ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (02/18/85)
Some people are objecting to the concept that the market sets fair wage rates. My feelings are somewhat ambivalent here, but I'm going to argue the other side, since it isn't being done that I've seen yet. First of all, it is possible that in fact the market doesn't set fair wage rates in certain cases, because of the infamous "market distortions". It is also possible that the market is in general so distorted that the wages it sets are meaningless. I'm not prepared to debate these points at length, because I have better things to do with my time than the research i'd need to make a convincing presentation one way or the other. However... Here is my basic argument on market-set wage rates: If there are several people able and willing to do certain work for $10/hour, why should I pay somebody $15/hour for it? Or, if I want a job done and nobody will do it for what I want to pay, what choice do I have other than to 1) decide I don't want it done that badly, or 2) pay enough to attract somebody to do the job? The market exerts a strong force towards prices that buyers and sellers can agree on. To me, this is as close to "fair" as you can possibly come when there are conflicting interests involved; so the market-set wages are fair BY DEFINITION. What could be fairer TO ALL PARTIES? So why do women often get less pay for equal (never mind "comparable") work? Less time-in-grade (or equivalent), less perceived commitment to the job, prejudice in hiring? I think it comes down to socialization, more or less. A large majority of women DO get married. A large majority of women DO have kids. Those women, if they are working, are entitled to expensive time off work and a guarantee of a job when they come back. In a large corporation, with many interchangable cogs, this isn't a big problem. But in a small operation, such as a DP shop I once consulted for with 2 application programmers, both female, and one operator, female, all married, the DP director damn well KNEW that off and on he would be down HALF his programming force for a few months or years; or ALL of his operations staff. And he knew that if he hired replacements, he'd find himself 50% or 100% OVER BUDGET on staff when the one on maternity leave came back. This is a serious problem for a small operation (and an awful lot of the jobs are at small companies, there are so many of them!). I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION TO THE ABOVE PROBLEM IS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM IS REAL. I BELIEVE THAT WOMEN WON'T ACHIEVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK UNTIL THIS PROBLEM, AMONG MANY OTHERS, IS SOLVED. I am not advocating ythe current situation is desirable or equitable; it's unfair to BOTH women AND their employers, which probably means it's "pessimal". So what should be done instead? -- David Dyer-Bennet -- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (02/22/85)
> So why do women often get less pay for equal (never mind "comparable") work? > Less time-in-grade (or equivalent), less perceived commitment to the job, > prejudice in hiring? > > I think it comes down to socialization, more or less. A large majority of > women DO get married. A large majority of women DO have kids. A large majority of MEN also get married. A large majority of MEN also have kids!!!! > Those women, > if they are working, are entitled to expensive time off work and a guarantee > of a job when they come back. And men should have the same guarantees! Why should women be seen as the ones with the problem? It's the men who fail to take personal responsibility for the children they create. If they did, companies might stop viewing the "problem" as belonging only to women. > In a large corporation, with many interchangable > cogs, this isn't a big problem. But in a small operation, such as a DP shop > I once consulted for with 2 application programmers, both female, and one > operator, female, all married, the DP director damn well KNEW that off and > on he would be down HALF his programming force for a few months or years; > or ALL of his operations staff. And he knew that if he hired replacements, > he'd find himself 50% or 100% OVER BUDGET on staff when the one on > maternity leave came back. This is a serious problem for a small operation > (and an awful lot of the jobs are at small companies, there are so many of > them!). Interestingly enough, it is often the smaller companies that cope with this situation much more equitably than large ones do. > > I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION TO THE ABOVE PROBLEM IS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE > PROBLEM IS REAL. I BELIEVE THAT WOMEN WON'T ACHIEVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK > UNTIL THIS PROBLEM, AMONG MANY OTHERS, IS SOLVED. I am not advocating ythe > current situation is desirable or equitable; it's unfair to BOTH women AND > their employers, not to mention to men??? > which probably means it's "pessimal". So what should > be done instead? Isn't the solution obvious? This is a HUMAN problem which has been dumped on women. The solution is for men to begin carrying their fair share of the burden. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
syslab@ihuxn.UUCP (g.v. stoneberg) (02/26/85)
> > cogs, this isn't a big problem. But in a small operation, such as a DP shop > > I once consulted for with 2 application programmers, both female, and one > > operator, female, all married, the DP director damn well KNEW that off and > > on he would be down HALF his programming force for a few months or years; > > or ALL of his operations staff. And he knew that if he hired replacements, > > he'd find himself 50% or 100% OVER BUDGET on staff when the one on > > maternity leave came back. This is a serious problem for a small operation > > (and an awful lot of the jobs are at small companies, there are so many of > > them!). > Bull ---- Thats where Key services, Kelly Girl, Man Power and hundreds of other temporary personnel services make their money. While working for Oak Industries the secretary to the head of production took time off to have a child and raise it, she was off for 24 months before she felt that she wanted to return to work. During that interval there were 3 temprorary workers brought in in succession to do her job. Work flowed smoothly, No one had to be hired to fill the spot and when she returned her job was waiting for her and the company had actually managed to save money because the cost of the tempy had not involved as much overhead as a full or even part time employee. If anyone seriously cares to argue that men can't be replaced as easily to perform as parent I think that they will see that a good contract house can provide a more than qualified replacement with no effort other than perhaps sorting though all the choices available. This then makes it very easy for men to assume part of the burden/role of having children and they can as soon as society begins to realize that all children born today have (somewhere) 2 (TWO) parents without either one of which there would have been no child to worry about raising. Jeanette L.Zobjeck wlcrjs! ihnp4!< >zubbie ihlpa!