I don't understand, really. Or perhaps I do.The toothless recommendations made by the Women at Work Commission today have achieved equality of a kind - they have been roundly condemned by almost everyone.
Equality campaigners hoped the WWC's report, "Shaping a fairer future", would persuade the government to make equal pay audits (EPAs) compulsory at corporations. In its report published today, the WWC has instead opted for a raft of measures that rely on techniques of persuasion and education that may bring about a gradual change in the fortunes of women in masculine industries.
It appears that women should be paid the same (on average) as men, regardless of choosing family over work, regardless of taking arts courses over business/sciences, and despite any other differences that might exist (on average) along gender lines.
I can understand a woman that's determined to be an executive and took all the same courses as a man being pissed off if she's overlooked for fear she's going to get pregnant and leave off work for months on end. Fine, have her sign an agreement that she won't be taking maternity leave with a penalty clause. If she's honestly driven where's the problem?
That said, I just don't see how (on average) women can progress as far as men who don't do anything but work for 40 years without taking family leave. BTW, this is where the real disparity appears to lie, or is at it's peak; executive salaries/bonuses.
Personally, I'm not "driven". I'm certainly not motivated by cash, so I won't be proping up the male average. Should I be filing lawsuits because my wage isn't as large as the industry average for age/experience? Or should I accept that I live the way I want to, and that affects my pay rate and stop whining about it?
Hrmmm.
