We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
IT’S 2017 AND still, on average, women don’t earn as much as men. Last week’s BBC salary revelations exposed the gender pay gap among its top stars. As stats go, they are fierce worrying and raise a lot of questions.
The top seven earners in the BBC’s list of 96 best-paid stars were all male, and women only made up a third of the names. The highest paid woman, Claudia Winkleman, earned between £450,000 and £500,000, while the best paid man, Chris Evans, made between £2.2m and £2.25m.
Naysayers have always said the gender pay gap is entirely a result of women choosing different professions, or that it doesn’t exist at all. These BBC figures prove that it does exist and that actually it’s not always because women choose lower paying jobs. The public is quite rightly asking: Why is this happening?
The Irish pay gap
The pay gap controversy has filtered through to Ireland and to RTÉ. The Sunday Independent revealed this weekend that Sharon Ní Bheoláin earns €60,000-€80,000 less than her co-anchor Bryan Dobson.
RTÉ has said it will conduct a review of “role and gender equality” across the organisation following this criticism of its salary structure.
It is easy to attack the BBC and RTÉ. They run on taxpayer money, with big recognisable names at their helm, and it is fascinating to discover the salaries of the people we watch and listen to daily.
But they are not the only organisations with a gender pay problem. It’s most likely an issue where you work too.
Gender pay gap statistics
According to the latest Eurostat statistics, the average gender pay gap in Ireland is 16%. Ireland is ranked 6th overall in the World Economic Forum (WEF) Report (the UK is at number 20, the US at 44). The PwC Index has predicted that Ireland will close its pay gap by 2032.
However, as Duncan Inverarity of A&L Goodbody pointed out in a column for Fora.ie, “despite Ireland’s fairly favourable placing, its gender pay gap has actually been increasing in recent years”. It is 6.5% greater than it was in 2012.
Because women earn less than men during their working years, when they end up retiring they tend to receive less pension pay than their male counterparts.
What causes the gap?
There are multiple interrelated causes for the gender pay gap: direct discrimination, with women paid less than men for the same work, the tendency for higher-paid professions to be dominated by men, a phenomenon which is both fuelled and perpetuated by traditional gender roles and stereotypes and the fact that women do the majority of the housework and caring.
I’m uncomfortable with the narrative that focuses on what women need to do in order to level up their pay to men’s. There’s little emphasis put on companies to track and disclose how they’re paying men and women.
Instead, women are asked to lean in, negotiate, ask for more, teach their daughters to negotiate and dare early. I’ve had enough of that kind of talk.
The government’s role in narrowing the gap
We need to tackle working culture, childcare costs (no please don’t mention the measly €20 a week that will be handed to us from September) and unconscious discrimination, all of which contribute to women taking low-paid jobs, taking time out of their careers for caring, and being passed over for promotion in favour of male colleagues.
Inverarity refers to the government’s need for a “greater focus on cancelling out the ‘motherhood penalty’ by supporting women in their return to the workplace through more-affordable childcare and expanding the concept of shared parental leave, as well as encouraging employers to facilitate more flexible working arrangements”.
Mandatory gender pay gap reporting has been identified at an international level as the next step towards bridging the gap sooner rather than later. I say, publish everyone’s pay.
All I’m asking for is what men have always had: the freedom to be a woman, to have children and still get a fair wage.
Lorraine Courtney is a freelance journalist and columnist.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
No, there isn’t. For a given function, there is a given rate of pay.
@George Roche: incorrect. This might be true for hourly wages if they are set in stone and we’ll known amongst a group of employees at a particular company.
However corporate pay is most often negotiable, meaning pay levels can vary.
@Joseph Bloggs: “Incorrect….This might be true” which is it, you plank?
@George Roche: excellent comeback….and its only half seven!!!!!
@Joseph Bloggs:
You will find that in the private sector, the businesses will negotiate to get the best person for the lowest price. If a man comes along and asks for 20% more than a woman of equal quality, the woman will get the job.
@Milton Ryan: Hahaha. What? Which industry? Mine generally cares about skill/talent than affordability.
@Joseph Bloggs: Simple fact is women must compete more and stop bitching for Nanny State to help them in this Big Bad world.
@Ro Brett: No, you will find that while they care about skill/talent, they will do so on the basis that they are profit maximisers. If they overpay for skill/talent in a competitive industry, they will go out of business very soon.
@Ro Brett: Think about it. If you were a business and you could get a certain level of talent for 50,000 or 70,000. Which would you pay? Common sense in competitive markets, which most private business operate in, is you drive down the price of resources as much as possible. Human capital is just another form of capital/resource afterall.
@Ro Brett: He was referring to people of equal skill/talent, but where one was cheaper than the other. Would your HR dept choose the more expensive candidate because shur fck, it’s the boss’s money?
@Milton Ryan: In my industry? You’d pay the 70k, because you can’t get the same level of talent. It doesn’t exist, cutting corners like that just costs you more money in wasted time.
@George Roche: lol, and the HR dept certainly aren’t the ones choosing the candidate! Like, what professional industry are you talking about?
@Ro Brett: I’ll put it to you simpler. If you were hiring a person in your industry right now, would you pay them 100,000 or 200,000? You would get the person for both.
@Ro Brett:
personnel department
noun
1.
the department in an organization dealing with matters involving employees, as hiring, training, labor relations, and benefits.
Expand
Also called human resources department.
@George Roche: Lmao, what on earth do you two do. Do you really think its the HR dept choosing which lawyer/engineer/developer to hire? Like, how would they even know what questions to ask them in the interview? Generally they’ll have a max budget, and they’ll go for the best they can afford. It’s not a race to the bottom because if you pick the wrong person, it’s going to cost you a lot more in the long term.
@Ro Brett: By the way, the vast majority of companies in professional services will have a distinct human resources department. The reason is a simple economic concept called the division of labour. Ask yourself this: Why would you have a skilled engineer who can make your company 1000′s of euro a day working in an area where he/she has no experience whatsoever.
@Ro Brett:
“they’ll go for the best they can afford”
That is what I said initially. They will go for the best for the lowest price.
@Ro Brett: You’re arguing against the dictionary definition of HR. The worst kind of nincompoop, one who thinks he knows everything.
@Ro Brett: So I’ll ask the question again but using your words.
You have a 100,000 euro budget. You advertise a job. You pick out 10 people. You choose the best candidate for the job and realise that you can get that candidate for 80,000.
Do you pay him 80,000 or 100,000?
@George Roche: No mate, I just don’t think you work in a professional industry. HR doesn’t actually hire people (well except the people that actually work in HR), it manages the hiring of staff. I don’t know how many different ways I need to say it. Obviously they wouldn’t be able to hire people because they don’t know who to hire. Equally the budget for staff will come out of that dept’s budget, not HR’s, so they wont be setting the money for the new hire either.
@Ro Brett: Or think about this. You enter in marketplace to buy a piece of machinery. You need a specific level of quality. You come across two pieces that have sufficient quality for what you need. One is 100,000 and the other is 120,000.
Which do you buy?
@Milton Ryan: Cool, you offer them 80k but what about all the other companies hiring trying to snap them up? Or worse what if you hire him, and they feels like they’re underpaid, leaves after three months after accepting a better offer and leaves a bad review on glassdoor. Now you need to restart your hiring process (heard that costs a good 10-20k every time), you’re back at square one, your project is behind and you have a bad review of your company making it harder to attract employees.
Machinery is different to people, because machinery doesn’t have its own agency to tell you to get lost.
@Ro Brett: Listen, son. The HR dept in a given industry will have industry-specific knowledge regarding necessary qualifications, required software proficiency (if relevant) etc. in order to filter initial applicants. An interview panel will, of course, almost always contain senior staff members from the given dept. Their recommendation(s)/feedback is then processed by HR. You said it yourself, HR manages hiring. Any salary negotiations would be conducted by HR, and if a decision were to be made in a scenario such as the one discussed above, then HR will be making this decision.
@Ro Brett: All of that comes into the equation when you are initially setting out to hire someone. It’s what happens in competitive markets. You will have to bring all into those things into account when you decide on the salary to offer for the position.
A more complex example (but the same actually): Taking all of those things into account, you advertise for a job. (100,000 budget)You get 10 replies. You pick the best candidate. You realise he will do the work for 100,000.
After 3 months, he leaves. What do you do? You can’t offer more than your max. budget of 100,000 euro next time.
Do you know what is happening here? The companies that you are competing against are doing better than you in the market and are able to do better than you at offering people better money. The reason for this is they will be making better decisions on a profit maximising basis.
Competition weeds out inefficient companies.
@Milton Ryan: Sure, but thats what I mean ‘taking all those things into account’, you’re not going solely on cost. In general it seems it would be really bad idea to go solely on cost because you’ll be knocking yourself down through other factors. People aren’t really interchangeable, especially not with specialised skillsets.
@George Roche: Correct, & what appears to be the unspoken gripe is that women who take a 9mths to a year out every time they have a baby want that that “time out” not to effect yearly salary increments and considerations for promotion! That to me would be unfair to the men/women who did not have, in many cases, years off work taking care of baby. Having a career and having children is a personal choice. It would be very nice if we could all have our cake and eat it. What I do agree with is that time off for child rearing should be included as pensionable time when it comes to calculating pensions.
@Ro Brett: People with specialised skillsets will get better pay. The reason for this is because the skills are rare. And the demand for those skills by companies is higher. But don’t think that a business making the decision to hire these skills is not thinking about the profit implications of their decisions. At the end of the day, if a business in a competitve market, doesn’t make its decisions on a profit maximising basis, it will go out of business.
If we go back to the hypothetical situation we were looking at, the business with the 100,000 euro budget to hire someone. What determines the availability of that 100,000? It will be determined by the profits the company has made in the past and expected profits for the next couple of years.
What happens in that situation if a company is not able to hire the skilled person they want for the job? Let’s just assume that the required skills are 120,000. But our past profits and expected future profits only allow us 100,000. Somewhere along the line our company has been making decisions that were not based on a profit maximization strategy. We were overpaying. Now we dont habe the budgets we need to continue on in the business. The company is in trouble due to these poor decisions.
Never think that there is no-one your company who just sees you as a number. Because there is. And it’s probably the people in control.
@Ro Brett: stop fishing and tell us what you do for a living.
@George Roche:
“Plank” use n’ t he work for RTE. Ah lads!
Women earn less on average because men work more on average, it’s as simple as that. All this bs about unconscious discrimination is absurd.
Seriously, Journal this topic has been done to death and can be easily explained using common sense, not automatically assuming there is sexism at every turn.
@TheIrishInfidel:
The author also talks about the ‘maternity penalty’. Well if we want true equality it’s up to each individual couple to decide whether it’s the male or female partner that takes a few years out to rear the kids, or would she prefer it if the government mandates that this has to be the role of the mother alone??
@Avina Laaf: She also seems to think only women raise children, pay for children. and are forced to. Does she not realise parenting is shared in the vast majority of households, that the vast majority of in Ireland children are born into relationships, and that have two active parents? Is it inconceivable to her that many women choose to work part time and the men in the family choose to work longer hours to make up the shortfall in finances?
In Courtney’s world, only Courtney and other women exist and nothing else.
@Avina Laaf: I took the time off to rear the kids in our house. Now I work at a job where I am paid less than a lot of my counterparts, male and female, who do the same job. I don’t mind though because they have decades more experience than me and have been in the job a lot longer.
Ugh. Look at the emotive and misleading language used here. “..the tendency for higher-paid professions to be dominated by men.” Not “More men work in higher paid professions.”
This is all such a false narrative because-
1) if there is provable discrimination in a company between men and women then fine the company. (How many hours does Claudia Winkelman work vs Chris Evans?)
2) Most people end up in heterosexual couples. If there are a group of men out working hard to earn money then their wives/partners benefit by being given the choice to stay home for a time while retaining a legal right to half their partners earnings.
@Phil O’ Meara:
Not to mention that Chris Evans’s viewership/listenership figures are vastly greater than Claudia Winkelman’s, making him a much more valuable ‘asset’ to the BBC.
Expecting them to be paid the same is like expecting a pub singer to be paid the same as Bono!
Even when the audience figures are the same (Sharon vs. Brian Dobson) there’s still the matter of time in the job.
There’s absolutely nothing unusual in this world for someone who’s been in a job 20 years to be paid more than the guy/girl who joined last year, even though they do the same thing.
This is simply scaremongering. The author makes bold claims of a gender pay gap in this country but offers no examples just vague statistics.
The reality is that, should an employer in this country, attempt to pay both sexes different rates for the same role they’d be prosecuted. What we hear is that women in Ireland are paid less than men, and this is true. What we don’t get told is why, because, on average, women work less hours than men but receive the same rates of pay for those hours worked.
This will probably provoke another row about why women work less hours than men but that’s another conversation, for now it’s untrue to say there’s a gender pay gap except in rare and exception circumstances.
@Boyne Sharky: She’s no statistician. Wonder how she can explain why women in the 22-44 age bracket earn 17% more than men (ERSI) ? Even the NWCI have acknowledged that pay gap. Wonder why there are far more women than men attending uni for the last 20 year or so, yet if she is to believed they are earning less than men who never attended. That would probably be a world’s first.
Instead she opts for averages. Well, on average men work longer hours (CSO). Far more women choose to work part-time. Please Courtney, all we are asking is that we can have kids too, and not have to listen to this crap any longer. If you really believe what you are saying, why doesn’t a single major economist agree with you, and in fact say the opposite?
@Niall Sullivan: no mention either of how women dominate HR.
Are HR really allowing their fellow women to be paid less???
@Niall Sullivan: Question Do they choose to work part time or is it circumstrance. Every women who engages in sex is at risk of pregnancy, contraception only decreases that risk greatly so. Abortion is illegal here. Child Care is expensive. The woman is often the younger one in the relationship. So even if she and the partner work in the same industry she is likely to earn a little less than her partner even if she is fairly paid, having less experience. Because she can’t afford childcare full time, she ends up compromising and working part time. I know this is not the case for everyone, but becaue of age dynamics, women being often in lower paid fields (education, care etc.) often leads to the women doing more care work than the man, even if she does not want to. The labour market and society is not set up for a 50/50 set up. It is set up for one person working raeally hard and one at home or part time (if there are children). Even childless women are sometimes passed over for jobs or promotions, because they could become peganant which is a risk to the employer, they will use another reason of course, but it DOES happen. The issue is care work and who does it and how it is organised and that for structual reasons and reasons of societal expections and also yes an element of personal choice, but is it not all 100% choice, women do more care work then men
@Janina Schmae: According to the last CSO census women do more care work than men, but it’s not as much as many think. 40% of care work in Ireland is carried out by men.
Do opinion pieces mean a statement can be made in the absence of fact
@Kal Ipers: in the journal….YES
If women really are cheaper labour than men for the same job, same hours and have the same ability, then they would be hired in all cases before the man. Corporations are not men charities, they are profit hungry machines and will use the cheapest labour they can.
@Neville Bartos: How you holdin’ for cash, Nev?
@George Roche: no cash here George…
@Neville Bartos: forget the rag :)
Lorraine, direct discrimination is illegal in all workplaces in Ireland.
Any reputable economist, man or woman, will tell you that once you correctly control for variables, the gender pay gap is a myth.
They will also tell you that in the next century, with the nature of work changing, there will be a natural move towards a gender pay gap but in women’s direction.
If you ever have a female child, Lorraine keep them away from Sociology and Gender Studies….tell them go into STEM and Engineering.
If you fill their heads with all this victim nonsense, they won’t reach parity with their male counterparts.
@Milton Ryan: Correction *Economics
Look ladies, just give it up. Everybody know the gender gap is nonsense. Fooling nobody.
I just think we should check Sharon’s salary when she turns 57.
Plenty of people, men and women, get paid less for the same job, big gaps occur due to starting salary and if there’s a large supply of applicants at the time.
“..the tendency for higher-paid professions to be dominated by men.” Indeed but for balance does the author want to do a piece on construction, fishing & farming deaths which will be overwhelmingly men
@Michael McLoughlin: I think Courtney may want men in higher paid professions to be paid less so she can feel better about herself.
@Niall Sullivan: being honest I’ve no idea what she wants. …her pieces are scripted to create “outrage” …..but she seesaws so much from day to day you don’t know
@Frank Dubogovik: Every one of her pieces, every single one are based on what’s called the cherry picking fallacy.
@Michael McLoughlin: why don’t more women just apply for these higher-paid professions and demand outrageous money?
I never knew Claudia Winkleman was so talented
@alphanautica: comment of the week…
The Journal done a fact check on the gender pay gap and concluded there was many legitimate reasons for the “gender pay gap”; hours worked, type of work, leaving the work force to have and raise children. They’re knowingly publishing nonsense with this article. We have laws that outline discrimination based on gender and if I could hire women for less I’d only hire women.
