What Does Equal Pay for Equal Work Mean?

[scholle-kid]

"In America everybody is of the opinion that he has no social superiors, since all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards." ~ Bertrand Russell



Well, that didn't take long.

In the first official bill signing of his administration, President Barack Obama struck a blow for the equality of all workers! Or at least that's what he (and I reckon his supporters) think he did. There is much to discuss with regard to this issue, and I'll get to that, but before I do, I think I better head off some knee-jerk reactions that this essay might generate.

No, I'm not a Republican, and even though House Republicans sought to block this bill, I am under no illusion that many of them have even a faint clue. (Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.)

No, I'm not of the opinion that men and women should be paid differently for the same work, but frankly, that's not my decision to make. Given that value is subjective, I am not even sure what the term, "the same work" even means. (I will cover both of these issues below.)

What Is Important versus What Is Not

If anyone needed indication that many of the House Republicans who opposed this bill were just as clueless as many of the House Democrats who supported it, this quote should mitigate that confusion.

Opponents contended the bill would gut the statute of limitations and benefit trial lawyers by encouraging lawsuits. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards.

Maybe this is true, but who cares? The big issue is not such technicalities, although playing the system has become high sport. The best way to keep people from "gaming" the system is to have a lot less of it. (The government creates this system.)

At some point during the glad-handing after the bill was signed, First Lady Michelle Obama said, speaking of Lilly Ledbetter, the woman for whom the bill is named, "She knew unfairness when she saw it, and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do -- plain and simple."

What does unfairness have to do with the work of government? If the State can root out something as nebulous as unfairness with the stroke of a pen, it's only a matter of time before they can finally stop not only lying and cheating, but also a legitimate concern, like say, tooth decay as well! I can't wait.

Campaign For Liberty — What Does "Equal Pay for Equal Work" Mean?   | by Wilt Alston

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

scholle-kid;1165948 wrote: "In America everybody is of the opinion that he has no social superiors, since all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards." ~ Bertrand Russell



Well, that didn't take long.

In the first official bill signing of his administration, President Barack Obama struck a blow for the equality of all workers! Or at least that's what he (and I reckon his supporters) think he did. There is much to discuss with regard to this issue, and I'll get to that, but before I do, I think I better head off some knee-jerk reactions that this essay might generate.

No, I'm not a Republican, and even though House Republicans sought to block this bill, I am under no illusion that many of them have even a faint clue. (Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.)

No, I'm not of the opinion that men and women should be paid differently for the same work, but frankly, that's not my decision to make. Given that value is subjective, I am not even sure what the term, "the same work" even means. (I will cover both of these issues below.)

What Is Important versus What Is Not

If anyone needed indication that many of the House Republicans who opposed this bill were just as clueless as many of the House Democrats who supported it, this quote should mitigate that confusion.

Opponents contended the bill would gut the statute of limitations and benefit trial lawyers by encouraging lawsuits. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards.

Maybe this is true, but who cares? The big issue is not such technicalities, although playing the system has become high sport. The best way to keep people from "gaming" the system is to have a lot less of it. (The government creates this system.)

At some point during the glad-handing after the bill was signed, First Lady Michelle Obama said, speaking of Lilly Ledbetter, the woman for whom the bill is named, "She knew unfairness when she saw it, and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do -- plain and simple."

What does unfairness have to do with the work of government? If the State can root out something as nebulous as unfairness with the stroke of a pen, it's only a matter of time before they can finally stop not only lying and cheating, but also a legitimate concern, like say, tooth decay as well! I can't wait.

Campaign For Liberty — What Does "Equal Pay for Equal Work" Mean? **| by Wilt Alston


I'm an American and I don't believe that. I think there are clear social structures and there always will be. There are many people better educated than I am, more sophisticated, smarter, etc. On the other the other hand, the opposite is true and frankly I don't much care to socialize with either group.

But the difference is that either status can change for any person given the right effort and circumstances. If my social status is not as high as it could be that is my fault, not the systems.

Now to equal pay for equal work. Of course, that should be the case and it mostly is. There should be no tolerance for inequality if things are equal.

The problem women have is things like when they enter and leave the workforce or even when they change jobs. For example, let's say I want to hire two accountants, one is a man one a woman. The job can pay as high as $80,000 a year. The woman I want to hire is now earning $50,000 a year in a small company and the man is earning $70,000. Now what do I do when I hire them both? If I give them both a 10% raise then instantly the women is considered not to be paid equally. If I hire them both at say $80,000 is it fair that the woman received a $30,000 raise and the man $10,000. Can I afford to do that every time? As the new employer it doesn't matter because a few years from now I will be considered to be not paying equally.

I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, but solving it by waving a magic legislative wand oversimplifies the problem.

[scholle-kid]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1166000 wrote: I'm an American and I don't believe that. I think there are clear social structures and there always will be. There are many people better educated than I am, more sophisticated, smarter, etc. On the other the other hand, the opposite is true and frankly I don't much care to socialize with either group.



But the difference is that either status can change for any person given the right effort and circumstances. If my social status is not as high as it could be that is my fault, not the systems.



Now to equal pay for equal work. Of course, that should be the case and it mostly is. There should be no tolerance for inequality if things are equal.



The problem women have is things like when they enter and leave the workforce or even when they change jobs. For example, let's say I want to hire two accountants, one is a man one a woman. The job can pay as high as $80,000 a year. The woman I want to hire is now earning $50,000 a year in a small company and the man is earning $70,000. Now what do I do when I hire them both? If I give them both a 10% raise then instantly the women is considered not to be paid equally. If I hire them both at say $80,000 is it fair that the woman received a $30,000 raise and the man $10,000. Can I afford to do that every time? As the new employer it doesn't matter because a few years from now I will be considered to be not paying equally.



I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, but solving it by waving a magic legislative wand oversimplifies the problem.




What I don't understand is , why would it matter to you what either the man or the woman accountants made before you hired either of them ?

What someone earns is between the present employer and employee.

Any future employer needs to research a persons real world job experience ,number of jobs , education, skills etc.. What that potential employee earns is none of your business until you start wring his / her pay checks.



In the same context it wouldn't be any of either accounts business what the others last pay scale was or how much of an increase the next pay scale will be.If both have the qualifications you as an employer are looking for and they both show up and do the job then as an employer your obligation to your employees is to pay equal pay for equal work.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

scholle-kid;1166056 wrote: What I don't understand is , why would it matter to you what either the man or the woman accountants made before you hired either of them ?

What someone earns is between the present employer and employee.

Any future employer needs to research a persons real world job experience ,number of jobs , education, skills etc.. What that potential employee earns is none of your business until you start wring his / her pay checks.



In the same context it wouldn't be any of either accounts business what the others last pay scale was or how much of an increase the next pay scale will be.If both have the qualifications you as an employer are looking for and they both show up and do the job then as an employer your obligation to your employees is to pay equal pay for equal work.


Here's why. Let's say in my example we hire both people and give both a nice raise, they are happy and take the job, all is well.

Now, a year later the government does and audit and sees a man and women doing the same job, but being paid differently. Well, they are paid differently so the current employer gets blamed for not paying equally when in fact the woman come to work making a lot more money than she did before. Why would any new employer hire he if it had to pay her an increase several times more than a man just so they pay was "equal." There are a lot of variables as to why two people may not be making the same such as tenure, experience, performance.

[scholle-kid]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1166160 wrote: Here's why. Let's say in my example we hire both people and give both a nice raise, they are happy and take the job, all is well.



Now, a year later the government does and audit and sees a man and women doing the same job, but being paid differently. Well, they are paid differently so the current employer gets blamed for not paying equally when in fact the woman come to work making a lot more money than she did before. Why would any new employer hire he if it had to pay her an increase several times more than a man just so they pay was "equal." There are a lot of variables as to why two people may not be making the same such as tenure, experience, performance.


Well then if one or more of these variables come into play , then we are no longer talking equal work.



Here is a very simple example , I used it in describing to a person on another forum that didn't quite have a grasp what equal meant in the context of pay and work. That is why the 3rd worker is called yourself .

Keep in mind the article I linked to is talking about to much government involvement.



In theory or on paper , equal pay for equal work is absolutely the fair and right way to be.

But in real life it doesn't work that way.

Lets say there are 3 people yourself being one of the three. All three are at work and are making ' hand made' birthday cake candles .

and being paid a hourly wage.

All three start work at the same time take breaks same ...

One of the workers spends more time talking on the call to her boyfriend and gets 44 candles made in an eight hour day.

The second one has a sore toe and spends a lot of time fiddling with her shoe and gets 57 candles made in the same eight hours.

The third , yourself is very single minded and hardworking and get 324 candles made during your eight hour day ,but on pay day all three go home with the same exact amount of pay.

Now logic tells us the other two didn't do equal work so the theory " equal pay for equal work. but with the government regulations and rules and so forth and so on



The 2 women that had less production should have been approached and reprimanded by a supervisor if their behaviour continued. Worker three should have been given recognition for their diligence.

But, Due to the management's hands being tied by collective bargaining agreements, and unreasonable labor laws, this type of disparity is the norm in today's workplace. It seems a a sense of entitlement is replacing the work ethic.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

scholle-kid;1166259 wrote: Well then if one or more of these variables come into play , then we are no longer talking equal work.



Here is a very simple example , I used it in describing to a person on another forum that didn't quite have a grasp what equal meant in the context of pay and work. That is why the 3rd worker is called yourself .

Keep in mind the article I linked to is talking about to much government involvement.



In theory or on paper , equal pay for equal work is absolutely the fair and right way to be.

But in real life it doesn't work that way.

Lets say there are 3 people yourself being one of the three. All three are at work and are making ' hand made' birthday cake candles .

and being paid a hourly wage.

All three start work at the same time take breaks same ...

One of the workers spends more time talking on the call to her boyfriend and gets 44 candles made in an eight hour day.

The second one has a sore toe and spends a lot of time fiddling with her shoe and gets 57 candles made in the same eight hours.

The third , yourself is very single minded and hardworking and get 324 candles made during your eight hour day ,but on pay day all three go home with the same exact amount of pay.

Now logic tells us the other two didn't do equal work so the theory " equal pay for equal work. but with the government regulations and rules and so forth and so on



The 2 women that had less production should have been approached and reprimanded by a supervisor if their behaviour continued. Worker three should have been given recognition for their diligence.

But, Due to the management's hands being tied by collective bargaining agreements, and unreasonable labor laws, this type of disparity is the norm in today's workplace. It seems a a sense of entitlement is replacing the work ethic.


Your logic is sound, but unfortunately that is not the way it works. My example was not made up but real life when I had to defend our pay practices to the EEOC. It is very hard to make the case for variations in performance or even tenure, they don't want to hear it. They look at the macro picture, do calculations and bam, the discrepancies show up, and the "why" they are different is secondary, partly because those other reasons were used for years to explain true discrimination.

In your example, the solution is simply, pay by the piece and as long a the per piece amount is equal you have the perfect performance system.

[scholle-kid]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1166285 wrote: Your logic is sound, but unfortunately that is not the way it works. My example was not made up but real life when I had to defend our pay practices to the EEOC. It is very hard to make the case for variations in performance or even tenure, they don't want to hear it. They look at the macro picture, do calculations and bam, the discrepancies show up, and the "why" they are different is secondary, partly because those other reasons were used for years to explain true discrimination.



In your example, the solution is simply, pay by the piece and as long a the per piece amount is equal you have the perfect performance system.








In theory or on paper , equal pay for equal work is absolutely the fair and right way to be.

But in real life it doesn't work that way.



Lets say there are 3 people yourself being one of the three. All three are at work and are making ' hand made' birthday cake candles .

and being paid a hourly wage.





If it had been a 'pay by piece it would fall under the 'contracted' type work which would put it in a whole other slot.



The 'EEOC" have very few things on a very short list ,that they will except from an employer. So, I am putting 1+1 together and come up with you were not able to say or do anything good enough to prove yourself an equal opportunity employer that totally believes in the equal pay for equal work ,when you were trying to defend yourself to them and so you the employer came out on the short end of the measuring stick .here are the key phrases that told the story to me .



As the new employer it doesn't matter because a few years from now I will be considered to be not paying equally.,,,,,,,they don't want to hear it.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, do calculations and bam, the discrepancies show up, and the "why" they are different is secondary, did i guess right ?





Now, yes my example was a made up fairy tale story ,but it was based on a real life experience ,that as luck would have it was settled to my satisfaction way before the 'EEOC" got involved.



I had a little ten table deli at a small airport and I employed two servers while I did the burger flipping .One of my servers was a 'getting go getter.' Her tables were always well served ,well taken care of and she made the tips to show for her leg work' . The other server was just not that interested in weather her tables needed or wanted anything except the plate of food she delivered . So it wasn't surprising that my first server was in high demand and people would actually set at the uninterested ones tables drinking coffee while waiting for a table to open in the other station. Needless to say, one was going home with enough tips and wages to make it worth her time to come to work, While the other started borassing me for 'more hours and a pay raise ,,,,' No matter how many ways it was explained to her why she wasn't doing so well she just couldn't understand why she wasn't deserving of "equal pay" . well it sorted it's self out by her deciding since I wouldn't give her the raise she felt she deserved , she would just take her raise out of the register. . so like I said it sorted its self out.

[scholle-kid]

Did you follow the link at the bottom of the page on my OP to the article

What Does "Equal Pay for Equal Work" Mean?

By Wilt Alston

[Daniyal]

I Want My Money When It Time To Get Pay , Or It's Going To Be A Bigggggg Problemmmmmmm:) FoRealllllll

[qsducks]

It means to be exact....If I mow the lawn perfectly and the guy does it perfectly he will get paid more and then you'll be reading in the paper that some mad woman mowed a guy down for a reason:wah:

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

scholle-kid;1166415 wrote: In theory or on paper , equal pay for equal work is absolutely the fair and right way to be.

But in real life it doesn't work that way.



Lets say there are 3 people yourself being one of the three. All three are at work and are making ' hand made' birthday cake candles .

and being paid a hourly wage.





If it had been a 'pay by piece it would fall under the 'contracted' type work which would put it in a whole other slot.



The 'EEOC" have very few things on a very short list ,that they will except from an employer. So, I am putting 1+1 together and come up with you were not able to say or do anything good enough to prove yourself an equal opportunity employer that totally believes in the equal pay for equal work ,when you were trying to defend yourself to them and so you the employer came out on the short end of the measuring stick .here are the key phrases that told the story to me .



did i guess right ?





Now, yes my example was a made up fairy tale story ,but it was based on a real life experience ,that as luck would have it was settled to my satisfaction way before the 'EEOC" got involved.



I had a little ten table deli at a small airport and I employed two servers while I did the burger flipping .One of my servers was a 'getting go getter.' Her tables were always well served ,well taken care of and she made the tips to show for her leg work' . The other server was just not that interested in weather her tables needed or wanted anything except the plate of food she delivered . So it wasn't surprising that my first server was in high demand and people would actually set at the uninterested ones tables drinking coffee while waiting for a table to open in the other station. Needless to say, one was going home with enough tips and wages to make it worth her time to come to work, While the other started borassing me for 'more hours and a pay raise ,,,,' No matter how many ways it was explained to her why she wasn't doing so well she just couldn't understand why she wasn't deserving of "equal pay" . well it sorted it's self out by her deciding since I wouldn't give her the raise she felt she deserved , she would just take her raise out of the register. . so like I said it sorted its self out.




It appears you get my point. If everything is equal then pay should also be equal. But the other factors must be considered. If you have females getting smaller raises and lower perfoamcne appraisal consistently something is wrong. If men get all the promotions something is wrong, but if a number of people are doing the same job it does not mean they should all be receiving the same pay.

[fuzzywuzzy]

but if a number of people are doing the same job it does not mean they should all be receiving the same pay.


WHAT? :-5

Same job= same expertise= same rate of pay.

[carolgreen]

A brand new report says that, regardless of the growing workforce, double standards remain when it comes to when women are paid vs. their male counterparts. In addition, the report says, the gender wage gap is evident almost instantly after graduation from university, and follows professional women throughout their entire careers.