bridge too far

Here's a good example http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/24/richard-mourdock-rape-remarks-romney

All these recent job losses in the area are bound to have a significant knock-on effect on the local economy. Very sad news.

And I can't because I'm neither a researcher nor a statistician. I can only cite information posted by organisations that have done such research and I quoted information from the Fawcett Society (the financial sector was a case in point). But I would refer you to the Birmingham City Council female workers. Those still working for the council won their case a while back. It was demonstrated that, whilst they were getting the same hourly rate as their male counterparts, they weren't getting the bonuses that the men were. Birmingham Council is liable for at least £615m in payments to these women and, potentially, £3bn if yesterday's court case upholds the claims of those who retired / left 6 years ago and who were initially considered to be ineligible http://www.payrollworld.com/article/887 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20054049

Trousers, you're as predictable as night following day.

A comment from that article: [h=4]ham_pfc[/h] 9:17 AM on 25/10/2012 Cillit - no one in League One is paying everyone in a squad £260k a year (£5k a week) so you are being negative & trying to stir things up. Plus at Pompey we attract better players for less due to our clubs standing, compared to say a Yeovil. If we get gates of 14-15k we will have plenty to build a decent squad within budget. Just need the whole city to get behind the lads every week at home, collections in pubs, fundraisers, etc.

I'm not very good at understanding statistical data as presented in the first link. The other two links cite reasons why women earn less (in the US) but don't address the crucial point about being paid an equal amount for equal work. An example might be that an hourly paid man earns more per hour than an early paid woman. that's nothing to do with men 'working longer hours', it's about EQUAL pay for EQUAL work. Another consideration in the 'caring' argument is that many women also have caring responsibilities at the other end of the age spectrum. I was lucky when my mother was ill - my boss only minded that the work was done on time, and didn't worry if I worked weekends to cover the time lost from taking my mother to hospital. But not all employers are that sensitive. I suppose the answer might be to bung all children into nurseries asap and all old people into care. Then today's women could work long hours, ignore the housework, ignore the childcare and grandparent care and earn more money to pay for this. Women make up 49% of the working population these days - a significant spending force and many industries would be bereft of experience and talent if they lost that workforce. In summary - equal pay for equal work and a recognition that, if society expects women to do the bulk of caring, they must recognise these additional calls on their time by not discriminating against them.

Tim, I accept some of the points you make but the salient point is that, for a variety of reasons, a lot of women are being paid less for doing the same job. And the point about people (not just women) choosing to have children is a distraction. There has to be a future generation and someone has to care for that generation, be it a father or a mother. I suspect a man taking a 'career break' would not be penalised upon his return to work in the same way as some women are. If you read the article thoroughly, you will see that it isn't just about pay. It's about attitudes too - the hostility some women experience because they struggle to balance work and family, since they do most of the caring for example. The final sentences in the link are telling: The Government must encourage shared parenting through promoting a system of flexible parental leave, as committed to in its Coalition Programme published in May 2010. Women’s disproportionate caring responsibilities are a key factor in the discrimination faced by women at work. There is little support or encouragement for fathers to spend more time caring. This is bad for fathers, mothers and children who would benefit if care was shared more equally.

And as a generalisation that's true. But that doesn't explain or address the difference WITHIN THE PRIVATE SECTOR of the rates of pay for the same job, does it? As is demonstrated, for example, in the figures for the financial services industry. Generally, public sector wages are more equal. This is in part becauise government departments have to publish audited figures to show rates of pay. The case heard to day centres around the fact that Birmingham council had agreed to equalise wages for broadly similar jobs but challenged the right of women who had retired / left to fall into this judgement due to the length of time between their departure and their bringing their case. The Council lost their case and these women can proceed to have their case heard in the Supreme Court (I think).

I think you're cherry picking a bit: The full-time gender pay gap between women and men is 14.9 per cent The pay gap varies across sectors and regions, rising to up to 55% in the finance sector and up to 33.3% in the City of London Interruptions to employment due to caring work account for 14% of the gender pay gap 64% of the lowest paid workers are women, contributing not only to women's poverty but to the poverty of their children There are almost four times as many women in part-time work as men. Part-time workers are likely to receive lower hourly rates of pay than full-time workers. Nine out of ten lone parents are women. The median gross weekly pay for male single parents is £346, while for female single parents it is £194.4 I've cherry picked too - the bits in bold are nothing to do with 'career breaks' (lol) and reflect a level playing field in terms of hours worked and associated pay received. Perhaps women should give up on having children, eh? I think most women would agree that they should be paid equally for equal value work and that they shouldn't be sidelined because they choose (on their own without any input from their partners) to have children. Regardless of my sex, I'd be pretty ****ed off if a person sitting next to me received more money for doing exactly the same job.

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=321

I can't answer this cos I don't know. But I do know, because it's been on the news today, that Peugeot are seeking French government funding to keep themselves going and questions are being asked as to whether the EU will allow state intervention. So it would seem odd that the EU would fund a move to Turkey whilst, at the same time, query state funding to a French car manufacturer. It seems that a lot of European car companies are experiencing difficulties and looking to their governments to help. I also heard that both Southampton MPs are looking for this government to intervene in the Ford case.

No - they WILL go back to work (in fact they have to since they're receiving maternity pay) and they will want to too. I was talking about a scenario where perhaps one of the children needed constant care due to illness / disability. Neither of them have, so far, taken much time off because one of their older children was ill (teachers aren't really allowed time off for such circumstances and, unfortunately, his wife, my daughter, doesn't get paid time off in such circumstances even though she's quite high up the food chain). The other daughter, luckily, can work from home in an emergency and, in any event, her self employed husband can step in if necessary. My teacher SiL would have happily taken parental leave for a year had it been permitted. Unfortunately, as his wife had to have a C section, she would have been unable to return to work immediately for health reasons. Neither of them will have any more children, but come the day men can breastfeed maybe more women would forego their maternity leave in favour of paternity leave.

Good to hear that I was actually answering CB Saint, but you've obviously got an intelligent and savvy daughter.

Judging by my experience both mine and that of my daughters, I would regard that as a sweeping generalisation. If it was imperative that my youngest daughter OR her husband had to stay at home to look after the children, it would be her husband - for purely economic reasons as she earns quite a bit more than him (he's a teacher). My other daughter and her husband earn roughly the same but as he's self employed, she would probably be the one to stay at home if necessary. However, both girls have to go back to work next summer when their maternity leave(s) expire, and both want to in order to keep their professional skills up to speed. I would advise any woman to work if she can - heaven forbid but the couple might split up and she might then find it difficult to find work, having been out of the workplace for a while. That's what happened to me.

I don't see any reason why men can't choose to stay at home for part of their working life. Why can't they? Interesting juxtaposition of this news and this news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20054049. Whilst professionally qualified women such as doctors, lawyers and teachers have payscales that mean they are paid the same as men, senior and middle managers don't have such transparent payscales. It is generally accepted in these cases that women earn 85p for every £1 that a man doing a broadly equivalent job does. Thankfully these days most men recognise joint caring and domestic duties but there are still dinosaurs out there who regard women as belonging further down a pecking order.

No and I'm not repeating the name. Suffice to say he made his fortune in the construction industry. Read Saint in Paradise's link from a few pages back.

Reading previous blogs, a former treasurer of a political party springs to mind. The question was asked by Tom Watson.

Here's another job that Appy could apply for http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20048196

Questions just raised in the House about alleged paedophile ring a few years ago involving very powerful people including some close to No. 10

Fair point, but then she would need to be reminded that it was the taxes paid by today's pensioners that have provided her with her education, health service etc. etc.

Too right, Whitey. And some of us have caring committments too. It could be for a very elderly relative. In my case, it's looking after grandchildren two days a week.

There are enough young people out of work at the moment. Put us pensioners back to work and there'd be even less work for the young unemployed. Who would employ me anyway

Is that the same police force castigated over Hillsborough and now the miners' strike? This is not a rhetorical question - I really don't know

LOL I misread that as 'morals'

Even minor royalty has been implicated in the abuse at the childrens' home in Surrey, along with others. I'm not suggesting anywhere that News International conspired to cover up the allegations - far from it. They probably were pressurised into dropping the story too. But what I do criticise them for is now taking the moral high ground in their attempt to discredit the BBC. With regard to victims reporting abuse, just think about it. You're a child in care, in a corrective institution, in hospital and he's abused you. You try to report it. Who is going to believe such a child? Especially back then. After all, this man raised millions for charity and, allegedly, threatened to withdraw his charitable events if anyone accused him of these crimes. This man apparently spent 11 consecutive Christmas holidays at Chequers - you'd believe a young child over him, with all his contacts and influence?