Home › Practical support & advice › Management community › Blogs

Women 'occupy more high status jobs than men'

Submitted by Adrian Gaskell MCMI on Thu, 13/08/2009 - 11:12

New research by the University of Cambridge shows that more women than men are now employed in high status occupations.

The report by Dr Robert Blackburn, titled Gender Inequality At Work in Industrial Countries, also stated that men are still paid more than women, which could hinder career development.

Following the publication of the research, Karen Gill MBE, co-founder of everywoman, stated that "whilst this study presents good news, there is still much to be done".

She also added that the study appeared to focus on a small group of occupations with lawyers, doctors and architects cited as professions where woman are more prevalent.

The study looked at pay in ten different European countries to make its findings.

An Equality and Human Rights Commission report released earlier this year found that among the highest earners, the gender pay gap for full time hourly gross earnings is 45 per cent.

It also found that women working full-time in the lowest paid roles receive on average 16 per cent less in hourly gross pay than their male colleagues.

Related Content: 
Women still not getting a 'fair deal' on pay
Women more likely to keep their job during the recession
Management skills of equalities commission called into question
Attitude to working mums has changed, say experts
New study shows gender discrimination in leadership development
You are not watching this post, click to start watching

Comments

Submitted by on Thu, 13/08/2009 - 12:46

I don't get this I really don't. I mean if wage inequality existed, ie women were paid less than men across the board purely because of their gender, then I don't know of many companies that would employ a man again. I mean you'd save a fortune if you just employed women on smaller wages wouldn't you?

Submitted by on Thu, 13/08/2009 - 12:57

Ah Bruce you are missing the point. Who would be doing the employing if it weren't the men? Besides which the point of inequality would be that you believe one group is better/worth more than the other. So if you are paying men more it is because you think they are better than women and so need them for the company to be a success and the women can do the more menial stuff/make up the numbers.

I am not proposing that I agree with this in any way shape or form, just that this is the hypothesis of why you would still have men and pay women less.

Submitted by on Thu, 13/08/2009 - 13:05

This report says that more women are in the good jobs though, so they are in a position to hire who they want. So if they believe women are the best AND they can hire them for less, why would they ever employ a bloke? Every company I've worked at has paid people equally. I just can't believe if you're comparing like for like (ie not taking into account overtime etc.) that women are paid less in this day and age, it's certainly not the case at anywhere that I've worked.

http://www.longitudinal.stir.ac.uk/surveynetwork/seminars/s7/blackburn_r... is the report anyway.

Submitted by on Thu, 13/08/2009 - 14:28

Just because there weren't pay inequalities at the companies you have worked for certainly doesn't mean pay inequality doesn't exist.
And can I point out that the study focused on very few professions?

Submitted by on Thu, 13/08/2009 - 19:22

I agree Celia. The study is very narrowly focused.
I know of many professions where women predominate at graduate level but men predominate at the most senior levels.
In terms of salary I probably could do with seeing more details as in many organisations particularly in the public sector there shouldn't be pay differentials eg health sector. However I can quite believe in the private sector that differentials exist.