"Equal pay for equal work." Sounds good, but is that always fair?

It seems to me that equal pay for equal work is fair if the work truly is 100% equal, and if determining what equal work is is interpreted rather broadly.

Why do I say "broadly"? Because I think most business managers will agree that pay should reflect "value to the company" even more than work output.

What makes an employee valuable to the company? Willingness to 'go the extra mile' would be one thing. Willingness to stay late if needed, or come in on the weekend, for example.

Flexibility is another. Time flexibility as just mentioned would be one example, but also willingness to do what's asked even if it isn't in the job description is another. Willingness to travel when needed, especially on short notice. Willingness to relocate, if needed. 

Those things make one valuable to the company.

Agree or disagree?

Views: 406

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have all the time in the world for you ;)

Lol that would rabbit trail and fuck up the discussion. I suppose one of us should start a new thread or we'll be booted off haha!

They also let family issues interfere with their work more than men do. Women tend to have bigger hearts than men but this often has them making choices with adverse effects on their employers. These in turn hamper them when it comes to advancement and seeking raises.

We could fix it, but do we really want to treat being a woman as a handicap the way a business may be required to make accommodations for someone's disability?

It is not a "handicap" to be a mother. I would say that employers should look at supporting mothers as investing in the future the same way Europe views it. Only in America are women forced to make these kinds of choices without the societal support to sustain them. One of the many reasons I hate this country and want the hell out.

Invest in the future? The average American employee stays only 4.4 years on a job and it's about half that for younger employees. How is the company going to cash in with a mother who may be raising her child for up to nearly two decades, when it can't count on her staying on the job the whole time?

Businesses exist to make money. Show 'em how it makes money for them and you're on your way.

Employers who foster an amiable work/life balance have a higher loyalty (aka lower attrition) than companies who do not give a fuck about their employees.

In order to create a favorable work/life balance that includes including an attendance policy that is fair to mothers (and single mothers especially). The US currently offers no such considerations in the mainstream business world. There are a select few exceptions, but only in positions of women with higher education. Lower educated women are fucked. This vicious circle of catch 22 keeps women and children in poverty, and keeps the kids of these women under a savage inequality.

How much higher? Remember that it's a cost-benefit analysis. 

People are still likely to leave a nice work-/ife balance for higher pay.

If someone can get $5/hr more, most will leave their favorable work/life balance without skipping a beat.

But it is not "just" a cost benefit analysis. It is more of a "core values" issue, and really it is a social equity issue. Businesses who only look at profit margins as a measure of success are shitty businesses. That means...most of America tbh.

"Employers who foster an amiable work/life balance have a higher loyalty (aka lower attrition) than companies who do not give a fuck about their employees."

This is true.  I left all my employers because I stopped being loyal to them.  They forget that we are the ones putting food on their tables and they need to treat us fairly and respectfully or they'll just have to train some other noobie to do 75% of the work I did for them.  

We could fix it, but do we really want to treat being a woman as a handicap the way a business may be required to make accommodations for someone's disability?

I imagine that human resources dept could manage it much like a disability, but why encourage the label? Another strategy for lightening the burden of family is to give paternal leave, too. Companies are doing it voluntarily, even though lack of legislation for it means that other companies choose not to lose competitive advantage by providing paternal leave.

That's is just one example of how improved public policy and social safety net (as I think Belle alludes to) could help alleviate such burdens on our more caring businesses. Child care coverage is another.

American society simply doesn't care about working mothers.

One wonan's story: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/02/10/best_laid_plans_the...

I know I'm not alone in the struggle. But the point is it shouldn't be a struggle if our nation did what other nations do.
Value to the company is that what brings profit to the company at the bottom line. There is a saying stating "work smarter, not harder".
Who brings more value to a company, an employee who works long hours, and even in the weekend but who doesn't add that much extra productivity, or the employee who automates the process, doubles their productivity but comes in at 10, leaves at 4, and who can't be bothered to even anwer their phone in the weekends?

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service