Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The new equal rights rule
Message-ID: <1053@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-May-85 22:04:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1053
Posted: Sat May  4 22:04:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 5-May-85 05:41:28 EDT
References: <262@looking.UUCP> <610@lsuc.UUCP> <491@mnetor.UUCP> <1043@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1044@ubc-cs.UUCP> <113@watmum.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 48
Summary: 

In article <113@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
>As for things like Equal pay/ Equal work, I see no problem with this in
>principle. The problem comes when it is implemented in a stupid manner.
>An earlier poster this week mentioned "greater pay for greater value"
>(with a :-), I think). This kind of nonsense is what one hears all the time
>when EP/EV comes up.. the fear that people will be told what to pay their 
>employees. I for one think that an interpretation of that kind has a snowball's
>chance in hell of gaining root in this country.

The whole point of "equal pay for work of equal value" ( which is what I
assume "Equal pay/ Equal work" refers to ) is that, yes indeedy-do, the
omnipotent government will tell people what to pay their employees. 
Under the proposed changes, if a secretary and groundskeeper, for example, 
are deemed to perform functions that are "equal in value", then the 
employer would be required *by law* to equalize their wages. Since
*nobody* ever talks about adjusting wages down I can only assume that
the equalization process will take the form of wage increases for the 
"disadvantaged" earner. (Note that in the example I am assuming that
the secretary and groundskeeper work for the same organization.)

>Equal Pay legislation should (and hopefully will) only apply to employees
>within the same organization. The chances are extremely close to zero that
>legislation can be twisted to mean "Well, there's this one clerk in Woolco 
>gets $30/hour, so all clerks across Canada not making that much should get 
>a raise". 

It is true that EPFWOEV ( which, again, is what I assume "Equal Pay" 
refers to ) legislation currently being tossed about is supposed to
apply only to employees within the same organization. However, if one
considers that the ( sole, supposed ) merit of EPFWOEV is its fairness,
then how can one *not* apply it to employees in different organizations?
How can one argue that it is fair that a secretary and a groundskeeper
in org. A both should make $15/hr, yet, in org. B where secretaries
and groundskeepers do identical work to those in org. A, they only
earn $10/hr? Is it not "fair" that they should all make $15/hr?

My question is **WHY** do we need EPFWOEV? ( other than that it is 
the latest and greatest way of appeasing several vocal SIGs ) Are
there not unions in this country? If secretaries think they should
earn the same as groundskeepers can they not do what any other 
red blooded unionist would do and strike? (Here in Lotus Land all
it takes is a handful of picketers to close a company down.) Why 
should the government go and do what the secretaries' own union
won't do? Also, are groundskeeper jobs not open to women as well as
men? 

J.B. Robinson