Raoul's China Saloon (V5.0) Beta

The Bar Room => The Bar (ON-TOPIC) => Topic started by: icebear on April 25, 2007, 03:20:20 AM

Title: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: icebear on April 25, 2007, 03:20:20 AM: Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267862,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267862,00.html)

Women make only 80 percent of the salaries their male peers do one year after college; after 10 years in the work force, the gap between their pay widens further, according to a study released Monday.

I've been reading a fairly heated debate on whether this is 'fair' or not, considering that women take maternity leave etc etc etc, and was curious about folks here felt about it.

Personally, I think equal work should be paid equally. So women should make as much for the same job, but should also plan on accruing whatever necessary 'vacation' time for whenever they decide to give birth. At the same time, I feel that's a bit cold hearted, and with 'oh he should have been raised better' such an easy excuse these days for the psychos and nutjobs out there, maybe mandatory maternity leave is a good thing? I'm just not familiar enough with the subject to talk about it with any certainty...

Also, I'm curious about how this trend holds up in China. My gut tells me its far, far worse here... but I wonder how it works in certain fields/sectors? Women working in finance, for foreign corporations, in the big, rich cities, etc? I know a few women working the stock market who are absolutely rolling in the money, although I have no clue how common that is. I've also been told anecdotally that big corporations here prefer women workers, as they are more reliable than men (not sure how that fits in with the maternity leave issue)...

...and that hanging out at office complexes around quitting time is a great place to meet some ladies afafafafaf
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Eagle on April 25, 2007, 04:10:13 AM: I will dignify your post with my comments. As a married man, married to the same woman for 36 years, I wisely respond that women are far superior to males in the work force. As a father of two girls and one boy, I hope that the rest of the world realises just how good my daughters are and pay them accordingly for their skills and knowledge, not for their gender. Now with that being said, I would guess that in the end, maternity leave excluded, women are indeed more dependable and more loyal in both management and in subordinate roles in the workplace. Which, when one thinks about it should translate into higher pay all around. Equal pay for equal work doesn't necessarily mean people having similar positions get the same pay. It's about the work performed within the job specifications. If the work isn't equal though the job is the same, the pay shouldn't be equal.

'nuff said
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Vegemite on April 25, 2007, 05:17:28 AM: Quote from: icebear on April 25, 2007, 03:20:20 AM
I've been reading a fairly heated debate on whether this is 'fair' or not, considering that women take maternity leave etc etc etc, and was curious about folks here felt about it.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all countries have legislated maternity leave...at the beginning of this century three of the so-called 'Western' countries didn't have it: NZ, the US and Australia. In NZ, we got it in 2002, and called it Parental Leave so it's open to both parents. Many countries now open their maternity leave to both parents.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: decurso on April 25, 2007, 05:58:42 AM: I know of a number of cases where a woman has dropped a pup and gone right back to work while dad minds the little one at home on what English speakers may know as "paternity leave".Parenthood isn't just "a woman thing".

The corperate world is still pretty stoneage in it's treatment of women.My wife used to work for a large corperation (let's call it Blockbuster) and she discovered somebody who had worked with her for half the time she had been there was making substantially more money.Said person had no other special qualifications except a penis.When she raised hell she got her pay raised to the same level.

Any man who has a pair should consider this an insult to our mothers,wives,sisters,daughters,grandmothers,aunts,really hot second cousins ect
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: non-dave on April 25, 2007, 03:21:54 PM: Yeah, I'm insuted! I don't mind getting paid more because I'm smarter, do the job better, am indispensible to the company or just because I could negotiate a better deal than the others - but not just based on gender, colour or any other immaterial factor.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: babala on April 25, 2007, 07:29:50 PM: I can imagine it's a big problem here as women don't get the same resepct in the workplace as men. Although the thing that bothers me the most is that many of them don't seem to care. When asking my students about goals for the future, the males would talk about plans to be managers, factory owners and businessmen. The female's plans went more to being an office assistant or the perfect job of marrying rich and not having to work at all. When I asked the girls if they wanted to make money themselves, they did say yes but when I asked if it was okay if they made more money than their husbands, they all said no. It's okay for us to be successful as long as we're not as successful as our husbands llllllllll
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: cheekygal on April 26, 2007, 03:06:47 AM: Women in China get a maternity leave for about 6 months (depending on the company they work for). Fathers may enjoy 2 weeks to 1 months paternity leave. Else they can pass it onto their wives in case if "they don't have time for it".

I love maternity leave in Russia: first 1 year you get paid certain amount of your salary, which lessens by the end of the second year to child's support and lasts till the end of the 3rd year. All this while your company must keep your job for you. If after 3 years you don't show up at work - you lose your job.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Mr Nobody on April 26, 2007, 04:40:27 AM: My wife got one year at full pay for maternity leave here in China. Of course, she didn't get the class teaching fee, but did get the salary. She also got work sent by email, though. Having a bignose who can fix the Engrish ..... however, since that was about one hour a week for me and about 2 for the wife, who gives a poo? The money worked out good.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Nolefan on April 26, 2007, 07:09:28 PM: ND's got a point.

there is so much more than gender to the whole salary issues... heck, let's not say salary but compensation. Negotiating skills, timing, personality, usefulnesses, experience are just some of the factors to consider.

Look at the tennis grand slams, I forget which one of them is now giving equal prize money to men and women... granted women play "best of 3 sets" while men have to go through a "best of 5"... where is the fairness in that? and this one is usually with all things considered equal.. 2 players on a court with a racket hitting little balls. usually in the same arenas..
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Mr Nobody on April 27, 2007, 06:23:36 AM: Actually part of it is market, too.

I mean, part of the thing is how much you would pay.

I would pay more to see Johnny Howard strip himself naked, bury himself in shit and flagellate himself with broken bottles dripping in scorpion venom than seeing, for example, ND do the same thing. (sorry mate - everyone needs a hobby)

So, do people pay more to see women or men play tennis? I dunno. Would I pay more for a black female lesbian sort my mail or a crippled male war vet? Is this a choice I can make?

Would a boss take a punt at some woman who can do the job but might just might get married and drop a bundle or some less able man who ain't going nowhere soon. What would be the best investment on average?

Why am I even asking?

To tell the truth, justice, fairness, and rights don't enter into a lot of things they are forced into. Why should I, as a boss, take on someone who I feel, for any reason whatsoever, is less able. It's my money. I should be able to pay who I want what I want.

Stuff mediocrity up the bunghole.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: AMonk on April 27, 2007, 11:31:50 AM: "Pay who I want what I want"...is the attitude that spurred the formation of Trade Unions.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: non-dave on April 27, 2007, 05:16:11 PM: ... and what a mistake that turned to be.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Lotus Eater on April 27, 2007, 11:18:07 PM: Not so certain about that! They at least gave the vulnerable in society a voice. Otherwise those who are willing to do the work for the least pay are those hired. If you're single, living with a couple of mates, no real responsibilities apart from wanting to add amps to your car and drink yourself stupid every weekend, you can take the job offered at $50 a week less than a guy with a family, a mortgage etc. You'll get hired - because businesses are about bottom line and profit, not social welfare. Unions helped maintain a balance between profits and social responsibility.

Have a look at the US now - the 'working poor' are a growing percentage of the population. "Enterprise bargaining" agreements in Australia are steadily working their way down to the individual level. Unions protected people from enterprises where the bosses would cream of the top, pay themselves first, then cut conditions or wages or benefits for the workers when the downturns hit.

In China there seems to me to be a desperate need for real unions - ones that do have strong legal voices to protect workers. The construction industry is a prime example here. If foreign teachers had real unions here, how many scams would recruiters and schools get away with? I can say I've been lucky here, but there are plenty of teachers out there who have been ripped off and done the dirty on. All we can say to them is - tell people who will spread the word and get out before you lose any more. But if there was a union that would prevent the bosses, recruiters from reneging on contracts - take them through court etc - would it make it a cleaner, better world for us to work in??

I see nothing wrong with the concept of "a fair days work for a fair days pay", with a nice strong arbitrator smack in the centre. (Can you tell that I used to manage a regional workforce that monitored Industrial Relations and Workplace Health and Safety? The stories I could tell you about dodgy tricks that bosses would pull merely to save a few dollars a week. The fines were always bigger than what they saved. ahahahahah But the stuff up in peoples lives - especially in the WPHS region - way too costly.)
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: decurso on April 28, 2007, 08:39:00 AM: Quote from: Lotus Eater on April 27, 2007, 11:18:07 PM
Otherwise those who are willing to do the work for the least pay are those hired.

Hmm...I can think of a job right here in the Middle Kingdom that fits that description.There are probably a lot more but I'd love to have day alone with every beatnik backpacker who said"like...wouldn'it be like..cool to to go bum around and teach English in China for awhile?"

People like this drive the wages and the working conditions down.They make us all look stupid and gullible.I hate them.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Lotus Eater on April 28, 2007, 10:19:55 AM: Quote from: decurso on April 28, 2007, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: Lotus Eater on April 27, 2007, 11:18:07 PM
Otherwise those who are willing to do the work for the least pay are those hired.

People like this drive the wages and the working conditions down.They make us all look stupid and gullible.I hate them.
And this is why unions do GOOD!! More power to them.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: decurso on April 28, 2007, 06:51:06 PM: I should clarify I mean volunteers,people who pay to come here and short timers who will take any ol job just for the thrill of being in China.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Eagle on April 29, 2007, 07:30:18 PM: What's a short timer?

I am short. I am also not young so I don't have a lot of time to invest here in China. I also don't have the ambition to rise to the vice-dean of the school of foreign languages in my uni ... more interested in hanging out eating noodles, drinking beer, taking photos, chatting with uni students and staff, chatting with little old men and ladies on the streets and the free-space market gardens ...
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: decurso on April 30, 2007, 04:28:22 AM: I consider a short timer a single contract teacher..a year or less.I should also add that that some of my best friends here have been short timers.They have come just for the experience and I admire that.

What I don't admire is people coming here for 6 months and taking a 25 hour a week job in Shanghai for 5000 RMB just "for the experience".This is a career for some us...and people who basically give themselves away ruin it for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Lotus Eater on April 30, 2007, 08:07:50 AM: Unions would prevent that.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Mr Nobody on April 30, 2007, 06:13:00 PM: Unions WERE a good thing. The world would definitely be a lot worse without them. Unions still a good thing?

Mostly, I would agree with ND. Hence my previous tirade. But the truth is, it IS my money, if I hire people or whatever.

Obviously there should be full disclosure of risks, etc, but I should have the right to set pays, just as the person has the right not to accept it. If I am forced to pay more than what seems reasonable to enable an acceptable profit margin, then I will in no way invest in it. Then everyone loses.

Somewhere in the middle, between unionism (exploitation of the owner) and worker exploitation, there must be a method for enforcing/encouraging something like "enlightened self-interest". Contracts are a part of this solution. I feel that unions are NOT going to be part of that solution, simply because of it being useful as a powerbase. I do think that worker organized contractual advisors etc are going to be part of it. It works quite well for writers and has for many decades.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Con ate dog on May 06, 2007, 12:31:01 AM: I am pro-union, but there's a problem.

In one of my favourite movies, Matewan, the title characters says it best:

"Unless you admit every worker, it ain't a union no more- it's a goddamn club."

In a global economy, that means including Bangladeshis in the union. They're gonna (and are) bring down wages worldwide.

I'm all for this, since the number of desperately poor people is decreasing worldwide.

But it's happening at the expense of workers in the developed world, who find themselves working harder and longer hours for less money, and having to train themselves far more, and at their own expense, to get a skilled job.

I figure eventually we'll have more parity, and the working men and women of the world will organize and demand fair wages and working standards. And this time the corporations and billionaires will finally run out of new poor countries to move to, and will have to deal fairly.

Add to the mix the broader environment problem, forcing everyone to curtail their appetites.

Unless one is highly skilled or possessed of investment capital, it's not a great time to be in the workforce. But I think better times lie ahead.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Lotus Eater on May 06, 2007, 02:12:23 AM: Unionisation is desperately needed in developing countries - a fair days pay for a fair days work is a good mantra.

Of course it pisses off every boss who ever lived and figured that they were the most munificent people for providing jobs - forgetting that it is actually a 2-way street. Workers need employers, employers need workers - it's actually symbiotic!

Those bosses who sign up workers then at the first sign of trouble reneg on their contracts need to be tarred and feathered!

Why would any worker in their right minds stay when their contractors are clearly doing them over?

A union provides a safety mechanism, a voice that is stronger than the individual. FTs in China need a union to go to - the SAFEA contract provides some level of redress - at least at the threat level to the boss of a dodgy school - if SAFEA come down on them for not fulfulling their contract then they lose their right to hire FTs. Otherwise FTs who are being done over need to go to the Education and Labour Bureau! (Can you tell I am not only a unionist from a long time ago - but also an IR person?? Always been on the side of the worker!!)

PS - this is Labour Week!!
[/size]
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: dragonsaver on May 06, 2007, 04:07:25 PM: In Canada (and USAnia), the unions have become about money for the union bosses first then helping the worker (maybe). The unions collect money from the worker and the big bosses live the real good life. The union protects the non-productive worker who has been a member for a long time. Worked at GM, and saw the men reading papers instead of working, saw the sleep areas where they men went and slept the whole shift. Saw the men break the wire feed to the auto-welding machines so they had to call maintenance - and not work until it was fixed. Maintenance workers moved as slow as possible and cut corners. New energetic employees had to slow down their work speed or they wouldn't pass probation and couldn't get into the union.

I am pro-union but a union that protects the WORKER!! Not the western 'rice bowl' worker who doesn't want to work. These people damage the work environment for the company and ultimately for themselves. GM in the US had to pay full salary to a group of people whose jobs had been eliminated. The way the union contract was written kept the people from being laid-off. They reported to work, went to the cafeteria, and read, slept, whatever for the day - every day for 2-3 years. It might have been longer than that but I was in the Canada branch and this was in Chicago. We wonder why GM is losing money??? llllllllll llllllllll
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Lotus Eater on May 06, 2007, 09:33:03 PM: I agree that there were excesses in unionism - which is one reason why there is a decline in union memebership the west. Many people also chose not to join the unions but still continued to rely on tehm to fight for wage rises and better conditions - happily accepting those benefits.

However, what ever excesses were commited in no way negates the need for genuine worker protection. With no curbs and restraints, bosses are going to continue to want to maintain/increase profit and in bad times, the workers are usually the ones who are hit first - either with lay-offs or fewer hours, or decreases in conditions etc. And with MNCs - as easily noted in downturns, the CEO walks out with a million+ 'fee' and workers are lucky to be paid their leave entitlements.

Without unions with a strong vaid voice, workers are vulnerable.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: dragonsaver on May 06, 2007, 11:08:06 PM: I agree that the workers need protection from money hungry executives. I also feel that the unions need to protect the workers who are working not the workers who want a free ride. That was my concern. I have worked in manufacturing and have seen very poor worker protection. I have gone to management and demanded better safety equipment - and won! I think that the unions have become reverse managers - looking out for the big buck not the true interests of the workers. I am not sure how to get the unions back to being what they were in the beginning - a true saviour and protector of the worker.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: George on May 06, 2007, 11:32:58 PM: "Subway sacks NZ worker for sharing drink

May 6, 2007 - 5:54PM

The Subway chain is under fire in NZ for sacking an autistic worker who shared her free cup of Diet Coke with a friend who was upset.

An appeal has been launched to pay the legal fees for the Dunedin fast food worker who is also facing criminal charges.

Autonomous Workers Union organiser Bill Clark said the "paper cup" appeal for ex-Subway worker Jackie Lang had found great support among Dunedin's small businesses.

Ms Lang was fired from her fulltime job and faces theft charges in Dunedin District Court on May 21 after she shared a cup of Diet Coke while consoling an upset friend during a break.

Mr Clark said the Subway handbook allowed free soda and water while staff were working.

Ms Lang, who has taken a personal grievance action against Subway, said the company's actions were a shock, embarrassing and caused her financial hardship.

"I shared my drink with my friend. I was only trying to comfort her," she told the Sunday Star Times through an intermediary.

"I wasn't trying to do anything wrong. I did what I thought any person would do in the situation."

Mr Clark said he had never seen such an extreme example of corporate bullying.

"That a giant multinational like Subway would fire and then prosecute a vulnerable worker for sharing a cup of Diet Coke and think that was a fair response is just unbelievable.

"They've turned Jackie's life upside down for what seems to be no reason at all."

A spokesman for Subway confirmed to NZPA that Ms Lang was facing charges, but said employment issues were a "confidential matter between an employee and an employer, and I can't comment on those".

He also confirmed Ms Lang had brought a personal grievance action against Subway, and that mediation had been undertaken.

Ms Lang has Asperger's syndrome, which can sometimes make her interrelations with people a challenge, and Mr Clark said the condition made her even more susceptible to Subway's abuse of process.

"Management called her into a meeting without telling her it was a disciplinary, gave her no chance to have representation and then blind-sided her with accusations of theft. She never had a chance."

He said although Subway initially implied Ms Lang would face prosecution, none was brought until the union filed a case against them for unfair dismissal.

"As far as I can see the criminal charges are a clear attempt to keep her quiet about how she was treated by the company."
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Newbs on May 10, 2007, 09:54:12 AM: This sucks! I hope every Kiwi decides to totally boycott Subway, in perpetuity.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: Vegemite on May 11, 2007, 03:10:08 AM: The latest news is that they've dropped the criminal charges against her, so now it's just the PG. And, yes, there have been pickets outside some Subways, calling for people to express their displeasure at Subways handling of the case by boycotting the chain.
Title: Re: Screw dem women['s paychecks]
Post by: dragonsaver on May 12, 2007, 12:41:44 AM: GOOD bfbfbfbfbf