Comments for page "Equal Pay Disclosure Amendment Bill"

Re: Simple and elegant

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:12:00 +0000

Oh yes, I agree on the irony. OTOH, if the aim is to highlight the general problem…

I agree that it is the perfect time to push this issue. The question is whether any of the politicians think so.

Re: Simple and elegant

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:45:25 +0000

I thought it wouldn't matter so long as you were forcing them to publishing the raw averages anyway, and there seemed a certain irony in assuming the male pay was the correct rate in all cases in a bill designed to fight sexism ;)

This concept is simple enough that I'd be tempted to push it now, especially given there's a lot of political capital in it. The Greens are all billed out at the moment, so they might have to wait… I'm sure Labour would love it though.

Re: Simple and elegant

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:33:32 +0000

Not a bad idea, but that might make it potentially confusing, with some being female / male remuneration, and others the opposite. And given that the problem is almost always that female pay lags male pay, sticking it that way round gives consistency and focuses on the problem. Still, an option to consider when it comes time to push it at an MP…

And yes, making employers explain the gap was a major motivation for the UK version.

Simple and elegant

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:50:20 +0000

Allows for naming and shaming of bad employers, while employers who actually have an excuse for having different averages can publish more information to tell us why, and we get to criticise them still if it's a horrible excuse. Yay!

Small suggestion:

"(c) The difference between the two, expressed as a percentage of the average male remuneration of subsection (a)."

Make this:

"(c) The difference between the two, consisting of at least the lower average clearly labeled as a percentage of the higher average."