robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/03/85)
In article <900@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >There aren't any affirmative action policies in Canada yet (except >for the bilingualism program). Didn't you see the stuff in the papers >recently about the report on employment integration and proposed >affirmative action? (Sorry, I can't quite remember the name of the woman >who wrote the report, nor the title) That would have been just about >the first instance of official affirmative action in this country. Personally, I'd prefer to see AA policies in Canada than "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value" (known as "comparable pay" in the US). My reasoning is that although AA may result in a loss of productivity in the short run as lesser qualified people are hired in order to satisfy policy requirements all that would really be happening is the speeding up of a process that is not only inevitable but also desirable. EPFWOEV, on the other hand, would result in the *government* setting pay scales - a radical departure from the free market system and a move that is sure to have a depressing effect on an already depressed economy. I see that EPFWOEV is all but assured for Ontario's public and *private* sectors. I've got two questions: 1) To anyone that cares to respond- Surely something in the Constitution prohibits the government from telling the private sector how much to pay its employees? 2) To Comrades Rae and Peterson, the soon-to-be premiers- How much are electrical engineers worth? (I hope they decide it's what they make at Ontario Hydro - I'd rather be overpaid than underpaid any day) Since EPFWOEV will (initially) be restricted to individual organizations it seems to me that the smart move for an entry level computer professional would be to gain employment with with as large a company as possible. Then, survey the wage levels of the various blue collar jobs and when you find that job that pays the most, which you can bet your iron ring pays more than you're making, take your case to the wage police and get a totally undeserved but nonetheless welcome raise. (don't forget about the B.C. grocery clerks who make $16.45/hour for stocking shelves) J.B. Robinson
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/03/85)
<Looks like someone forgot their reality pills this morning> >My reasoning is that although AA may result in a loss of productivity... >EPFWOEV, on the other hand, would result in the *government* setting >pay scales > >J.B. Robinson Could someone please explain to me how a program of equal pay for work of equal value translates into a scheme of wage police ? Even radically socialist places like Sweden don't do this. Is someone flying off the handle in a typical arch-conservative manner, or is mere faulty reasoning at work? If it's the latter, I'd like to hear it ! Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !
jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) (06/03/85)
J. Robinson writes > > Since EPFWOEV will (initially) be restricted to individual organizations > it seems to me that the smart move for an entry level computer > professional would be to gain employment with with as large a company > as possible. Then, survey the wage levels of the various blue collar > jobs and when you find that job that pays the most, which you can bet your > iron ring pays more than you're making, take your case to the wage police > and get a totally undeserved but nonetheless welcome raise. (don't forget > about the B.C. grocery clerks who make $16.45/hour for stocking shelves) The way I understand the EPFWOEV legislation, it does not say that the lower paid person must get a raise; it is equally acceptable (as far as the legislation is concerned) that the higher paid person get a wage cut.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/04/85)
In article <140@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >Could someone please explain to me how a program of equal pay for work of equal >value translates into a scheme of wage police ? Even radically socialist >places like Sweden don't do this. Is someone flying off the handle in >a typical arch-conservative manner, or is mere faulty reasoning at work? > >If it's the latter, I'd like to hear it ! EPFWOEV is *not* supposed to be a voluntary program. It is supposed to be *the law*. Now, typically when a society has laws there exists some means with which to enforce these laws. The reason that a means of enforcement is necessary is because no matter what the law is, there is someone, somewhere, who will break this law. Enter the dreaded "wage police" (actually I suspect in true big gov't style a "Ministry of Wages" will be created.) Their job would probably be, at a minimum, to determine whether a complainant is justified in receiving greater pay on the basis of evidence presented. (In this sense, I admit, they are more than mere police) If they rule in favour of the complainant, they would presumably then *order* the employer to increase the wages of all the workers in the affected job classification. In effect, the "wage police", read government, will be setting wage levels. Undoubtedly, the role of the "wage police" will be much greater than as described above. They'll probably spend oodles of money and time attempting to classify every existing job category in the country so that decisions could be rendered quickly. They would also probably be actively monitoring the wage levels of the various job classifications in major companies looking for non-compliances (a ha, they are police after all) with the law. I imagine the NDP wouldn't have it any other way. I have tried to keep the above simple and straightforward and I'm sure that if we've all dutifully taken our "reality pills" this morning there shouldn't be too much trouble in following it. I've asked this before and nobody nibbled so I'll ask Mr. Shaw specifically. If EPFWOEV is necessary because it is only "fair" that two people involved in jobs of "equal value" in the same organization receive the same remuneration, then how can it be justified that two people in *different* organizations doing exactly the same work (or work of "equal value") not be paid exactly the same amount? Is it not "fair" that they should be paid the same? Is this not the next logical step? Wouldn't this, coincidentally, make life extremely easy for the unions as they piggy-back their way to ever increasing wages? J.B. Robinson P.S. If anyone can explain to me how there can exist *effective* EPFWOEV legislation without a means of enforcement (i.e. "wage police") I'd love to hear it.
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (06/04/85)
In article <1094@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >EPFWOEV is *not* supposed to be a voluntary program. > >It is supposed to be *the law*. > >Now, typically when a society has laws there exists some means with >which to enforce these laws. > >The reason that a means of enforcement is necessary is because >no matter what the law is, there is someone, somewhere, who will >break this law. There are lots of kinds of enforcement. Some types of enforcement relies on the complainant; others establish an enforcement arm. In the former variety, the onus is essentially on the complainant to establish that an offence took place (human rights legislation -- in the 9 provinces that still have it -- is of this kind); criminal law generally relies on a police force. Much legislation is enforced by a combination of complaint and official enforcement. >Enter the dreaded "wage police" (actually I suspect in true big gov't >style a "Ministry of Wages" will be created.) Their job would probably >be, at a minimum, to determine whether a complainant is justified in >receiving greater pay on the basis of evidence presented. (In this sense, >I admit, they are more than mere police) The technical term is ``administrative tribunal''. Such tribunals are very common; in BC, we have the Labour Relations Board, the Workers' Compensation Board, and -- in the bad old days before BC got Canada's best human rights legislation -- the Human Rights Branch. The office of the Ombudsman is given the role of ensuring that these tribunals behave fairly. The premise (in the days of the evil socialists) was that a tribunal can foster conciliation, rather than throwing every dispute into the courts. >If they rule in favour of the complainant, they would presumably then >*order* the employer to increase the wages of all the workers in the >affected job classification. In effect, the "wage police", read >government, will be setting wage levels. Depends how broad the ruling is. In any case government sets wage levels anyway (and in my case, I wish they'd do a better job of it). >Undoubtedly, the role of the "wage police" will be much greater than >as described above. They'll probably spend oodles of money and time >attempting to classify every existing job category in the country so >that decisions could be rendered quickly. No evidence. >They would also probably be actively monitoring the wage levels of the >various job classifications in major companies looking for non-compliances >(a ha, they are police after all) with the law. I imagine the NDP >wouldn't have it any other way. You imagine wrong. Read NDP policy on the subject some time. >I've asked this before and nobody nibbled so I'll ask Mr. Shaw >specifically. If EPFWOEV is necessary because it is only "fair" >that two people involved in jobs of "equal value" in the same organization >receive the same remuneration, then how can it be justified that two people >in *different* organizations doing exactly the same work (or work of "equal >value") not be paid exactly the same amount? Is it not "fair" that they >should be paid the same? Is this not the next logical step? Wouldn't this, >coincidentally, make life extremely easy for the unions as they piggy-back >their way to ever increasing wages? The defect of this argument is that there is a large combination of factors which come into play. It is clearly unreasonable to expect the same behaviour of a company which is just hovering above bankruptcy as that of a company which has just reported record profits. Further, very often the responsibility distribution is different in different organisation. In fact, the question of equal pay for work of equal value is a very long term one. Its full implementation will take at least a century. In that time scale, the first step is to ensure that employers treat their employees fairly. We all have to give up some ``rights'' in the process (just as we no longer have the right to own slaves or the right to burgle other peoples' houses). >P.S. If anyone can explain to me how there can exist *effective* EPFWOEV >legislation without a means of enforcement (i.e. "wage police") I'd >love to hear it. There's no way. I'm not an anarchist (which I suspect Jim is), and therefore accept the need to have the State limit my freedoms in order to make our society fairer.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/04/85)
In article <1095@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) writes: >In article <1094@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: OK, I'll grant that the phrase "wage police" was not an entirely appropriate one, but ...... >>If they rule in favour of the complainant, they would presumably then >>*order* the employer to increase the wages of all the workers in the >>affected job classification. In effect, the "wage police", read >>government, will be setting wage levels. > >Depends how broad the ruling is. In any case government sets wage >levels anyway (and in my case, I wish they'd do a better job of it). I don't get it. If, for example, a secretary goes before the tribunal with the claim that she is performing work that is equivalent to that of, say, a truck driver and therefore deserves the same pay, and assuming that she wins her case, then would not all secretaries with the same classification as hers be beneficiaries of that ruling? I don't see how it could be otherwise. It certainly would not be fair if she was the only one to have her wage increased. Yes, the government does set wage levels - for *its* employees. (Actually, this isn't really true since most government employees tend to belong to unions which results in collective bargaining; i.e. the government does not *unilaterally* set the wages of its employees.) >>Undoubtedly, the role of the "wage police" will be much greater than >>as described above. They'll probably spend oodles of money and time >>attempting to classify every existing job category in the country so >>that decisions could be rendered quickly. > >No evidence. True, but given the runaway nature of government I wouldn't be surprised at all. >>They would also probably be actively monitoring the wage levels of the >>various job classifications in major companies looking for non-compliances >>(a ha, they are police after all) with the law. I imagine the NDP >>wouldn't have it any other way. > >You imagine wrong. Read NDP policy on the subject some time. You're right, I don't know NDP policy on the matter, so while I've still got the attention of someone who does: -Once two job categories were deemed equivalent and the wages adjusted accordingly, would said wages be forever "locked" together - or only until the next contract? -If two job categories were deemed not quite equivalent, but say that job A was determined to be 95% of the value of job B, would workers in job A be entitled to a wage level that is at least 95% of those in B? This would seem to be the "fair" way to me, however, it also raises the interesting possibility of the wages in all job categories being "linked" together. I.e. it would not be possible to raise the pay in one category without having this perturbation ripple its way throughout possibly every category. -Would it be allowable to adjust wages *down* instead of up? -What would be the criteria used in determining whether two jobs were of "equal value"? -Approximately how many jobs would be affected by the implementation of EPFWOEV in the private sector? -What is the estimated cost *to* the private sector? >>I've asked this before and nobody nibbled so I'll ask Mr. Shaw >>specifically. If EPFWOEV is necessary because it is only "fair" >>that two people involved in jobs of "equal value" in the same organization >>receive the same remuneration, then how can it be justified that two people >>in *different* organizations doing exactly the same work (or work of "equal >>value") not be paid exactly the same amount? Is it not "fair" that they >>should be paid the same? Is this not the next logical step? Wouldn't this, >>coincidentally, make life extremely easy for the unions as they piggy-back >>their way to ever increasing wages? > >The defect of this argument is that there is a large combination of factors >which come into play. It is clearly unreasonable to expect the same behaviour >of a company which is just hovering above bankruptcy as that of a company >which has just reported record profits. Further, very often the >responsibility distribution is different in different organisation. Companies which are on the brink of bankruptcy are not excluded from minimum wage laws, equal pay for equal work laws, or health and safety laws, so I don't see why they would be excluded from EPFWOEV legislation - remember, we're talking about fairness, not convenience. At any rate assuming it is possible to decide that in org. X such *disparate* occupations as secretarial work and truck driving are equivalent then I see no leap of faith involved in extending this process across companies. Thus, I still maintain that given that the point of EPFWOEV legislation is to promote "fairness" in wage levels, the "next logical step" as outlined above would therefore be to extend it across companies. And, I would be very surprised if such lobbying efforts did not immediately start upon implementation of EPFWOEV laws. >>P.S. If anyone can explain to me how there can exist *effective* EPFWOEV >>legislation without a means of enforcement (i.e. "wage police") I'd >>love to hear it. > >There's no way. I'm not an anarchist (which I suspect Jim is), and therefore >accept the need to have the State limit my freedoms in order to make our >society fairer. Sorry, Vince, I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist. In fact, I wouldn't even consider myself a libertarian. Yes, in my Utopia there is a role for government. However, given government's poor performance record on managing the economy the thought of *more* government intervention is not very comforting. As for making society fairer, I think this is where we reach an ideological impasse. I believe that equality of *opportunity* is for all intents and purposes a "right". EPFWOEV does nothing for equality of opportunity. It does take a step towards economic equality. However, especially given the existence of minimum wage laws and equal pay for equal work laws, I find it impossible to consider economic equality to be anything even remotely approaching a "right". Thus, I have no qualms in dismissing the notion that EPFWOEV is a necessary component in a fair society. I'll accept that public education and (almost) free medical care are components of a fair society; but EPFWOEV? - no. I also submit that society as a whole would not benefit from EPFWOEV. This is due to the fact that paying non-market value wages represents an inefficient allocation of resources which will result in a drop in productivity and world-wide competitiveness, which will in the long run result in a decline in the standard of living. Don't forget that about 30% of Canada's GNP is generated by exports. J.B. Robinson