Report comment

So much of the reporting on the GPG is poorly calculated.

Based loosely on a small office I worked at many years ago as an example, I have 10 staff of 5 men and 5 women. 8 (4 men & 4 women) do the same hours & role and get equal pay for it (say £40k), so there’s no gap. Then there’s Eve, the experience office manager, who gets £65k, and Adam, who is just out of school and does admin & post etc, who gets £20k. Now I have a 25% pay gap.

I know this required publishing from companies, businesses or organisations with over 250 staff, but it’s very easy for figures to appear discriminatory at such a high level overview, even if people doing the same role are paid the same salary.

I know there’s then the issue of why men have higher up roles and not women, but we need to recognise that men are more likely (not exclusively) going to apply for promotions and more responsibility. That is not to say women are less capable or able at doing the role and achieving the same results, but having been in the position of hiring managers via direct applications and receiving 8, all from men, I’m not sure what the expectations are? When it came to filling admin roles, over 80% of the applications were from women.

If companies don’t get the applicants, we can’t be solely responsible for GPG