|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should note that, from what we can tell from this article, men have no right to information regarding the average number of hours women work per week or their amount of time in the field.
I've always disliked time cards, but feminists have made them necessary. We need to consider the specifics. Consider...
If men work, on average, 50 hours a week and women work, on average, 40 hours a week, then after ten years men have worked as much as women who've worked for 12.5 years. At that point, men who've worked ten years have the same experience as women who've worked 12.5 years. But the men still work 25% more hours than the women. In this case, men who've worked for 10 years should be paid 25% more than the women who've worked for 12.5 years.
That would be true pay equity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to add that this (my above statement) doesn't even consider the greater percentage of overtime hours worked by men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In many fields hours on the job is not relative to performance. In many sales jobs for example, a good salesman may make more sales in a shorter period of hours than a poor salesman.
Also there is a reverse principle. As people become more experienced, they many be able to do a job in less time than the less experienced person. So, number of hours vs. productivity is not a valid criteria for evaluation.
In fact, most professional jobs do not require your "presence" as in clocking a time card. But even in unprofessional jobs, say waiter/waitress, two people can work the exact number of hours. One employee can do a good job and another a poor job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne says, "In many sales jobs for example, a good salesman may make more sales in a shorter period of hours than a poor salesman."
You reinforce my point.
A good salesman with more hours of experience than a good salesman with fewer hours of experience will make more sales in a given amount of hours. Likewise, a poor salesman with more hours of experience will make more sales in a given amount of hours than a poor salesman with fewer hours of experience. In fact an average salesman with more hours of experience will make more sales in a given amount of hours than an average salesman with fewer hours experience.
"As people become more experienced, they many be able to do a job in less time than the less experienced person." My point, precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that in the last post I am referring to people with good, average and poor potential. We become better with experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People become better with experience....
Not necessarily. You seemed to have missed my point. Hours expended or years on the job, neither one necessarily equates with superior performance. Performance and "worth" can be measured in any number of ways besides hours expended and seniority.
Usually pay is the determination of worth, though an employer may decide to pay the same annual salary for reduced hours if he/she feels that arrangement will keep a good employee from leaving and the company will still benefit. I've seen that happen as well.
I've no objection to persons inquiring about salary or number of hours worked, but the bottom line is how much is the person "worth" to the company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne said, "I've no objection to persons inquiring about salary or number of hours worked, but the bottom line is how much is the person "worth" to the company."
We're in agreement on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 05, @09:54PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
In many fields hours on the job is not relative to performance.
In fact, there's a very high correlation between hours/experience and performance. On average, people with more experience and people who put in more hours per week have greater value to an organization and hence are paid more. This is demonstrated by market curves of pay versus years in field and hours worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the work. In highly creative fields the emphasis is often on innovation and new ideas rather than competence in a particular skill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I worked as a physicist for years. The harder and longer I worked, the more new ideas and competence I developed. The same was true of everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The danger of this sort of action is exemplified by MIT's recent response to alleged discrimination against female professors. An excellent analysis of the faults in that university's response to the allegations can be seen at http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/.
Even though there was a significant gap between the scientific statures of the female and male professors (with men far out front), the women professors were given increases in salaries, research budgets and laboratory space to match those of the male professors. Several people on the committee studying the claim of discrimination resigned because they felt they were being railroaded into a decision that discrimination existed, even though they had found no evidence of such discrimination. Evidence, such as publication records, were not given their due consideration.
Note that the report was written by the chief complainant, who was also in charge of the investigation. In effect, this ensured that the plaintiff, the judge and the jury were the same person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by nagzi
(nagziNO@SPAMPLEASEphreaker.net)
on Wednesday December 05, @07:13PM EST (#4)
(User #86 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Would British men beable to sue both he company and the woman for invading his privacy? From what I'v read about Britsh laws, they some very heavy duty privacy laws.
Or perhaps men can demand to have access to the women's amount of hours worked. So that the men can get more time off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equal pay for work of equal value is a beautiful expression.
I admire the campaign slogan writer who dreamed that one up.
It is such a typically political statement. Equal, Pay, value, are concepts. We use them all the time, yet they have no concrete definition, so they can define issues in different and ambiguous ways depending on perception and usage. We could argue detail here for weeks and resolve nothing.
I suggest that the issue here is fundamentally "Draconian laws". The most dangerous aspect of these kinds of laws is, that although it does force rapid sweeping change, it inevitably fails to solve the perceived problem. For these laws to be effective, the problem would have to be primarily one of non-disclosure or secrecy preventing someone from exercising their rights. I fail to see how such non-disclosure could be at the root of the problem when men have been functioning in competition with each other for good paying jobs for generations in an atmosphere of non-disclosure.
The real dilemma this government will face over time, is all workers will find themselves chronically facing issues of piece work, work measurement, industrial engineering statistical analyses of the work flow and the imposition of disinterested structures onto the framework of business. All this to resolve endless litigation about interpretation of EPWEV(Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value). When you carve a defined meaning for one single concept into stone it is like moving heaven on earth to get fair treatment for the legion of exceptions that arise. This law will attempt to define in stone THREE concepts that change virtually every 6 months with each piece of genuinely NEW technology.
There are two major difficulties with this law.
One) Scientifically, energy is defined as the ability to do work. Then by inverse law, energy expenditure could be argued into the equation that attempts to solve this inequity. Some workers are just more capable than others, equal pay for work of equal value would mean that employers could be forced into paying the employee by the job (piece work). High quality workers will end up working for companies that pay by the piece, and the slower less capable employees will either work for less money, or more hours and the inequality issue returns in a regressive system of piece work.
Two) and most frightening, what happens when these initial "Draconian laws" fail (as they are doomed to fail) to have the desired effect? Then the response will be - we obviously just didn't hit the problem hard enough. Most likely resulting in even more or increasingly "Draconian laws" and just hitting out harder. In either case what appears at first to be a long standing gender equality issue, will, in time, evolve into an new and ugly class struggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a professional engineer. As such, when I start a new project the engineers that are hired to do the job all have different levels of pay based on experience and their ability to negotiate the terms of their employment contract when offered the job.
Although to some degree we may all be doing similar work, engineers with more experience usually make more money. From previous jobs I found out that there is at least a 30% difference in pay scale between two people doing similar jobs based solely upon experience (which equals amount of time worked) and the need of the hiring company for an individual with specific skill sets.
With this said, if someone where to do a salary review, they would yield results that do not reflect the employees overall value to the company. To allow open access to an employee's private information would disrupt productivity and create contempt within the workplace and lower productivity.
A salary review based on one figure - yearly income, is like viewing the visible portion of an iceberg and assuming that just about all icebergs are similar in size without examining what lies beneath the surface. Things are not this simple.
This case is particularly disgusting and reveals feminism's ugly sexist head. To allow one group of people access to another groups private information based only on gender is unjust. Where is the equality? If feminists were really interested in equality, then they should have opened up all salaries for review.
Part of the focus of feminism has been to usurp traditional institutions with malicious legal means that lower the overall productivity of any industry/institution. This "wage peeping" will only inspire unjust contempt among employees, and will result in the ultimate manifestation of feminist activities - lawsuits as a means for ideological survival.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If feminists were really interested in equality, then they should have opened up all salaries for review. "
>br>
I agree completely. Pay disparity does not necessarily mean discrimination (on sex or any other factor). Opening up of all records is a better approach. I doubt employers would agree with this.
But, at least in this country, we are garanteed redress of grievances by the 1st ammendment. So a person or persons who believe there has been some discrimination have to have an avenue by which prove their claim. They must be allowed to gather facts to support their case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...commonplace conclusions are almost always a characteristic of social research pretending to be science. --Neil Postman
What a ridiculous idea - "to open up all salaries for review" Why stop at invading the privacy of income only? Let's take all of the locks off of every door as everyone should have access to everything in order for true equality to be achieved.
I never claimed that this was a good idea. What I said was that the feminists could at least try to look like they stand for equality by opening all salaries for review, not just men's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about instead of opening up all salaries for review, the company releases a simple summary of mens vs. womens wages, with an accompanying summary of mens vs. womens hours worked, etc.? That way nobody's individual privacy is violated. If in fact there is no wage gap, a compilation of such summaries should prove that.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
