Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!elroy!ucla-cs!uci-ics!prism!revolver!steve
From: steve%revolver@gatech.EDU (Steve Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Job categories and pay scales.
Message-ID: <17682@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 89 18:28:39 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Steve Fischer <steve%revolver@gatech.EDU>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 31
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu


     I'd like to bring up something I'm sure you've all heard discussed some-
where before, at sometime but, since the issue has not been settled, it may
be worth the expense of a few more paragraphs.

     There is a movement afoot, associated most often with feminist organi-
zations, to create a system for evaluating the "inherent worth" of any given
job, and to set pay scales accordingly.  For example, how do clerical jobs
compare with blue-collar jobs like truck driving, construction, etc.  Factors
often cited as input into making such evaluations include education, years of
previous job experience, etc.

     Critics argue that such a system ignores the reality of the free-market
to set rates based on the desirability of the required skills coupled with the
relative numbers of persons available to supply those positions.  Cynics contend
that this represents nothing less than a rash attempt to increase the wages of
relatively low paid clerical workers, most of whom are women, at the expense of
other workers.
                                                               
     Is such an analytical system possible or even fair?  Take two examples,
for instance.  Should a garbage collector with a PhD make more money than
one with no high school education?  Should a typist with a PhD make more than
one with a high school education?  The problem is that if you assign arbitrary
"point values" to particular achievements/skills, you can come up with some
pretty ridiculous results - like the examples above.

     The market measures two things: the relevance of the skill to the success
of the company, and the ease of access to that labor pool, in terms of supply.
An arbitrary point system only measures the skills of the individual, but does
not relate them, necessarily, to the job at hand.  As such, it seems inherently
absurd.  Comments?