"The findings, released in the British Journal of Industrial Relations on Monday, suggest that, since 2004, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had failed to properly account for the fact that it received more data from larger employers, when it reported its annual survey of hours and earnings (Ashe). It meant the survey gave undue weighting to large businesses, where pay was higher and the difference in pay between men and women was generally smaller."
"The research paper's lead author, Prof John Forth from the Bayes Business School at City St George's, University of London, said the data collected in this annual survey has far-reaching consequences across our society, informing everything from official pay recommendations for doctors and nurses to anti-poverty measures like the national minimum wage. It is, therefore, crucial that the data is a true representation of wages and earnings in modern Britain."
"The Ashe survey is used by the Low Pay Commission to monitor the impact of the minimum wage, and by the Office for the Pay Review Bodies to help determine public sector pay settlements. It is the latest blow to the ONS, which has struggled with mounting problems that have forced it to delay or cancel several of its releases in recent months"
Since 2004 the Office for National Statistics annual survey of hours and earnings (Ashe) overweighted responses from larger employers because more data came from big firms. Larger businesses generally pay more and show smaller gender pay differences, so the survey's weighting reduced the measured gap. Smaller private businesses, where women's pay and representation differ more, were underweighted. The net effect was a consistent underestimation of the national gender pay gap by roughly one percentage point. The Ashe survey feeds the Low Pay Commission and pay review bodies and influences minimum wage and public-sector pay decisions. ONS sampling and weighting are under review.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]