for men

Explain this to me please. No, I really want to know. Do they pay an interest rate that's based on penis length, which means women unfortunately get $0?

[–]Daredevilpwn 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

WTF? Assuming woman are indeed paid less than men for the same work why don't they... I don't know...pay them for the same work? Fighting discrimination with more discrimination does nothing. Of course, this is assuming that women really are paid less for the same work.

[–]Ace678[S] 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Super = 401k.

Apparently the only requirement to get paid more than your colleagues is having a vagina.

[–]drlandspider 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Could we maybe get a mirror of the article. Or something. I'd love to read it, but not pay for it.

[–]Ace678[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Try this https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/anz-bank-launches-a-super-deal-for-female-employees/story-fn91wd6x-1227460840565&ved=0CBsQqQIoADAAahUKEwiRyIzRgv_GAhWl56YKHUECDpE&usg=AFQjCNFWRUuLijj_lrau3Aj0aSaBo4qtxw

[–]Jasperkr672 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are already doing better in every stage of education, from kindergarten to university.

Moreover, "gender equality" now means "the right to be represented" which has resulted in positive discrimination policies, gender/diversity quotas and even tax benefits for female business owners.

Women also receive a disproportionate amount of money in the form of child support and alimony (otherwise known as child and spousal maintenance), a.k.a. a mass redistribution of wealth from men to women.

They have all this, and they still want more?

[–]Timonidas 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow if my employer would do this i would be gone in a second.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How is that not illegal?

[–]Ace678[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Australian law permits exemptions to the law if it helps the womens.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would sue them personally.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ouch, hitting that pay wall hurts!

[–]perhapsnew 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This initiative will quietly fail, because it's a commercial bank, not some government one. When they advertise that they pay more to women, they attract some media attention and some potential employees with vagina, and possibly lawsuits, but they repel men and customers who support equality, not just men or women.

So, what they do is putting themselves into position of disadvantage against competition, and they either run with it and fail or quietly stop this initiative overtime.

*Edit: them -> themselves

[–]Akesgeroth 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is about to happen...

[–]Sinsilenc 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

good job on losing your entire male workforce!!!

[–]Mens-Rights-London 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Outrageous....how can this be legal??

What's especially unfair is how the raise applies to ALL female employees, even the women in high-level positions making a million a year, while the single father or man struggling with high medical bills earning the lowest salary gets nothing.

And the whole part about setting up a financial planning system to "identify the needs and preferences of women..." how can any male customer have faith that ANZ bank is serving him properly and giving him adequate customer care? Why should any man stay at this bank? Why should anyone go to bank that gives them bad financial advice?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Isn't this...like insanely illegal under Australian law?

As far as I know they don't have protected class laws, so it's illegal to pay differently for the same work and jobs for any sex.

[–]Ace678[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Yes there are laws, but they explicitly allow for exemptions if it is good for the womens.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

but they explicitly allow for exemptions if it is good for the womens.

Where? Where does it allow for that?

Section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act does not allow for gender discrimination in pay, work incentives or retirement funds. Australia is one of the highest regulated working countries in the world and has incredibly strict workers rights, equality and pay laws.

Where does it allow for special privileges for women to be paid more for the same work?

[–]Ace678[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It allows for tribunals or the sex discrimination commisioner (ha-ha) to make basically arbitrary exemptions if it help the womens. I haven't read the law...but we can all see the result.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It allows for tribunals or the sex discrimination commisioner (ha-ha) to make basically arbitrary exemptions if it help the womens.

No it doesn't. Show us where?

The EOA specifically denies gender discrimination in pay, including for retirement, it doesn't state a protected class.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the rulings are published and are available on the net.

What rulings? The law under section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act is very specific that no gender discrimination can occur in pay.

So show us where it states otherwise or you're just lying and claiming that it's okay because "vagina".

read the rulings

'An employer must not discriminate against an employee (a) by denying or limiting access by the employee to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or to any other benefits connected with the employment'

You have been completely refuted regarding this. Now show us where this section doesn't make it illegal or stop your feminist apologetics and bitching.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Russia.

But nice fallacious deflection. Strange how the law directly refutes you but you can't actually back up your claim and i'm not even from your country.

[–]Ace678[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I haven't read the act as I said, but it has been repeatedly stated this is the case. It might also be a state thing.

For example, female only gyms have also been given an exemption to exclude men, and there are probably many others we haven't heard about it.

Whether it's lawful or just tolerated its still bullshit.

[–]elwahrio -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You need to read the "Special Measures" amendment to the EEO act to find the part where they legalise pay inequality in favour of women.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And i'm sure you can quote the part you continue to claim exists, since section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act directly refutes what you're saying.

Under no circumstances is gender discrimination like this allowed. Special allowances does not apply to individual employee pay.

Nor is it allowed even if it did because there is no inequality in this situation as women are paid the exact same for the same work and hours as men.

Show us where already and stop lying.

[–]elwahrio 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Show us where already and stop lying.

Wow, how much of a cunt can you be? Like seriously, what the fuck is your problem?

Here's George Brandis and sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick citing precedence of Rice Warner as a company who already pays women more than men - 2% - and they cite the special measures act as justification.

https://archive.is/OAGM6

I'm not a lawyer, and the special measures policy sounds subjective as fuck: http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/exceptions-exemptions-and-special-measures/special-measures

but if conservative George Brandis thinks pay discrimination based on gender is legal because of that document, who am I to argue?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow, how much of a cunt can you be?

You've been repeatedly directly refuted with the section of the Act and you're now going to throw insults around like a piece of shit? Boy you feminists get angry at being refuted don't you.

Like seriously, what the fuck is your problem?

Not being a sexist fuck against men? Oh wait, no that's not a problem.

Here's blah blah people who support sexist discrimination

Uh, yeah, well done. I'm sure you'll cite Jessica Valenti next.

they cite as justification

Which in your own source the government specifically REJECTS.

I'm not a lawyer

Which would be why you continue to quote unrelated laws.

who am I to argue?

So even though the EOA actually directly refutes your claim, you think we should just support sexism against men because "who am I to argue"?

Run along, little feminist.

[–]elwahrio 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Boy you feminists get angry at being refuted don't you.

How the fuck am I a feminist? How many times do I have to say this?? I hate Feminism and I think unequal pay is bullshit.

George Brandis is the attorney general of Australia. Apparently, you think this is irrelevant. I didn't mention those peoples names to say I agree with this policy, just to show that high levels of the government support it so it is unlikely the law will be changes soon.

So even though the EOA actually directly refutes your claim, you think we should just support sexism against men because "who am I to argue"?

Except George fucking Brandis says he has no problem with companies paying women more money for equal work and that the special measures addition to the EEO act specifically allows this! I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS EITHER, I THINK FEMINISM IS BULLSHIT AND WE SHOULD HAVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. If you think you can win a lawsuit against George Brandis, than go for it, god speed.

Which in your own source the government specifically REJECTS.

Learn to read, in that source, George Brandis says unequal pay is allowed by the special measures amendment to the EEO Act. How is that the government rejecting it? The company wasn't even asked to stop paying women more than men!

Why do you use feminist as an ad hominem? Especially against people who agree with you? What's up with that?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How the fuck am I a feminist?

Desperately trying to defend sexism against men and then raging out when refuted with the facts?

Yeah, sounds like you're a feminist.

I-I HATE FEMINISM

Then probably stop acting like a feminist and defending sexism, hmm?

you think this is irrelevant

As the Attorney General is not the government and has no say in laws...yes, what someone who is unrelated to the law or governing of the country outside of being a regulatory body that is inactive, that would make him the definition of irrelevant.

Strange that you're now trying to claim an appeal to an irrelevant authority when met with the law refuting you.

OMG GEORGE FUCKING BRADIS

So murder happening makes murder legal as well, hmm? No, sorry.

AD HOMINEM

You've been refuted with the fucking direct law and you've pulled every fallacy possible to ignore it, including repeated strawmen and actual ad hominems like trying to dismiss me by calling me a "cunt".

Come back when you have an counter other than "BUT ONE GUY IS BREAKING THE LAW, THEREFORE IT'S LEGAL".

[–]elwahrio -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How the fuck am I defending sexism against men? Where did I say "I support women getting paid more than men for the same work"?

Re-read your post and tell me you haven't used any strawmen or ad hominems:

Desperately trying to defend sexism against men

strawmen

raging out when refuted with the facts?

BS you pulled out of your arse

Yeah, sounds like you're a feminist

ad hominem

hen probably stop acting like a feminist and defending sexism, hmm? ad homimen and strawmen

Attorney General is not the government

not true

has no say in laws

strawman. I never said they determined the laws, only that they know more about laws than the vast majority of people.

unrelated to the law The attorney general position is unrelated to law?

Strange that you're now trying to claim an appeal to an irrelevant authority when met with the law refuting you.

You are not refuting me, you are refuting the legal system as currently operating. If you think you can win such a case, go for it. This isn't an argument i WANT to win, because i WANT to live in a world where this kind of discrimination doesn't happen.

So murder happening makes murder legal as well, hmm? No, sorry.

Strawman. Laws permitting murder make murder legal, not the mere existence of murder. This is a false dichotomy.

you've pulled every fallacy possible to ignore it, including repeated strawmen and actual ad hominems like trying to dismiss me by calling me a "cunt".

Hypocrite much?

Come back when you have an counter other than "BUT ONE GUY IS BREAKING THE LAW, THEREFORE IT'S LEGAL".

Strawman. That has never been my argument and you know it.

[–]Dnile1000BC -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There is no federal Equal Opportunity Act. There are different Equal Opportunity Acts at the state level. They do not apply here as ANZ is a corporation.

As such only the Sexual Discrimination Act applies and there is the possibility of exemptions under s44 of the said Act.

Furthermore, discrimination of this nature has already occurred and nothing is being done about it. (https://archive.is/OAGM6).

The article is dated 24 May 2015. In which it states:

Financial consultancy firm Rice Warner is believed to be the only company in Australia that pays its female staff more super – an extra 2 per cent – than it pays its male staff, in an effort to address the savings gap.

So what ANZ is doing is not unprecedented legally.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There is no federal Equal Opportunity Act.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986.

Getting pretty sick of your lies at this point.

Which also includes: The Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Age Discrimination Act.

They do not apply here as ANZ is a corporation.

The pay discrimination laws apply to ALL employers and employees in Australia.

That you're arguing against a country with the strictest labour laws in the world now is pretty fucking ridiculous.

Sexual Discrimination Act

Which not only doesn't apply to pay grade, not only isn't viable as it is provable in a court of law that women are not paid less but section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act directly overrides it.

The article

In which is specifically states that the government rejects it?

Well done.

[–]Dnile1000BC -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986.

Are you serious? That act is the incorporation act for the federal body known as "Australian Human Rights Commission". It doesn't contain any prohibition on discrimination of any sort.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#ahrc

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It doesn't contain any prohibition on discrimination of any sort

You do realize repeatedly ignoring where i've quoted it, since the beginning, isn't actually making it go away, right?

'An employer must not discriminate against an employee (a) by denying or limiting access by the employee to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or to any other benefits connected with the employment'

Section 18.

Continuing to pretend i've not specifically pointed this out isn't really working.

[–]Dnile1000BC -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then give me a link to the legislation you're referring to.

[–]Dnile1000BC -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

As ANZ is a corporation, Federal law applies (as per s51 of the Australian Constitution).

In Federal law the Australian Human Rights Commission are able to grant exemptions to Div 1 and Div 2 of the Commonwealth Sexual Discrimination Act (see s44). Div 1 covers sex discrimination in the workplace including the terms offered for employment. (see s14).

As already been noted. The Australian Human Rights commission is insanely sexist. http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not in relation to pay under section 18 of the Equal Opportunity Act.

That relates to:

  • Areas of actual discrimination, which means the fact women are paid the exact same as men (a provable statement in a court of law) then they cannot apply it even if it was applicable.

  • It relates to exemptions, not payment, incentives or retirement.

The payment aspect of the act is very clear in regards to discrimination on gender and does not allow it under any circumstances. You're deliberately applying an unrelated law.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But hey, "anti-discrimination laws were designed for men". /s

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter