Superannuation gender inequality has been a topic that got many of your goads up over the past couple of weeks, and Wealth Professional’s latest article about a firm which pays its women more to retire was no exception.
On the tail end of International Womens’ Day we interviewed a deputy CEO who went to the human rights commission in order to get the all clear for a scheme that addressed superannuation gender inequality.
Many of you disagreed with the firm giving its female employees more superannuation incentives.
said: “This gender discrimination in its purest form: giving someone a different benefit purely because of their gender. It also assumes female employees will have children. Some will not, some cannot.”
also felt the move was unfair, and instead raised the issue of female versus male salary disparity.
The whole gender system in the workplace needs different expectations, said SB
: “How about equal pay, equal opportunity and fathers who are willing to take a step back for their partners career or at least help equally in the required drop off, pick up and sick days?” Later, they added: "It's interesting to note that when the initial topic was raised about women retiring with 40% less super everyone was quick to point out that its not an issue as the woman could share her spouse's super. Rice Warner are now trying to bridge that gap and rather than seeing that as increasing the overall wealth of the couple with a win for everyone, there appears to be moral outrage".
Others, like Pat
, disagreed with comments in the article that even though partnered women share wealth and super with their spouses, they are still more disadvantaged: “If the financial position of a married couple is not equally split, then, in the event of divorce, she is not "losing 50%", she is gaining a lot more”.
said everyone was missing the point and people should be paid based on productivity and value to society, rather than gender: “There are some things that women (generally) do better than men, and there are also some things that men (generally) do better than women. Don't shoot the messenger”.
Finally, discriminating to solve a so-called discriminatory issue is not the right approach, asserted Noel H Bamford
Thanks to all of our contributors this week. Read more comments and the story here