brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/19/85)
Well, the Ontario Government announced today that it would soon be bringing in EPFWOEV legislation in the public sector. All well and good (sort of) because the government does have the right to control the pay of civil serpents, and it of course should not practice unfair sexual discrimination. (That there are too many of them is another story. So is the fact that often this will boil down to "He's overpaid, and thus she should be overpaid, too." I do wish we could do something about the massive number of jobs that will be destroyed in the private sector while we make sure everybody is overpaid the same.) But the Feminist lobby that worked for this was not satisfied. They wanted to know when the law would come into the private sector. When a secretary in the private sector would make as much as the groundskeeper because she's better educated, to paraphrase. They should curse the day such legislation comes. Let's say a secretary makes on average $13K. But the wage police say that such a secretary should make $16K. Where does this $3K come from? As an employer, I know. It means that I will wait longer to hire a secretary. If I were a big business, it would mean fewer secretaries in general. You will have to be higher up before you rate a private secretary. The result - even fewer jobs for secretaries. Sad to say because of sex sterotypes this also means fewer jobs for women. Of course, to coin a phrase, those who have the jobs will get richer while those without (and those layed off) will get poorer. Actually this has nothing to do with sexism. If you artificially jack up the price of anything you will make a few individuals quite rich and eventually destroy (or come close to destroying) an industry. Look what almost happened to US automakers because they sat behind protection rather than innovating. Of course, you may feel the price is worth it because of how it helps the finances and dignity of those who do have jobs. Perhaps it is, until their taxes go up about $3K to pay for the people on welfare! Ideology has little to do with it. It's facts and numbers, plain and simple. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/20/85)
-- > Well, the Ontario Government announced today that it would soon be > bringing in EPFWOEV legislation in the public sector... > > But the Feminist lobby that worked for this was not satisfied. > They wanted to know when the law would come into the private sector... > > They should curse the day such legislation comes. > > Let's say a secretary makes on average $13K. But the wage police > say that such a secretary should make $16K. Where does this $3K > come from? As an employer, I know. It means that I will wait longer > to hire a secretary. If I were a big business, it would mean fewer > secretaries in general. You will have to be higher up before you > rate a private secretary. > > The result - even fewer jobs for secretaries. Sad to say because of > sex sterotypes this also means fewer jobs for women... > Ideology has little to do with it. It's facts and numbers, plain > and simple. > > Brad Templeton I'd love to see either the public or private sectors try to make do with substantially fewer secretaries--the whole fabric of business would fall apart. I'd also love to see this endless piddle of simplistic libertarian dogma--submitted entirely by oh so rational men--the hell out of net.women. You've made your point, guys--now go beat each other up somewhere else. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 20 Jul 85 [2 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (07/21/85)
It's very nice of you to worry about us women running out of jobs, but
you really don't have to Brad. We'll make do with higher wages and less jobs,
maybe some of us will even have to steal some of your jobs, who knows...
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophiesck@elsie.UUCP (Steve Kaufman) (07/23/85)
In article <531@ihu1m.UUCP>, Ken Perlman (gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP) concludes his rebuttal to someone else's argument against "comparable worth" pay scales (Equal Pay For Work of Equal Value) with: > > I'd also love to see this endless piddle of > simplistic libertarian dogma--submitted entirely by oh so rational > men--the hell out of net.women. You've made your point, guys--now > go beat each other up somewhere else. > Where is it written that only certain points of view are allowed to be expressed in net.women?
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/25/85)
So the argument seems to be that if you have to pay women more than they get right now there won't be as many jobs for them and so EPFWEV is a bad idea? I don't buy this at all. If a person is worth a certain wage, she should get it. I suspect that people who want low paying menial jobs can find them anyway. --