Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-dcd!hpdcdb!anny
From: anny@hpdcdb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <3000002@hpdcdb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Jun-84 19:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpdcdb.3000002
Posted: Fri Jun 15 19:23:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 00:56:00 EDT
References: <-33300@hogpd.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Cupertino, CA
Lines: 64
Nf-ID: #R:hogpd:-33300:hpdcdb:3000002:000:2601
Nf-From: hpdcdb!anny    Jun 20 15:23:00 1984




Please excuse the previous replication of the base note.  I'm new
to notes and I screwed up . . .

In the following exerp, note reference to "the company":

/***** hpdcdb:net.women / hogpd!keduh /  7:51 am  May 23, 1984*/
	.
	.
	.
	
	A basic premise is proposed to the effect that for car insurance
	it is OK to charge women less than men because statistics show
	that they tend to have less (or less severe?) accidents than men,
	and thereby cost the company less money.
	
	So the basic thrust seems to be that if statistics show a difference
	between men and women then it is OK to act upon that information and
	treat the two sexes differently. If this is accepted, then how can
	one complain that women were/are receiving less money per month
	in retirement pay ??  Statistics show that women live longer than
	men and thereby cost the company more money.
	
	.
	.
	.
/* ---------- */

In the first instance "the company" is an insurance company to whom a
person personally pays premiums for his or her personal policy.  In the
second instance "the company" is a person's employer.  I contend that this
is the point at which these two examples differ in what's "fair".

Most companies offer the same basic benifits package for all employees of
the same job classification.  This means that if my co-worker is a
middle-aged overweight smoker and I am a young non-smoker in excellent 
physial condition, we will still get equal health care benifits, regardless
of the fact that my co-worker will (statiscally speaking) cost 
"the company" more to insure.  The "unfairness" in unequal pension 
payments for women is that women are NOT given the same quality of 
benifits (see note below).

It would be similar to giving my smoking, overweight co-worker less health
care coverage.  If companies considered things like smoking,
weight, and age in their insurance coverage and pensions for employees, 
then it would be more reasonable to also consider gender (based on the 
statistic that women live longer).  However, companies (at least none 
that I know of) do not consider these things, and for that reason, lower 
pension payments for women are discrimanatory and unfair.


Note:  Definition of "same quality of benifits"

Giving women a lower monthly pension payment because they (statistically 
speaking) live longer is similar to giving an overweight smoker lower 
health coverage (i.e. only pay 60% of his bills, rather than the standard
80%) because he will (statistically speaking) be sick more times.  
This is an example of the same quality of benifits.


Anny Randel
hplabs!hpfcla!anny