Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
From: ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Equal pay for comparable work
Message-ID: <621@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 13:30:58 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.621
Posted: Mon Feb 18 13:30:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 22:44:31 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 50

Some people are objecting to the concept that the market sets fair wage
rates.  My feelings are somewhat ambivalent here, but I'm going to argue
the other side, since it isn't being done that I've seen yet.

First of all, it is possible that in fact the market doesn't set fair wage
rates in certain cases, because of the infamous "market distortions".  It is
also possible that the market is in general so distorted that the wages it
sets are meaningless.  I'm not prepared to debate these points at length,
because I have better things to do with my time than the research i'd need
to make a convincing presentation one way or the other.

However...

Here is my basic argument on market-set wage rates:  If there are several
people able and willing to do certain work for $10/hour, why should I pay
somebody $15/hour for it?  Or, if I want a job done and nobody will do it
for what I want to pay, what choice do I have other than to 1) decide I
don't want it done that badly, or 2) pay enough to attract somebody to do
the job?  The market exerts a strong force towards prices that buyers and
sellers can agree on.  To me, this is as close to "fair" as you can
possibly come when there are conflicting interests involved; so the market-set
wages are fair BY DEFINITION.  What could be fairer TO ALL PARTIES?

So why do women often get less pay for equal (never mind "comparable") work?
Less time-in-grade (or equivalent), less perceived commitment to the job,
prejudice in hiring?  

I think it comes down to socialization, more or less.  A large majority of
women DO get married.  A large majority of women DO have kids.  Those women,
if they are working, are entitled to expensive time off work and a guarantee
of a job when they come back.  In a large corporation, with many interchangable
cogs, this isn't a big problem.  But in a small operation, such as a DP shop
I once consulted for with 2 application programmers, both female, and one
operator, female, all married, the DP director damn well KNEW that off and
on he would be down HALF his programming force for a few months or years;
or ALL of his operations staff.  And he knew that if he hired replacements,
he'd find himself 50% or 100% OVER BUDGET on staff when the one on 
maternity leave came back.  This is a serious problem for a small operation
(and an awful lot of the jobs are at small companies, there are so many of
them!).

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION TO THE ABOVE PROBLEM IS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE
PROBLEM IS REAL.  I BELIEVE THAT WOMEN WON'T ACHIEVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
UNTIL THIS PROBLEM, AMONG MANY OTHERS, IS SOLVED.  I am not advocating ythe
current situation is desirable or equitable; it's unfair to BOTH women AND
their employers, which probably means it's "pessimal".  So what should
be done instead?  

		-- David Dyer-Bennet
		-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb