Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women Subject: Re: opportunities, women Message-ID: <2177@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 09:44:33 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2177 Posted: Thu Jul 11 09:44:33 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 01:03:41 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>, <2158@watcgl.UUCP> <5771@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 67 Xref: watmath can.politics:626 net.women:6331 > > What exactly is cosmetic about equal pay for work of equal value? > > I would certainly insist on being paid what my work is worth, > > wouldn't you? > > Do you really expect to convince a bureaucrat from the Ministry of > Economic Justice that you are more competent than a female ethnic > handicapped Francophone with similar *formal* qualifications... even > if you are? > > Competence is much harder to assess than skin color or shape. Who > can blame a bored civil servant for taking the easy way out? > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I think that that analysis is somewhat misleading. It is more likely that an equivalence would be established between certain categories of jobs with the intent that if you were doing a job that was just as important to the existence of a company as someone doing a different job in the company then the wage *brackets* of those two jobs would be the same. Pay within the brackets for an individual would then be assessed in the usual (arbitrary :-)) way. If the bored civil servant is not doing their job (taking easy way out) then that is the problem to be rectified not discarding the program they are supposedly administering. Another comment not directed specifically at you Henry. It seems to me that whenever EPWOEV is mentioned there are all these examples generated as to how unfair it would be and what an administrative nightmare it would become. I'd like to say the following: 1. these types of job assessment skills are not difficult or unique. Reasonable formulas have been developed for measuring the levels of skill, difficulty, danger, intangible reward etc of jobs and these can be applied in an unbiased way. Personnel depts. are staffed with people who are capable of applying these formulas if they were directed to do so. So the amount of government bureacracy would not be any greater than that required for enforcing any other regulation/law etc. 2. As far as I can see no political party really *wants* to have to implement this legislation (except perhaps the NDP who won't, realistically, form too many governments in the near future). The private sector howls and screams every time EPFWOEV is mentioned but if they were to treat their employees with some measure of justice it is extremely unlikely that EPFWOEV would become a legal force (although I think it probably should be in any case). If on the other hand they continue to maintain a blatantly unfair system then they shouldn't be surprised to find someone making them clean up their act. 3. EPFWOEV detractors continually mention how expensive this would all be; as I've said in 1. above this isn't necessarily so but let's assume it might be anyhow for the sake of argument. We are talking about a *huge* segment of society, primarily women and (very) secondarily men of various social/ethnic categories who are plain and simple being treated unfairly. Now if justice is expensive then that may be a problem but it is not the problem of EPFWOEV. I think denying some subset of the participants in this society justice in some (any) particular arena based on economic arguments is a crock. When the group under consideration is constitutes the majority of society the denial is even less credible. John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman