Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Let me be clear where I am coming from (as I am a male solicitor and probably as likely to be well received in this debate as a bacon scratchings at a Shifnal vegan salad bar):

1. I believe in equal pay for all genders; moreover I think that equal pay should work to upgrade lower paid genders not downgrade allegedly "preferred" employees (which policy some feminists have voiced as being undesirable as it compromises the female employability edge)
2. I believe in a balance of all genders in the workplace: all female firms should be denounced for their affront to diversity with the same vigour as all male firms clearly deserve
3. I believe that firms that crow about "diversity targets being met" should be called out on the levels of pay made to female appointees as opposed to what would have been paid to males
4. I believe that assertions that firms should provide a bouncy castle room for their staff and a free choice of working hours should be considered in light of the nature of the job itself: court appointed deadlines, statutory deadlines, contractual deadlines, client expectations and the narrow profit margins that firms are seeking to survive on
In other words:
1. I think it is a bit rich to assert that salaries should be upgraded or otherwise increased for members of staff seeking actively to reduce their commitment to attend work at all
2. If female staff are to be permitted to decide their own hours of work ("what? every Wednesday?") then there has to be a trade off - this is not gender politics: this is simple economics.
Having children (like buying a dog) is a choice: the state does not compel women to start families (yet: although David Icke might have something to say on that) and so it is again a bit rich to say that I only want to work a 15-25 hour week but I want to earn as much as a person working 35+ hours a week
Diversity is an important and very valid issue, but its implications need to be wrought from a clear profit/loss perspective and not from a candy floss, blue sky, OBE touting waffle

Your details

Cancel