We’ve just published our gender pay gap figures for this year and the last one. We weren’t yet required to publish our figures in 2017 as we weren’t big enough at the time. But to keep us transparent and accountable, we’re sharing them too.
Give it a read, check out the work we’ve done so far, what we plan to do next, and why we believe closing the pay gap matters.
In short, our numbers show we have a lot more work to do.
We’d love to carry on the discussion with you, so please let us know what you think
Just a quick note: We know that a lot of people feel strongly about this subject (myself included!) So we’ll be watching this thread closely to make sure it stays on-topic and within our Code of Conduct guidelines
Some of it is definitely down to having a smaller applicant pool. However, as a society we have to ask ourselves why that is and are we okay with those reasons. If it’s a role that women just don’t want to do - that’s okay. If it’s a role that women are unable to achieve because from an early age they’re directed away from it or because of caregiving responsibilities they’re not put on that track, that’s a problem that we need to solve.
Presumably since the law doesn’t require this then no.
It would be interesting to know how many people do not identify with the traditional genders in a company but I doubt many companies would release that data (if they even have it) without being legally compelled to.
A bit surprising, you’ve recruited most within the last 12 months, so at the point of making the salary/pay offers how have you come to decide to offer less?
It’s been hot topic for sometime, surely this type of equality drive should of been part of the hiring decisions you should of been considering ?
I might be wrong or misunderstanding but of not expected such a gap.
We’re confident that we pay equally for equal work, so it isn’t that people who identify as women are offered or paid less for doing the same role as a man.
Instead, what our gender pay gap reporting shows is a disparity in how much men and women across all roles are paid on average. Women are not well-represented in the better-paid, senior or engineering roles, which brings the average for women’s pay across the company down.
Surely if you are basing your “gender” pay gap on those who identify as men and women, as opposed to those who are of the sex male and female you risk making your statistics meaningless.
The root cause of the “gender” pay gap is female biology.
As an extreme unrealistic example, if all of your top positions were held by men and transwomen, and all of the lower paid roles were held by women and transmen then based on self-identified gender your company would have perfect gender inequality, but appalling levels of sex equality (which is what the gender pay gap is supposed to measure).
TL;DR The gender pay gap is actually about measuring the inequalities that primarily negatively impact females - it’s not about how you identify.
female
ˈfiːmeɪl/
adjective
1.
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
Furthermore both sex, and gender reassignment are separate protected characteristics, which exist as these are groups particularly vulnerable to harassment, discrimination etc.
Any inequality faced by women is faced by all women and we need to resolve that. An inclusive work place where every person has the opportunity to perform to the best of their ability and have the opportunity to succeed is the goal.
This bit concerns me. A lazy recruiter will just separate males and females and ensure there are equal numbers in order to “tick the box”. A responsible recruiter will diversify where they post jobs to naturally get a more even spread.
I think the idea of looking at this statistics is great and knowing what the averages of pay between men and women can give some interesting facts. I just think its been politicised and polarised in such a way that people on both ends of the spectrum (against pay gap, don’t think its real etc) have become the dominant voices and so the statistics become irrelevant and it just descends into a argument
Definitely! We only want to work with recruiters who bring us the best possible candidates. If there is a trend where the candidates they put forward do not meet our requirements then we wouldn’t continue to work with them. That’s just a waste of time for everyone involved and isn’t fair to the candidates!
