I don’t really like how this article is presented.
New research from Edith Cowan University (ECU) found that a gender pay gap of 4% existed at the six-month mark, widening to 13% at the three-year mark
In this study, men at three years earned $39.50 per hour compared to women who earned $38 per hour
That’s a 4% gap at 3 years when looking at hourly wage. It’s still bad but not 13%. Someone working more hours should be paid more in total, no?
The findings show men could be receiving penalty payments associated with working weekends and non-sociable hours, with women partaking in Dr Doleman’s study working on average 32 hours a week, compared to the men, who worked 36 hours a week
What about men and women at 3 years? The gap in hours must be smaller, as this would imply a 17% gap at 3 years, not a 13% one: ($39.5 * 36) / ($38 * 32) ≈ 1.17.
Still, if men work worse hours, shouldn’t they be paid more on average? I’m unsure about Australia but hours worked during night-shift on Sundays or on holidays must legally have increased pay in Germany (up to 190% from 12 am to 4 am on Christmas for example. It’s also tax-exempt!).
Assuming the reason why fewer women work these hours is childcare (which it frequently is) then access to affordable childcare should be expanded. But that’s not an issue with more men in female-dominated issues but rather a systemic problem imo.
Furthermore, research has found that men were being promoted more quickly following graduation and that there was a disproportionate number of men sitting in executive roles within the healthcare institutions.
Yeah, that’s bad. I do wonder whether “quickly” refers to “total hours worked” or “time employed” as men work more hours on average. Women should be promoted as quickly as men based on total hours of experience. The executive issue still remains though.
[H]ealthcare institutions should consider alternative working arrangements for female nurses.
A minor nitpick: the suggestion at the bottom should apply to every nurse, regardless of gender. After all, everyone would benefit from being able to work more flexible shifts - be it nurses, their children or their patients (the last one because nobody can keep high care standards for 12 hours).
Yeah, you can just look at what happens when men do take jobs in female-dominated industries: https://www.ecu.edu.au/newsroom/articles/research/female-nurses-face-significant-gender-pay-gap
I don’t really like how this article is presented.
That’s a 4% gap at 3 years when looking at hourly wage. It’s still bad but not 13%. Someone working more hours should be paid more in total, no?
What about men and women at 3 years? The gap in hours must be smaller, as this would imply a 17% gap at 3 years, not a 13% one: ($39.5 * 36) / ($38 * 32) ≈ 1.17.
Still, if men work worse hours, shouldn’t they be paid more on average? I’m unsure about Australia but hours worked during night-shift on Sundays or on holidays must legally have increased pay in Germany (up to 190% from 12 am to 4 am on Christmas for example. It’s also tax-exempt!).
Assuming the reason why fewer women work these hours is childcare (which it frequently is) then access to affordable childcare should be expanded. But that’s not an issue with more men in female-dominated issues but rather a systemic problem imo.
Yeah, that’s bad. I do wonder whether “quickly” refers to “total hours worked” or “time employed” as men work more hours on average. Women should be promoted as quickly as men based on total hours of experience. The executive issue still remains though.
A minor nitpick: the suggestion at the bottom should apply to every nurse, regardless of gender. After all, everyone would benefit from being able to work more flexible shifts - be it nurses, their children or their patients (the last one because nobody can keep high care standards for 12 hours).