Well sorry but there's only so many people telling me that women being able to work is an undecided thing that we need to reconsider before I've had it.

So again, I want to know why there is wide-spread pay discrimination when it is unlawful.

I didn't say that. I asked why.

If you're asking the question, that is your premise. The simplest answer is the obvious one: the law isn't being followed. The intent and the implementation are not the same thing.

It is true it can't always be proven, but 93% of all cases heard by the fair work commission find in favour of the employee. In cases of pay discrimination it is a simple test they apply. Same duties, same title, different pay, different gender, equals discrimination.

As near as irrelevant. When taking into consideration the final tally (because this is the end of the process) you have to take into account every preselection stage before that. This is a common issue in statistics and why official proceedings such as this are not the best indicator of prevalence in absolute terms.

As a simple thought experiment, consider a company that exceeds environmental pollution for a particular substance that is regulated to a moderate extent, and you are looking at court filings for registered fees imposed on that company by a state regulator.

The court filings are the final selection stage, where the agency has proven pollution and imposed a fine. There are multiple preselection stages:

• Whether regulators test for the substance regularly or rely on company disclosures, such as in the case of a spill
• Whether the company discloses in the second case
• Whether the regulators pursue the case
• Whether they have the proof to win the dispute
• If the company can assuage concerns before the level of a fine.

In the case of the Fair Work commission, we have similar preselection stages:

• Whether the person in question know they've been discriminated against (until very recently, pay was kept secret, so women were not necessarily aware they were earning less)
• Whether they have proof that they were discriminated against
• Whether a lawyer thinks they have a case; this closely relates to the previous point and the rate of representation among claimants (if the representation rate is high, then laywers themselves will self-select cases that they think they can win)

All of these factors influence which cases find their way to the Fair Work Commission. I don't know where you got 93% from but such a high rate would indicate a large amount of preselection of cases that make it that far. I don't know where you got that data though because as recently as 2017 there's a source saying that unfair dismissal suits were decided in plaintiff's favour 60% of the time, a historic low.

What the fuck are you talking about? Really, if this is how you react to someone who is on your side of the debate, no wonder other people are giving you shit.

Sorry for being snarky but best practice guides are not in any way binding. They're guides, they don't mean anything to bad actors.

A bill currently in Parliament mandates transparency for companies with more than 100 employees, but this is still an issue as shown by the ATO. It's individual people that will benefit from that.

The above data clearly shows that with the same job title and responsibilities, pay differs. Hence, the intent of the law is not being followed.