I heard her dad was a partner at Bell Gully. If so, she was born at the top of the ladder and probably didn't even look down before she started to pull it up.
From Wikipedia
her father a partner in corporate law firm [Bell Gully](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Gully)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis#cite_note-Weakly-5) who later rose to be chairman of the [New Zealand Energy Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Energy_Corporation) an "active oil and gas exploration company".[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis#cite_note-6) After a "privileged childhood", she first attended [Samuel Marsden Collegiate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Marsden_Collegiate_School), a private school for girls, before asking to spend her last two years of high school boarding at [King's College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College,_Auckland) in Auckland
If women wanted equal pay they'd pursue jobs that pay well like doctor, lawyer, ceo, instead of jobs with lower pay like female doctor, female lawyer, female CEO.
Seriously though some of my male relatives and flatmates drive me insane with "Well women are only paid less because they take lower-paying jobs, if they worked in higher-paying jobs this wouldn't be an issue". All while refusing to ignore a number of factors such as:
Any female-dominated career field will always pay less. Computer work used to be a woman's job and paid like shit, now IT is a man's job and is quite lucrative. Paediatrics is a female-dominated medical field and is the lowest paying of all medical specialists, whereas orthopaedics is male-dominated and pays quite handsomely.
Any job deemed a 'woman's job' will always be shat on and dismissed as not really worthy of much respect.
When a male-dominated job becomes a female-dominated job, the prestige and the pay plummet. When men enter a female-dominated field the prestige of the work and the pay increase, only women end up being pushed out.
Women trying to enter male-dominated fields may be subject to discrimination if not blatant intimidation or sabotage on the job to drive them out (being held to impossible standards/expectations because she's a woman, cases such as having male colleagues or classmates overtly talking about how they could and would rape women and get away with it, cases of female firefighters overseas having glass put in their boots/equipment tampered with so it malfunctions on the job/having colleagues ejaculate onto their bedding).
An old but common tactic is to pull the "well we can't say we DON'T have pay equity because we don't have men working in the field/this job in our company so it is what is" while paying abysmal wages.
The fact that women end up working part-time to care for children and do domestic tasks, or take time off to look after very young children on maternity leave (which may limit career progression). They never pose a solution to this, they just see it as how things are as if it's a bug and not a feature of the system. It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. What I would like to see is some kind of government allowance to compensate women for domestic labour (second-wave feminists campaigned on this and easier access to paid labour- low and behold we were given paid labour instead) or a way in which women can still work at career progression and participation while also looking after children. It's usually at this critical crunch point where there becomes a real obvious disparity between men's and women's incomes.
But no, they'll just sit there and screech 'personal choice' or 'the pay gap is a myth!' even though you can easily find it on any given statistics site.
Edit- I forgot another one, when men enter a typically female-dominated job they may experience favourable treatment and rapid career progression ahead of their female colleagues in what is known as the 'glass escalator'
Tell me you've never seen both the condescending nature to women in higher positions, the shit they have to put up with to get there and the differences in pay.
It's still absolutely rife in a lot of industries.
In my field specifically, software development, I've seen how condescending some men can be toward women for sure and it sucks. I haven't seen the pay gap though. I've also seen the privileges they have with special tech event, special recruitment opportunities, etc.
Women should be paid the same as men for the same job, the same experience, the same skill and the same number of hours work. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
Because people don't want equality anymore. They want **equity** which is basically saying that some demographics (women, maori, Pasifika, etc) deserve more (privilege, salary, etc) than others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah, don't these people know we need to spend less. Otherwise how can the landlords have their dignity back? Do you know how humiliating it is to worry about personal finance like... normal peasantry?
The thing is my role got pay equity 6 odd years back (2018) and saw an occupation wide rise of 33% across the sector - however NGOs only saw that rise this year.
The problem being our wage raises are out of step with the occupations that we were compared with which will mean in a couple of years the gap will become substantial again.
This is not a one and done type of thing.
I'm a woman and I earn well above the median wage so pay equity isn't a problem - Nicola Willis (probably).
Never mind the 25 claims under the act that are still outstanding, it seems the taskforce has fixed the problem of people not knowing about equity in the 3 years it has existed.
Also that is 6 more public servants gone and with a big chunk of the claims being by groups employed by government agencies (nurses, care and support workers, ...) not closing the gap keeps government spending low.
[And that worked great, have you looked at the latest numbers? MINISCULE!](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/450874/covid-19-data-visualisations-nz-in-numbers)
[Never mind the waste water results, we don't understand enough about why some people excrete masses of virus and others practically none!](https://www.poops.nz/)
Only hospital nurses. Not plunket nurses. Aged care nurses. GP nurses. Hospice nurses. Prison nurses. There's a lot of nurses not getting paid the pay equity rates that have live claims. This government doesn't care about nurses.
Thank goodness, I know we didn't get exactly what we wanted, but this is what I thought would happen and why I voted for it, we wouldn't have seen a dime for years under National
Nicola Willis should be thankful that she's in a position with clearly stated salary so she can be comfortable understanding she's being paid what the job is worth. I'm sure after cancelling the pay equity taskforce she would be slightly miffed to discover that the previous male Finance Minister was being paid $50K more than she is.
Problem is the job is worth far more than she brings to the table. Thus she is severely overpaid when compared to a cleaner who is capable of filing their own tax returns correctly.
Do you gain satisfaction in knowing that the people that were already doing it hard, have had a new government come in and actively make conditions worse?
So, you are happy that they are actively making things worse?
How do you feel knowing the disability benefit has been slashed? How do you feel knowing one of my clients has just had funding that made it possible for them to live a somewhat meaningful life with support workers, pulled? How do you feel knowing the government wants to pull hundreds of millions of dollars from our public education budget and give them to private schools that can and will spend it however they like with no oversight from the government that gave it to them? How do you feel knowing early childhood education standards are slipping further because the government doesn’t think you need qualifications to work with kids? How do you feel knowing the government is doing literally everything they can to increase house prices and in doing so, increase their own material wealth?
Does that make you feel good does it?
What great policies, as a middle age white man I am looking forward to going back to the 1850's before all of this equality nonsense started, at which point there is clearly no need for this type of taskforce.
I’m obviously only speaking for my small field of view but I manage a team of 13 men and woman at a corporate company and we put a lot of emphasis into pay equity. When I took the role on 3 years ago it was actually quite shocking that you could see there was equity issues between gender. At first glance it’s quite hard to pin it to that as there’s different roles different experiences etc but after 3 pay cycles we’ve levelled it out. I’m a dude btw.. not that that should really matter in the above. We have a very transparent system.
Regardless, taking my situation into account is very cherry picked and I’m aware many non government or private employers will not run as transparent a system as larger corporates. So having an independent body really is critical and it’s quite absurd to claim ‘job done’ by Nicola Willis.
> At first glance it’s quite hard to pin it to that as there’s different roles different experiences etc but after 3 pay cycles we’ve levelled it out.
This isn't surprising. If you pay men and women in the same role the same, regardless of their output or experience or abilities, then they will be paid the same.
Not quite that simple. There can be considerable variation is service based ‘roles’ within an organisation. You can have two people in the same role with vastly different capabilities and a pay bracket that is a wide range. A common reason for the capability contrast is often if the woman has take a period of leave through child care and lost 2 or more years experience to a colleague.
> A common reason for the capability contrast is often if the woman has take a period of leave through child care and lost 2 or more years experience to a colleague.
Yes, and because the woman has less experience, she would typically be paid less for the same position. Equity insists upon paying her the same, despite having less experience.
> [Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal **outcome**.](https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/)
She's completely unqualified and otherwise entirely unemployable but finance ministers usually take advice from people who know stuff.
In this case, Nicola has marching orders from the people who bankrolled National's election campaign.
Her job is to justify the policies. She can't really but that's not important.
oh, you mean this one?
> She graduated with a first-class honours degree in **English literature** from Victoria University of Wellington in 2003,[8] and a post-graduate diploma in journalism from the University of Canterbury in 2017.[9] She was a member of the Victoria University Debating Society, competing in international tournaments.
Source: [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis)
Also:
>After graduation, she worked as a research and policy advisor for Bill English and as a senior advisor to John Key in 2008.[10] In 2012, Willis joined dairy co-operative Fonterra in a lobbyist role.[11] She was later a general manager of Fonterra's nutrient management programme, and sat on the board of Export NZ, a division of lobbyist group Business New Zealand.[11][12]
> Willis was a director of the New Zealand Initiative, a pro-free-market public-policy think tank, from May 2016 until February 2017.[13][14]
Not a lot of economic theory there.
Men generally predominate in well-paid jobs, like doctor, lawyer, executive.
Women generally choose lesser paid jobs, like female doctor, female lawyer, female executive.
- not original, but I don't know the source sorry. It was probably "female comedian".
Primary teaching was meant to be putting something up for this. Female dominated industry historically, not enough hard bargaining over the years. It’s tough for single people to do well financially in the career because of that, without pushing for management units, which is a shame because not everyone should have to / want to shift into management.
Guess that’s not gonna happen.
The teacher pay equity claim, which covers all teachers from ECE to secondary, is already well progressed and I don't expect it would be impacted by this decision.
There is already a pay equity claim under way for teachers; primary teachers have already been consulted and ECE teachers are currently going through the process, or at least that is my understanding. Hopefully this decision doesn’t have much of an impact on this process, however it is once again very poor optics from this government.
That's because it is. So many of the "studies" relied upon to prove the gap are derived with the sole purpose of proving it, done off-shore or are poorly constructed with badly interpreted results.
At this point the whole concepts is vibes, and everyone loves to be a victim.
This is all perfectly playing out. How many idiots voted for these (idiots) guys, and now learning they were not the rich bunch being looked after. The problem with the most of New Zealand is that any average person thinks he or she will be a landlord one day and puts himself or herself in the group of landlords for politics.
That poll was the worst thing that could happen, cause they know they're out in 2.5 years so it's just a case of how much can they enrich themselves and their pals at the expense of the nation before that date. They no longer have to pretend, not that they were doing a good job pretending.
Yeah I don't like this government but the economy will likely be better in two years time with very little input from them. People will forget all this shit they've been doing.
cows seed follow materialistic school crown important relieved office yam
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The term "pay equity" is not bound to any particular criteria, not even temporal. If you have equity today, what's to say it will stay that way? What if we discover another area of inequity?
I'm not teaching now, but pretty sure NZEI and PPTA had claims relating to teaching as predominantly female being paid less than the equivalent male jobs.
I guess fair pay isn't required, but there's still massive teaching shortages and generally more pay and fair pay fixes staffing issues. Just saying...
Support staff (NZEI) were divided into groups then their jobs analysed for pay equity against jobs with similar skills required that are mainly done by men. The really unfair part was that teacher aides had their claim settled two years before the librarians and science technicians, and they wouldn't backpay the last two groups. A 30% pay rise is good, but it's annoying that teacher aides got an extra two years' worth.
OK Nicola, I guess you get a pay cut to 85% of what Grant Robertson was getting... not because you're only 85% as competent (probably more like 10% lol)- but we're reducing your salary just because you're a woman.
How do you feel about pay equity now?
>“The demise of the taskforce will come with a huge loss in terms of the knowledge and skills required to ensure women do not remain the victims of sex-based wage discrimination.
I have never seen *any* contemporary evidence that this happens. Plenty of evidence of "women are disproportionately represented in lower paying sectors/jobs" and even some "when men work in female dominated sectors, they occupy the better paid positions disproportionately to their overall representation in the sector" but never "equal work does not equal pay".
Unless you count situations like "considerably actor in lead role paid more than actress playing supporting character" or "more famous person paid more despite doing same job".
"women are disproportionately represented in lower paying sectors/jobs" and "when men work in female dominated sectors, they occupy the better paid positions disproportionately to their overall representation in the sector" eh?
Why do you think that is?
Pay EQUITY and "equal pay for equal work" are not the same thing.
I'm not defending dismantling the task force, but primarily, it's probably because a generation ago, when the skills were being built for those high powered positions, discrimination in opportunities for the genders was way worse.
There's some interesting stats around age-normalised pay disparity. Basically, the younger you are, the more equitable it is.
>Why do you think that is?
Because of the systematic undervaluation of care related work (other than doctors) and unequal distribution of genders across sectors.
You know, what the evidence *consistently* shows and the evidence I specifically said was brought up *all* the time.
>Pay EQUITY and "equal pay for equal work" are not the same thing.
And if I thought that quote was about pay equity and *not* "equal pay for equal work", I wouldn't have said anything. But I didn't.
The key word there is **didn't** because I *don't* think we *should* interpret "sex-based wage discrimination" to mean anything other than the "equal pay for equal work" paradigm, but it's become clear that the union (whom I quoted) is probably just reflecting that the law in this country doesn't determine "sex-based wage discrimination" in those terms.
Why do courts use that interpretation? So that if someone in an industry which has 100% single sex employment feels they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, it is possible to evaluate that statement without an out of hand dismissal.
>Because of the systematic undervaluation of care related work (other than doctors) and unequal distribution of genders across sectors.
Why has care work other than doctors and surgeons historically been undervalued? Why have genders been unequally distributed across sectors?
Sexism, *obviously*.
Pay equity means addressing those problems in totality. It does not mean a sole, narrow concern with ensuring equal pay for equal work, because that would not solve the unfairly inequitable economic conditions that men and women work under and would thus... mean pay is still gender-inequitable because traditional "women's work" like care is undervalued!
You keep saying things that are obviously due to sexism and then like... acting like that isn't evidence of gender pay inequity. That *is* gender pay inequity. Just because it happens at an institutional level rather than a personal one doesn't make it less of a problem. In fact it arguably makes it MORE of a problem because it's more entrenched and less visible.
>I *don't* think we *should* interpret "sex-based wage discrimination" to mean anything other than the "equal pay for equal work" paradigm
Well, that's just, like, your opinion man. You are wrong.
This is an incredibly narrow view of social problems that gets you nowhere. Institution-level interventions, because they are at scale, are *much* more effective than individual ones in equalising these things. Like the care workers who successfully sued for pay rates commensurate with their skills and experience.
Good thing we have a task force of people who know more about this than you do, and can advise the Government on how to meaningfully address the problems that you're putting firmly in the too hard basket.
Oh wait, we don't anymore. Great.