But Claudia only works a fraction of the hours Chris does. Why would anyone expect the same pay as someone working many more hours?
That doesn’t seem to stop our politicians.
I worked for 15 years for the same organisation alongside men and we were all paid exactly the same salary.
Despite changes we still live in a country where a subconscious belief that a woman’s place is at home looking after children prevails. It seems hard to believe that the gender pay gap can be closed until this is addressed and the matter of paternity rights are equalized.
@Sea Goat: I agree that maternity/paternity should be split as the couple wishes but the fact is the majority of women want all of the maternity leave they can get
@Sea Goat: There is no gender pay gap. If there was, then businesses would hire only women, as they would reduce costs.
I worked in Italy for a few weeks last year. It was the fashion industry and dominated by women. They had a sunken garden in front of the office and a creche opening out on to it. Every office window looked down on to the children. It was amazing. If we pushed companies to go in this direction then maybe family and work life’s can be combined. It wasn’t so much a co location of the creche, the creche was truly embedded and felt protected and natural.
@David Lacey: that sounds impractical in the vast majority of workplaces
@Awkward Seal: Dont be so literal :-). It was the feeling that impressed me not the sunken garden. People were having breaks with their children instead of smoke and coffee breaks.
@David Lacey: Were the male fashion models paid as much as the females?
@Lorem Ipsum: Didn’t see any male models actually. The company made women’s underwear.
@David Lacey: “women’s underwear”. Blatant sexism! I can’t believe you’d just assume their gender like that ;)
@Awkward Seal: I should have said they make underwear for people who identify as women and anyone who’s fed up of boxers and wants to give it a go.
@David Lacey:
Will they be allowed that sort of thing in the Yankee army.
“All I’m asking for is what men have always had: the freedom to be a woman, to have children and still get a fair wage.”
Only on the weekends though. I’m afraid I’d get paid the auld women wage if I came into work dressed like Shirley Temple-Bar
There’s a major talent deficit between Sharon and Brian in all fairness.
@Orla Cunningham:
Why do you say that Orla? How many languages does Brian speak?
If this RTÉ pay gap is a real thing then they need to get rid of the over-paid men and cut the licence fee. I’m just as happy not to watch RTÉ women as RTÉ men so if it’s cheaper let the guys go. It will be interesting to see what the boys manage to earn in the private sector. A lot less than their female colleagues are earning now I’d wager.
And all this money come from people paying a TV licence…we should all stop paying…everyone..and then see what they will get.Can’t believe the Rte concert orchestra costs 12 million a year…why aren’t they out working…and now they want to increase the licence fee…
The gender issue is just one element of the pay issue. The real issue in RTÉ is the vast overpayment of public monies for people doing ordinary work. RTÉ is such a closed shop.
Publish all salaries in excess of €100,000.
Nonsense article. Started a new job recently with other new joiners and everyone at the same qualified level are getting the exact same to the cent. Such annoying nonsense
What shocked me the most was not the pay gap….but the fact that those muppets are actually paid that much!! Chris Evans bombed on Top Gear, Claudia Winkleman….don’t get me started!! Why are news readers paid so much?
@Ciara McCorley: Wow, you’re bucking the trend of not agreeing she should be paid more for reading a script into a camera! :)
They say “a woman’s work is never done” which is why men get paid more.
Bryan has been doing the news for 21 years, Sharon for 12 years. Bryan also has 9-11 years more experience. Should we pay all teachers, nurses, gardai the same salary irrespective of years of service. Sensationalising again.
There’s a major talent deficit between Sharon and Dobo in all fairness.
The gender pay gap is a clever deflection The issue is absolute pay of top “earners ” in RTE
What’s the deal here? Keep regurgitating this pay gap myth in the hope that we might finally believe it?
Do you want to talk about wages gap? Watch the gap between your wages and that of your cleaner/chilminder, your child teacher/nurse…and yours.
@Rosa Lopez: You’re definitely right about the childminding sector. People complain about the expense, whereas people working in it are mostly paid minimum wage.
@David:
Or is it a case that men are more efficient and just get stuck and do the work quicker rather than waste time discussing Mels latest inuendo on Bake Off.
Incoming Incoming! Hit the deck!
Maybe the men are just better at asking for pay rises.
Lorraine Courtney is a man hating hack. All her articles are nonsense. Why the Journal keep giving her a platform I’ll never know?
@Dante Marquinhos: The articles are probably cheaper because she’s a woman.
One presenter on 495 grand a year???
That’s 10 grand a week!!!
All paid with our TV licence money.160eu a year for really terrible programmes.
WE are being ripped off.
Absolutely ott salaries for a soft job, over paid people
So glad to see so many people not falling for the gender pay-gap BS.
The more that is said about this imaginary” gender pay gap”,the more obvious it is that men do most of the dangerous, unsavory jobs,- construction, garbage collection, sewer worker,mining, oil rig engineers etc etc. which most women would turn the noses at, so please ladies shut up and
just be grateful that these men are willing to step into these roles
A few years ago, it was man who had to risk his life, go out there to slay the dragon to put that big chunky slab of meat on the table while woman stayed safe at home with the kids. Nowadays maybe it’s man who goes out and gets more deals done to make more money for the company.
Good girl Lorraine Courtney.Your article in the Independent titled”Short skirts can go a long way when it comes to landing those dream jobs” independent july 26 2013 four short years ago shows how silly your argument is.Gabby Logan who is excellent admitted looks and gender helped her enormously and good luck to her.This is the same as the old boys club with ties school rugby club etc. Unfortunately there is always winners and losers.Most breakfast tv has women presenters and thats ok with me as its market dri en.So do the world a service and highlight the very real injustice that many normal women face not entitled stars.
Ridiculous article…..Courtney does like to flog an issue to death…is there any news in the world? ?
The pay gap controversy has filtered through to RTE – No it has not you imbecile, in light of the BBC releasing figures on their highest earners (nothing to do with the mythical gender pay gap), RTE, have chosen to hold a review of their highest earners under equality grounds. BBC’s highest earners are paid the most because of talent & ratings, this is being manipulated by some to suggest that it is the result of gender discrimination.
No it isn’t.
First things first: we need a list of everyone in RTÉ who is paid over €100000 per year, so we not only know where the TV license money goes, but also can see the naked truth behind RTÉ‘s ludicrous deficit, as well as make our own mind up about whether the individuals do deserve their high wages or not.
Are these figures corrected for when people are hired.
Someone hired into a job during the boom times will be on a better package than someone post boom.
Best I can tell this gender gap only really applies to people in ridiculous salaried jobs 150K and above.
The rest of us mere mortals are in jobs with set hourly rates or monthly salaries. I’d love someone to find someone working in cleaning, security, retail, lower management or the like with a gender gap.
The BBC started this last week and typical Irish jump on the bandwagon
Anyway my solution would be to get rid of them all…..Male & Female ….ridiculous pay
They say a woman’s work is never done…. maybe that’s why they get paid less.
*pulls pin
Fire in the Hole!!!
@David: exactly
Who cares they are all paid too much anyway.Official Ireland mouthpieces paid for by their victims. Can’t listen to RTE most of the time. As for the TV station its like they are kids playing at being celebrities. All I will watch on RTE is sport.
…..
“IT’S 2017 AND still, on average, women don’t earn as much as men.”
That’s as far as I get on these articles. Pointless to read further, and best to not listen to people like this in general. You get no objective arguments from the other side of the debate, and no appetite to listen to them from these types.
Now a balanced article, or rational debate would be different, but agenda driven journalists are not interested.
I love that husky voice. And if she promised to do my bidding I’d guarantee her a rise or three…
Instead of the Ladies salaries being brought up to the Gents level it would probably be more appropriate if it was the other way around and the Gents salary was brought downwards to the ladies salary level. This would make sense as they are overpaid as it stands.
No such thing where I work, we all get shit wages.
Give rid of rte shut it down wages way to high useless government propanganda channel
RTE and its television licence is of another age shut it down or sell it off
Real Scandal is the grossly overpaid RTE stars
The most vacuous fact – free drivel is being written in the media at the moment in support of this supposed gender discrimination. It seems for some , the narrative of all oppressive patriarchy is so all pervasive, that any kind of ill- informed nonsense, such as this article, is acceptable.
@El Marco: in fairness to Lorraine , not the worst article this weekend on this subject
Obscene wages for a bankrupt company
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say