By: Tim Dive, Director – Workplace Advisory Specialists

Is there anyone in Australian politics that has the courage to point out a setup anymore? Both major parties have been incredibly weak and almost fraudulent with their stance on the ‘gender pay gap’, and they’re now taking advantage of Australian workplaces to win votes.

After receiving support from both parties, laws have been passed that mandate chief executives to report to their governing bodies about the pay disparities between men and women. This will serve as a warning to company boards regarding gender pay gaps. Additionally, the Workplace Gender Equity Agency (WGEA) will now be able to disclose the employer-level pay gaps of roughly 40% of businesses, which was previously not disclosed.

I’m personally confused about the value the WGEA has ever prodiced in this country. An organisation that originally claimed like-for-like work was remunerated differently based on whether you were male or not, now backpedalling like mad to correct their followers (commonly aggressive, male-hating females) ridiculous statements and comments on socials regurgitating that old rhetoric – go take a look!

Anyhow….

Under the new legislation, chief executive officers (CEOs) are obligated to deliver an executive summary report and an industry benchmark report to the relevant governing body of their employer, such as a company board. The aim of these reports is to encourage formal discussions among boards regarding progress towards achieving gender equality objectives.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed his support for the bill, stating that it would shine a light on the pay discrepancy between genders as well as the inconsistency between a company’s statements and its actions.

But….

Gender pay gaps do not indicate a discrepancy between similar job roles. Rather, they signify the variation in the average compensation of men and women across organisations, industries, and the entire workforce.

So, what is Albanese talking about here?

Is the Labor Government demanding Australian employers now produce a plan to lawfully dictate to women how and when to care for family members and children, and treat men differently by forcing them to take up part-time jobs and unpaid leave to force their real-wages down?

Are we now supposed to make gender-based hires for all fulltime roles and preclude men from the hiring process? Well – I’ll be very keen to see BHP’s report next year, since I know from first-hand experience some years ago, this is exactly what an arm of that business directed their recruitment team to do – let’s see how that turned out.

Perhaps demonstrating some intelligence – to prevent any unjust evaluations of businesses with a considerable number of female workers in entry-level positions, the employer gender pay gaps will be disclosed through mean (average), median (middle point), and remuneration quartile – but it still doesn’t tell a story based on the truth.

How about this for a “rigged” report?

Pay data must incorporate the remuneration of chief executives. Given that approximately 80% of CEOs in Australia are men, their inclusion in the calculations will have a significant impact on the pay gap measurement. Since CEOs typically receive the highest compensation in a company, this addition is expected to inflate the pay gaps significantly.

Personally, I’ve worked in organisations where the CEO has taken home more than $3,500,000 in base salary. That’s equivalent to a workforce of almost 40 people on $90k per annum.

I’ve worked with Boards and Charities where the CEO’s real take salary would cover 15 to 20 employees based on the Modern Award wages and Agreements in their workplaces. If 80% of CEOs in Australia are males, the Australian government is going to make businesses look like absolute fools with an unachievable adjustment target, creating mistrust and driving an even larger wedge between men and women at work.

Shouldn’t CEO’s be compared with CEO’s?

The government certainly does know the difference between executive workforces and others. They’ve demonstrated that clearly by ensuring professional services firms such as those in the legal and accounting industry aren’t required to report on “Partner” incomes. So, what’s the difference here, other than the obvious close friendships these major firms have with government executives?

All in all – the idea of publishing gender wage gaps is not a bad one, but the entire thing is rigged for failure and embarrassment, creating a platform for government to make a spectacle of business owners, when they have zero ‘genuine’ care about gender wage gaps or inequality (which, by the way, has been pretty bloody difficult to find).