Equal pay for women Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
seamar_116
Posts: 3653 (0)
Hall of Famer
304
Hall of Famer
How do you feel about this philosophically...two people doing the exact same job, both profiting the company equally....should they be compensated equally?

I agree that you are not the bad guy.

Should a company take advantage of the circumstances of their employees in order to get them to work for as little as possible? For example, if i know that you have a child or spouse with a significant medical problem that would preclude them from getting health insurance elsewhere (pre-Affordable Healthcare Act), should I ethically use that as tool to get you to work for less because I know you can't go without health insurance?

10/18/2012 4:59 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
I understand where you are coming from but none of that actually answers the question.

I guess we can look at unions as an example of where there is much more equality of pay, and seniority carries better wages and more benefits, but there are also many problems with a lot of unions.

Look no further than the bankruptcy of GM, or the Teacher's union where seniority trumps effectiveness. After so many years a teacher gets tenured and can basically not be fired unless they molest a child or some crazy sh*t like that. Doesn't matter how ineffective they are or how poorly they do their job. Is that really a good idea? Personally I don't think so.

I abhor that kind of mentality. If I am the newest member of a team and am out performing everyone else in only my 2nd year, is it really a good idea that if a reduction in force becomes necessary I am the guy let go? Not the lazy *** who has been there for 15 years and no longer pulls his weight, but me, the hard worker and most effective member of the team. That isn't good for business at all, and yet that is how most unions are run.

So while I agree that many times businesses are unfair to the workers and are greedy, I can't agree that unions are the right answer.

So what IS a good solution?
10/18/2012 5:38 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Posted by antoncresten on 10/18/2012 5:14:00 AM (view original):
GREED IS GOOD

PIGS
Grown ups only please.

You've got a dozen or more threads to spam with your one-liners and picture posting.
If you can't add something constructive go play in one of your other threads.

10/18/2012 6:10 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/18/2012 4:59:00 AM (view original):
How do you feel about this philosophically...two people doing the exact same job, both profiting the company equally....should they be compensated equally?

I agree that you are not the bad guy.

Should a company take advantage of the circumstances of their employees in order to get them to work for as little as possible? For example, if i know that you have a child or spouse with a significant medical problem that would preclude them from getting health insurance elsewhere (pre-Affordable Healthcare Act), should I ethically use that as tool to get you to work for less because I know you can't go without health insurance?

A company's purpose is to make money.    Pay as little as possible and charge as much as possible.   The employee needs to negotiate a fair rate.

My wife recently took a new job.  I told her, before the 2nd interview, to decide what she needed for the job description and not just accept what they offered.   They offered her the job and asked what sort of compensation she needed.   She told them and they agreed.   In retrospect, I think they would have paid more but, in the end, she got what she asked for.

While no one else is doing the exact same thing, does she have a complaint if she finds a male employee with a similar skillset/work duties is making more?  I don't think so.
10/18/2012 8:48 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
That's a good point also Mike.

Most applications or interviewers ask you directly "What are your salary demands"?

I know I've lost out on jobs in the past because I asked for too much. Those are the breaks. Ask for too little and screw yourself, ask for too much and miss out on the job.

Do we change that whole dynamic? Can we really?


10/18/2012 9:09 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You can't if you work under the premise that a company's goal is to make money. 

You could at what is referred to as a "non-profit" but forcing companies to make sure everyone is paid the same wage for equal duties requires a lot of government monitoring/enforcing.    I suppose the Dem party is probably good with that but I'm not sure we need more Big Brother in our lives.
10/18/2012 9:23 AM
seamar_116
Posts: 3653 (0)
Hall of Famer
304
Hall of Famer
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/18/2012 5:39:00 AM (view original):
I understand where you are coming from but none of that actually answers the question.

I guess we can look at unions as an example of where there is much more equality of pay, and seniority carries better wages and more benefits, but there are also many problems with a lot of unions.

Look no further than the bankruptcy of GM, or the Teacher's union where seniority trumps effectiveness. After so many years a teacher gets tenured and can basically not be fired unless they molest a child or some crazy sh*t like that. Doesn't matter how ineffective they are or how poorly they do their job. Is that really a good idea? Personally I don't think so.

I abhor that kind of mentality. If I am the newest member of a team and am out performing everyone else in only my 2nd year, is it really a good idea that if a reduction in force becomes necessary I am the guy let go? Not the lazy *** who has been there for 15 years and no longer pulls his weight, but me, the hard worker and most effective member of the team. That isn't good for business at all, and yet that is how most unions are run.

So while I agree that many times businesses are unfair to the workers and are greedy, I can't agree that unions are the right answer.

So what IS a good solution?
mchale...again, I agree with most of what you say. I am a teacher, and have been a reluctant union member, in the past. (working without that now, and again, no choice. Fortunately I totally trust the people I work with.) I agree that there are bad teachers who should be out the door. But I also think you have to be able to protect people from capricious, vindictive, and incompetent administrators and I have seen those as well.

For occupations where it is easier to assess job performance, like sales for example, it does seem pretty simple, like you say. But for occupations/professions like teaching, it is much more complex to measure as there are so many factors beyond the teacher's control, and the fact that education has become highly politicized.

How would one assess a doctor's or nurse's performance? We can't easily assign monetary values to everything that everyone in society does that accurately reflect the value of the contribution to society. (see A-rod!)

As far as the solution....I think it involves the Second Coming, personally.

10/19/2012 5:02 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Your first paragraph speaks of a problem that is hard to fix easily. Obviously the need for unions arose because of those types of administrators. Unfortunately as seems to be the case in most instances the pendulum swings from all the way one side to all the way the other, and seldom stops anywhere near the middle which is where it actually belongs.

While I am sympathetic to the "beyond our control" sentiment, I think there ARE fair methods that could be used to evaluate performance. For instance if you compare teachers in the same school and same grade, and over a 5 year period teacher X's students consistently under perform compared to the other 5, while teacher Y's students consistently do better than the rest, I think that is an indication that teacher Y has performed better over those 5 years while teacher X has performed poorly.

I'm certain it isn't a perfect system, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.


Concerning your tongue-in-cheek A-Rod comment, that brings to mind an idea I had many years ago that was never met with much positive feedback, though I think it has merit. Namely the idea of assigning "value" to certain lines of work determined by overall contribution to society as a whole.

So that teachers, firefighters, police and doctors, for example, would be classed near the top while entertainers, and sports figures would be classed near the bottom. In this system taxation would be heavier for those near the bottom and lower for those near the top.

So you'd have a your normal tax bracket, but also a "tax class" that would increase or decrease that base %.

Although many conservatives are dead set against the notion of penalizing success and hard work. I think many of them could live with hiking the taxes of people like A-Rod and Kim Kardashian.

10/19/2012 9:03 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Why do you think conservatives would be fine with hiking the taxes on A-Rod and KK?

Entertainment is an important part of society.  Does it save lives?  I don't think so.   But it takes people away from every day concerns.

It's really hard to argue against higher taxation for the Kardashians but, if you want to be fair, you don't tax people at different rates based on their "value" to society.   Hell, that's worse than "tax the rich".

10/19/2012 9:08 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Why is it bad?

Why shouldn't your contribution to society be a factor?



10/19/2012 9:24 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Who decides your "value" to society?
10/19/2012 9:33 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'll use an example of A-Rod's value(outside of entertainment):

Without the A-Rods of the world, there are no beer vendors at Yankee Stadium.  In fact, there is no Yankee Stadium.  But, for fun, we'll pretend beer vendors and Yankee Stadium exist.   A-Rod has more value to society than a beer vendor.  In fact, people can get up and get their own beer if they wanted(they can't hit 98 MPH fastballs so we stil need A-Rod, you know, when he could hit).   So, if we tax A-Rod at 50%, what do we tax the beer vendor?  75%?
10/19/2012 9:41 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Another example(using me this time):

Small business owner, trucking company.    "If you got it, a truck brought it."    I'm obviously one of the most important people on earth.   Except I can't build trucks nor do I drive them.   So, without truck builders and drivers, I'm nobody.    What's my value now?
10/19/2012 9:47 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
You are basically arguing that if we raised taxes on A-Rod he would no longer play baseball. I don't think that is true at all.

I have a hard time seeing A-Rod's 25 million in the same light as a Business owner's 25 million. As the Business owner had to take risks to build his business and directly employs many workers.

I am not nearly as comfortable with the notion of further burdening the business man with higher taxes, while I don't have nearly the same anxiety about doing so to A-Rod. Maybe I'm just twisted, but I feel fundamentally that they are apples and oranges.

10/19/2012 9:52 AM
12 Next ▸
Equal pay for women Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.