Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!fluke!tron
From: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Equal pay for comparable worth
Message-ID: <892@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 16:38:10 EST
Article-I.D.: vax1.892
Posted: Fri Feb 15 16:38:10 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 05:46:02 EST
References: <239@mhuxr.UUCP> <135@rtech.ARPA>
Reply-To: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 25

>> What do you usenetters think of the concept of "equal pay for comparable
>> work"? As I understand it, this is to reduce the difference between
>> pay scales in "male dominated" (e.g. truck drivers) vs "female dominated"
>> (e.g. nurses, secretaries) occupations. There would presumably have to
>> be an equivalency chart or something.
>> 

Big controversy isn't it?  I have two cents for this discussion.  One cent;
there is inequality everywhere, look at how much dentists and vetarinarians
get paid.  Second cent;  I would look askance at any plan that included
government.  In my (admittedly non-esteemed) view a basic premise is:

		government involvment == negative aspects

This is kind of the same argument that says although pornography is bad
censorship (to stop it) would be worse.

Peter B

decvax-+-uw-beaver-+
ihnp4--+   allegra-+
ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron
	       sun-+
	   ssc-vax-+
: