susie@uwmacc.UUCP (sue brunkow) (02/12/85)
[How much are we paying the line eater?]
The state of Wisconsin is talking about instituting a comparable
worth policy. All state jobs were evaluated in several categories, including
the amount of training required, the number of other people the
person is responsible for, and the possible consequences of mistakes.
The number of points in each category
were then added up to determine the 'worth' of the job.
(sorry, I forgot to save the list of categories.)
Some of the job pairs that ended up at the same level were:
Clerical assistant (which currently pays $13K) and Maintenance
mechanic (currently $16K); Library associate ($18K) and Civil engineer
($24); Registered nurse ($20K) and Chemist ($22K); and Grounds
supervisor($18K) and child-care counselor($12K).
The more this idea is talked about here, the more unpopular it
is becoming, partly because it will cost an estimated $17 to $39
million.
I haven't decided how I feel about this. Please note : this is
being discussed for state employees only. There is no suggestion
the government setting up categories and salary levels for
the private sector.
Sue Brunkow
Univ. of Wisconsin
{allegra,seismo,ihnp4}!uwvax!uwmacc!susiejcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (02/13/85)
Before comparable worth will be a viable standard, the disparities between the various male-dominated jobs relative to skill level will have to be addressed. All the arguments for this concept make the argument that there is a relatively smooth function relating skill to pay. In my experience this is rarely true. It would appear that you could prove almost any comparable worth you wanted by choosing appropriate examples. This is one advantage of using statistics in court, you can get statistics to say virtually anything you want, given sufficiently fuzzy data. (and the data here *IS* very fuzzy). -JCP- PS: Hint: the hard part is defining 'worth' rather than 'comparable'. Do we really want the courts doing that???
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (06/18/85)
>The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares >only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not >also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, >then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Many of the jobs which are de facto "women's work" are not only low-paying, but they are high-stress, low-satisfaction shit work as well. They include some of the worst examples of latter-day sweatshop labor -- everything from garment assembly to data entry. They also include plenty of jobs ("teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker") which ideally should be rewarding, cooperative jobs as you say but which in fact are often high-stress, highly competitive, terribly underrated and unrewarding burn-out jobs. (Talk to a few teachers and nurses about their job frustrations some time. While you're at it, ask the female ones about the treatment they receive from the male administrators and doctors they work under.) I'm afraid that the line about how "women are underpaid because they choose less ambitious lines of work" sounds to me awfully reminiscent of older myths about how sharecroppers were poor because they were too "lazy" to do anything else. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally
slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (06/20/85)
In article <2126@ut-sally.UUCP> riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: >>The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares >>only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not >>also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, >>then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > >Sorry, but I don't buy it. Many of the jobs which are de facto "women's >work" are not only low-paying, but they are high-stress, low-satisfaction >shit work as well.... > >I'm afraid that the line about how "women are underpaid because they choose >less ambitious lines of work" sounds to me awfully reminiscent of older >myths about how sharecroppers were poor because they were too "lazy" to do >anything else. > I agree it is unfair that teachers and nurses make less money than plumbers and truck drivers, but I don't agree that the problem is inherently sexist in nature. It is simply a matter of demand and supply. If we should really implement a "comparable worth" payscale based on level of skill and training required, than all Bachelors, and all Masters and PhDs who could find a job in his/her field should earn the same amount of money. That implys that chemist and biologist in their respective research labs should get a pay raise, or computer scientist and electrical engineers take a pay cut (no way! :-)) Furthermore, by artificially maintaining a fixed pay scale that doesn't reflect supply and demand (assuming there is a fair way of doing so), the victims (women or people who choose to major in low paying fields) will see no need to get (previously) higher paying jobs. The result would be more job segregation and more pressure on the woman NOT to enter traditionally male job, which, aside from higher pay, usually has more power. If the environment is free of artificial barriers (like discrimination, peer pressure, or social attitude), then people should gravitate toward the best paying, most interesting/rewarding/powerful job he/she is qualified for. Today's wage descrepency on male/female is not that the JOBs are not fairly paid, but that some groups are pushed into the job that is not the highest paying, most intersting ... for that person's worth. To remedy that problem by inflating the job's worth and not the person's self-worth/qualification is not a good solution. (I am not saying that teachers and nurses has lower self worth or qualification than truck driver, but if the teacher and nurse want to be PAID as much as the truck driver, than BE one! Hence, the remedy we should work on is to strike down those BARRIERS that prevent the potential teacher and nurse to make the choice to be a higher paying truck driver.) Siu-Ling Ku slk%vax@mit-mc
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/22/85)
In article <2126@ut-sally.UUCP> riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: >>The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares >>only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not >>also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, >>then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > >Sorry, but I don't buy it. Many of the jobs which are de facto "women's >work" are not only low-paying, but they are high-stress, low-satisfaction >shit work as well. Actually, the fallacy of comparable worth is that it ignores -- I hate to say it -- supply and demand. Supply: especially, the regrettable facts that women choose "women's work" jobs because 1) it is considered "women's work", and thus social pressure moves women to take those jobs; 2) the jobs may be considered "better" because it is assumed, rightly or wrongly, that (e.g.) nursing serves humanity better than (e.g.) garbage collecting, and women may (probably due to our culture) value compassion more than men; 3) girls are discouraged from certain subjects (math) and encouraged to do well in others; etc., etc., etc. Discrimination probably does cause part of the wage gap, but -- there must be a better way. --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (06/24/85)
> Actually, the fallacy of comparable worth is that it ignores -- I hate to > say it -- supply and demand. Supply: especially, the regrettable facts > that women choose "women's work" jobs because 1) it is considered "women's > work", and thus social pressure moves women to take those jobs; 2) the > jobs may be considered "better" because it is assumed, rightly or wrongly, > that (e.g.) nursing serves humanity better than (e.g.) garbage collecting, > and women may (probably due to our culture) value compassion more than men; > 3) girls are discouraged from certain subjects (math) and encouraged to > do well in others; etc., etc., etc. > > Discrimination probably does cause part of the wage gap, but -- there must > be a better way. > --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief There seems to be an adequate supply of auto workers, who are paid very well. There always seem to be construction workers laid off, yet, they also are paid well. There is a growing shortage of grammar and high school teachers. Supply and demand is as simplistic as the rest of the arguments about men's & women's work. Susan Finkelman
djl@gitpyr.UUCP (Dave Lane) (06/25/85)
In article <393@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >Actually, the fallacy of comparable worth is that it ignores -- I hate to >say it -- supply and demand. Supply: especially, the regrettable facts >that women choose "women's work" jobs because 1) it is considered "women's >work", and thus social pressure moves women to take those jobs; 2) the >jobs may be considered "better" because it is assumed, rightly or wrongly, >that (e.g.) nursing serves humanity better than (e.g.) garbage collecting, >and women may (probably due to our culture) value compassion more than men; >3) girls are discouraged from certain subjects (math) and encouraged to >do well in others; etc., etc., etc. > >Discrimination probably does cause part of the wage gap, but -- there must >be a better way. > --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief nursing is also considered better because you have to go to school for a minimun of two years and then pass a 3 day state board exam to get a license. last i heard, you didn't have to do that to be a garbage collector. and in most cases, nursing pays more, especially if you have a BSN (4 year degree). of course, you also have to consider that nursing pay scales vary much more regionally than sanitation jobs. for what it's worth... -- Dave Lane, User Assistant, Office of Computing Services, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp}!gatech!gitpyr!djl ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!djl
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/30/85)
Susan Finkelman writes: >There seems to be an adequate supply of auto workers, who are paid very >well. There always seem to be construction workers laid off, yet, they >also are paid well. There is a growing shortage of grammar and high >school teachers. Auto workers have strong unions; construction workers seem to be much in demand in my area (lots of employment ads); the shortage of public school teachers may A) be due to govt.'s reluctance to respond to supply and demand; B) be corrected with a relatively small pay increase. If you want to show that supply and demand don't explain much of the wage gap, you have to show that the salaries of (e.g.) teachers WOULD BE HIGHER than those of (e.g.) carpenters AT "MARKET-CLEARING" WAGES. (See your econ text for def of "market-clearing".)
jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/02/85)
> > > >The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares > >only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not > >also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, > >then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > > The comparable worth studies I've seen do factor in working conditions - such as health hazards, safety, stress, and pleasantness - as well as level of skill and training when determining the value of jobs in terms of pay. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (07/02/85)
In article <494@gitpyr.UUCP> djl@gitpyr.UUCP (Dave Lane) writes: > ... to be a garbage collector. and >in most cases, nursing pays more, especially if you have a BSN (4 year >degree). Not around here, it doesn't. Last time I heard, garbage collectors were making 1.5 to 2 times what nurses were. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."
london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (07/26/85)
<> >> John Chapman writes: >> 1. >> Perhaps societys highest goal should not necessarily be to maximize the >> bookies (employers) earnings. Prove to me that a healthy, happy society >> requires this type of "end" to be pursued. You better watch it, John. You're treading on very dangerous ground here. This type of question starts to sound like (gasp!) socialism. Don't you know that the net goes all over the United States? Do you want them to find out that Canada is quite a (gasp!) socialist country? Do you want them to know that there are actually people in Canada who question the American ideal? Next thing you know, Americans might start pulling their money out, selling their summer cottages, stop trying to put their nuclear weapons in Canada, stop thinking of Canada as the '51st state',....hey, wait...these things would be ok...ok, John, never mind. David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london