This article reflected the real problem we have with reality when it comes to gender issues.

Even though we now have 'family leave', it really means 'women's leave' and although some wowen are happy to return to the workforce soon after having a baby most actually enjoy the role of being a mother. This means their priorities change. Their priorities change from being career oriented to more family oriented. They don't want to work weekends and nights because career advance is not now their main goal in life. Men, on the other hand, don't really get a choice. Some may be able to spend time at home while a high earning wife goes to work, but for the majority of men they must continue working nights and weekends to support their families and an ever increasing mortgage. They don't always want to identify themselves by their work but they don't really get a choice.

In this context, men are actually worth more than women. They work longer and harder and often have to make the strategic decision of putting work before family because without work there is no family.

Why do feminists constantly put out 'survey results' which say women earn less than men when they work less, and less often? Why is it that women see themselves as so precious that they should receive more pay for less effort? What is wrong with feminists?

The article takes a half-truth, that men earn more than women, then goes through contortions to explain why that might be acceptable even though it's sexist without hitting reality at all. Strange.

This article seems to only look at the surface of the equal pay problems. There are many unanswered questions that would certainly play into any well reasoned analysis of the purported equal pay disparity. Unless these items are included in the discussion this is nothing more than a hollow headline grabber.

First and most importantly who did the survey, what were their qualifications for independence (or perhaps their agenda) and who answered or responded to the survey?

Second, was this a survey of before or after tax dollars in the pay packet only? Or were all the total costs of the care and feeding of an employee considered? How about super contributions, sick pay, personal time off, state and local employment taxes, government mandates, long service leave? How about benefits such as employees given a longer annual leave after a number of years?

Third, were the survey results broken out by job type? Such as salary vs hourly workers, blue collar vs white collar, straight salary vs salary plus commission, professional, self employed. Were bonuses considered? And what were they based on?

Fourth, are there employee benefits not reported in the survey that may contribute to a different weekly pay level. Flexible work schedules or job sharing or the ability to work a less than 40 hour week. How about employer paid education or tuition reimbursement.

Is there any relationship between length of service and the size of the pay packet? And what is the breakdown of male vs female length of service in each of the above job types?

I think this article was posted a bit too early - April Fools day is three weeks away.

What unadulterated rot! April Fool indeed!

The biggest problem with these sort of surveys is that they dont cover enough detail. One of the most influential factors in women earning less is that they do indeed tend to work less hours, due to family choices are often in the workforce for less time (at the same age), and are often filling jobs are that lower paid. Easy to see why generalist survey results show up the way that they do.

What the real concern should be is whether female employees are being paid the same as male employees in the same role/job. Obviously factors such as individual skill and experience have to come into payrates - it is a competitive marketplace after all. But we should be concerned if women are not provided the same reward for the same production.

Speaking from personal experience, women are usually paid as well as men in the same position. In fact the women I work with are paid more than the men in similar roles in the same business. Why? The women pay better attention to detail, have less rework, and tend to have better customer relation skills. Because they produce more, they earn more. Yes some will leave for family reasons, but then women are also more likely to stay for family reasons if you provide a flexible workplace, whereas men seem to be more likely to get dissatisfied quickly. The staff turnover result is the same.

To cut to the chase, the author is obviously male, hasnt given real thought to what the costs of employment are and doesnt appear bright enough to realise that you can prove anything you damn well please with numbers.

I really don't believe there is a wage gap between men and women when all factors are taken into account. A few years ago on ABC radio I heard a very good and simple explanation of why there is seen to be an apparent gap. Here is the link, a very worthwhile article to read.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1766033.htm

I don't have any problems with people who work part time getting paid less than those working more hours than them.
What I don't like is the rate per hour being less for a female worker than a male worker doing the exact same job, with the same experience. That's fair enough isn't it?

It used to be that male nurses got more dollars per hour than female nurses, for the same work, with the same experience. We were told it was because most men had to support a family.
Apparently, women didn't need to support anyone if they had a husband! Tough if you never married!

Those days are long gone now. Unfortunately both people in a relationship these days has to work to be able to make ends meet.

If a woman then stops work to have a baby, it should not mean that when she returns to work, her hourly rate is less than a male doing the same job.

Equal hourly rates of pay for both genders with equal experience
should be a given in any job.
If one then works part time after having children, then fair enough her total wage should come down.
But not the hourly rate.