Founded in 2008. The Landscape Juice Network (LJN) is the largest and fastest growing professional landscaping and horticultural association in the United Kingdom.
LJN's professional business forum is unrivalled and open to anyone within within the UK landscape industry
LJN's Business Objectives Group (BOG) is for any Pro serious about building their business.
For the researching visitor there's a wealth of landscaping ideas, garden design ideas, lawn advice tips and advice about garden maintenance.
Replies
For Marshalls are you confirming that its 17% female workforce are all at board level and management level -- with zero percent working at under board/management level ?
No Dan, re-read;)
Sorry, I see what you mean. I read it, of 100% of the board, just 17% are women.
i thought the first line was woman are only 17% of enitire workforce and then it looked like all those 17% are at board management level
its interesting as id exepect a higher level of females at management and leader roles compared to over in the lower workforce. Landscaping at general levels is extremely physical and i would expect it to be an industry with a lower female %.
Thats not to say a female can not do a very physical job -- its that i would expect less would want that job compared to males.
Im also interested why the RHS has such a high percentage female workforce ?
Im guessing the RHS would be imploying of a huge variety of job types? Are more females attracted to RHS positions and more males not --
The thing that confuses me with this is that we seem to be talking about two different things nowadays.
If you have a man and a woman doing the same job with the same expertise, experience and productivity, then they should get the same pay, absolutely no argument. But in recent months the issue has become more subtle. What the media now mean is the overall pay gap across an entire company. So, as an example, a law firm. Say six Barristers, four men and two women. They have two part time clerks and one cleaner and all three of these lower paid jobs happen to be done by women. They then take all staff and say that the women earn less than the men, on average. But then wouldn’t we expect the cleaner to earn less than a Barrister? The female Barristers will earn the same as their male counterparts, but the lower skilled jobs skew the figures.
I heard a radio 4 programme talking about a pension’s gap, saying that men’s pensions are higher than women’s. The female interviewer asked the female interviewee why that was. She said that men’s pensions are higher because men tend to work longer hours, work for more years and therefore pay more into their pensions than women do. So it’s not really a gender issue is it? It’s a choices issue.
You could argue thusly. The chairman of I.C.I. earns more than I do. Why should he get more than me? I am disadvantaged when compared to him.
Equality of opportunity is right and proper, but equality of outcome is a dangerous idea. I could have studied more, gone into a different industry and climbed the ladder, but I didn’t and have been a Gardener most of my life [I like it and have no regrets]. To argue now that I should have the same outcome as if I had taken this other course in life is ridiculous. Why should I expect to earn the same as a Barrister/ Managing Director/ Doctor/ Prime Minister?
As I said, equality of opportunity across gender, race, creed and colour is something we all agree on, as is like for like wages, working conditions and treatment in the workplace. But we shouldn’t expect the doorman to get the same as the chief executive.