…LOL. I missed this. Didn’t you say you weren’t going to “engage in this distraction anymore?”
I cited two additional cases in my response to your claim “It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.” Kerri Sleeman and Eleanor Bradford. Post 135.
…yep. There wasn’t a point where the agent tried to negotiate and they were told “Nope. Scale and that’s it!”. If they did then both Michelle Williams and the agency has kept that part of the story secret. This would have put all the blame on the production company and if the agency had this as an “out” they would have taken it.
According to the links you provided, they refused to comment. So again I ask you, how do YOU know this?
…I ask you again: how do YOU not know this?
Because I don’t make up things to believe. I use facts to determine what happened in situations. Simply point to something that shows that her agent didn’t negotiate and I’m cool with it.
…I don’t really care “what you are cool” with or what you are not. The sequence of what happened is clear. Michelle Williams voluntarily gave up any salary for the reshoots, the same as what she thought the rest of the cast had done. The assertion that after she did this her agent would then "try to negotiate and they were told “Nope. Scale and that’s it” is not an assertion I have to disprove.
Did they try and negotiate after they secured 1.5 million for their other client? Well if they did they didn’t tell Michelle Williams about it. Because Williams only found out about the disparity when Jessica Chastain broke the news and tweeted about it. Until that tweet Williams had no reason to believe that anybody had been paid differently.
So when did these supposed negotiations happen?
No you have not. You continue to post with blatantly non-factual responses.
…no I have not what?
I have not posted cited two cases gender pay story examples? You don’t think Kerri Sleeman and Eleanor Bradford count? Or you actually think I didn’t post that information? Can you put at least a bit of effort into clarifying your point?
I haven’t made any “blatantly non-factual responses”. If you want a debate then have at it. But so far in this thread you have claimed I’m “obsessed with Hollywood actresses being the great victims of this world.” You’ve claimed “rich Hollywood actresses that you would care about.” You’ve claimed “It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.” You’ve now just claimed I “continue to post with blatantly non-factual responses.”
Just stop it already. I’m here to debate if you want to debate. But just stop with these baseless attacks.
I think you’d be much better advised to drop the Hollywood case as an example. That doesn’t seem to be a clear example of unfairness based on gender but, seeing as *no-one *got paid extra apart from Wahlberg, it was a case of him v everyone and I don’t see where his maleness comes into it, you could substitute him for any other film diva who happens to be female and no-one would be surprised at all.
Not every case of “being paid less whilst being a woman” is an example of “being paid less because you are a woman” and they shouldn’t be used to dilute the very real importance of the latter.
…sure. How about Eleanor Bradford?
Potentially a better example but, unless there is information unknown to me, that is just her assessment of what was going on. I haven’t seen the BBC side of the case.
If that truly was an example of less pay for equal work and the only factor was gender then she would have a slam-dunk legal case at an industrial tribunal. Only in such circumstances would we hear all sides of what I imagine is a more complicated situation than has been self-reported by her.
My experience suggests it is pretty much *always *more complicated than any single side will willingly express.
I don’t doubt that she thinks she was bringing equal value to her role and she may be right and could make a good case for it. The flip side of that is that someone else could just as easily make a case that, actually, *they *were bringing more to the role in ways that Eleanor may know nothing about. What then?
This can of course be rectified with having strict wage bands and zero discretion but that is not necessarily as popular as you might suppose, certainly not outside of areas of employment with straightforward and tangible deliverables.
…how about Kerri Sleeman?
One quote here from Eleanor
As she was on the average, that suggests that there were now people around her doing the same job as her and getting *less *than her. I wonder how she justified that to herself? I wonder what the gender breakdown of that below-average group was?
Also, seeing as she left the BBC and a replacement would be required, I wonder what incentives were then at work when considering a new hire. A woman on a low rate would make their gender pay-figures worse. A man on a low rate would make them better.
Possibly stronger still. Certainly on the facts as reported by Kerri and such a case wouldn’t surprise me, surely incidents of unequal pay must still happen from time to time and a hefty sanction should be the their reward. Laws exist so that any company trying that shit will not have a leg to stand on.
However, that isn’t what the “gender pay gap” figures are designed to address (at the least in the UK), if indeed they are designed to address anything at all.
This happens all the time. In Iron Man Robert Downey Jr was paid $500,000 and Terrance Howard was paid $3.5 milion. Downey was the star of the movie, the titular character and received one seventh what the supporting actor made.
Marlon Brando got more money to be in Apocalypse Now than Martin Sheen did even though he was only onscreen for fifteen minutes.
In Superman Christopher Reeves got $250K, Brando got $3.7 million salary and 19 million in profit participation. Brando was only in the movie for a couple of minutes.
In the Force Awakens Mark Hammil was paid more for his cameo at the end than stars John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, and Oscar Isaac.
Any single case can likely be explained as a multitude of factors, but how do you explain systemic, workforce-wide discrepancies in pay between men and women? It seems like nobody ready my post about the data which shows a ~5% gap in compensation even when adjusted for job type, education, experience, etc. Is this due to systemic discrimination (even might be primarily unconscious biases), or is it potentially due to systemic differences in productivity and subsequent merited differences in pay (which could just be due to social norms - eg. women might be less likely to work overtime (paid or unpaid) due to family commitments). Neither is an ideal situation, but tackling the problem will take a different approach depending on which ends up being a bigger factor.
To heck they dont. At my job you might have two level 7 mechanics both at step 5 of the pay scale. One working overtime (say 4 OT hours a week), 3rd shift (nights where you get a night differential), and on sundays (sunday bonus) which pays more and the other working 2nd shift on weekdays which pays less. Even though they are both level 7’s at pay scale 5, one is going to have higher wages because of the extra things.
So you have 2 level 7 mechanics who both technically are paid the same but in reality, one brings home more pay.
Your right on “perceived demand of the employer”. I know a country club that after getting a new general manager, fired the head chef, golf pro, and tennis pro because they were making way to much money and he knew he could hire new people at way less than what they made.
I’ve also seen this in IT where some computer person claims they are the only ones who know all the passwords and know the computer system so much they think they are invincible and no way would they be fired. Well the company calls in other IT experts who proves them wrong and they end up getting fired.
So sometimes people can get themselves by negotiating raises where they are paid too high and the employer calls them on it.
I just looked at the study. A serious question, how did they, for instance, go from 25.3% gap to 23.0% gap by adding controls for age, education and years of experience? How do they know it’s not 22.5%? Maybe they are 1% off on each successive control, and then end up with 0% gap?
Also, I didn’t see any mention of comparing average hours worked by men and women. If that average ends up being significantly different, wouldn’t that affect the pay gap?
…none of those actors were paid scale. It doesn’t happen “all the time.”