I’m going to shake things up a bit for this week. I’m going to ask a hypothetical question about fair wages and I’d like readers to feedback their answers, if they wouldn’t mind. Let’s get to it.
My question is about what is fair when it comes to salary, particularly the disparity in pay between men and women. To start with, I suppose it’s only right that I disclose that I consider myself a feminist. Now, I think when women describe themselves as feminists, they aren’t always viewed fondly for it. When men describe themselves as feminists, they’re met with – at best – skepticism. There are probably many reasons that ‘feminist’ is almost a dirty word, but the most common one that I tend to see is a misunderstanding of what a feminist actually is. Some people think feminists are women who actively want to destroy men (figuratively speaking) or want to take from men. This isn’t true for the most part. My interpretation of what being a feminist is, is wanting equality. That’s it. The belief that women should be treated equally to men. I don’t think that’s too much to ask or expect. And whilst there have been some improvements in the last few years, there’s still a long way to go. Here are some stats (to simplify things, it’s UK only):
- Women are paid an average of 8.9% less than men
- Of the FTSE 100 companies, there are only five female CEOs
- Female MPs make up just 34% of all commons MPs
There is quite clearly inequality at play. The most egregious one has to be the wage disparity for me. In my opinion, any two people – whoever they are – should be paid the same if they do the same job.
A few years ago, the BBC were forced to release the salary information for all employees. This caused outrage at the time, when it became apparent that the male employees were paid significantly better than their female counterparts. In some cases, the outrage was misplaced, as some of the male employees performed multiple functions within the company, so their salary was ‘justified’. However, it was clear that there was a bias in favour of the men. For reference, Chris Evans was the highest paid male and was on £2.25million per year. Claudia Winkleman – the highest paid female – was on £500,000. To be fair to the BBC, they have closed the gender pay gap in the years since, but there’s still a way to go.
Seeing the BBC figures got me to thinking, is it always wrong for there to be a gender pay gap? Generally speaking, yes it is. But would it be wrong in the following hypothetical example?
Hypothetically Speaking…
Company X are looking for candidates to fill two identical positions. They receive hundreds of CVs and interview dozens of people. At the end of the arduous recruitment process, there are two outstanding candidates: Jane and John. The company contact Jane and tell her that one of the positions is hers. The starting salary for the role is £50,000. Jane, very excited for the opportunity, accepts the offer. The company then contact John to tell him one of the positions is his. The starting salary for the role is £50,000. John, being a bullish character, tells them that he won’t work for any less than £60,000. He isn’t bluffing, it’s an ultimatum: 60k, or I go elsewhere. What should Company X do? Should they:
- Give in to John’s demands and give him the 60k, with Jane on 50k
- Give in to John’s demands and give him the 60k, and also bump Jane up to 60k
- Reject John’s demands and go through the whole recruitment process again
It may seem obvious what option to choose, but all three are fraught with issues. Option 1 gives Company X the two candidates they want; albeit having to pay 10k more than they originally wanted. But there is an unfair gap between the two wages; Jane will be doing the same work as John, but will earn 10k less. Option 2 gives Company X the two candidates they want, and there is parity between the wages Jane and John will earn. However, the company are now having to pay out 20k more than they originally wanted. Should the company really be penalised just because John decided to negotiate and Jane settled for what was offered? Option 3 means the company doesn’t have to pay any more than they originally wanted, and Jane still gets the job. But the company has already gone through a long recruitment process that didn’t yield many great candidates. Finding another as good as John could take weeks or months. Should the company miss out on an outstanding prospect for the sake of 10k?
I’d love to hear what the readers think about this. I think it’s a scenario where there aren’t really any good options, so it’s a case of picking the least worst. I think it’s worth pointing out that in this very specific hypothetical example, I don’t think any party has done anything wrong. It isn’t wrong that Jane settled for 50k; she weighed up her options and decided that the offer was acceptable. It isn’t wrong that John asked for more money; if you don’t ask, you don’t get and the company can say no if they want. It isn’t wrong if the company stick to their guns and say they won’t go any higher than 50k. It also wouldn’t be wrong to pay a bit more to secure top talent.
What I hope this post doesn’t do is empower (sexist) people to say, “See, men being paid more can be justified, so the gender pay gap debate is nonsense.” If anything, I think the hypothetical example proves that there is an issue; I had to jump through hoops to come up with a possible justifiable reason why a man might be paid more than a woman, and even then, it still might be the case that people find it unfair. If you take anything away from this post, let it be this: Pay. People. Equally.
Fair enough?
Thanks for reading. I look forward to hearing back from some of you about what you would do in Company X’s position. Anyway, I best be off, I need to start packing for my road trip to Durham. Catch you again next week.
A Rob Blog 