steve%revolver@gatech.EDU (Steve Fischer) (06/14/89)
I'd like to bring up something I'm sure you've all heard discussed some-
where before, at sometime but, since the issue has not been settled, it may
be worth the expense of a few more paragraphs.
There is a movement afoot, associated most often with feminist organi-
zations, to create a system for evaluating the "inherent worth" of any given
job, and to set pay scales accordingly. For example, how do clerical jobs
compare with blue-collar jobs like truck driving, construction, etc. Factors
often cited as input into making such evaluations include education, years of
previous job experience, etc.
Critics argue that such a system ignores the reality of the free-market
to set rates based on the desirability of the required skills coupled with the
relative numbers of persons available to supply those positions. Cynics contend
that this represents nothing less than a rash attempt to increase the wages of
relatively low paid clerical workers, most of whom are women, at the expense of
other workers.
Is such an analytical system possible or even fair? Take two examples,
for instance. Should a garbage collector with a PhD make more money than
one with no high school education? Should a typist with a PhD make more than
one with a high school education? The problem is that if you assign arbitrary
"point values" to particular achievements/skills, you can come up with some
pretty ridiculous results - like the examples above.
The market measures two things: the relevance of the skill to the success
of the company, and the ease of access to that labor pool, in terms of supply.
An arbitrary point system only measures the skills of the individual, but does
not relate them, necessarily, to the job at hand. As such, it seems inherently
absurd. Comments?md1y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Matthew William Daly) (06/19/89)
Basic situation -- consider two people: A gets hired as a secretary, has a HS diploma and very little relevant job experience. His starting salary is $4 an hour. B gets hired to change light bulbs in traffic signals. He has a HS diploma and little relevant job experience. His starting salary is $5.75 an hour. (To stave off pronoun attacks, both of these are jobs that I have held in my colorful career. I am speaking personally, and use "he" masculinely, not generically.) I can assure you that it takes no more effort or intelligence to hold either of these jobs, and yet B gets paid over 40% more! The question before us is whether it is reasonable for pay equity to be introduced -- whether Person A should be paid $5.75 for the work he does. ============= Looking at the situation from a theoretical viewpoint, I think that the point that is being made is that people who put the same amount of effort into the work world should be paid the same amount of money. If this is truly the rationale, then a more reasonable first step should be attempted first. An unwritten assumption here is that all secretaries do the same amount of work. Would we first pass laws that all secretaries should be paid the same? ============= Instead of doing away with a capitalistic system in favor of one where the government sets pay scales, I think that we should look at the people who would benefit from pay equity, and see if there isn't an alternate method of helping them increase their salaries. Person X is being paid $5.00 to make widgets, and they think they deserve $6.00. X goes to their boss, who refuses to give a raise. Person X, at this point, should find a company that feels that an experienced widget-maker deserves $6.00 and move there. If there is no such company, then X should get training to move to a field that pays better, or should organize a widget-maker's strike, or should better their education in order to become a widget-making-manager. ================= (Obligatory women's issue) It has struck me that the reason that pay equity comes across as a feminist issue is that women in general are not willing to take steps like jumping to another company. Is this a valid observation? If so, how can we correct it? Constructive comments are welcome, of course. -Matthew
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (06/20/89)
In article <18184@paris.ics.uci.edu>, md1y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Matthew William Daly) writes: > A gets hired as a secretary, has a HS diploma and very little relevant > job experience. His starting salary is $4 an hour. > > B gets hired to change light bulbs in traffic signals. He has a HS > diploma and little relevant job experience. His starting salary is > $5.75 an hour. > > I can assure you that it takes no more effort or intelligence to hold > either of these jobs, and yet B gets paid over 40% more! > > The question before us is whether it is reasonable for pay equity to > be introduced -- whether Person A should be paid $5.75 for the work he > does. There is, unfortunately, a large percentage of people who are unwilling to change traffic light bulbs for $5.75/hr, but who are quite willing to type for $4.00/hr. Indeed, this is *why* an employer does not need to pay $5.75/hr to hire sufficient typists, but must pay $5.75/hr to hire sufficient people for traffic equipment maintenance. (For the sake of argument, I am accepting the accuracy of the rates in the example.) To this group of people, the wage differential sends a loud message: "If you want more money, become more flexible in the jobs you are willing to take." The whole reason this becomes a gender issue is because, due to objectionable socialization, this group I have carefully discussed in neutral terms is mostly female. It remains the case that, as you sit in your car and observe people working about you outside getting dirty -- working on the road, painting buildings, changing traffic light bulbs, washing cars, cleaning the street, pruning trees, laying pipe, patching tires, roofing, mowing, et much cetera -- they are almost all men. When the average woman is just as willing to do these jobs as she is to type, given the same pay, then, and only then, will typing have the same pay and status as these other jobs. As long as the average woman prefers typing to such jobs as these requiring similar levels of skill, typists (of both sexes) will pay for this preference in lower wage rates. Russell PS: (Some people will suggest that the situation is more symmetrical than I suggest, since men, after all, are unwilling to so such things as typing. This is untrue. The day that typing pays $1/hr more than manual labor, most of the former manual laborers who know how to type will become typists. The problem is that this flexibility is not now a two-way street. Fortunately, we raise our daughters differently from the way our parents did, so things are changing.)