Laddy Muck

Jeremy Wrote: -------------------------------- > Most women just aren't interested. You may well be right. I can find little on the subject, except for this (slightly old) article.

Wanna fight?

Edited because didn't read jimmah's post properly re. G & C.

OliviaDee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FG are FF with different ties on. They won't do > it. > > (Thanks LM) Well, guess who I spoke to today? The Secretary for the Young FG of Co. Clare - no less! Yes! And he told me that FG have in fact reversed FF's cut to the MW. Good news, I say.(tu)

camberwell70 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I Roy was more cerebral. Must have been something to do with ;-) COOL RIDDIM DAT!

Actually Loz, when I first read your question, I thought (by virtue of having placed the words "unfairly impacting" within inverted commas and having followed that with the words "disproportionately benefiting") that you were being tongue in cheek - almost verging on trolling. Was I mistaken? Anyway, I'll bite now. Yes, of course, if women are dominating the public sector, then any job cuts within that sector are clearly going to impinge on them to a greater degree. Is that impact unfair given that there are more of them in these public sector positions in the first instance? I think yes. Just because they happen to be employed by the government in greater numbers than men doesn't neccessarily mean that the job losses are not going to result in injustice. Many of these women's jobs are those which are traditionally done by women (and, I suspect, which many men might prefer not to do) - e.g. teaching, nursing etc. - at a rate of pay which, in all probability, many men might be less keen to accept (see previous posts). Moreover, again, as this thread has highlighted, female employees generally suffer greater discrimination on grounds of sex than men. So, any suggestion that all might be perfectly satisfactory because they were "disproportionately benefiting" in the first place, would, in my humble opinion, at the very least, be a little ungracious.

sagatelsagouni Wrote: ----------------------------------- > ...but I absolutely > do not agree with this idea of un assertive women > in the workplace. Its just not fact. Here, for you, sagatelsagouni.

Thanks Loz. Interesting.

sagatelsagouni Wrote: -------------------------------- > I can see where you are going LM... You can? Well, I wish you'd tell me LOL...I haven't a clue myself.

Eh?

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------ Is there a soul thread? There is. Gawd knows what it's called though...you'll need to do a search. It was started by someone called Atila Reincarnate. Unfortunately he got banned. *waves to Atila*

Damn...you lot have got me going now... I Roy: ..."leave my lyrics you little bumblebee"...heh heh... pure class LOL!

camberwell70 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some reggae legends playing Brockwell Park Sunday > 17 July - 1.30 to 6.30pm as part of the Lambeth > Country Show Thanks camberwell70...am looking forward to Horace and Johnny.

And the flip side.... Ahhh that drum and base... BIM! RIBBIT! IRIE!

I Roy you a Bwoy, move out deway...you imitate the great U Roy... Anyone remember the banter between I and U Roy? I loved it. Especially when Prince Jazzbo jumped into the fray... Ahhhh them were the days...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As we noted earlier, > the public sector is about 70% female and I still > haven't worked out why that is! Could Undisputedtruth have hit on the reason earlier when he said: "...50% of Public Sectors employees earns less than ?21000 pa and it could be argued that women forms a higher proportion of low income earners."? Now, also throw into the ring DJKQ's point vis a vis women's lack of negotiating skills when it come to pay (and therefore the willingness to accept the offered salary). Is it not possible then, that in a sector where the Government holds the purse strings and, where - perhaps - this might mean less scope for negotiation, that this situation could be lending itself better to the female population? Whereas their (more assertive) male counterparts - after being told that there is no more money in the kitty - might simply vote with their feet in the direction of the private sector? Dunno. *scratches head*

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought you'd approve. Well, I do...in general...your HR people/policies sound unusual. As you say, the IT industry has a poor record in terms of gender composition (hubby is in IT too). The "tutts" were specifically aimed at the phrase "half decent", but I guess you could argue all the more reason to approve. Anyway, good on your company. Out of interest, if you no longer looked for Computer Science degrees - what else did you go by? If you were interviewing graduates, my guess is that many of the applicants (though not all, I grant you) would have been relatively young and hence without relevant practical experience?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mind you a gender complaint from a female was > unlikely anyway. Being an IT company, we > generally crawled across broken glass for a > half-decent female employee. *shakes head and tutts twice*

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I couldn't risk > writing an odd hastily-written note that could be > misconstrued, especially as I used to scribble > notes on the cv. I can quite believe it. It happens a great deal, though not everyone is quite as honest about it. The only small consolation (for the person alleging unlawful discrimination) is that she may utilise a "discrimination questionnaire". This permits her to request information on matters which could elicit evidence of discrimination by the employer. Did you ever come across one of those, Loz? However, the main problem with the form is that the employer is under no legal obligation to respond to it - though failure to do so may be taken into account by the tribunal. > (And I would note that men get discriminated > against too. I'm always a bit perplexed when some > small companies describe themselves as > 'all-women'. Sounds like an invitation to a > lawsuit.) Of course men suffer discrimination on grounds of sex - I am sure most would agree with you on that. However, I don't believe that it is to the same degree. I am only mentioning women as (a) it is relevant to the debate and (b) I cannot be arsed to be politically correct and write "s/he, him/her etc". Don't forget, too, that employers may, quite legally, specify a particular sex where gender is a genuine occupational qualification for the position.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...Descrimination against women and pregnancy is a > real issue. It is illegal to decriminate on those > grounds but time and time again women are asked in > interviews regarding family plans. No man would > ever be asked this... > And until some meaningful legislation comes about > to force the attitude of male driven institutions > to change, you never will see the pay gap > disappear, nor will you see the gender balance > within the higher earning sector redressed either. The problem with gender discrimination in the workplace is that - as with other types of employment discrimination - it is so incredibly difficult to prove. Legislative attempts to overcome such prejudice is an ongoing battle for the drafters of labour laws. At the end of the day, the burden of proof is on the woman to show that she has been discriminated against. This can be extremely difficult to do: she is unlikely to have in her possession an email from her boss stating that she - e.g. - has failed the selection process on the grounds that she is likely to fall pregnant.

Also, women remain in the minority when it comes to securing "top" jobs - e.g. at senior management level and above.

Sectioned? As provided under the Mental Health Act?

*wonders whether Huguenot might, after all, just be a deluded nutter* :)) (emoticon inserted as a Health and Safety precaution)

Moving on... from my favourite research institute, the IFS

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Elvis Presley has been favourably compared with > me. Well I look like Elizabeth Taylor in her twenties... *double sniggers*