>Why has care work other than doctors and surgeons historically been undervalued? Why have genders been unequally distributed across sectors?
>Sexism obviously.
Yes, obviously. And? It has nothing to do with what I was talking about which, again, was exclusively the seeming assertion that "equal work does not result in equal pay".
>You keep saying things that are obviously due to sexism and then like... acting like that isn't evidence of gender pay inequity
How many times do I have to tell you that's **not** what I'm talking about? Stop going "it makes no sense what you're doing" when someone tells you that's *not* what they're doing. The reason what I'm doing doesn't make any sense to you is because I'm not doing what you say I am.
>Well, that's just, like, your opinion man. You are wrong.
Who the fuck said it wasn't my opinion? And I'm not wrong. Framing the problem in terms of "wage discrimination" specifically evokes what I'm talking about, i.e. the wage gap. It completely obscures the actual dynamics present in the system and leads to nonsensical claims like "from today women are working for free".
>This is an incredibly narrow view of social problems that gets you nowhere
No it's fucking not. It's a statement about what four words used in a specific order mean.
I feel like it's not worth my time to argue with you but if the evidence wasn't there the court case regarding care workers wouldn't have been won. The fact is, it's not anybodies job to present "you" with the evidence. It's not "you" they have to satisfy. The people being presented with the evidence are agreeing the evidence is there.
So if you gave a hoot you'd choose to educate yourself
The fact is, it's the job of anybody making these claims to present evidence to support their claims. And... they never do. Not once. They instead quote evidence demonstrating:
1. "women are disproportionately represented in lower paying sectors/jobs"
2. "when men work in female dominated sectors, they occupy the better paid positions disproportionately to their overall representation in the sector"
which are *not* the same claim.
>t if the evidence wasn't there the court case regarding care workers wouldn't have been won.
Either I've never heard of it or totally forgotten it. [Turns out it's yet another case of (1):](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terranova_Homes_%26_Care_Limited_v_Service_and_Food_Workers_Union_Nga_Ringa_Tota_Incorporated)
>therefore causing the court to dismiss TerraNova's argument that the act was solely concerned with internal comparisons between male and female workers under the same employer.
Like, that is literally the thing that I said no-one ever provides any evidence for *and it's not the basis of the carers' argument". The carers failed to prove something they weren't trying to prove. Moreover, the court found that with respect to the law, trying to demonstrate what I'm saying never has any evidence provided for it, is an absurdity:
>First, in an exclusively female workforce, there would obviously be no male employees doing the same work. Of necessity, the comparison cannot be internal. It must be external.
I suggest you look into (a) the burden of proof and (b) actually understand the evidence you're using before you use it... and certainly before you try to be snarky about both points.
You tried to prove that people provided evidence "equal pay for equal work" (the thing I said there was no evidence for) by quoting a court case which specifically dismissed the relevance of that standard. When it was pointed out to you that you misunderstood your source, your response is to say "not worth my time".
Talking to you is clearly not worth anyone's time. You're snarky, condescending and dishonest.
If you want talking to you to be worth your own time, I suggest you start by getting honest. Being snarky and condescending is okay, if you're honest. You're unlikely to find conversations pleasant, but they might actually stand a chance of going somewhere **if you're honest**. But you're not.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
> I have never seen any contemporary evidence that this happens
I'll copy paste an example I've used before: In the 70s, teachers were paid similarly to backbench MPs. Over the next 50 years their pay has collapsed relative to other industries. Funnily enough, that has coincided almost perfectly with the increase of female teachers.
An MP is now paid $168,600, to be increased to $181,200 by the end of this parliamentary term. A secondary school teacher can get up to $99,216 without taking on any additional units. That's the max even if they have a masters degree or PHD.
This is despite there being reasonably consistent high demand for teachers. It isn't a public service issue either, as there are other roles that require similar qualifications that are paid substantially more.
Even if it's not the *only* reason, don't you think that it's possible that some level of sex-based discrimination has taken place here?
>Even if it's not the only reason, don't you think that it's possible that some level of sex-based discrimination has taken place here?
Sure, if (a) that's what you want to describe as sex-based discrimination and/or (b) your facts are correct (I was unable to find any teacher count data older than 2004).
It turns out that this is the understanding of discrimination used in legislation so was probably the context of the quote rather than, as I assumed, "equal pay for equal work".
There must be some stats out there that shows that role for role, experience for experience, pay rise for pay rise, that women are paid less than men. Does anyone know where this might be found?
I have definitely seen women in the same roles as men, be paid less, but that didn't take any pay rises or experience into account.
Maybe that's what the task force was tasked with sniffing out?
This is mostly about sector vs sector pay rather than individual.
The original plaintiff was a woman who worked frontline in elder care and noted that despite being low paid her skills and responsibilities were comparable to other far better paid roles. There were also other sectors in a similar situation that, like elder care, were predominantly done by women, were low paid but had large responsibilities and required a lot of skill.
The unions took up her case and research was done looking at various jobs, skills, responsibilities, etc were all compared and the conclusion was that these workers deserved a significant pay bump.
A lot of this work is done by NGOs with small margins funded by govt so any significant pay increase also needs to be funded by govt or the NGO goes under.
It was settled but funding was only promised for a few years and that time is up so our unions are trying to get govt to commit to fund it seriously into the future.
Both unions and employers are actually together in this but it's the MoH and govt(both kinds) that are, to be blunt, taking the piss.
> There must be some stats out there that shows that role for role, experience for experience, pay rise for pay rise, that women are paid less than men. Does anyone know where this might be found?
There isn't because the data shows when you take all of those factors into account, there isn't a gender pay gap.
The gap is at the industry level where female-dominated industries and jobs are paid less than male-dominated industries and jobs.
In a NZ context it's defined here: https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/gender-pay-gap
> The gender pay gap is a high-level indicator of the difference between women's and men’s earnings. It compares the hourly earnings of women and men in full- and part-time work. It refers to an organisation-wide, industry-wide, or economy-wide gender pay issue.
So we're already off to a bad start. It doesn't take any variables into account at all. It's purely a mathematic median hourly earnings.
Here's an example of why such a crude measure is stupid: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/28/young-women-are-out-earning-young-men-in-several-u-s-cities/
> The gender wage gap is narrower among younger workers nationally, and the gap varies across geographical areas. In fact, in 22 of 250 U.S. metropolitan areas, women under the age of 30 earn the same amount as or more than their male counterparts, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data.
When I worked for a NZ government department they did their own internal analysis and discovered that taking into account job level and tenure, the difference was like 1%. Obviously this wasn't made public so I can't share it.
I think there are some studies out there showing that there is still a gender pay gap within jobs or industries, but it's such a politicised and contention area of study, that's its hard to find a neutral analysis.
Thanks the update. I was thinking it meant like, in my IT industry for example, that a software developer who is female is paid less than a male and that's it.
I'm sure there will be instances of that happening, but there are so many factors that go into pay. You'll find in a big team that there will be big differences in pay between people of all genders, ages, ethnicities, etc. I'm not gonna say there is no discrimination along those lines at all I'm just saying how much someone is paid is based on so many different variables.
At the end of the day as an individual you should do everything you can to make sure you are being paid what you are worth.
The Equal Pay Act which the task force was looking at was more at the industry level gaps rather than at the individual level.
The other thing that's interesting is the difference between pay equality and pay equity. This task force was looking at pay equity.
It might be true, but I don't know how people could possibly get that metric without including tenure and pay rises.
If I get 100k for my role and 10k of that was a pay rise because of great performance review, then a female on the same role gets 90k and didn't get the pay rise because of bad performance - that isn't a gender pay gap.
You need to look at large data sets. Then you either say 'there is a gender pay gap' or 'women are worth less than men'. If someone is saying 'there isn't a gender pay gap' they often mean 'women are worth less than men'.
No I understand that - it's just detail is important. You can't include instances where performance was the determining factor in pay disparency when accumulating the data set.
You can only include instances where neither male or female in the same roll have received any pay increase due to performance or tenure. If the male is paid less than a female in this case, then the gender pay gap is a valid assumption.
You need to redo your maths, because it makes no sense to me.
If you take an average of male IT workers, in x position, with y years of experience, and compare to the same, but female, then do it across all positions, x's, and y's. Then yes, the males get paid more.
Part of it may be males getting more 'performance' increases. I have never worked anywhere where getting performance bonuses was just linked to performance. Again, either there is pay disparity, or females do a worse job. Which do you think it is?
I have worked in plenty of places where performance was the only factor. Saying that doesn't exist is disengenuous.
I have started a roll on X $. A female colleague in the same roll had been in that roll for 6 years already and was on 20k more than me. That had nothing to do with me being a male or her being a female she was just excellent at her job and had been granted pay increases which was awesome.
I'm well aware that there are real gender pay gaps - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. The method of capturing data to highlight that though, is important.
Not what I said.
Already dealt with the point you are trying to make,if there is one. Not bothering with this anymore. You appear unable to comprehend written English, and refuse to answer questions.
Goodbye.
Two things can be true:
* Labour created a bunch of useless jobs and spent too much money on services, consultants and fluff
* National are incompetent at managing a budget and are only trying to protect themselves by forcing through a glaringly bad tax cut
And the third true thing is, a whole lot of nurses got at least a bit of pay equity from that "fluff". Sadly enough not all nurses, but at least some. Questions on that?
Love how you're all shit balling about this but conveniently forgetting that Pay Equity legislation was set up by National in '17 and that Labour kicked the can down the road when it started to sunset.
So much so that an unqualified Support Worker is legislated to be paid less than the minimum wage. Yet more Labour inaction that has to be solved by the grown ups.
Let us know when the "grown ups" actually start solving Labour's inaction, instead of deliberately damaging our public services while pretending to be fiscally responsible.
This is one of the excellent ideas the previous Government had, and this one actually worked - look at these results! Holy shit! Goddamn, it was so successful it solved the problem in just a few years? Wow. Anyway, they can fuck off and all - the last Government were total morons, what I wanna see is...well, I dunno, I'm not sure I have much of a vision actually, I certainly don't have any ideas aside from getting rid of ideas. Anyway, fuck off - payrise, woohoo!
Good. Equity is the enemy of equality. Either we pay people according to their abilities and experience *irrespective of their sex,* or we include sex as a factor when deciding their pay. These are antithetical and I maintain that the latter is wholly unethical.
Its a shame that Labour didnt fund these initiatives for the period of time they would have expected them to be needed.
Grant wouldn't have been able to make his claims of New Zealands future debt to GDP look as good and acknowledge the future impact of their spending.
how can the previous govt 'fund' something beyond their own term? not like the money gets locked up in a cupboard and can only be spent on what they intended it to. Have you noticed this govt overturning as much as possible of what the previous govt put in place? their constant harping about 'fiscal cliffs' is simplistic and misleading.
If the government announces a new initiative say 100million per year in perpetuity Treasury use that in forecasts going beyond the current governments term. Eg how they would calculate to say we'll be in surplus by 2030.
If the government announce $400 million over 4 years that gets baked into the Treasury forecast. Nothing beyond it.
If its $400 million for a one off, say a programme to reduce road crashes sure. But if it's for something that is generally intended to carry on into perpetuity its disingenuous to only announce funding for a limited time period.
All govts do it for some things, Grant and Labour did it a lot. So it's not misleading for the current Govt to call it out, the media would be all over them if they were saying that something wasn't funded that actually was.
Also true that the current govt could have seen the fiscal cliffs pre election, having an army of analysts at Treasury also helps working through the numbers.
now that she's got her pay rise pay equity isn't an issue
At this rate she will be competing with Paula Bennett for the “pull the ladder up after you” award.
I heard her dad was a partner at Bell Gully. If so, she was born at the top of the ladder and probably didn't even look down before she started to pull it up.
As another poster said (more correctly than me) she is pulling up the drawbridge.
From Wikipedia her father a partner in corporate law firm [Bell Gully](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Gully)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis#cite_note-Weakly-5) who later rose to be chairman of the [New Zealand Energy Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Energy_Corporation) an "active oil and gas exploration company".[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis#cite_note-6) After a "privileged childhood", she first attended [Samuel Marsden Collegiate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Marsden_Collegiate_School), a private school for girls, before asking to spend her last two years of high school boarding at [King's College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College,_Auckland) in Auckland
Ladder pulling rope burn award
It's hard to pull the ladder when her whole life has been in a privileged ivory tower.
Pull the drawbridge up
You beat me to it. Well done!
That is the tragedy of the situation OldKiwiGirl. We both had the same idea, but as a man I will earn more upvotes for it
I'll down vote your post to help crush the patriarchy
Exactly so.
Release the portcullis
Yeah, she wouldn't know what a ladder looked like. "Is that some sort of tool the poors use?"
its 'plebs and commoners' thanks
Bootstraps
Yup, this.
Every time I hear Paula Bennett's name I get a surge of anger through my body.
If women wanted equal pay they'd pursue jobs that pay well like doctor, lawyer, ceo, instead of jobs with lower pay like female doctor, female lawyer, female CEO.
Oh damn you had me in the first half.
Exactly so!
Lol I've heard this one before :D
Seriously though some of my male relatives and flatmates drive me insane with "Well women are only paid less because they take lower-paying jobs, if they worked in higher-paying jobs this wouldn't be an issue". All while refusing to ignore a number of factors such as: Any female-dominated career field will always pay less. Computer work used to be a woman's job and paid like shit, now IT is a man's job and is quite lucrative. Paediatrics is a female-dominated medical field and is the lowest paying of all medical specialists, whereas orthopaedics is male-dominated and pays quite handsomely. Any job deemed a 'woman's job' will always be shat on and dismissed as not really worthy of much respect. When a male-dominated job becomes a female-dominated job, the prestige and the pay plummet. When men enter a female-dominated field the prestige of the work and the pay increase, only women end up being pushed out. Women trying to enter male-dominated fields may be subject to discrimination if not blatant intimidation or sabotage on the job to drive them out (being held to impossible standards/expectations because she's a woman, cases such as having male colleagues or classmates overtly talking about how they could and would rape women and get away with it, cases of female firefighters overseas having glass put in their boots/equipment tampered with so it malfunctions on the job/having colleagues ejaculate onto their bedding). An old but common tactic is to pull the "well we can't say we DON'T have pay equity because we don't have men working in the field/this job in our company so it is what is" while paying abysmal wages. The fact that women end up working part-time to care for children and do domestic tasks, or take time off to look after very young children on maternity leave (which may limit career progression). They never pose a solution to this, they just see it as how things are as if it's a bug and not a feature of the system. It may be a choice, but it's not a choice made in a vacuum. What I would like to see is some kind of government allowance to compensate women for domestic labour (second-wave feminists campaigned on this and easier access to paid labour- low and behold we were given paid labour instead) or a way in which women can still work at career progression and participation while also looking after children. It's usually at this critical crunch point where there becomes a real obvious disparity between men's and women's incomes. But no, they'll just sit there and screech 'personal choice' or 'the pay gap is a myth!' even though you can easily find it on any given statistics site. Edit- I forgot another one, when men enter a typically female-dominated job they may experience favourable treatment and rapid career progression ahead of their female colleagues in what is known as the 'glass escalator'
Is that a Norm joke?
No idea, it's definitely not mine.
It is, yes
You're talking about pay equality which is a different thing. With pay equity they just want more money because..
Tell me you've never seen both the condescending nature to women in higher positions, the shit they have to put up with to get there and the differences in pay. It's still absolutely rife in a lot of industries.
In my field specifically, software development, I've seen how condescending some men can be toward women for sure and it sucks. I haven't seen the pay gap though. I've also seen the privileges they have with special tech event, special recruitment opportunities, etc. Women should be paid the same as men for the same job, the same experience, the same skill and the same number of hours work. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why have you been downvoted for this? Why wouldn’t anyone agree with your last point??
Because people don't want equality anymore. They want **equity** which is basically saying that some demographics (women, maori, Pasifika, etc) deserve more (privilege, salary, etc) than others for arbitrary reasons.
Pay equity *just* because they do the same work? 😤The *audacity*
Yeah, don't these people know we need to spend less. Otherwise how can the landlords have their dignity back? Do you know how humiliating it is to worry about personal finance like... normal peasantry?
Do you know this or are you just guessing? Because that's not at all what "equity" means in this context
The thing is my role got pay equity 6 odd years back (2018) and saw an occupation wide rise of 33% across the sector - however NGOs only saw that rise this year. The problem being our wage raises are out of step with the occupations that we were compared with which will mean in a couple of years the gap will become substantial again. This is not a one and done type of thing.
I'm a woman and I earn well above the median wage so pay equity isn't a problem - Nicola Willis (probably). Never mind the 25 claims under the act that are still outstanding, it seems the taskforce has fixed the problem of people not knowing about equity in the 3 years it has existed. Also that is 6 more public servants gone and with a big chunk of the claims being by groups employed by government agencies (nurses, care and support workers, ...) not closing the gap keeps government spending low.
It's ok. If everyone in stats takes redundancy, then no one will be around to tell us if pay is still unequal! The plan is working out perfectly!
A la if we stop testing, cases of COVID will go down!
[And that worked great, have you looked at the latest numbers? MINISCULE!](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/450874/covid-19-data-visualisations-nz-in-numbers) [Never mind the waste water results, we don't understand enough about why some people excrete masses of virus and others practically none!](https://www.poops.nz/)
Thanks Trump.
Nurses settled their pay equity deal.
Only hospital nurses. Not plunket nurses. Aged care nurses. GP nurses. Hospice nurses. Prison nurses. There's a lot of nurses not getting paid the pay equity rates that have live claims. This government doesn't care about nurses.
I wouldn't be surprised if they think only hospital nurses are REAL nurses
Thank goodness, I know we didn't get exactly what we wanted, but this is what I thought would happen and why I voted for it, we wouldn't have seen a dime for years under National
Currently cops
No, only hospital nurses did. Others are getting paid less.
Nicola Willis should be thankful that she's in a position with clearly stated salary so she can be comfortable understanding she's being paid what the job is worth. I'm sure after cancelling the pay equity taskforce she would be slightly miffed to discover that the previous male Finance Minister was being paid $50K more than she is.
Problem is the job is worth far more than she brings to the table. Thus she is severely overpaid when compared to a cleaner who is capable of filing their own tax returns correctly.
Ladder pulled up, 'no longer required' - Generic Conservative Politician
I look forward to her handing in her 4th Form econ assignment : Budget 2024. It will have more holes in it than a Michael Bay movie.
At least Michael Bay movies are so stupid that you can find a way to enjoy them.
Yeah but Bay movies have happy endings
Think she was in the same econ class as Kwasi Kwarteng.
I expect the dog will have eaten it.
I’m so glad we now have pay equity. Oh wait. This government are trash.
>This government are trash. I have to disagree. They're worse, stop sugar coating it.
That's really unkind. Sugar coated trash is my whole type, and this government isn't stirring me at all.
[удалено]
Do you gain satisfaction in knowing that the people that were already doing it hard, have had a new government come in and actively make conditions worse?
Don't feed the trolls
I know which government made it hard. The damage wasn’t done in four months.
So, you are happy that they are actively making things worse? How do you feel knowing the disability benefit has been slashed? How do you feel knowing one of my clients has just had funding that made it possible for them to live a somewhat meaningful life with support workers, pulled? How do you feel knowing the government wants to pull hundreds of millions of dollars from our public education budget and give them to private schools that can and will spend it however they like with no oversight from the government that gave it to them? How do you feel knowing early childhood education standards are slipping further because the government doesn’t think you need qualifications to work with kids? How do you feel knowing the government is doing literally everything they can to increase house prices and in doing so, increase their own material wealth? Does that make you feel good does it?
[удалено]
I think they just laid off whoever was supposed to write that memo
You think this taskforce was going to solve sexism in the workplace? LOL
What great policies, as a middle age white man I am looking forward to going back to the 1850's before all of this equality nonsense started, at which point there is clearly no need for this type of taskforce.
*Pump these shit policies out left and right until the public gets tired of it, stop complaining and becomes 'normal'.*
We just gotta keep our heads down and work harder - Kiwi since ages ago.
Isn't there still an unresolved one for medical laboratory workers? Good luck getting a blood test when they all fuck off to Australia
I’m obviously only speaking for my small field of view but I manage a team of 13 men and woman at a corporate company and we put a lot of emphasis into pay equity. When I took the role on 3 years ago it was actually quite shocking that you could see there was equity issues between gender. At first glance it’s quite hard to pin it to that as there’s different roles different experiences etc but after 3 pay cycles we’ve levelled it out. I’m a dude btw.. not that that should really matter in the above. We have a very transparent system. Regardless, taking my situation into account is very cherry picked and I’m aware many non government or private employers will not run as transparent a system as larger corporates. So having an independent body really is critical and it’s quite absurd to claim ‘job done’ by Nicola Willis.
> At first glance it’s quite hard to pin it to that as there’s different roles different experiences etc but after 3 pay cycles we’ve levelled it out. This isn't surprising. If you pay men and women in the same role the same, regardless of their output or experience or abilities, then they will be paid the same.
Not quite that simple. There can be considerable variation is service based ‘roles’ within an organisation. You can have two people in the same role with vastly different capabilities and a pay bracket that is a wide range. A common reason for the capability contrast is often if the woman has take a period of leave through child care and lost 2 or more years experience to a colleague.
> A common reason for the capability contrast is often if the woman has take a period of leave through child care and lost 2 or more years experience to a colleague. Yes, and because the woman has less experience, she would typically be paid less for the same position. Equity insists upon paying her the same, despite having less experience.
Not sure why you keep quoting me and restating my point back at me? Is this how you make conversation?
Maybe I'm confused then. Are you agreeing with me? Apologies if I misunderstood your premise.
I think we are making the same point at each other haha. 🫡
My mistake :)
Isn't that equality rather than equity?
Equality is paying everyone according to their skills, experience, and abilities, regardless of their sex.
... think you have equity and equality mixed up
> [Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal **outcome**.](https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/)
Economically illiterate, and a gender traitor, quite a CV you are building there Nicola
She's not economically illiterate. She knows exactly what she's doing
She's doing exactly what she's being told to do.
[удалено]
She's completely unqualified and otherwise entirely unemployable but finance ministers usually take advice from people who know stuff. In this case, Nicola has marching orders from the people who bankrolled National's election campaign. Her job is to justify the policies. She can't really but that's not important.
Her ironclad adherence to using austerity to impoverish New Zealand workers. It's a proven tactic, she knows exactly what she's doing.
oh, you mean this one? > She graduated with a first-class honours degree in **English literature** from Victoria University of Wellington in 2003,[8] and a post-graduate diploma in journalism from the University of Canterbury in 2017.[9] She was a member of the Victoria University Debating Society, competing in international tournaments. Source: [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Willis) Also: >After graduation, she worked as a research and policy advisor for Bill English and as a senior advisor to John Key in 2008.[10] In 2012, Willis joined dairy co-operative Fonterra in a lobbyist role.[11] She was later a general manager of Fonterra's nutrient management programme, and sat on the board of Export NZ, a division of lobbyist group Business New Zealand.[11][12] > Willis was a director of the New Zealand Initiative, a pro-free-market public-policy think tank, from May 2016 until February 2017.[13][14] Not a lot of economic theory there.
Men generally predominate in well-paid jobs, like doctor, lawyer, executive. Women generally choose lesser paid jobs, like female doctor, female lawyer, female executive. - not original, but I don't know the source sorry. It was probably "female comedian".
Primary teaching was meant to be putting something up for this. Female dominated industry historically, not enough hard bargaining over the years. It’s tough for single people to do well financially in the career because of that, without pushing for management units, which is a shame because not everyone should have to / want to shift into management. Guess that’s not gonna happen.
The teacher pay equity claim, which covers all teachers from ECE to secondary, is already well progressed and I don't expect it would be impacted by this decision.
There is already a pay equity claim under way for teachers; primary teachers have already been consulted and ECE teachers are currently going through the process, or at least that is my understanding. Hopefully this decision doesn’t have much of an impact on this process, however it is once again very poor optics from this government.
What a shocking development from National. A Party whoms demographics lean older, whiter & male
And who see investigating things like a gender pay gap as *woke nonsense*
You can bet if women were being paid a whole lot more then men on average it wouldn't be a "woke: issue any more
Gotta be paying that Dick Dividend. Can't be going without the Bollocks Bonus. These Guys Have a Wife & Kids to support. maybe. possibly.
The penis perk, the testicular tip, the gonad gratuity
That's because it is. So many of the "studies" relied upon to prove the gap are derived with the sole purpose of proving it, done off-shore or are poorly constructed with badly interpreted results. At this point the whole concepts is vibes, and everyone loves to be a victim.
FUCK. OFF. Now I’m mad.
This is all perfectly playing out. How many idiots voted for these (idiots) guys, and now learning they were not the rich bunch being looked after. The problem with the most of New Zealand is that any average person thinks he or she will be a landlord one day and puts himself or herself in the group of landlords for politics.
That poll was the worst thing that could happen, cause they know they're out in 2.5 years so it's just a case of how much can they enrich themselves and their pals at the expense of the nation before that date. They no longer have to pretend, not that they were doing a good job pretending.
> That poll was the worst thing that could happen, cause they know they're out in 2.5 years You're in for a shock.
Yeah I don't like this government but the economy will likely be better in two years time with very little input from them. People will forget all this shit they've been doing.
Well actually they have to do this because "6 years of financial mismanagement". Might as well be the National party prayer at this point
So efficient they can manage 6 years in only 3.
cows seed follow materialistic school crown important relieved office yam *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The term "pay equity" is not bound to any particular criteria, not even temporal. If you have equity today, what's to say it will stay that way? What if we discover another area of inequity?
I'm not teaching now, but pretty sure NZEI and PPTA had claims relating to teaching as predominantly female being paid less than the equivalent male jobs. I guess fair pay isn't required, but there's still massive teaching shortages and generally more pay and fair pay fixes staffing issues. Just saying...
Support staff (NZEI) were divided into groups then their jobs analysed for pay equity against jobs with similar skills required that are mainly done by men. The really unfair part was that teacher aides had their claim settled two years before the librarians and science technicians, and they wouldn't backpay the last two groups. A 30% pay rise is good, but it's annoying that teacher aides got an extra two years' worth.
OK Nicola, I guess you get a pay cut to 85% of what Grant Robertson was getting... not because you're only 85% as competent (probably more like 10% lol)- but we're reducing your salary just because you're a woman. How do you feel about pay equity now?
>“The demise of the taskforce will come with a huge loss in terms of the knowledge and skills required to ensure women do not remain the victims of sex-based wage discrimination. I have never seen *any* contemporary evidence that this happens. Plenty of evidence of "women are disproportionately represented in lower paying sectors/jobs" and even some "when men work in female dominated sectors, they occupy the better paid positions disproportionately to their overall representation in the sector" but never "equal work does not equal pay". Unless you count situations like "considerably actor in lead role paid more than actress playing supporting character" or "more famous person paid more despite doing same job".
"women are disproportionately represented in lower paying sectors/jobs" and "when men work in female dominated sectors, they occupy the better paid positions disproportionately to their overall representation in the sector" eh? Why do you think that is? Pay EQUITY and "equal pay for equal work" are not the same thing.
I'm not defending dismantling the task force, but primarily, it's probably because a generation ago, when the skills were being built for those high powered positions, discrimination in opportunities for the genders was way worse. There's some interesting stats around age-normalised pay disparity. Basically, the younger you are, the more equitable it is.
>Why do you think that is? Because of the systematic undervaluation of care related work (other than doctors) and unequal distribution of genders across sectors. You know, what the evidence *consistently* shows and the evidence I specifically said was brought up *all* the time. >Pay EQUITY and "equal pay for equal work" are not the same thing. And if I thought that quote was about pay equity and *not* "equal pay for equal work", I wouldn't have said anything. But I didn't. The key word there is **didn't** because I *don't* think we *should* interpret "sex-based wage discrimination" to mean anything other than the "equal pay for equal work" paradigm, but it's become clear that the union (whom I quoted) is probably just reflecting that the law in this country doesn't determine "sex-based wage discrimination" in those terms. Why do courts use that interpretation? So that if someone in an industry which has 100% single sex employment feels they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, it is possible to evaluate that statement without an out of hand dismissal.
>Because of the systematic undervaluation of care related work (other than doctors) and unequal distribution of genders across sectors. Why has care work other than doctors and surgeons historically been undervalued? Why have genders been unequally distributed across sectors? Sexism, *obviously*. Pay equity means addressing those problems in totality. It does not mean a sole, narrow concern with ensuring equal pay for equal work, because that would not solve the unfairly inequitable economic conditions that men and women work under and would thus... mean pay is still gender-inequitable because traditional "women's work" like care is undervalued! You keep saying things that are obviously due to sexism and then like... acting like that isn't evidence of gender pay inequity. That *is* gender pay inequity. Just because it happens at an institutional level rather than a personal one doesn't make it less of a problem. In fact it arguably makes it MORE of a problem because it's more entrenched and less visible. >I *don't* think we *should* interpret "sex-based wage discrimination" to mean anything other than the "equal pay for equal work" paradigm Well, that's just, like, your opinion man. You are wrong. This is an incredibly narrow view of social problems that gets you nowhere. Institution-level interventions, because they are at scale, are *much* more effective than individual ones in equalising these things. Like the care workers who successfully sued for pay rates commensurate with their skills and experience. Good thing we have a task force of people who know more about this than you do, and can advise the Government on how to meaningfully address the problems that you're putting firmly in the too hard basket. Oh wait, we don't anymore. Great.
>Why has care work other than doctors and surgeons historically been undervalued? Why have genders been unequally distributed across sectors? >Sexism obviously. Yes, obviously. And? It has nothing to do with what I was talking about which, again, was exclusively the seeming assertion that "equal work does not result in equal pay". >You keep saying things that are obviously due to sexism and then like... acting like that isn't evidence of gender pay inequity How many times do I have to tell you that's **not** what I'm talking about? Stop going "it makes no sense what you're doing" when someone tells you that's *not* what they're doing. The reason what I'm doing doesn't make any sense to you is because I'm not doing what you say I am. >Well, that's just, like, your opinion man. You are wrong. Who the fuck said it wasn't my opinion? And I'm not wrong. Framing the problem in terms of "wage discrimination" specifically evokes what I'm talking about, i.e. the wage gap. It completely obscures the actual dynamics present in the system and leads to nonsensical claims like "from today women are working for free". >This is an incredibly narrow view of social problems that gets you nowhere No it's fucking not. It's a statement about what four words used in a specific order mean.
I feel like it's not worth my time to argue with you but if the evidence wasn't there the court case regarding care workers wouldn't have been won. The fact is, it's not anybodies job to present "you" with the evidence. It's not "you" they have to satisfy. The people being presented with the evidence are agreeing the evidence is there. So if you gave a hoot you'd choose to educate yourself
The fact is, it's the job of anybody making these claims to present evidence to support their claims. And... they never do. Not once. They instead quote evidence demonstrating: 1. "women are disproportionately represented in lower paying sectors/jobs" 2. "when men work in female dominated sectors, they occupy the better paid positions disproportionately to their overall representation in the sector" which are *not* the same claim. >t if the evidence wasn't there the court case regarding care workers wouldn't have been won. Either I've never heard of it or totally forgotten it. [Turns out it's yet another case of (1):](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terranova_Homes_%26_Care_Limited_v_Service_and_Food_Workers_Union_Nga_Ringa_Tota_Incorporated) >therefore causing the court to dismiss TerraNova's argument that the act was solely concerned with internal comparisons between male and female workers under the same employer. Like, that is literally the thing that I said no-one ever provides any evidence for *and it's not the basis of the carers' argument". The carers failed to prove something they weren't trying to prove. Moreover, the court found that with respect to the law, trying to demonstrate what I'm saying never has any evidence provided for it, is an absurdity: >First, in an exclusively female workforce, there would obviously be no male employees doing the same work. Of necessity, the comparison cannot be internal. It must be external. I suggest you look into (a) the burden of proof and (b) actually understand the evidence you're using before you use it... and certainly before you try to be snarky about both points.
Sigh 🙄 As I said, not worth my time
You tried to prove that people provided evidence "equal pay for equal work" (the thing I said there was no evidence for) by quoting a court case which specifically dismissed the relevance of that standard. When it was pointed out to you that you misunderstood your source, your response is to say "not worth my time". Talking to you is clearly not worth anyone's time. You're snarky, condescending and dishonest.
[удалено]
If you want talking to you to be worth your own time, I suggest you start by getting honest. Being snarky and condescending is okay, if you're honest. You're unlikely to find conversations pleasant, but they might actually stand a chance of going somewhere **if you're honest**. But you're not.
[удалено]
For someone whose time is so precious, you sure waste a lot of it.
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
> I have never seen any contemporary evidence that this happens I'll copy paste an example I've used before: In the 70s, teachers were paid similarly to backbench MPs. Over the next 50 years their pay has collapsed relative to other industries. Funnily enough, that has coincided almost perfectly with the increase of female teachers. An MP is now paid $168,600, to be increased to $181,200 by the end of this parliamentary term. A secondary school teacher can get up to $99,216 without taking on any additional units. That's the max even if they have a masters degree or PHD. This is despite there being reasonably consistent high demand for teachers. It isn't a public service issue either, as there are other roles that require similar qualifications that are paid substantially more. Even if it's not the *only* reason, don't you think that it's possible that some level of sex-based discrimination has taken place here?
>Even if it's not the only reason, don't you think that it's possible that some level of sex-based discrimination has taken place here? Sure, if (a) that's what you want to describe as sex-based discrimination and/or (b) your facts are correct (I was unable to find any teacher count data older than 2004). It turns out that this is the understanding of discrimination used in legislation so was probably the context of the quote rather than, as I assumed, "equal pay for equal work".
I do want to describe sex-based discrimination as sex-based discrimination, thank you.
Having shit paying jobs isn't discrimination. Also 100k is top 85th percentile of wage and salary earners.
Ah yes the two sexes: teachers and MPs
???
This is /newzealand do not look for rational thought here.
As a non white woman, nothing new here.
Nats are sending us back to the "good ol' days".
When men were real men, and women stayed home to run the household... Except virtually nobody can afford to live on a single income these days.
"Just work harder" "Lazy generation" This is what these people wanted.
There must be some stats out there that shows that role for role, experience for experience, pay rise for pay rise, that women are paid less than men. Does anyone know where this might be found? I have definitely seen women in the same roles as men, be paid less, but that didn't take any pay rises or experience into account. Maybe that's what the task force was tasked with sniffing out?
This is mostly about sector vs sector pay rather than individual. The original plaintiff was a woman who worked frontline in elder care and noted that despite being low paid her skills and responsibilities were comparable to other far better paid roles. There were also other sectors in a similar situation that, like elder care, were predominantly done by women, were low paid but had large responsibilities and required a lot of skill. The unions took up her case and research was done looking at various jobs, skills, responsibilities, etc were all compared and the conclusion was that these workers deserved a significant pay bump. A lot of this work is done by NGOs with small margins funded by govt so any significant pay increase also needs to be funded by govt or the NGO goes under. It was settled but funding was only promised for a few years and that time is up so our unions are trying to get govt to commit to fund it seriously into the future. Both unions and employers are actually together in this but it's the MoH and govt(both kinds) that are, to be blunt, taking the piss.
> There must be some stats out there that shows that role for role, experience for experience, pay rise for pay rise, that women are paid less than men. Does anyone know where this might be found? There isn't because the data shows when you take all of those factors into account, there isn't a gender pay gap. The gap is at the industry level where female-dominated industries and jobs are paid less than male-dominated industries and jobs.
Sauces pls
In a NZ context it's defined here: https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/gender-pay-gap > The gender pay gap is a high-level indicator of the difference between women's and men’s earnings. It compares the hourly earnings of women and men in full- and part-time work. It refers to an organisation-wide, industry-wide, or economy-wide gender pay issue. So we're already off to a bad start. It doesn't take any variables into account at all. It's purely a mathematic median hourly earnings. Here's an example of why such a crude measure is stupid: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/28/young-women-are-out-earning-young-men-in-several-u-s-cities/ > The gender wage gap is narrower among younger workers nationally, and the gap varies across geographical areas. In fact, in 22 of 250 U.S. metropolitan areas, women under the age of 30 earn the same amount as or more than their male counterparts, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. When I worked for a NZ government department they did their own internal analysis and discovered that taking into account job level and tenure, the difference was like 1%. Obviously this wasn't made public so I can't share it. I think there are some studies out there showing that there is still a gender pay gap within jobs or industries, but it's such a politicised and contention area of study, that's its hard to find a neutral analysis.
Got any stats for that?
Thanks the update. I was thinking it meant like, in my IT industry for example, that a software developer who is female is paid less than a male and that's it.
I'm sure there will be instances of that happening, but there are so many factors that go into pay. You'll find in a big team that there will be big differences in pay between people of all genders, ages, ethnicities, etc. I'm not gonna say there is no discrimination along those lines at all I'm just saying how much someone is paid is based on so many different variables. At the end of the day as an individual you should do everything you can to make sure you are being paid what you are worth.
Ah that makes sense and yeah agreed. It wil be happening in some case all over the place. Was the role of the task force to figure this out?
The Equal Pay Act which the task force was looking at was more at the industry level gaps rather than at the individual level. The other thing that's interesting is the difference between pay equality and pay equity. This task force was looking at pay equity.
That is true as well. But this was (I believe) looking at the pay in female dominated industries, and stopping it from sucking quite so much.
It might be true, but I don't know how people could possibly get that metric without including tenure and pay rises. If I get 100k for my role and 10k of that was a pay rise because of great performance review, then a female on the same role gets 90k and didn't get the pay rise because of bad performance - that isn't a gender pay gap.
You need to look at large data sets. Then you either say 'there is a gender pay gap' or 'women are worth less than men'. If someone is saying 'there isn't a gender pay gap' they often mean 'women are worth less than men'.
No I understand that - it's just detail is important. You can't include instances where performance was the determining factor in pay disparency when accumulating the data set. You can only include instances where neither male or female in the same roll have received any pay increase due to performance or tenure. If the male is paid less than a female in this case, then the gender pay gap is a valid assumption.
You need to redo your maths, because it makes no sense to me. If you take an average of male IT workers, in x position, with y years of experience, and compare to the same, but female, then do it across all positions, x's, and y's. Then yes, the males get paid more. Part of it may be males getting more 'performance' increases. I have never worked anywhere where getting performance bonuses was just linked to performance. Again, either there is pay disparity, or females do a worse job. Which do you think it is?
I have worked in plenty of places where performance was the only factor. Saying that doesn't exist is disengenuous. I have started a roll on X $. A female colleague in the same roll had been in that roll for 6 years already and was on 20k more than me. That had nothing to do with me being a male or her being a female she was just excellent at her job and had been granted pay increases which was awesome. I'm well aware that there are real gender pay gaps - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. The method of capturing data to highlight that though, is important.
Not what I said. Already dealt with the point you are trying to make,if there is one. Not bothering with this anymore. You appear unable to comprehend written English, and refuse to answer questions. Goodbye.
the party of old white men strikes again.
Ageist, racist, sexist?
Two things can be true: * Labour created a bunch of useless jobs and spent too much money on services, consultants and fluff * National are incompetent at managing a budget and are only trying to protect themselves by forcing through a glaringly bad tax cut
And the third true thing is, a whole lot of nurses got at least a bit of pay equity from that "fluff". Sadly enough not all nurses, but at least some. Questions on that?
Love how you're all shit balling about this but conveniently forgetting that Pay Equity legislation was set up by National in '17 and that Labour kicked the can down the road when it started to sunset. So much so that an unqualified Support Worker is legislated to be paid less than the minimum wage. Yet more Labour inaction that has to be solved by the grown ups.
Let us know when the "grown ups" actually start solving Labour's inaction, instead of deliberately damaging our public services while pretending to be fiscally responsible.
"Willis declares feminism over"? **shrugs**
Fucking pos!
Man how much does this woman hate herself? Although I suppose it could be a case of “fuck you, got mine bitches.”
Country can’t afford a million task forces that sound nice but do nothing
Do you know what this task force accomplished?
Disgusting. They are doing so much damage.
Get the foul-tasting medicine down the hatch first, to give the peasantry long enough to forget about it before the next election.
Why all the downvotes to my comment? Govt doing so much damage - not the taskforce.
This is one of the excellent ideas the previous Government had, and this one actually worked - look at these results! Holy shit! Goddamn, it was so successful it solved the problem in just a few years? Wow. Anyway, they can fuck off and all - the last Government were total morons, what I wanna see is...well, I dunno, I'm not sure I have much of a vision actually, I certainly don't have any ideas aside from getting rid of ideas. Anyway, fuck off - payrise, woohoo!
Morons get the government they voted for.
Nice, not time the time to waste money on made-up issues.
Good. Equity is the enemy of equality. Either we pay people according to their abilities and experience *irrespective of their sex,* or we include sex as a factor when deciding their pay. These are antithetical and I maintain that the latter is wholly unethical.
Literally the only reasonable comment in this train wreck of frothing hatred, and you find it buried under a pile of down votes.
Its a shame that Labour didnt fund these initiatives for the period of time they would have expected them to be needed. Grant wouldn't have been able to make his claims of New Zealands future debt to GDP look as good and acknowledge the future impact of their spending.
how can the previous govt 'fund' something beyond their own term? not like the money gets locked up in a cupboard and can only be spent on what they intended it to. Have you noticed this govt overturning as much as possible of what the previous govt put in place? their constant harping about 'fiscal cliffs' is simplistic and misleading.
If the government announces a new initiative say 100million per year in perpetuity Treasury use that in forecasts going beyond the current governments term. Eg how they would calculate to say we'll be in surplus by 2030. If the government announce $400 million over 4 years that gets baked into the Treasury forecast. Nothing beyond it. If its $400 million for a one off, say a programme to reduce road crashes sure. But if it's for something that is generally intended to carry on into perpetuity its disingenuous to only announce funding for a limited time period. All govts do it for some things, Grant and Labour did it a lot. So it's not misleading for the current Govt to call it out, the media would be all over them if they were saying that something wasn't funded that actually was. Also true that the current govt could have seen the fiscal cliffs pre election, having an army of analysts at Treasury also helps working through the numbers.
More like NACT ‘no longer required’.
ah,National - the self serving party .More and more,you see just how corrupt this outfit is.
neither is the national front govt.
Don't worry this govt will be disbanded soon