SafeTEA Podcast with Nicola and Deborah
Join hosts Nicola Knobel and Deborah Pitout on 'SafeTea,' a podcast where the conversation about safety gets personal, powerful, and a bit of 'tea' is always spilled! In each episode, Nicola and Deborah dive deep into the world of safety leadership, viewed through the lens of inspiring women in New Zealand and beyond.
At 'SafeTea,' it's not just about policies and procedures; it's about people. Our hosts bring their unique perspectives and experiences to the table, engaging in candid conversations with remarkable women who are reshaping the landscape of safety in their fields. From trailblazing leaders to unsung heroes, each guest brings a wealth of knowledge, experience, and inspiring stories to share.
But 'SafeTea' is more than just interviews; it’s a movement. Nicola and Deborah are here to empower and uplift, turning the spotlight on the achievements, challenges, and insights of women in safety. They delve into topics ranging from overcoming workplace obstacles to the importance of mental health and wellbeing, all while fostering a sense of community and connection.
Whether you're a safety professional, aspiring leader, or simply someone who believes in the power of women's voices, 'SafeTea' is your go-to podcast. So grab a cup of tea and join us for empowering conversations that aim to make a difference, one story at a time.
SafeTEA Podcast with Nicola and Deborah
S01E10: Addressing Salary Inequities in Health and Safety
Brent Sutton from Learning Teams Inc. joins us to tackle a pressing issue in the safety industry: gender pay disparity. Disturbingly, women in health and safety roles continue to earn less than their male counterparts, even in 2024. Brent shares his personal journey of recognizing and confronting unconscious bias, particularly in consulting roles. Together, we dissect alarming statistics from Safeguard magazine and reflect on recent events, like the Woolworths strikes, to highlight the ongoing struggle for workplace equality and safety.
Our conversation deepens as we examine the normalization of unfair salary practices and the critical need for pay transparency. Women's empowerment is at the forefront, with a call to action for professional bodies to close the gender pay gap and encourage women to negotiate confidently. We draw parallels to industries where representation is lacking and share a personal anecdote that sheds light on the bias women face in male-dominated spaces, emphasizing the systemic issues that maintain these inequities.
The need for change is undeniable as we discuss empowering women in industries like oil and gas. We explore how platforms that promote safety and excellence, along with mentoring and coaching, can support women entering these fields. Current health and safety training often neglects essential leadership and empathy skills, and we underscore the value of integrating these human elements. As we close, we look forward to future discussions on the impact of AI on productivity and human capacity, promising more impactful and insightful conversations.
Looking for our LinkedIn Page? Find it here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/safetea-podcast
Want to sign up for our newsletter or get freebies? Grab those right here: https://jolly-mode-586.myflodesk.com/safetea
Please do leave us a review! It helps us spread the word and empower others!
Welcome to another episode. It's been a hot minute, deb, since we did an episode on safety, which is a bit naughty of us, but you know what we are leads in our organizations and you know we have jobs to do aside from podcasting. I wish we could make it a fun, cool side hustle, but realistically we have time constraints Anywho. So welcome back. Today we are chatting with Brent, who I am going to hand over to, and he can introduce himself.
Speaker 2:Hi, thank you, guys, and thank you for allowing me to come on your wonderful show For the audience. It's Brent Sutton here from Learning Teams Inc. For those that may or may not know me, I've written a series of books around human and organisational performance and around worker engagement human and organisational performance and around worker engagement and I'm really honoured to have known these two special individuals for quite some time now, and I know there's going to be some interesting conversations today. So thank you for extending the invite and I promise to be at my best for higher gear.
Speaker 1:Debs, how have you been? What's been happening over at your, your workplace?
Speaker 3:yeah, well, same for me. Um, lots on, lots to do, lots of changes to make, um, lots of um unconventional changes to make, I suppose, because we are the unconventional safety team. So, um, yeah, that's the same for me, and taking some time out from the podcast um just to think about my well-being and think about that um side of things. So got to practice what we preach, but happy to be back and I'm keen to kind of get some new faces on um our podcast um. So if you're, please reach out to me or nicola, um, we're really keen to hear from you on various subjects. It doesn't have to be around safety, but, yeah, I think leadership is our focus, so awesome to be back.
Speaker 1:So today I have kind of roped you both in as a surprise conversation, because there was something that really stuck out to me that made me really angry in the most recent Safeguard magazine, got really grumpy about it and we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about why I'm grumpy and then also something that's just happened, like this week, which I think is quite topical, and a topic maybe that we all have had a have had a hand in is the strikes for Woolworths at the moment and the staff walking off site because of safety concerns. So curious to kind of dig into that a little bit as well today. Where do you think we should start Brent?
Speaker 2:Brent. Oh well, I think we should start with the whole pay gender debate because I need to apologize in advance that I have been unconsciously biased around pay gender and it's a really interesting thing that just our brief conversations we're having now that I'm consciously aware that this bias is real, I want to challenge any of these organizations, particularly in the consulting world, to understand that bias I've always been To understand that bias.
Speaker 1:I've always been fortunate that with the team of people I get to work with that your remuneration is based on your capability, not on gender.
Speaker 2:Should we throw some?
Speaker 1:stats out? Yeah, because it's horrifying, horrifying, oh, it is absolutely horrifying. So, to be clear, I just want to clarify where these stats are coming from. So I was going through the safeguard magazine and I've got a couple of these. So I I've got the one that kind of dates back all the way, I think, to the first, what the first pay scale thing back in like 2015, 14 like way, like a wee while ago, right, and what I have noticed is men are always earning more than women. So I thought let me like contextualize that a little bit. And in 2024, so this most one the median income for full-time men is $132,000, whereas for women doing the same job is $114,000, which is a difference of almost $18,500. That's bonkers. There is also slower growth for women than men. So while both male and female median prices or median incomes have risen, the woman's median income grows at a slower rate than it does for men. I love how deb's just like shaking her head and she's like girl, no um no, it's just um.
Speaker 3:For me it's like girl. No, no. For me it's unfathomable in 2024 that we're still having to deal with this issue, right.
Speaker 1:In health and safety. We're doing like a we're doing God's work? No, we're not, I'm just joking.
Speaker 2:I was going to get my dark suit and my hat on my glasses, then sorry, let's just call me we joke we jest.
Speaker 1:Um. Men's median income increased by about 29 500 over the same time, as women were only increased by 23,000. What was really interesting was around the qualification trains. So people with degrees, postgraduate diplomas, in safety, their salaries have been increasing at about 40%. But if you take that into consideration with women specifically, it just blows my mind honestly. Male certificate holders so male certificate holders of OSHA certificates earn $127,000, whereas women earn $103,000. So $23,000 pay difference. On that one. For diplomas, the difference is $12,000. So $25,000 versus $112,000.
Speaker 1:Postgraduate OSHA holders men are earning about $150,000, whereas women are at $124,000. So $26,000 difference. That's the highest one $24,000, so $26,000 difference, that's the highest one. Advisors Male advisors earn $110,000. Women earn $98,000. So that's probably one of the smaller gaps. Managers earn $145,000, whereas women, female managers, or women female same thing earn 134. The smallest gap is between women of the age of 60 and 69. The men are earning 127, women are earning 116, and the difference is only about 11,000. So that's probably the smallest gap out of everywhere. But probably the largest gap is the age range of 50 to 59, where men are earning 143 versus women's 121 I mean, to me it doesn't matter what age you are.
Speaker 3:It shouldn't be an indication, right it should?
Speaker 2:go on merit.
Speaker 3:It's just crazy to me.
Speaker 2:It's hard to reconcile the data. I mean, I did a quick bit of research last night, because the internet statistics track the pay gender as well, and it was just under 9%, and that's improved from Curtis' years. But even then, why is it 9%? I mean, why is it any percent difference?
Speaker 1:Well, this is the question right. So for health and safety specifically, we're at 14%.
Speaker 2:It's way, at a way, well, yeah, it's, it's, it's unacceptable regardless yes, it is, and I think it.
Speaker 3:It puts a bit of a blocker on people wanting to get into the industry, specifically women wanting to get into the industry, because, um, I would say that that's just unfathomable. Um, thinking about overseas, um, what are the statistics looking like overseas?
Speaker 1:are they better than us, or I didn't look at australia, but we could look at australia.
Speaker 3:Please hold line caller while I talk amongst yourselves, while yeah, I'm just thinking is it because we're so far behind in New Zealand?
Speaker 2:The thing here is who is advocating for change? Because I'm not aware. Once again, I'm not looking, but I can't see any awareness around the recruitment agencies advocating for change in health and safety.
Speaker 3:Yeah, agree, because that would be where the change could come from right. And we have specialist health and safety recruitment agencies and look, while I think there are some really good ones out there, my question would be the same as yours why aren't we advocating for senior roles and women, you know, getting into those senior roles and being paid what they should be?
Speaker 2:Yeah, because there is people aren't getting a 14% discount to get their qualification they're not getting a 14%. I mean, this is the crazy part of it. The cost of entering our industry is equal, yet they are being disadvantaged. There's no loan difference for your education. No, no. This is an unacceptable thing.
Speaker 3:Yeah, but why can't the likes of our professional bodies not getting involved either? I mean, they should be involved in looking at this pay gap. Look, I can't comment from my own personal perspective because wherever I've been, I have been paid accordingly and I can't say I think that my pay right now at a senior level is on par with what a man would be paid. So from my experience I've had good experience with the pay or the remuneration that I've received.
Speaker 1:Have you negotiated, though? Do you negotiate? Do you create, like when you go into a new role? Do you negotiate that salary band as well?
Speaker 3:That's a good question because, yes, I have raised it on not where I am now, because I feel I am paid what I should be, but in other organizations I've had to negotiate. Yes, and I've probably been the first woman in that role, in the roles that I've taken, because, as you know, safety is predominantly a man's world and I've always worked in safety around the world and, yes, I've had to work for what my pay should be. But in saying that, I do feel that there are women out there that are disadvantaged because they're mothers or they've got a family to look after, so they have to work flexy hours, so there's not a lot of opportunity. There's very few organisations out there, like where I work currently, that are very flexible, right, and it accommodates, um, my lifestyle and accommodates me being a mum, um, and I'm paid accordingly, which is great. But there's lots of organisations out there that it's still safety is still considered a man's job, if that makes sense.
Speaker 2:So, I've got some stats. Sorry, that's okay. I mean, once again, I continue to be astonished because if people, if someone's applying for a job and the job doesn't provide flexible hours, that simply comes down to whether the person wants to apply for the job or not. But applying for the job and then being told there's two different rates, that's crazy, absolutely crazy, that's nonsensical. So is that a conscious bias or an unconscious bias? And I think the purpose of this podcast is to make people consciously aware of this Totally and to ask questions right.
Speaker 3:Challenge If you are going for a role, do your homework. Have a look at um the rates, like you've just done, nicola. Um, have a look at it and ask the questions. Why, right?
Speaker 1:yeah, so in australia, the current gender pay gap as of may 2024, overall, so through all of australia, is 11.5 percent. Sectoral disparities, however the gap is more pronounced in certain industries, with women ceos earning an average of 158 000 less less than their male counterparts. That is bonkers. United Kingdom is about 7%. So just in our own industry we're double the average of the United Kingdom.
Speaker 3:And we're doing the same work right.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yes, and you find the same skill.
Speaker 1:In 2023,. The overall gender pay gap in New Zealand was 9.1%, which is still obviously very grim. It was, and then here's a fun statistic, deborah, based on the 14% women in the same industry doing the same job essentially stop being paid and we work for free from the 9th of november to the end of the year. Yes, that's right correct.
Speaker 2:Yep, grim, yep, that's the discount correct and it's, and it's worse. It's worse in the low-paying remedial type work, things like that, where they're really being taken advantage of. Yeah, it's controversial, it's a form of slave labour, it's like yeah sure.
Speaker 3:Because we're doing the same work, right, we've got the same responsibilities and if you think about safety, we've got a hell of a big responsibility, um, to keep a whole organization literally safe and out of jail. That's what. That's what we're doing, um, and keep our offices safe. So for me, that responsibility should be shared, right, should be shared in terms of the wages should be the same. So what's driving this?
Speaker 1:do we think Okay, I have some controversial theories.
Speaker 2:I have some. Is there grassy knoll? Is there grassy knolls?
Speaker 1:involved.
Speaker 1:I just want to check no grassy knoll like grassy knolls involved. I just want to check no grassy knolls, okay. I'm thinking, though, like I'm like just and I'm thinking out loud okay, I wonder if we've got a couple of things here. The one thing is is that we still have a like the old guard coming through, right, so we have a series of older guys running like heads of GM roles, you know, all of these kind of like bigger health and safety managerial roles. We've got the old guard still in there, and they may or may not I could be wrong, and they may or may not I could be wrong. It's just a theory. Working theory is they would be hiring in that bias space, right, looking for someone that acts and looks like them so that they can perpetuate that you know safety vibe that they've created for themselves, rather than looking for maybe something new or fresh or diverse. You know perspectives. So I think that that's a little bit of where we're at.
Speaker 1:I think the other issue also very controversial I'll have you um is I think we haven't taught women how to negotiate better. I don't think we've taught women that there is a problem here and we haven't shown them what the solution is to their problem. They just you know. They're like, oh, what's the salary band? To that problem. They just you know, they're like, oh, what's the salary band? And it's like, oh, it's, you know, five cents. And you're like, okay, I'll take that five cents, cool thing. And I think we haven't done that where we've taught people or given people the tools and equipment to be able to negotiate, open to other controversial suggestions.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I'm kind of on the same page as you.
Speaker 2:There's definitely elements of that. I suppose my interest here is how do we affect change? How do we make people more consciously aware that in our industry that gap is nearly twice the average, because obviously there's the headline, which is the size of the gap, but then have a deeper conversation about why does there have to be a gap? But that's going to take some maturing to do that. It's interesting because once again I engaged this week. I spoke to about 10 women involved in safety and I got to tell you that all 10 of them shared with me that they believe they're getting paid less than a male counterpart. So this is not about the lack of awareness from the people that are affected. This comes back to it that this has become some sort of normalisation of this, which is not good. So how do we advocate for change?
Speaker 1:Well, ok, that's a good question like how do we fix this? Like we can't just have this conversation and be like lol, this is a problem, we're never going to fix it. So how do we actually remedy this? Because this is something that's really climbed into my crawl, um, and I think one of the key things we need to do is is really start promoting that pay transparency on job ads, like show us what the pay band is and then you can talk about like you know, why are you paying only X amount for this particular role in the industry? We're seeing X to X. Tell us why you're doing A to b rather than x to y yeah, it's not.
Speaker 3:It's about not just accepting the status quo. So, if you're going in for a role, don't just accept that that's right. Do some homework yourself. I think it's? Um, you're right, nicola, when you you hit the nail on the head about saying giving women the confidence to be able to push back, because often we will just accept because we think, oh, that's a great salary, it's a great job, I'll take it. But we don't actually do our homework in terms of saying, okay, right, this is the salary that we've been offered. Let's go now and have a look at what if a man was chosen in that role, what would they be paying? And then to push back and say, right, you know, done my homework, and I think Safeguard has put it out there. Right, yeah, so the more people know about it, the better. However, again, there's some responsibility from the likes of our professional bodies, who need to now take action in terms of why and ask the question why is this happening? What is the reason? Right, how can we change it? How can we fix it?
Speaker 2:so it's that empowering people it is and it's making it more visible. It's spreading transparency around the topic because, you know, the topic may well be complex, but we don't know, because context drives our behavior. I think the other interesting component could be is that recruiters are there to work for the employer. I'm not aware of any recruiters that you can engage as an individual for them to actually promote you and negotiate on your behalf, which, if you think about it, isn't that bizarre. I think, deb, in your world in finance and banking, you have mortgage brokers and their job is to represent the mortgagee.
Speaker 3:Yeah, true, why does that not exist in recruiting? Job is to represent the mortgagee. Yeah, true.
Speaker 2:Why does that not exist in recruiting?
Speaker 3:That's a good statement to make, because you're right. I mean, you sign up to a recruitment agency. They're meant to be helping you to get the position but, at the same time, they're working for the organisation because they're getting paid by the organisation but, at the same time, they're working for the organization because they're getting paid by the organization. However, I still think, like you said, that they should be working hard for you as the person trying to get the position and get the best salary they can yeah, it was sadly the only.
Speaker 2:They only work hard when the talent pool is limited, when there's also getting a commission law as well. So it's kind of yes, and that's the irony of it, I mean. So once again, this is not blaming them, but this is saying whoever they get their money from drives their behaviour.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, you're right, but I also think there's something in there that you said, nicola around, um, there's been years and years of having men in these high powered positions in safety and we continue to go down that route and we don't bring in women in those roles.
Speaker 3:There's very few women in those roles. If you have a look around, there's a tiny few women in those roles and I think that women get overlooked for those roles because we think that men are more productive, because they don't have families and et cetera. That grates me is that thinking that, um, you know that you won't, you'll be overlooked as a woman in those high positions, um, because you bring a different flavor, because you, um, are more empathetic in lots of cases and we've got a different leadership style, we've got families. We're juggling a lot of things where I see that and it happens time and time again men go to work and no disrespect to men, but men can go to work and leave the children with their partners or whoever, who also have jobs and also have positions, and I just think there's a vicious circle going on there where we replace a man with another man in those high positions and that's also driving that behavior. So I bet you, if a woman had to go for that position, they would be paying less.
Speaker 1:I remember I interviewed for a senior management role at a I think it was a power company, can't remember which one it was and went in for the interview and probably within the first like 10 minutes it was really clear I wasn't going to get the job, because the guy who was interviewing me just kept talking about the previous incumbent and how he was such a great guy, and so that was like the first red flag. The second red flag was out of the hour interview. I probably spoke for maybe five minutes. They spoke at me for the rest of the time telling me about the culture and how inclusive it was, et cetera, et cetera. And then just like, really, you know, focused on kind of monologuing themselves and highlighting all these things, and whenever I asked questions it always reverted back to this like you know, how will you cope in this male dominated industry? And I was like well, it doesn't really matter, safety is safety, like you know, as long as you get along well with people and you know how to deal with safety incidents. I feel like you know, um, so I just find it. I find it so fascinating.
Speaker 1:Like the guy called me and he's like obviously, you, you know. Well, he didn't say obviously, but he's like you know, unfortunately you weren't picked for the role. And I was like, okay, can I actually give you some feedback on? Can I give you some feedback on the interview? And he very reluctantly said yes. And I was like, look, in the hour that you spoke to me, I probably spoke for five minutes. You didn't actually find out anything about me or my technical skills and it was very clear that you were going to hire a man. He did not like that and he was quite rude about that. Um, I think I even like I'm sure I recorded it. I'm sure I recorded it as well, because I was just like this is the most bonkers conversation I think I've ever had.
Speaker 3:So just going back to thinking about solutions, right, um, do you think and I'm just putting this out there that we need to empower women to challenge more? Um, and not to just accept? And how would we do that? That's a good question.
Speaker 1:That's such a good question because we've got this innate fear of stepping on people's toes and also, in New Zealand, being quite nervous about that tall poppy syndrome, kind of standing out of the crowd. So I think we've got a couple of things to unpack Just with that. I think we have a couple of things to unpack. Things to unpack Suggestions.
Speaker 3:Greg.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm expecting that I'll be called woke at certain points off the back of this podcast, but the reality is and I've got my colleague Katie here with me at the moment the reality is that when we're engaging with a piece of work, the rate that we earn off that piece of work, the percentage, is exactly the same across any of my team. There's no difference, because everything we do is based on your capability and it's not even about capacity, because, basically, if people require a flexible working arrangement, then that's part of what we're working with the client at at that time. Now, I understand that may be different when you're trying to effectively change someone to a desk, but these issues, this whole notion that we're having to pay people less because of that notion of flexibility, that's an excuse. Yeah, it's just an excuse.
Speaker 1:It should be proportionate to like let's say, you earn $10, I earn $10. Earn $10, I earn $10. Essentially, if I'm only working four days of that, I'm still earning $10, but I'm earning the $5 for the days that I'm working.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. So I think all these things, this is how to create the awareness and think of it like some sort of how to mature this, and I'll certainly be reaching out to NZICM to try and create greater visibility around the issue Because, yeah, the work that Peter Bateman at Safeguard does, I mean the data is the data. It's not referable, it's the data. And the conversation is how do we create change and then how do we measure that change for the next year?
Speaker 3:Yeah, well, I'd be putting it out there to the likes of wise as well. Right, um woman and safety, um excellence, and they've got a great platform to be able to um kind of talk about these things and to to raise more awareness. So why not do it in that space, right?
Speaker 1:and even if we, you know, even if we use that platform to start empowering women to actually learn, you know either negotiation skills or what is currently happening in our communities and our health and safety communities and really talking about that kind of next level up, I want to say yeah, because it's not.
Speaker 3:It's not a stigma anymore, I mean really it's reality, the stats are out and it's time for us to talk about it. I guess for me and you, nicola, if I think about we are unconventional and we come from very man-dominated or men-dominated industries like oil and gas and steel etc. Industries like oil and gas and steel, et cetera, and we've worked internationally. So for us we've had to learn those skills along the way and to be much more outspoken in that space.
Speaker 3:But thinking about someone in New Zealand who's never left New Zealand they're coming into safety, they've now done their diploma and they're super excited to get the job right, I think about my sister and her journey and health and safety, um, and she's working for an organization that's really great, but she's had some really tough conversations to have with them, right and um, I just think that if if you're I don't want to say timid, but if you're not exposed to things like we have been in the past, it's sometimes a little bit daunting to approach these subjects. Um, so I guess, from from your perspective, brent, what would be some of the things, things that we could do to empower those women who are starting out in safety?
Speaker 2:Well, I think, once again, this is where coaching and mentoring becomes really important, and this is the role of our bodies and our associations who offer coaching and mentoring in terms of personal development. This should be part of the personal development. How do we prepare people? You don't see any of this. Going through your qualification process, you don't see any of this. Even let's call it pastoral care. I mean, in the work that I do, I've raised with a number of recruiters. How do you provide pastoral care for health and safety practitioners who want to do this? Contemporary safety? Yet they're fighting against the inherent underbelly of safety that is trying to control people. So I see there's no different. How do we advocate, how do we coach? How do we mentor? How do we guide people on the journey? So, rather than saying you're not going to encounter it, it's, how do we support people and have a response to that encountering?
Speaker 3:Because that bias that we're exploring, whether it be conscious or unconscious, is real, it exists it does yeah it's not going to disappear overnight yeah, it's not, and I also see it in the training in terms of upskilling health and safety professionals. It's very much based on the colonial style and nothing's changed much in that space. I mean there's so much more that could be added besides just learning about risk. Risk is a technical skill yes, we know that and it's great to have. However, I'm seeing more and more, even in enterprise risk. I'm seeing more and more diversion into the space of well-being coming, creeping in, leadership coming in. But I'm not seeing that when you go out and do a certification in occupational health and safety, right, we're still stuck in the dark ages in terms of you just learn risk but you're not learning leadership. You're not learning mentoring, et cetera, coaching.
Speaker 2:Looking at the industry as a whole, I just think there's so much more that we could be adding in that space yeah, that it's, that it's still being seen as a still being seen as a engineering topic rather than being humanities, and we're coming up with a little document shortly called Energy and Empathy, to basically say that there is a 50-50 partnership between the engineering element of safety and the empathy element of safety, and and how we treat people, how we deal with people, and this is no different. So so that's my sort of closing comment for you guys. Um, and thank you. I'm so proud to be able to join you today and and be labeled by other people going forward, because we just pulled the plaster off a really important topic. So thank you for that I think so.
Speaker 1:I think, um, I think our next topic needs to be, though I think we need to now do episode version two and talk about our woolworths debacle, because I think that is going to be really interesting to watch unfold over the next couple of weeks totally yeah, let's watch it unfold first, and then I'm happy to do it 2.0 look, and I'm really keen on the topic because, as I said before, we started recording that I'm concerned that, as organizations start to use more of this AI technology, that it's being used to drive productivity, but also how it's affecting humans as
Speaker 2:well, because we do not have the capacity to be at 100% of anything On a good day, or maybe 60-70% on a good day day, or maybe 60, 70 on a good day. Um, so this notion that we can describe a an activity as a linear sequence, um, describe it that so many minutes between tasks, that's just bonkers yeah, totally, yeah well, thanks, guys.
Speaker 1:Thanks for this fun chat. Thank you for pandering to my um, I want to say, obnoxious level of annoyance about this topic. It's so woke so woke.
Speaker 3:I think it was an important topic to um discuss and I think it's it's not ended there. I think there's lots more we can explore. But great chatting to you guys. Great chatting to you too, and have a wonderful rest of the day.
Speaker 1:Thank you, bye.
Speaker 3:Bye, bye, stay on quickly. You Just stopping recording.
