- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I believe it is about time we had true equality.
Fact is if two men went for a job and appear equally as good as each other – One possible way to decide who gets the job, is if one was less likely to be available to work long hours if needed.
Women as a group are still, more likely to have time off for family reasons. However, if one of the two were a woman, it would – quite rightly – be wrong to make a decision on gender.
Yet for many years, it has been ok for insurance companies to be prejudiced against ALL men, just because as a group, we are more likely to have an accident. Everyone should be treated as an individual.
I have been driving for over 25 years, have always been a very safe driver. Not once have I been stopped by the police or been stung by a camera. Yet because I am a bloke, have had to pay more than a woman of similar age for insurance.
Value Is EverythingDoesn’t this throw open the topic of ageism now though ginger? How would you feel about a £300 hike in your premium in order to balance a lower premium offered to some 18 year old boy racer in a Subaru?
Ginger,
For one who sets such great store by, and purports to have an understanding of Value, Risk and Odds I find your words rather – nay very – strange
Firstly, given your exemplary driving record I presume you have been rewarded for being a safe driver with a maximum no-claims discount. Your insurance company has, quite rightly, deemed you to be ‘low risk’
Secondly, the biggest killer of men (suicide apart) under the age of 25 is the car-crash. It is a rare sight to see a car load of young women in a speeding suped-up banger risking their – and far more importantly – other road users and pedestrians lives.
Hence, again quite correctly based on grim statistics, insurance companies load the premiums of said young men
The gender claim stats are at their most divergent in the above age range but at all ages women are a safer insurance risk than men, and therefore should be charged a lower premium
Of course, any individual be it man or woman who has an accident/makes a claim will have subsequent premiums increased to represent the insurer’s reassesment of that individual’s risk, or as mentioned reduced by the no-claims discount if the accumulating evidence suggests they’re of lesser risk than their peer-group taken as a whole.
But initially insurers have to make a decision based on peer-group statistics, and the evidence is, and always has been, that men are higher risk than women across the age-spectrum as a whole, and substantially higher when young
I’ve no idea if you can insure yourself against developing Breast Cancer, but if so it would be both obvious and logical to set the insurance premiums higher for a woman than a man, given that male breast cancer accounts for approximately 1% of cases – a low risk group
This ruling from the European Courts of Justice is bizarre, illogical, prejudicial and er…unjust
UKIP here we come
Doesn’t this throw open the topic of ageism now though ginger? How would you feel about a £300 hike in your premium in order to balance a lower premium offered to some 18 year old boy racer in a Subaru?
Age should not be a problem. Inexperience kills, so it is right for younger drivers to pay more.
Value Is EverythingMy point Drone is that:
Women
as a group
do not want to work the long hours men do. They are also more likely to give up work to concentrate on "the family". Yet employers are (rightly in my opinion) not able to take this in to account when assessing a job application / promotion.
Do you believe women should be predjuced against in the work place Drone?
Surely it is wrong to predjudice ALL men, just becauseas a group
they are more likely to have an accident.
What is the difference?
Can’t have it both ways. Either both the above are right, or both are wrong.If it were women who had the most accidents, this insurance rule would have been changed a long time ago.
I am very much against sexism, whichever way it falls.
Breast cancer is a totally different issue, we know a lot more about the risk, how safe men and women are. Where as with driving, a man could be a very safe driver yet penalised for being male.
Of course, I have had a no claims discount, but that is due to experience. The fee was artificially high in the first place, because of being a male.
Value Is EverythingYou are hardly comparing like with like. One is the right to be considered equally for a job without prejudice wholly on merit rather than gender. A tangible opinion can be made, at the outset, by the employer as to merit based on CV (in its broadest sense)
Insuring an individual against car accident is, at the outset, an intangible. The insurer unlike the employer has no idea and can have no idea how risky the driver may prove to be; and therefore has to consult the overall record and statistics of the individual’s peer group to arrive at a premium that mirrors that overall risk. Later the insurer can adjust the premium based on the tangible evidence of the individual’s actual driving record
You as a ‘very safe’ 40-something male driver may now pay less than an ‘unsafe’ 40-something woman with a history of claims or driving convictions, but at the outset when passing your tests at 18 you will probably have paid twice as much as her
Given the stats, would Ginger Tips Insurance Ltd feel equally comfortable insuring an 18yo male and 18yo female both with no or little driving experience, and if not, why then do you believe both their premiums should be the same?
The disparity in car insurance has nothing to do with sexism: that is illogical discrimination based on nothing more than gender. Insurance premiums are based on statistics that just so happen to show a gender skew.
You didn’t like the breast cancer analogy. Okay, how about Flight Insurance. This is higher for people over the age of say 65 as the stats tell us that they are more likely to suffer an in-flight illness and/or death. Is this ageism then? Should they only pay the same as a 25yo? Should that fit 25yo be made to stump up the same as the oldsters? Nope, nope, thrice nope IMO
What I consider to be the main point, and indeed a point that people fail to realise is that the recent equality issue regarding car insurance isnt going to benefit anyone. For example, say a male is paying £100 a year and female £50 (cheap I know) does anyone actually believe with this new ruling that insurers are going to meet half-way, ie- both sexes will be paying £75 from now on?
I personally think women will have to start paying ‘mens rates’ instead, making this court ruling a win-win for insurance companies. I’d rather my wife was getting cheaper car insurance even if it is a bit sexist, our bills are OUR bills and not seperate ones so in real terms we’re better off how it was.
I think we can all get a bit carried away with ‘isms’ sometimes and all it really does is shoots us in the foot. I may be completely wrong but sadly I can see this being just another example.So women will now be screwed for insurance just like us blokes!!
This is coming into effect on the 21st of December 2012!!
Isnt that the day the world is supposed to end??
Oh, so people really do believe that the discriminatory tactics over car insurance are because statistically men have more accidents do they?
What a massive crock.
There’s a simple test which you can do yourself at home:
1, Go on to Confused.com or gocompare or somewhere like that & get a quote for the following:
John Smith, single, aged 37, ten years no claims, office worker, 10,000 miles p.a, 2006 Ford Focus parked off street.
2, Get another quote with exactly the same details only replacing the name John with the name Jane.
3, See how many accidents you can give ‘Jane’ over the last ten years before the quote matches the quote for ‘John’
4, Then try and argue the discrepancy is because ‘women are safer drivers’
You didn’t like the breast cancer analogy. Okay, how about Flight Insurance. This is higher for people over the age of say 65 as the stats tell us that they are more likely to suffer an in-flight illness and/or death. Is this ageism then? Should they only pay the same as a 25yo? Should that fit 25yo be made to stump up the same as the oldsters? Nope, nope, thrice nope IMO
Very few people ‘need’ to fly anywhere so the cost of insurance can be factored in when deciding where to go on your hols.
Everyone who drives is legally required to have insurance. You have no choice. The insurance companies don’t charge young people or men more because they’re more of risk, they do it because they can get away with it.
By the by, if this wasn’t an EU ruling, not a single person would have questioned it.
Your cynicism is largely well-founded AC, and despite my seemingly pro-insurance company ranting I’m not an apologist for them. There is little doubt they do try to ‘get away’ with charging excessive premiums whenever they can.
I still maintain however that the basic premise of charging higher premiums to an overall riskier group is correct. That it in this case just happens to reveal a female-male split should not be construed as sexism or prejudice, but simply good and correct risk management
Drone,
I don’t think you have answered this question.
Would you be in favour of employers (when assessing who to give a job to or promotion) being able to take in to account the likelyhood of workers agreeing / being able to work long hours? As women -as a group- are more likely to need / want more time with families.ie Should an employer be able to favour someone who’s peer group (as a whole) are able / agree to work longer hours?
Value Is EverythingI’ve been thinking about this ruling today & I’ve finally figured out my problem with it (after defending it to the hilt for nearly a week); it only scratches the surface of a system that is inherently corrupt.
Would you be in favour of employers (when assessing who to give a job to or promotion) being able to take in to account the likelyhood of workers agreeing / being able to work long hours? As women -as a group- are more likely to need / want more time with families.
ie Should an employer be able to favour someone who’s peer group (as a whole) are able / agree to work longer hours?
I actually do have some sympathy with employers when faced with the choice of engaging a man or woman (of child-bearing age, or with school-age children) who’s qualifications for the position are of equal merit. More so in these economically-fraught times when the private sector is operating to tight or near non-existant profit margins and the public sector facing severe financial cutbacks. As such employees must represent ‘value for money’
There is a case to be made – albeit fairly tenuous – that the balance-of-power for so long weighted towards ’employers rights’ rather than ’employees rights’ has now tilted too far towards the latter.
That said, from my (indirect) experience of involvement in small business and from my acqaintanceship with such employers, the ‘woman problem’ is not a problem at all, as women employees who may (repeat may) not be able to fulfill the overtime obligations of their male peers, or who are eligible for statutory maternity leave are in general conscientious hard workers who provide value for money. The need to provide for children and family concentrates the mind and strengthens the work-ethic
So to answer your question: no I am not in favour of employers discriminating against women due to the weak assumption they will be a drain on employers’ resources. Which as mentioned above, in my experience, is a false assumption anyway
Anyway, to repeat, I don’t think your ‘female employee’ ‘female driver’ analogy is comparable: the former is a question of ascertaining the tangible risk/worth of an individual based on evidence; the latter an ascertaining of intangible risk, which therefore by definition requires reference to peer-group statistics for guidance
Speed kills – and is expensive
Nine months maternity pay doesn’t – and is cheapfin.
Thanks for the eloquent reply Drone.
To me, the two "equal rights" issues are linked. But I understand your arguement.
We agree to differ. (Thumbs Up)
Value Is EverythingOne other "sexist" question.
What do members think about all women short lists?
In the case of Parliament:
Women should be encouraged to become MP’s, I look forward to 50% of MPs being women on merit, however…
If a candidate is chosen from just 50% of the population, then she / he is less likely to be a good MP; than when choosing from 100% of the population.Value Is EverythingOne other "sexist" question.
What do members think about all women short lists?
In the case of Parliament:
Women should be encouraged to become MP’s, I look forward to 50% of MPs being women on merit, however…
If a candidate is chosen from just 50% of the population, then she / he is less likely to be a good MP; than when choosing from 100% of the population.Legislating for more women in parliament seems like a good idea but the likes of Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears etc are doing their level best to make it sound like a nightmarish vision of the future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.