Equal pay for equal work: How does that work?

JumpinJack said:

Pay IS based on performance at most places. Where it is not, it's because the business has decided that (like at fast food places, where performance really is meaningless).

The min. wage is a minimum. A base. It is unrelated to performance or merit or tenure raises. It merely ensures that someone who works a full time job, has at least a minimum wage to live on. Lower than that amount is not a liveable wage.

It is sad that a law is necessary. Businesses should do this on their own. But they don't. That's the free market, though. If your competitor underpays its employees, you have to, too, if you want to continue to compete. With a law setting a minimum, though, that takes that competitive have-to-pay-less off the table, at least somewhat.

If a business can't pay a living wage to full time employees, it's not really a viable business. Having to rely on slave labor to run your business is not the American way or in the spirit of American entrepreneurship. Businesses may need to employ fewer workers, be more efficient, or let other more successsful businesses take their shops over. Even if there are fewer jobs, this is a good thing, IMO. Having a lot of slave labor jobs presents a false employment picture and doesn't help the country's economy.

Click to expand...

I partially agree with what you say.. we are a bit straying here from equal pay to min wage arguments though.
As to the living wage bit. Suppose you have a small business and you figure you have enough money that you could pay two employees a 'living wage'
One of them sits at the counter as a cashier and the other does your shipping at receiving.
So you then ponder.. well the shipping and receiving is a much harder job than cashier. but if I pay the cashier a living wage I cant afford to pay my shipping and receiving person more and the job 'should' make more than a cashier makes.
So do you -
Pay them the same and likely have a disgruntled ship/receiv employee?
Pay the cashier living wage and pay the shipper more but raise the prices on your product risking losing business to pay for it?
Pay the cashier living wage and pay the shipper more but cut some perks you give them to pay for it?
Pay the cashier living wage but add more duties to their job risking not having prompt service to your customers at times and pay the shipper more ?
Or pay the cashier less than a living wage and the shipper the living wage as the cashiers duties are not worth as much?

JumpinJack said:

How unusual that your employer posted all the wages of all its employees. What place was that?

Click to expand...

It was a union job, everyone knew how much everyone made.
But at other jobs.. people talk. companies don't like it and some even make it a policy not to discuss your pay.. but unless you have a contract that requires you not to discuss it they cant stop people.

radcen said:

If I have two bottle washers, one male and one female, are they supposed to be paid the same no matter what?

Click to expand...

All other things being equal, yes.

What if one has been employed by me for 6 years while the other has been with me for only a year? Do they still get paid the same?

Click to expand...

Men and women should generally be eligible for the same promotions, same pay scales, same bonuses, same benefits.

What if one can wash 100 bottles an hour, while the other one can wash only 40 bottles an hour? Are they still supposed to get paid the same? They're both bottle washers doing the same job, aren't they?

Click to expand...

You don't have to promote everyone at the same rate. You can fire an underperforming employee.

What you cannot do is systemically underpay female employees, systemically pass them up for promotion, systemically refuse to hire them, systemically fire them.

Most (but not all) of these issues have been bashed out in the courts. Here's a FAQ on the issue:
Know Your Rights at Work: The Equal Pay Act: AAUW

Fishking said:

Errrr...I'm currently at 14 years and it's definitely not equal pay for equal work and not everyone gets kicked out or quits, not by a long shot. I work in a joint service environment so I've been exposed to all the branches and the only one that may be close to what you described are the Marines.

Click to expand...

Read #17.

And #25.

They both address what you said.

EMNofSeattle said:

The point remains, when you're the government and don't want to pay overtime that equal pay thing works out great

Click to expand...

EPEW works for salary, and for hourly wages, too. It's not that hard. The main reason why the business world doesn't want to do it has nothing to do with courts or out-of-control-guv'mint or anything like that...but it has everything to do with the fact that for as long as any of us can remember, women are generally paid about 3/4 what men are paid for the same doggone job...and Big Business doesn't want to have to pony up the rest of what the women deserve.

SocialD said:

I partially agree with what you say.. we are a bit straying here from equal pay to min wage arguments though.
As to the living wage bit. Suppose you have a small business and you figure you have enough money that you could pay two employees a 'living wage'
One of them sits at the counter as a cashier and the other does your shipping at receiving.
So you then ponder.. well the shipping and receiving is a much harder job than cashier. but if I pay the cashier a living wage I cant afford to pay my shipping and receiving person more and the job 'should' make more than a cashier makes.
So do you -
Pay them the same and likely have a disgruntled ship/receiv employee?
Pay the cashier living wage and pay the shipper more but raise the prices on your product risking losing business to pay for it?
Pay the cashier living wage and pay the shipper more but cut some perks you give them to pay for it?
Pay the cashier living wage but add more duties to their job risking not having prompt service to your customers at times and pay the shipper more ?
Or pay the cashier less than a living wage and the shipper the living wage as the cashiers duties are not worth as much?

Click to expand...

These are the hard decisions every business faces every day. Nothing changes with the min. wage. Assuming that a business wants to pay all his employees a living wage.

If a business can only afford to pay one full time worker a living wage, then that's all he can afford. If he needs two workers to keep the doors open, I'd say that's not a viable business. It's on the brink of folding every month. It does no good to try to pay a worker a wage that the worker can't live on. That is not something a successful business does. That's something an unsuccessful business tries to do. It's only a matter of time before it goes out of business, probably, if money is that tight.

That is not normally the case, though. The case is usually larger businesses that pay lower wages so they have more profit to pocket. Nothing wrong with having more profit, but when it's at the expense of your employees, there is something wrong with that. Most businesses can afford to pay more.

Don't forget that some businesses do pay a living wage. For those businesses, the min. wage law doesn't affect them at all.

There is always an argument for paying an employee less. If you follow that logic, why pay them with money at all? Give them a room in the back to sleep in. Or give them bags of apples and oranges instead of money. Business have done that, and would do that now, if they could get away with it. A business exists solely to make a profit. It will do that however it can. Businesses are not people. They aren't citizens. They aren't concerned with the country's economy or the effect on the community. That's not a business' job. It's job is to make as much profit as possible. That's not wrong. That's why a business exists. That's why a min. wage law is necessary.

MrT said:

Equal pay for equal work assumes that all other variables, except gender, is equal. I would note that one of the points you referenced - differences in performance - should really only apply in commission jobs. If someone is superior at performance or leadership, then they should earn a promotion or a raise (or if the other individual is really severely deficient, then they have earned a pink slip).

The primary problem with this issue is a lack of communication amongst employees regarding their salaries. A lot of these issues would get resolved on their own if there wasn't such a stigma associated with discussing your salaries with your co-workers.

Click to expand...

Sorry

But I totally disagree

Production levels vary by employee....you have different levels of performers....from the superior to the average

And an employee doesn't necessarily warrant a promotion just because they produce more

That could be a valid reason for moving them up, but it isn't always a possibility

Better producers always deserve better pay....always

There is nothing wrong with being an average employee, but don't expect to be paid what your superior is paid

Glen Contrarian said:

And this is why I loved the military - it WAS equal pay for equal work. Those who couldn't handle it either got out (or were kicked out), and those who could handle it - male AND female - stayed in and made a career of it.

Equal pay for equal work can and DOES work - our military proves it every single day. The caveat being, of course, that in order to do this in the private sector, the corporations' wages for all employees would have to be pretty much known by everyone, as it is in the military. But the point remains, it is PROVEN that equal pay for equal work can and does work.

Click to expand...

the military was about "equal pay for equal rank"..... not equal work.... rank is not based upon your work ( though it's a factor, sometimes)... time in service, time in grade, and the needs of the military are far more instrumental in rank than any other factors.
and if you were in the military for more than a month, you certainly laid eyes on Skates and Slackers.... and you were also doing equal work with people of unequal rank,and unequal pay.... thereby disproving the "equal pay for equal work" theory in the military.

Glen Contrarian said:

EPEW works for salary, and for hourly wages, too. It's not that hard. The main reason why the business world doesn't want to do it has nothing to do with courts or out-of-control-guv'mint or anything like that...but it has everything to do with the fact that for as long as any of us can remember, women are generally paid about 3/4 what men are paid for the same doggone job...and Big Business doesn't want to have to pony up the rest of what the women deserve.

Click to expand...

"women are generally paid about 3/4 what men are paid for the same doggone job"
Fiction - read this thread thoroughly.
Ive never seen a study that could showed men and women with the same experience and same proficiency and all factors being the same and that overall women were making less.
As I said read the thread. the activists don't look at how well each person performs the job.. or how long they have been doing it.. or how reliable they are.. etc... those matter but they are overlooked when pushing this agenda.

JumpinJack said:

These are the hard decisions every business faces every day. Nothing changes with the min. wage. Assuming that a business wants to pay all his employees a living wage.

If a business can only afford to pay one full time worker a living wage, then that's all he can afford. If he needs two workers to keep the doors open, I'd say that's not a viable business. It's on the brink of folding every month. It does no good to try to pay a worker a wage that the worker can't live on. That is not something a successful business does. That's something an unsuccessful business tries to do. It's only a matter of time before it goes out of business, probably, if money is that tight.

That is not normally the case, though. The case is usually larger businesses that pay lower wages so they have more profit to pocket. Nothing wrong with having more profit, but when it's at the expense of your employees, there is something wrong with that. Most businesses can afford to pay more.

Don't forget that some businesses do pay a living wage. For those businesses, the min. wage law doesn't affect them at all.

There is always an argument for paying an employee less. If you follow that logic, why pay them with money at all? Give them a room in the back to sleep in. Or give them bags of apples and oranges instead of money. Business have done that, and would do that now, if they could get away with it. A business exists solely to make a profit. It will do that however it can. Businesses are not people. They aren't citizens. They aren't concerned with the country's economy or the effect on the community. That's not a business' job. It's job is to make as much profit as possible. That's not wrong. That's why a business exists. That's why a min. wage law is necessary.

Click to expand...

I was referring to your living wage thing not min wage.. in the examples I was referring to assume in any of those instances they were all making at least min wage.

SocialD said:

It was a union job, everyone knew how much everyone made.
But at other jobs.. people talk. companies don't like it and some even make it a policy not to discuss your pay.. but unless you have a contract that requires you not to discuss it they cant stop people.

Click to expand...

Then that's why. The union took care of that. Bargaining agreements arrive at certain wages for certain jobs and certain levels of jobs. They don't distinguish between genders or races or religions. (I was raised in a union town.)

Usually, women and blacks and other minorities don't know they're underpaid because wages aren't posted. In fact, it's reason for termination at many places if you're caught discussing wage rates or salaries.

This was what was important about the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Lilly Ledbetter had been underpaid for decades but didn't know it. After she found out, she sued for back pay. She lost, the legal reason being the statute of limitations had run, since it was too long after the underpayments had occurred. But that was a Catch-22, since it was company policy not to disclose wages.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act changes the statue of limitations to a more reasonable timeline...something like so many years or months after a person could reasonably have ascertained the underpayment.

Underpayment is not only critical for the time in which you're paid (living wages, benefits, standard of living), but it affects your lifestyle for the rest of your life. How much you're able to save for retirement, the amount of Social Security you get, the equity in your house....it affects everything. It is no wonder that the majority of the seniors who have historically been living in poverty has been working women.

As for "talk" at the company of salaries, you can't go by "talk." People puff their wages, to make themselves seem important, or downgrade their salaries, so others won't be jealous. Most, however, don't talk wages or salaries at all. I've worked for decades. I'm still clueless what others with my job title got paid, although I can guess at a range.

What is important, though, that a law can't really get at is that jobs that are performed mainly by females are generally not as well paid as jobs primarily done by males. This is because "female work" was generally regarded as less important. The answer to this is for females to enter male-oriented jobs. In the past, women were denied those jobs (like engineering). Now, it's possible, though. Too late for me, though!

JumpinJack said:

What is important, though, that a law can't really get at is that jobs that are performed mainly by females are generally not as well paid as jobs primarily done by males. This is because "female work" was generally regarded as less important. The answer to this is for females to enter male-oriented jobs. In the past, women were denied those jobs (like engineering). Now, it's possible, though. Too late for me, though!

Click to expand...

How is that the answer? Won't that solution still leave those jobs with lower pay?

SocialD said:

I was referring to your living wage thing not min wage.. in the examples I was referring to assume in any of those instances they were all making at least min wage.

Click to expand...

Whatever the case, the result is the same. You can either pay both employees a living wage, with raises for tenure and merit, or you can't. It's that simple. If you can't, you don't have a successful business, or you're being inefficient.

You can argue that, hey...if you pay both employees 1/4th of their current wages,you'd have a REALLY successful business! But you don't, really. You're just taking earned money out of the pockets of the workers to put in your pocket...unjustly. If that's what's needed for the business to survive, it's not a successful business.

JumpinJack said:

Whatever the case, the result is the same. You can either pay both employees a living wage, with raises for tenure and merit, or you can't. It's that simple. If you can't, you don't have a successful business, or you're being inefficient.

You can argue that, hey...if you pay both employees 1/4th of their current wages,you'd have a REALLY successful business! But you don't, really. You're just taking earned money out of the pockets of the workers to put in your pocket...unjustly. If that's what's needed for the business to survive, it's not a successful business.

Click to expand...

How are you determining what is just and what is unjust?

Visbek said:

All other things being equal, yes.



Men and women should generally be eligible for the same promotions, same pay scales, same bonuses, same benefits.



You don't have to promote everyone at the same rate. You can fire an underperforming employee.

What you cannot do is systemically underpay female employees, systemically pass them up for promotion, systemically refuse to hire them, systemically fire them.

Most (but not all) of these issues have been bashed out in the courts. Here's a FAQ on the issue:
Know Your Rights at Work: The Equal Pay Act: AAUW

Click to expand...

Why do liberals fail to realize that violates the right to association? I simply don't understand how liberals can be so ignorant of the right to association to believe that they can force people to hire a certain class of people. Then again, I guess they could just think they are not getting caught violating the first amendment or simply don't care that they are doing it.

Henrin said:

How is that the answer? Won't that solution still leave those jobs with lower pay?

Click to expand...

Yes. That's what the Equal Rights Act was designed to address, but that didn't pass, and I don't see it ever passing.

So the answer for women is to go into male-dominated careers, which they are increasingly doing. Lawyers, doctors, engineers. That's more of a chance to get paid what men get paid. Although a woman, in whatever job, needs to be aware that if she discovers she's paid less because of gender (which requires males in her job getting paid more without extinuating circumstances), she can sue within a certain amount of time.

Big corporations are more even in their pay. It's the small businesses that are more inclined to discriminate, IMO.

Henrin said:

Why do liberals fail to realize that violates the right to association? I simply don't understand how liberals can be so ignorant of the right to association to believe that they can force people to hire a certain class of people. Then again, I guess they could just think they are not getting caught violating the first amendment or simply don't care that they are doing it.

Click to expand...

Business is not "association." You need to brush up on your legal knowledge.

When you enter commerce, you must sell or service the public without discrimination, and you must treat your employees without discrimination.

You can form a club and have only old white guys in it. That's freedom of association.

Two different things.

JumpinJack said:

Business is not "association." You need to brush up on your legal knowledge.

When you enter commerce, you must sell or service the public without discrimination, and you must treat your employees without discrimination.

You can form a club and have only old white guys in it. That's freedom of association.

Two different things.

Click to expand...

Are you really going to claim that there is no association taking place between the parties in question? I also know that liberals like to play loose with words and pretend that the first amendment doesn't apply to business. I'm still waiting for a liberal to tell me where business is an exception in the first amendment too.

Henrin said:

How are you determining what is just and what is unjust?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's a min. wage law for certain businesses that have more than a certain # of employes. Beyond that, it is up to the business to determine what to pay its employees, whether it's a general range in the community, or whatever.

Why are you having such a problem with this? It's just a min. wage, for gosh sakes. Have you ever owned a business? I have. It's not rocket science.

radcen said:

Equal pay for equal work: How does that work?

We hear this a lot. It's a theme of sorts in the current campaign, at times. Equal pay for equal work. And it does sound great, right? I mean, who would be against that?

But, what, exactly does it mean?

If I have two bottle washers, one male and one female, are they supposed to be paid the same no matter what?

Click to expand...

No - they're paid the same for the amount of work they do. If one is a level 3 and the other is a level 1 - then the level 3 gets paid on a level 3 and a level 1 gets paid on a level 1.

What if one has been employed by me for 6 years while the other has been with me for only a year? Do they still get paid the same?

Click to expand...

That's up to you to decide. Most employees get evaluated and are given a raise based on quality of work (etc). Why does gender alter this payment logic? Pretend you don't know the gender and you have two people who do the same work - and one person has been with the company longer than the other. Or maybe you have two that do the same job but one sucks at it and causes more problems.

What if one can wash 100 bottles an hour, while the other one can wash only 40 bottles an hour? Are they still supposed to get paid the same? They're both bottle washers doing the same job, aren't they?

Click to expand...

Don't know- you're the boss in this situation. Why wouldn't you pay an inferior-functioning employee less? More so - why do you have that employee on the books? Set goals they must meet and put a time limit.

What if one takes a bit of a leadership and mentor role within the company while the other does not. Is that equal work deserving of equal pay?

Click to expand...

Are they supposed to be taking this leadership and mentor role. In this situation you're the boss so that's something you have to get a handle on. If someone is capable of doing more like being a leader / mentor then be kind and consider them for an advance in position.

It's equally unjust to have someone taking on MORE responsibility without you compensating adequately and keeping them at the same pay level as the other employees.

It sounds like such a noble and wonderful concept... and don't get me wrong, there are legitimate discrepancies in the world that should be rectified... but how do we define "equal"?

Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't know a single flipping thing about having employees and running a business. Sounds to me like you want to assume women work less hours, can't get the job done (ever), can't lead people, and guys are always defaulted to being better. If two employees have been with your company for 2 years and both earned high marks on their employee review - then why would you give one more than the other? That's ****ty management, if you ask me. It's not complicated.

Equal pay for equal work - if you had two guys or two women doing the same quality of work would you really be so unable to figure it out?

That's okay - those of us who know how to do business have it all figured out. Don't stress yourself.

JumpinJack said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's a min. wage law for certain businesses that have more than a certain # of employes. Beyond that, it is up to the business to determine what to pay its employees, whether it's a general range in the community, or whatever.

Why are you having such a problem with this? It's just a min. wage, for gosh sakes. Have you ever owned a business? I have. It's not rocket science.

Click to expand...

You spoke towards some standard that you established and I would like to know how you came to it. Don't ignore what you wrote to try to weasel of out of this.

JumpinJack said:

Whatever the case, the result is the same. You can either pay both employees a living wage, with raises for tenure and merit, or you can't. It's that simple. If you can't, you don't have a successful business, or you're being inefficient.

You can argue that, hey...if you pay both employees 1/4th of their current wages,you'd have a REALLY successful business! But you don't, really. You're just taking earned money out of the pockets of the workers to put in your pocket...unjustly. If that's what's needed for the business to survive, it's not a successful business.

Click to expand...

Well if that's the case then I would gainsay that per your measurement most businesses are not successful. should we have them just fold up and go out of business then?
Your solution to pay them both a living wage doesn't make sense. the shipper would likely leave because they see the cashier making the same wage they do and feel that you do not value them.
Say living wage is 10.37 ( that's what it is in Dallas County which I would assume you are near there ) and say you are paying that cashier 9$ and the shipper 11.50$.
So your solution would be to pay them both 10.37 ( which would actually increase the payroll slightly )?

SocialD said:

"women are generally paid about 3/4 what men are paid for the same doggone job"
Fiction - read this thread thoroughly.
Ive never seen a study that could showed men and women with the same experience and same proficiency and all factors being the same and that overall women were making less.
As I said read the thread. the activists don't look at how well each person performs the job.. or how long they have been doing it.. or how reliable they are.. etc... those matter but they are overlooked when pushing this agenda.

Click to expand...

That's because you haven't really looked. You haven't really challenged what you already believed.

Glen Contrarian said:

That's because you haven't really looked. You haven't really challenged what you already believed.

Click to expand...

On the contrary mr contrarian, I have looked. I haven't found one. but I would surely be willing to read one if you have a link to it.

Glen Contrarian said:

EPEW works for salary, and for hourly wages, too. It's not that hard. The main reason why the business world doesn't want to do it has nothing to do with courts or out-of-control-guv'mint or anything like that...but it has everything to do with the fact that for as long as any of us can remember, women are generally paid about 3/4 what men are paid for the same doggone job...and Big Business doesn't want to have to pony up the rest of what the women deserve.

Click to expand...

How do men ever get hired? Isn't shareholder value the be all and end all? If women work for so much less...