Quite a few people point out that companies pay out just as much, if not more, to employ women as they do to employ men, on average. And that's true even when women's paychecks are lower.
Historically women take more time off than men, necessitating the company to spend resources training temporary replacements, arranging their accounting and employment affairs, losing income during the time between the employee leaving and the replacement coming up to productive speed, etc. When a man takes time off, the company must go through the same expenses and losses, of course... but historically, men do it far less than women.
Whether the time off is for pregnancy, or for childraising, or etc., or for illness or non-job injuries, the time taken off work costs the company. Men may take more time off for illnesses or non-job injuries than women. And women take more time off then men, for pregnancy, child-raising, etc., as well as a greater percentage of women who leave their jobs permanently to raise children, than men who leave their jobs for that reason. Even today, when men are starting to take time off for childraising, the fact remains that they still do that less than women do.
Equal pay defeat for women who go on maternity leave | Mail Online
Bottom line is, companies pay out a lot more when they hire women, per hour of productive work that gets done, than they pay out when they hire men for the same job. So the notion that paying the women lower wages is "unfair" or "unjustified", is mistaken. The company doesn't have a money tree. The extra money they pay out to employ women, has to come from somewhere. And where else can it possibly come from, than the wages paid to men and women respectively?
Perhaps the "fairest" method of determining wages should be structured as follows:
1.) Pay the same dollar amount to every worker doing the same job, regardless of gender.
2.) Dock workers' pay in proportion to the amount of time they take off, and make sure the worker knows it's not just for lost productivity, but also for training replacements, bringing them up to speed, additional overhead for the replacement etc.
Except, how do you predict in advance, that someone is going to leave permanently? Retirements due to age can be predicted. Absence due to illness or non-job injury can (statistically) be predicted. Leaving to devote a life to childraising often cannot, especially when the employee (or spouse) is not even pregnant when first hired. But when they do, it is too late to dock any pay for the expenses they incurred due to leaving. So the structure listed above is unworkable in significant ways.
Historically, there is a real financial basis for women receiving unequal pay, even when they put in the same hours doing the same job. And it's not one that the company has any control over. Women don't take more leave than me because the company wanted it that way. And they don't leave their careers (for childraising or whatever) more often than men, because the company required them to.
But the company must pay more as a result of their doing so, whether the company (or the employee) like it or not, if the company wants to keep up its production standard.
What possible way is there for companies to make up for their increased expenses as a result of employing women, other than paying a lower dollar wage up front to women?
