jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/06/85)
. . <various comments> . > > Not entirely true. The examples of discrimination and suppression > against women that Mr. Chapman makes are not nearly as true now as they > were, say, thirty years ago. Moreover, this type of discrimination Well a lot of people think that and no doubt in some areas things are improving but a lot of the problems are either not improving or are in fact getting worse. Let me give you three recent examples: a) In the Toronto Star last weekend a columnist quoted a member of the Fraser Institute as saying that sexual harrassment by an employer of a female employee was qualitatively different than "outside" harrasment since (after all) she is an employee and it is up to her employer to define what her job is (willing to be pinched a legitimate job requirement?) and if she doesn't like it she can always quit. The Fraser Institute for those of you who don't know is a conservative think tank based in Vancouver. Their opinions influence government policy (in BC at least). b) A provincial bill being brought forward which would require a woman seeking an abortion to among other things have the permission of either 1. her parents if she is single (no age limit on this), or 2. her husband if she is married No point in assuming she's capable of making her own decision right? c) statistics in the last few years show a lower percentage of female graduate students than in the first half of the decade. I can't remember if this is across the board or in a specific area; sorry. > (or cultural bias) is rapidly diminishing. Thus, in my opinion, there > exists a time lag which makes it difficult to look at the economic > situation of *all* women *now* and from that observation determine > the level of opportunity that exists for those women who did not grow up > under those conditions. It would make much more sense to me to look > at the economic situation of women who have been in the workforce for > maybe the last five years, and compare that to the economic situation > of men who have been working for the same five year period. I do not > expect that the women in this sample would be making 100c to every dollar > earned by men but I'm sure it would be significantly more than 62c. Do you think there are fewer secretaries now as a percentage of the work force or is it that you think their pay is relatively higher? Women have made *slight* gains but it's sure nothing to be either proud or complacent about. > > [It might also be useful to determine what kind of a trend exists. > Thus we'd first do as suggested above and compare dollar earnings of > men and women who have been in the workforce for the last five years. > Next we'd look at those people who had been in the workforce for the > last 10 years, and etc. If we end up with a rapidly increasing curve > I'd say there is no urgent problem. On the other hand if this is not > the case then measures of some kind may be needed] > > Thus I question Mr. Chapman's apparent solution to the problem > which, if I got it right, was to raise women's salaries by 50%. This > does zippo as far as increasing accessability into the non-traditional > work areas goes. It also meddles in the already over regulated It allows women the dignity and freedom of economic self sufficiency something which should be a laudable enough goal by itself to command some action. It also means more women could afford to put themselves through school or skill enhancement programs. What do I think should be done? If a job is being done that is important to a company/business/group then the people doing it should not be underpaid just because they are women. There are numerous cases of a man and a woman doing the *exact* same job in the same company but somehow the woman gets paid substantially less. Not to mention that being (for instance) a good secretary is at least as hard and demanding of skill as being a (for instance) janitor. On a practical level the secretary may be more essential to a company. Most secretaries make less than janitors. Most secretaries are women most janitors (as opposed to cleaning ladies who do the same thing but get paid less) are men. I don't see why these types of situations can't be corrected. There was a good posting in net.women recently explaining how jobs lose prestige and earning power *after* they become womens jobs; you should read it or like I said, try an experiment to see what it is like having the show on the other foot. > marketplace. Instead let's first get a *real* idea of where we stand > concerning opportunities for women and then work on the means of > increasing these opportunities if deemed necessary. Solutions > such as "equal pay for work of equal value" are cosmetic, and thus > do not address the real problem. > What exactly is cosmetic about equal pay for work of equal value? I would certainly insist on being paid what my work is worth, wouldn't you? > J.B. Robinson John Chapman
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/10/85)
> What exactly is cosmetic about equal pay for work of equal value? > I would certainly insist on being paid what my work is worth, > wouldn't you? Do you really expect to convince a bureaucrat from the Ministry of Economic Justice that you are more competent than a female ethnic handicapped Francophone with similar *formal* qualifications... even if you are? Competence is much harder to assess than skin color or shape. Who can blame a bored civil servant for taking the easy way out? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/11/85)
> > What exactly is cosmetic about equal pay for work of equal value? > > I would certainly insist on being paid what my work is worth, > > wouldn't you? > > Do you really expect to convince a bureaucrat from the Ministry of > Economic Justice that you are more competent than a female ethnic > handicapped Francophone with similar *formal* qualifications... even > if you are? > > Competence is much harder to assess than skin color or shape. Who > can blame a bored civil servant for taking the easy way out? > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I think that that analysis is somewhat misleading. It is more likely that an equivalence would be established between certain categories of jobs with the intent that if you were doing a job that was just as important to the existence of a company as someone doing a different job in the company then the wage *brackets* of those two jobs would be the same. Pay within the brackets for an individual would then be assessed in the usual (arbitrary :-)) way. If the bored civil servant is not doing their job (taking easy way out) then that is the problem to be rectified not discarding the program they are supposedly administering. Another comment not directed specifically at you Henry. It seems to me that whenever EPWOEV is mentioned there are all these examples generated as to how unfair it would be and what an administrative nightmare it would become. I'd like to say the following: 1. these types of job assessment skills are not difficult or unique. Reasonable formulas have been developed for measuring the levels of skill, difficulty, danger, intangible reward etc of jobs and these can be applied in an unbiased way. Personnel depts. are staffed with people who are capable of applying these formulas if they were directed to do so. So the amount of government bureacracy would not be any greater than that required for enforcing any other regulation/law etc. 2. As far as I can see no political party really *wants* to have to implement this legislation (except perhaps the NDP who won't, realistically, form too many governments in the near future). The private sector howls and screams every time EPFWOEV is mentioned but if they were to treat their employees with some measure of justice it is extremely unlikely that EPFWOEV would become a legal force (although I think it probably should be in any case). If on the other hand they continue to maintain a blatantly unfair system then they shouldn't be surprised to find someone making them clean up their act. 3. EPFWOEV detractors continually mention how expensive this would all be; as I've said in 1. above this isn't necessarily so but let's assume it might be anyhow for the sake of argument. We are talking about a *huge* segment of society, primarily women and (very) secondarily men of various social/ethnic categories who are plain and simple being treated unfairly. Now if justice is expensive then that may be a problem but it is not the problem of EPFWOEV. I think denying some subset of the participants in this society justice in some (any) particular arena based on economic arguments is a crock. When the group under consideration is constitutes the majority of society the denial is even less credible. John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/13/85)
> ...an equivalence would be established between certain categories > of jobs with the intent that if you were doing a job that was just > as important to the existence of a company as someone doing a different > job in the company then the wage *brackets* of those two jobs would > be the same... Jobs whose existence is not important to the company have a tendency to be abolished. Virtually any job in a well-run company is vital to the company in some way. It's hard to see how this can be made into a reasonably objective criterion for judging the appropriateness of wages. > If the bored civil servant is not doing their job (taking easy way > out) then that is the problem to be rectified not discarding the > program they are supposedly administering. In principle, yes. In practice, one has to live with what one can get (or with what one can't get rid of -- try firing a civil servant!). The impossibility of administering a program properly is a valid argument against instituting it. > 1. these types of job assessment skills are not difficult or unique. > Reasonable formulas have been developed for measuring the levels > of skill, difficulty, danger, intangible reward etc of jobs and > these can be applied in an unbiased way. Personnel depts. are > staffed with people who are capable of applying these formulas > if they were directed to do so... If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you! Just because you can put numbers on it, does not imply that the numbers mean anything. As witness IQ tests, where there is *some* sort of correlation between the numbers and intelligence, but a remarkably messy and complex one. What skill rating do you put on a job that requires moderate skills which very few people possess? How can you possibly come up with a realistic number for something as subjective and variable as "intangible reward"? Personnel departments are staffed with zombies who think numbers equal people (and who can't tell a semiliterate Cobol programmer from a Unix wizard, either!). > ...The private sector howls and screams every time EPFWOEV > is mentioned but if they were to treat their employees with > some measure of justice it is extremely unlikely that EPFWOEV > would become a legal force... On the whole, I agree with this. But I note that proposed EPFWOEV laws don't seem to contain exemptions for the companies that *do* treat their people decently. (If you seriously think that such companies would not be hassled by an EPFWOEV regime, I have another bridge to sell you!) > ... I think denying some subset of the participants > in this society justice in some (any) particular arena based on > economic arguments is a crock. It is possible that this society is not rich enough to afford complete justice. I don't believe it, but the idea is not silly, just false. Justice does have a cost, and the available resources are finite. I think they are sufficient for this particular objective, mind you, although I don't agree that EPFWOEV legislation is a good implementation technique. I would also note that true justice in this area probably means *cutting* wages in some professions that are not overly "valuable" in some sense, but have strong unions (or other forms of clout) that force wages up. Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands? Probably not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level than the (unionized) garbagemen level. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/15/85)
> > ...an equivalence would be established between certain categories > > of jobs with the intent that if you were doing a job that was just > > as important to the existence of a company as someone doing a different > > job in the company then the wage *brackets* of those two jobs would > > be the same... > > Jobs whose existence is not important to the company have a tendency > to be abolished. Virtually any job in a well-run company is vital to > the company in some way. It's hard to see how this can be made into a > reasonably objective criterion for judging the appropriateness of wages. Perhaps everyone should share equally in the company profits then. (0.5 :-)) I should have also said equality of skill, danger, etc as well however the point I was responding to was one that distorted the intent of equal pay for equal work. > > > If the bored civil servant is not doing their job (taking easy way > > out) then that is the problem to be rectified not discarding the > > program they are supposedly administering. > > In principle, yes. In practice, one has to live with what one can get > (or with what one can't get rid of -- try firing a civil servant!). > The impossibility of administering a program properly is a valid argument > against instituting it. I would assume by this that you would like all government progams abolished since they are all administered by the civil service. If so then I guess we don't have much left to discuss; if not then why single out EPFWOEV to not be implemented? If there really is a serious problem with administration in general then that should certainly be addressed. These type of "to difficult to administer - bureaucratic nightmare" type arguments are similar, if not identical, to the ones raised against "no smoking" bylaws. Experience in that arena shows it is not as difficult as one might first assume. They established an bureaucratic mechanism to make rulings, mediate etc.; it consisted of a grand total of one person one (half?) day per week. Now I am a smoker and I would be willing to live under the bureaucratic nightmare this law has produced and abide by the rulings that are made (which seem to have a large degree of common sense from what I've heard). Do you think EPFWOEV is any more difficult than dealing with us crazed nicotine addicts? > > > 1. these types of job assessment skills are not difficult or unique. > > Reasonable formulas have been developed for measuring the levels > > of skill, difficulty, danger, intangible reward etc of jobs and > > these can be applied in an unbiased way. Personnel depts. are > > staffed with people who are capable of applying these formulas > > if they were directed to do so... > > If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you! Just because you > can put numbers on it, does not imply that the numbers mean anything. > As witness IQ tests, where there is *some* sort of correlation between > the numbers and intelligence, but a remarkably messy and complex one. > What skill rating do you put on a job that requires moderate skills which > very few people possess? How can you possibly come up with a realistic > number for something as subjective and variable as "intangible reward"? > Personnel departments are staffed with zombies who think numbers equal > people (and who can't tell a semiliterate Cobol programmer from a Unix > wizard, either!). Well sorry to disappoint you but these measurements are made, and from what I've heard and read they produce a good measure. If you have any *evidence* to the contrary why not present it. As to your comment about personnel dept. employees I think it's a rather (adjective deleted) comment; sounds like you have more of a problem with unwarranted generalizations etc. than any of the people I've talked to in personnel depts. > > <other comments> > > > I would also note that true justice in this area probably means *cutting* > wages in some professions that are not overly "valuable" in some sense, > but have strong unions (or other forms of clout) that force wages up. > Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands? Probably > not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level > than the (unionized) garbagemen level. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry You seriously think it is just as important to serve burgers as to keep the environment (to generalize) clean? You sure we're living on the same planet? It's really hard to take this seriously but here goes. Consequences of no garbage collection: disease, pests, noxious odours etc. . Consequences of no McDonalds type operations: depends on what you want to imagine; people eat better food? people stop wasting money on overpriced junk? John Chapman ....!watmath!watcgl!jchapman
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (07/16/85)
There has been much in this group lately about "men taking care of women"
and the place of women in the paid workforce. Based on my experiences, it
is both naive and irresponsible for a person to become unable to support
herself (& family), regardless of any contractual agreement she might have
with her spouse/sugar_daddy/mate/relatives to "be taken care of." The
headlines in this week's _Newsweek_ claim that over 50% of family households
will be headed by a single parent by 1990 (excuse any small errors in my
recollection of the cover figures). The huge majority of those household
heads will be women. Now, while it may be that the missing dads are kicking
in childsupport (or even alimony), those women need to be able to support
their families.
Anecdote #1: My aunt stayed home after marriage to raise children & keep the
nest in shape. At 42 yrs old, my uncle had a severe stroke that left him
permanently disabled. He could live a very long life, but will have extra-
ordinary expenses. My aunt will have to be the "provider" if they are to
have more than the poverty existence the government provides as assistance.
Anecdote #2: My cousin stayed home after marriage to raise children & to make
a picture-perfect nest. Her husband wanted a bridge partner, party planner,
and fashion model, and in exchange provided the $$ for that lifestyle. It
apparently was too much for him. He left her, lost a series of jobs, and
is in need of psychiatric care. She now must raise two children (both with
exceptional academic "potential") and will have no childsupport (since her
ex is unable to hold a job). She won't have the luxury of being able to go
back to school to prepare for a career. She's lost her home as well, which
means pouring money into apartments.
Anecdote #3: My mom & dad had an agreement that she would take care of
homemaking and he would earn the money. She was forced back into the job
market when finances required extra income (due to need to support their
parents). Later, dad lost half his stomach to ulcers & the surgeon's blade,
then fought with skin cancer. Due to health problems, he can't work much
now. Mom has shown an exceptional business skill and has made it from
keypunch operator to Personnel Director. Her pension and acquired benefits
will be all they have at retirement time (5 yrs away).
All of these women are very angry. They didn't ask for these new
responsibilities and were lulled by lifetime vows and Cinderella stories.
Ironically, in the case of my mom, she is obviously the one who had the
business skills in the family. She's had to push for the recognition of
her contributions, but her company is now looking at their women employees
as good potential for filling management positions. ALSO, for the first time
in my mom's life, she is beginning to believe that she has good ideas and can
contribute in many domains. Her self-image has improved greatly and with
that she is trying more new things. Except for still feeling she didn't ask
for the stress of corporate life, she thoroughly enjoys being more "worldly"
and being involved with a diverse group of people.
Patricia Collins
--
{ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pcrobinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/18/85)
In article <2204@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> I would also note that true justice in this area probably means *cutting* >> wages in some professions that are not overly "valuable" in some sense, >> but have strong unions (or other forms of clout) that force wages up. >> Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands? Probably >> not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level >> than the (unionized) garbagemen level. >> -- >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >> {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry > > You seriously think it is just as important to serve burgers as to > keep the environment (to generalize) clean? You sure we're living on > the same planet? It's really hard to take this seriously but here goes. > Consequences of no garbage collection: disease, pests, noxious odours > etc. . Consequences of no McDonalds type operations: depends on what > you want to imagine; people eat better food? people stop wasting money > on overpriced junk? > > > John Chapman I think John Chapman is missing an important point. Namely, that it doesn't take any incredible amount of skill, intelligence, drive, or whatever to either flip burgers or pickup the garbage. I would imagine that any person off the street could be completely instructed in the intricacies of burger flipping or garbage collection in a matter of a few hours. So, as long as there is an adequate supply of garbage collectors why should they be paid more than a burger flipper? Their work requires approximately the same amount of intelligence, training, responsibility, etc. One can even argue that the working conditions for the garbage collector are better than the burger flippers, since the former doesn't have a supervisor breathing down his neck every minute of the day, and he gets to work outside as opposed to remaining in a cramped kitchen the whole day. Thus, in my mind, the only consideration in determining the garbage collector's wages is that the pay should be enough to provide for an adequate supply of such people. J.B. Robinson
mcewan@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA (07/18/85)
> I would also note that true justice in this area probably means *cutting* > wages in some professions that are not overly "valuable" in some sense, > but have strong unions (or other forms of clout) that force wages up. > Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands? Probably > not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level > than the (unionized) garbagemen level. From time to time in this discussion, people have mentioned "garbageman" as an example of an overpaid profession. I want to point out that garbage collecting is a hazardous job. There is a fairly high risk of disease (not to mention the fact that the job is just generally unpleasant). You couldn't pay me enough to collect garbage. I suspect that if the salaries were regulated so that garbagemen and McDonald's counter workers were paid the same, then McDonald's would have more job applicants than they know what to do with, and no one would be collecting garbage. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "They're clumsy. They're out of shape. They're dead."
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/19/85)
> > In principle, yes. In practice, one has to live with what one can get > > (or with what one can't get rid of -- try firing a civil servant!). > > The impossibility of administering a program properly is a valid argument > > against instituting it. > > I would assume by this that you would like all government progams > abolished since they are all administered by the civil service. Not quite, but you're close... > ... Do you think EPFWOEV is any more difficult than > dealing with us crazed nicotine addicts? Probably not. And to judge by the number of people who still smoke in elevators, that's not a good sign. > Well sorry to disappoint you but these measurements are made, and from > what I've heard and read they produce a good measure. Yes, but a good measure of *what*? Of the things that matter? I doubt it. Ever read any of the discussions about the validity of IQ tests? They have been subjected to far more intense scrutiny than most of the "measurements" that personnel departments are equipped to do, and have generally been found wanting. > You seriously think it is just as important to serve burgers as to > keep the environment (to generalize) clean? That would be a real apples-and-oranges comparison (anyone want to bet on which way the Ministry of Economic Justice would resolve it? I don't!), but that wasn't my point. My point was that the skills etc. involved seem to be of the same order of magnitude. Garbage disposal involves more physical effort and perhaps some small element of danger; working at a McDonalds' counter involves more customer contact. Seems to me that it about balances out. Except that the garbagemen have a union, and hence get paid several times what the poor McDonalds' counter slaves get. Surely this is unjust. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (07/19/85)
> Except that the garbagemen have a union, and > hence get paid several times what the poor McDonalds' counter slaves get. > Surely this is unjust. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Another reason why McDonald slaves get paid so little is that most of them are too young to receive minimum wages (what an understatement! McDoonad's fortune is based on the exploitation of child labor). One would hope that EPFWEQ would contain provisions to end discrimination based on age. McDonald and gang are certainly rich enough to be able to pay decent wages or at least minimum wages. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/21/85)
> Another reason why McDonald slaves get paid so little is that most of > them are too young to receive minimum wages (what an understatement! > McDoonad's fortune is based on the exploitation of child labor). One > would hope that EPFWEQ would contain provisions to end discrimination > based on age. McDonald and gang are certainly rich enough to be able > to pay decent wages or at least minimum wages. Of course, whether they're willing to or not is another story. They may respond by cutting the number of jobs, hardly a socially-desirable goal. Minimum wage *hurts* people like high-school students, since it means that there are fewer jobs for them. Being hired at a pittance is better than not being hired at all. Of course, they're generally too young to vote, so who cares? :-[ I haven't seen the McDonalds' balance sheets, but I would guess that most of their stores can't afford to pay their slaves garbageman wages. (Better wages than they now pay, maybe. Unionized-garbagemen wages, no.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (07/22/85)
> In article <2204@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >> I would also note that true justice in this area probably means *cutting* > >> wages in some professions that are not overly "valuable" in some sense, > >> but have strong unions (or other forms of clout) that force wages up. > >> Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands? Probably > >> not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level > >> than the (unionized) garbagemen level. > >> -- > >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > >> {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry > > > it doesn't take any incredible amount of skill, intelligence, drive, > or whatever to either flip burgers or pickup the garbage. I would > imagine that any person off the street could be completely instructed > in the intricacies of burger flipping or garbage collection in a matter > of a few hours. So, as long as there is an adequate supply of garbage > collectors why should they be paid more than a burger flipper? Their > work requires approximately the same amount of intelligence, training, > responsibility, etc. One can even argue that the working conditions for > the garbage collector are better than the burger flippers, since the > former doesn't have a supervisor breathing down his neck every minute > of the day, and he gets to work outside as opposed to remaining in a > cramped kitchen the whole day. Thus, in my mind, the only > consideration in determining the garbage collector's wages is that > the pay should be enough to provide for an adequate supply of such people. > > J.B. Robinson Lest people think that being a garbage collector is one big picnic ($8/hour and all you can eat (standard garbage collector joke), I'd like to point out that garbage collecting is very tiring, physical work, at least in most locations. Lifting enough garbage to completely fill up a garbage truck 2-3 times (after compacting) every day is a lot more tiring than serving up fast food. Also, it is a pretty dirty job. Also, while I'm not aware of actual percentages, many garbage collectors are non-union. I know I was non-union when I did it (for a summer). As far as I know, the wages paid at the company I worked for were based on what it took to keep employees. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611 (standard garbage collector's joke #2: "How's the garbage business these days?" "Oh, it's picking up.") :wq
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/23/85)
> > Except that the garbagemen have a union, and > > hence get paid several times what the poor McDonalds' counter slaves get. > > Surely this is unjust. > > -- > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > > Another reason why McDonald slaves get paid so little is that most of > them are too young to receive minimum wages (what an understatement! > McDoonad's fortune is based on the exploitation of child labor). One > would hope that EPFWEQ would contain provisions to end discrimination > based on age. McDonald and gang are certainly rich enough to be able > to pay decent wages or at least minimum wages. > -- > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie While I was i high school (frshman year) I got a work permit to hold a job (I was 14). I worked at the loal McDonald's for a whopping $1.00 per hour. That pay scale persisted until minimum wage forced them to pay more. McDonald's still pays the minimum they can get away with as a matter of general practice. Even managing personell get paid very little compared with the manager of a local family restaurant inthe Beloit, Wisc. area. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================
slb@uvacs.UUCP (sandy) (07/26/85)
> > In article <2204@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > >> Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands? Probably > > >> not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level > > >> than the (unionized) garbagemen level. > > >> -- > > >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > > >> {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry > > > > > ... One can even argue that the working conditions for > > the garbage collector are better than the burger flippers, since the > > former doesn't have a supervisor breathing down his neck every minute > > of the day, and he gets to work outside as opposed to remaining in a > > cramped kitchen the whole day... > > the pay should be enough to provYde for an adequate supply of such people. > > > > J.B. Robinson > > Lest people think that being a garbage collector is one big picnic > ($8/hour and all you can eat (standard garbage collector joke), > I'd like to point out that garbage collecting is very tiring, > physical work, at least in most locations. Lifting enough garbage to > completely fill up a garbage truck 2-3 times (after compacting) every > day is a lot more tiring than serving up fast food. Also, it is a pretty > dirty job... > > Bob Schleicher > ihuxk!rs55611 > This points up a standard problem with EPFWOEV - namely, if the market is not the way to set a value on some profession, what is? Some feel it should be according to the amount of training required to master the profession, some think it should be the rarity of the ability required (i.e. artistic or athletic talent), some think it should be according to how risky or how unpleasant the tasks involved. Many, of course, think it should be some mixture of the above, but just which ones - what *precise* mixture? If you can't even agree on the relative worth of Whoppersloppers and garbage-collectors, how can you ever hope to agree on, say, junior executive accountants and senior-lead-programmer-analysts? I mean, is an easy, dangerous, nasty job worth more than a nice safe intellectually challenging one? I suspect your answer will depend on whether you're a big brawny type or a PH.D-in-English-type (not that the two types are exclusive :-)). sandy decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!slb
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (07/30/85)
>From time to time in this discussion, people have mentioned "garbageman" >as an example of an overpaid profession. I want to point out that garbage >collecting is a hazardous job. There is a fairly high risk of disease (not >to mention the fact that the job is just generally unpleasant). You couldn't >pay me enough to collect garbage. I would like to correct this - the idea that being a garbageman is an overpaid "cushy" job is echoed by the garbagemen themselves. I used to work in a shop which was located next to the garbagetruck motor pool, over the course of several years I shared many beers with the men that worked there (there may have been women too, but they didn't hang out at the local tav), almost to a man they felt they were on easy street. We're talking about an attitude where they got to work on time, didn't screw around, etc. because they didn't want to get fired (I guess their boss was less than ideal, but that was their main complaint). And you could pay me enough to collect garbage, but it would have to be a damn site more than I'm making now. Peter B
idallen@watmath.UUCP (08/05/85)
> The impossibility of administering a program properly is a valid argument > against instituting it. - Henry Spencer Valid, perhaps; but not a strong argument. Nothing can be done perfectly or "properly". I'd rather set a good goal and try to reach it than to give up before starting because I know I won't be perfect. I see this defeatist attitude in software design all the time -- people don't stop to figure out what they really need; they only think ahead to what they can program in time. Without a (possibly unattainable) goal to work toward, it's easy to think you're making progress simply by changing things. But perhaps the real answer lies in the opposite direction. The impossible goal at least provides a direction, a metric that makes it easier to decide "Does such-and-such a change bring us closer to our goal?" Democracy is not perfect, and we can't administer it "properly", but I think I like the model. -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/11/85)
> ... I see this > defeatist attitude in software design all the time -- people don't stop > to figure out what they really need; they only think ahead to what they > can program in time... Nor, of course, do they stop to think that they might be better off not trying to solve the problem at all. When somebody is in a panic to solve a problem and asks you for advice, it is very hard to convince them that it's worth their while to study the situation a bit more first. They keep insisting that the problem is so urgent that they have no time for anything but a frontal assault, even in cases where a less direct approach would get better results and still meet their deadlines. Also, a point of clarification: I wasn't saying "this should not be done because it can't be done perfectly", I was saying "this should not be done because it can't be done satisfactorily". This is the difference between settling for reasonable although suboptimal results, and making an awful mess to no useful purpose. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry