jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (07/28/85)
I am convinced that women in most female-dominated occupations are underpaid,
but the arguments of most "comparable value" advocates disturb me deeply.
They seem to want to install a new form of official bigotry: an anti-blue
collar, anti-organized labor, anti-working class bigotry that is far too
impressed with credentials.
As the best example, let's consider the messages about garbage collectors.
While garbage collection does not require special credentials, it requires
a willingness to take on an extremely undesirable job with large health risks.
To get an estimate of the occupation's "value", just spend some time in a
city with a garbage strike. The person who suggested that McDonald's workers
had about the same value must be hallucinating. If all the McD's dried up and
blew away tomorrow society would be none the worse.
Other people have suggested that the people who should get less in the
glorious EPFWOEV society should be blue-collar, organized labor workers.
Nice, huh? Presently, although an executive secretary often gets paid
less than a construction laborer, she considers herself to be in the
same class as the executives she associates with, and far above the lowly
common laborer. Rather than addressing class inequality, many "comparable
worth" advocates would institutionalize it, by paying more for clean,
professional, female-dominated occupations, and less for dirty, undesirable,
male-dominated occupations. We would obtain a two-tiered society; the
professionals and the serfs. No minimum-wage construction worker would
then dare to wolf whistle at his "betters".
Many "comparable worth" advocates will deny that what I'm saying is true.
If so, why have I NEVER heard a call for a lowering of pay for lawyers?
Because lawyers, as a group, are one of the chief sponsors of comparable
worth, of course. Marx would be thrilled to study this new form of class
warfare we are about to embark on. The hypocrisy level will be amazing.
Every class for itself; the truth be damned.
So what do I propose to improve the lot of working women? They should proceed
in the same way the blue-collar men did it -- organize and strike. They
are in a far better position to do it successfully than the workers around
the turn of the century were; then there were no assistance programs, no
two-earner families. A striking worker risked starvation or jail, but
they did it. Why can't secretaries shut down companies and nurses shut
down hospitals until their demands are met?
Let the flames begin.
[ insert disclaimer here ]
--
Joe Buck Entropic Processing, Inc. (epi)
UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck
ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA
George Orwell:
The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have
foolish thoughts.chabot@amber.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/03/85)
> I am convinced that women in most female-dominated occupations are underpaid, > but the arguments of most "comparable value" advocates disturb me deeply. > They seem to want to install a new form of official bigotry: an anti-blue > collar, anti-organized labor, anti-working class bigotry that is far too > impressed with credentials. > As the best example, let's consider the messages about garbage collectors. > While garbage collection does not require special credentials, it requires > a willingness to take on an extremely undesirable job with large health risks. Another job that isn't all that desirable (although it is indoors) and has large health risks: lab tech at a hospital. Fun, fun, sifting through other people's blood and bodily fluids and solids. I know someone who got hepatitis because she accidentally got contaminated. Sometimes even more virulent diseases are in the specimens. And a patient with undetected tuberculosis who'd been in the icu for months, and everybody got tested and a couple of hospital employees got cases which tested active in the first screening. In the lab you don't get much human contact with the patients, unless you draw blood, and then the patient isn't looking forward to that! although the patients on the wards will often prefer the lab tech, who does many in a day and so has a lot of practice, to a doctor who may only have one or two patients whose blood needs checking today and feels she/he wants to draw it. Those tubes your blood goes into when they draw it are usually glass; sometimes accidents happen I've seen them fall and break and then there's a mess--broken glass to break the skin and blood to harbor interesting things. No, lab techs don't get paid that great, either. > Other people have suggested that the people who should get less in the > glorious EPFWOEV society should be blue-collar, organized labor workers. > Nice, huh? Presently, although an executive secretary often gets paid > less than a construction laborer, she considers herself to be in the > same class as the executives she associates with, and far above the lowly > common laborer. Rather than addressing class inequality, many "comparable > worth" advocates would institutionalize it, by paying more for clean, > professional, female-dominated occupations, and less for dirty, undesirable, > male-dominated occupations. We would obtain a two-tiered society; the > professionals and the serfs. No minimum-wage construction worker would > then dare to wolf whistle at his "betters". I'm not convinced by this argument that paying secretaries a salary comparable with the worth of the job they do means that secretaries will thus be placed in the oppressive class. Who's to say that they then will make more than the garbage collector or those construction workers who make minimum wage? It could just be higher for the secretaries than they have now. If the secretaries did earn more, then this means they're in a higher class? Does this then mean that the situation we have today, with many garbage collectors being paid more than many secretaries, and therefore the garbage collectors are in a higher class than the women? And the higher class is entitled to engage in various forms of insult to the lower class such as whistling and other threatening things? > Marx would be thrilled to study this new form of class > warfare we are about to embark on. The hypocrisy level will be amazing. > Every class for itself; the truth be damned. Re: truth--see paragraph above about whistling. > So what do I propose to improve the lot of working women? They should proceed > in the same way the blue-collar men did it -- organize and strike. They > are in a far better position to do it successfully than the workers around > the turn of the century were; then there were no assistance programs, no > two-earner families. A striking worker risked starvation or jail, but > they did it. Why can't secretaries shut down companies and nurses shut > down hospitals until their demands are met? I've seen hospital "sick-outs": nurses calling in sick. But usually only to the point where elective surgery gets cancelled or doesn't get scheduled. Most of the places I've lived have had a large pool of secretaries looking for positions. If you don't like the wages, hey, you can stay at home, they'll just replace you. I also know a large number of women in secretarial positions who are the sole support of the family. And when you're the only wage-earner, it takes some strong inspiration to get you to risk your kids, so I admire those who've done it. But the biggest problem is that many of the women in these positions have not had the up-bringing or positive reinforcement or whatever that tells them that fighting is okay; in fact most have had a lot of negative reinforcement about being outspoken or aggressive. I admit that there was something like this that hampered those strikers in early union days--you were always deferential to your "superiors". What I'd rather see is the sex-bias for jobs broken down--it should be just as reasonable to see male secretaries and female construction workers and so on. It's hard to say whether this would be encouraged by more reasonable pay for female-heavy jobs or if it would rather encourage more even pay distribution. I'm willing to try to up the secretarial jobs money to more fairly reflect their value to the company, and see if we can't lure men into the positions as careers. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (08/07/85)
> >What I'd rather see is the sex-bias for jobs broken down--it should be just as > reasonable to see male secretaries and female construction workers and so on. > It's hard to say whether this would be encouraged by more reasonable pay for > female-heavy jobs or if it would rather encourage more even pay distribution. > I'm willing to try to up the secretarial jobs money to more fairly reflect >their value to the company, and see if we can't lure men into the positions as > careers. > > L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa I've been wondering for a while WHY secretaries are so underpaid, yet there is never a shortage of secretaries. It's not an easy job (I couldn't do it), it doesn't pay well enough to support one person, in many places there is virtually no hope for advancement. Added to that they are practically indispensible. Why do so many women stay in the field? More important, why do so many women go into secretarial work? I can't help wondering how many secretaries derive part of their support from other sources (husband, parents if living home), and how many are older women returning to the work force and don't wish to spend time preparing for another career when they don't expect to work much longer. How does such an important job rate such a flagrantly low wage? In the city there is no way a secretary can pay an apartment rent. Do high school guidance counselors channel women into secretarial programs or do they choose them themselves? Just a few questions to see what people think/know about this. Of the three former secretaries I know well one is an EE techie, one is a bookeeper (doesn't pay much more) and one is getting ready to start programming school, while the secretaries here all seem to have been here forever. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/09/85)
> I've been wondering for a while WHY secretaries are so underpaid, yet there > is never a shortage of secretaries. It's not an easy job (I couldn't do > it), it doesn't pay well enough to support one person, in many places there It used to be that people wouldn't hire a woman for anything else. Some women don't know that so many other options are available to them, and they don't have the self confidence to take a chance and try something else. Now that many former secretaries have gooten better-paying jobs, some of the people in those jobs are VERY unskilled. It is very difficult to find competent secretarial help how. Many good secretaries are promoted to the position of executive secretary, and the pay for such positions is often quite high.
stern@steinmetz.UUCP (Harold A. Stern) (08/12/85)
> > L S Chabot decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa > > I've been wondering for a while WHY secretaries are so underpaid, yet there > is never a shortage of secretaries. It's not an easy job (I couldn't do > it), it doesn't pay well enough to support one person, in many places there > is virtually no hope for advancement. Added to that they are practically > indispensible. Why do so many women stay in the field? > > How does such an important job rate such a flagrantly low wage? In the city > there is no way a secretary can pay an apartment rent. Do high school > guidance counselors channel women into secretarial programs or do they > choose them themselves? It seems to me that you have the answer to your question. If there is never a shortage of secretaries, what incentive is there to pay reasonable wages to them? Should one have the "nerve" to demand higher pay, you can always get another. Simple supply and demand. Many women stay in the field because they are not trained < note: I did NOT say uncapable > to do anything else. Hence the downward pressure on salaries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harold a. stern 410 memorial drive stern%teela@mit-athena cambridge, ma 02139 uvacs!edison!steinmetz!stern (617) 225-8304, 253-1541 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/16/85)
> > L S Chabot decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa > > I've been wondering for a while WHY secretaries are so underpaid, yet there > is never a shortage of secretaries. It's not an easy job (I couldn't do > it), it doesn't pay well enough to support one person, in many places there > is virtually no hope for advancement. Added to that they are practically > indispensible. Why do so many women stay in the field? > > How does such an important job rate such a flagrantly low wage? In the city > there is no way a secretary can pay an apartment rent. Do high school > guidance counselors channel women into secretarial programs or do they > choose them themselves? HEY!! I didn't say this!! L S Chabot decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa