I wish job advertisements were allowed to state age, race, gender, and sex. How many people get all nervous and keyed up getting ready and prepared to go to interviews where they have no intention of employing them because they didn't want a person over 50years, a woman (or man) white or black person for the position. They just don't say so and hire who they wanted in the first place.

What a complete waste of time and emotion and effort for the people who go to these job interviews when it could have saved everybody time all around if they had just been able to state exactly what their preference for the successful applicant was in the job add.

Dismissing people on grounds of race, age, pregnancy, religion, etc is a different situation and is a more practical area to apply discrimination laws.

Foxy, is that really the best you can offer?

I was not remotely personal in my post, yet from you I get nothing but personal abuse with not a substantive point among them. I worked in Engineering for nearly 20 years and in that time I never saw a single example of discrimination against women in terms of pay. In fact, at one stage, female graduates were being offered considerably more than men by a firm I worked for because they wanted to attract them in order to make a point about their "equal opportunity" status when applying for Govt tenders. Sadly, there weren't enough girls taking the hard subjects, so even with that incentive and some lowering of standards the positions were only sporadically filled.

At higher levels pay is subject to offer and acceptance and is private, usually based on perceived value to the firm. If you're not being paid as much as some others, perhaps you should look at what you bring to the firm and what you expect from it.

Still, I expect you'll just go on saying "what a mean man Antiseptic is" and ignore the validity of the points made. That might be another clue as to why your boss might perceive others as being more valuable, hmmm?

I'd also remind you that you made the points I disagreed with. If you can't defend them, I guess that shows what they're worth. Another thing the boss might well take into account is the capacity of staff to offer wll-reasoned, defensible opinions on matters pertaining to their field. Simply making bald (factually wrong) statements and running when challenged doesn't cut it.

As for trades, wages are nearly always set by broad agreements within industries. A hairdresser may not get paid the same as a carpenter, but a female carpenter will be aid the same as a male one. There is some variation, with more senior and competent staff being paid more than a fresh tradie straight out of an apprenticeship.

Dear Antiseptic,

How can I discuss anything with you when you
consider what I say, and I quote:

1) "You're speaking utter gobshite."

Then you go on to tell me that a female grad.
social worker:

2) "...her working environment is much less stressful,
isn't it dear? Care for a coffee and bickie?"

Do you know what a social worker's day is really
like, and what she has to deal with on a daily basis?
I do know because I have worked for the Department of
Community Services for a couple of years - and saw
exactly the type of problems social workers had to deal with -
anything from child abuse to teenage suicides to
domestic violence and so on. Less stressful? No!
And by the way - male social workers doing the same
jobs - were on higher salaries.

You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that
women occupy very few high-paying positions.

As Ian Robertson points out in his book, "Sociology,"
and I quote:

"Only 8 out of every 1,000 employed women holds a high-level
executive, managerial, or administrative job. Even when
men and women do similar jobs, they have different titles
and pay scales: the male becomes an 'administrative assistant,'
the female merely an 'executive secretary.'... in fact,
some 80 percent of all working women are concentrated in
just 20 of the 427 najor job categories recognized by the
Department of Labor ...librarians earn less than carpenters,
cashiers less than trash collectors, nurses less than
accountants..."

When I try to point things out to you you simply palm
it off as:

"It's a standard whinge ..."

How can you seriously expect any female to discuss anything
with you when you 'know it all' and consider what they have
to say as 'utter gobshite?'

clearly, the theory that women are not discriminated against does not meet the overwhelming evidence they are, not suprisingly with the theoretical side suggesting "You're speaking utter gobshite" is "not remotely personal" and women who have interests elsewhere avoid "the hard subjects".

the real mystery is as to why anyone would bother to argue women are not being discriminated against when the Constitution of Australia mandates they are.

surely it's a failure of the Constituton if women are not discriminated against.

Ok, I'll bite.

>>the real mystery is as to why anyone would bother to argue women are not being discriminated against when the Constitution of Australia mandates they are<<

Where in the Australian Constitution does it mandate that "women shall be discriminated against"?

The first person referred to in my copy of the constitution is Queen Victoria. Not much discrimination there, I'd suggest.

Foxy:"Do you know what a social worker's day is really
like, and what she has to deal with on a daily basis?"

Yes. As it happens, I have had a fair bit to do with social workers socially. Most of them don't work for DOCS or in crisis intervention, but have "nice" jobs in "nice" environments, where they get lots of time off and don't have to do anything that doesn't suit their sense of what's "nice". The few who do take on the "hard" jobs have my respect, but most are simply looking for a sinecure that pats well.

Foxy:"male social workers doing the same
jobs - were on higher salaries."

I frankly just don't believe you. If they were employed by DOCS, they were covered by Public Service awards that prohibit discrimination on gender grounds.

Foxy:"You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that
women occupy very few high-paying positions. "

Not at all: I'm happy to acknowledge that and always have been. I dispute the claim that people are paid differently for the same work.

To use your Robinson examples, carpenters earn more than librarians because they work harder and take more risks; ditto for cashiers and trash collectors; as for accountants, at my accountant anyway most of the staff are women, including all but 2 of the 10 or so accountants. The owner is a man and his wife, but as he has the qualification his name is on the practise. I agree that nurses are underpaid.

Foxy:"How can you seriously expect any female to discuss anything
with you "

I don't by any means claim to "know it all" but I do know enough to recognise gobshite when it's thrown at me. If you don't like the accusation, defend your statement instead of running off and having a sulk. There's another clue as to why some workers may be paid differently to others, BTW.

If you want more money, go and do a challenging, risky or arduous job that is valued highly. You can't have it both ways.