It is popularly accepted that similarly qualified females only earn about 75% of their male counterparts. President Obama used the figure of 77% in last night's SOTU address.
I see all kinds of statistical errors in doing a simple annual or weekly earnings comparison between males and females. The rational thing would be to compare base rates per hour earned by men and women. I say this after being a manager in manufacturing and the public service for about 28 years.
My experience was that about 70% of men would willingly take on overtime opportunities vs. 20% to 30% of women. We used a rigid overtime offering system over the past dozen years, an equal opportunity list, such that OT offerings were made on a relatively equal level among all workers. I believe the much poorer take up among women is because the large number of women aged 25 to 45 in the workforce have family responsibilities, and they did not have the flexibility to take this on. Also, many saw themselves as the second income earner.
Looking back at the past five years, it was common to see OT come up such that a worker would generally see one day of OT offered for each ten worked. So, about 25 days a year. If one avails themselves of the overtime, that in itself is about a 20% difference compared to one who declines overtime as we paid 2X the base rate for OT on a day of rest, or a statutory holiday. Over and above that were daily two hour opportunities at 1.5X factor , generally one to two per week that arose. (The public sector is especially generous with its OT premiums, to be sure.)
Going beyond that, being seen a flexible person by supervision, and experiences gained by often working outside one's normal department helps one progress up the ladder. For instance if one is working a Sunday, unsupervised on a dock operation, one has to prioritize the trucks to be loaded and unloaded, a role normally done by a supervisor. This forced need to enlarge one's working role really helps with interviews when it comes to promotion potential. Those who stick to the "nine to five" pigeonhole don't get ahead. And, becoming a supervisor in and of itself requires more flexibility in work hours than being a regular operator.
So, I think when contrasting incomes, it is also important to contrast hours of work and job grade.
I see all kinds of statistical errors in doing a simple annual or weekly earnings comparison between males and females. The rational thing would be to compare base rates per hour earned by men and women. I say this after being a manager in manufacturing and the public service for about 28 years.
My experience was that about 70% of men would willingly take on overtime opportunities vs. 20% to 30% of women. We used a rigid overtime offering system over the past dozen years, an equal opportunity list, such that OT offerings were made on a relatively equal level among all workers. I believe the much poorer take up among women is because the large number of women aged 25 to 45 in the workforce have family responsibilities, and they did not have the flexibility to take this on. Also, many saw themselves as the second income earner.
Looking back at the past five years, it was common to see OT come up such that a worker would generally see one day of OT offered for each ten worked. So, about 25 days a year. If one avails themselves of the overtime, that in itself is about a 20% difference compared to one who declines overtime as we paid 2X the base rate for OT on a day of rest, or a statutory holiday. Over and above that were daily two hour opportunities at 1.5X factor , generally one to two per week that arose. (The public sector is especially generous with its OT premiums, to be sure.)
Going beyond that, being seen a flexible person by supervision, and experiences gained by often working outside one's normal department helps one progress up the ladder. For instance if one is working a Sunday, unsupervised on a dock operation, one has to prioritize the trucks to be loaded and unloaded, a role normally done by a supervisor. This forced need to enlarge one's working role really helps with interviews when it comes to promotion potential. Those who stick to the "nine to five" pigeonhole don't get ahead. And, becoming a supervisor in and of itself requires more flexibility in work hours than being a regular operator.
So, I think when contrasting incomes, it is also important to contrast hours of work and job grade.
Last edited:
