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: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <1094@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 22:29:49 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1094 Posted: Mon Jun 3 22:29:49 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Jun-85 12:45:22 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1562@dciem.UUCP> <900@mnetor.UUCP> <1087@ubc-cs.UUCP> <140@watmum.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 60 Summary: In article <140@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >Could someone please explain to me how a program of equal pay for work of equal >value translates into a scheme of wage police ? Even radically socialist >places like Sweden don't do this. Is someone flying off the handle in >a typical arch-conservative manner, or is mere faulty reasoning at work? > >If it's the latter, I'd like to hear it ! EPFWOEV is *not* supposed to be a voluntary program. It is supposed to be *the law*. Now, typically when a society has laws there exists some means with which to enforce these laws. The reason that a means of enforcement is necessary is because no matter what the law is, there is someone, somewhere, who will break this law. Enter the dreaded "wage police" (actually I suspect in true big gov't style a "Ministry of Wages" will be created.) Their job would probably be, at a minimum, to determine whether a complainant is justified in receiving greater pay on the basis of evidence presented. (In this sense, I admit, they are more than mere police) If they rule in favour of the complainant, they would presumably then *order* the employer to increase the wages of all the workers in the affected job classification. In effect, the "wage police", read government, will be setting wage levels. Undoubtedly, the role of the "wage police" will be much greater than as described above. They'll probably spend oodles of money and time attempting to classify every existing job category in the country so that decisions could be rendered quickly. They would also probably be actively monitoring the wage levels of the various job classifications in major companies looking for non-compliances (a ha, they are police after all) with the law. I imagine the NDP wouldn't have it any other way. I have tried to keep the above simple and straightforward and I'm sure that if we've all dutifully taken our "reality pills" this morning there shouldn't be too much trouble in following it. I've asked this before and nobody nibbled so I'll ask Mr. Shaw specifically. If EPFWOEV is necessary because it is only "fair" that two people involved in jobs of "equal value" in the same organization receive the same remuneration, then how can it be justified that two people in *different* organizations doing exactly the same work (or work of "equal value") not be paid exactly the same amount? Is it not "fair" that they should be paid the same? Is this not the next logical step? Wouldn't this, coincidentally, make life extremely easy for the unions as they piggy-back their way to ever increasing wages? J.B. Robinson P.S. If anyone can explain to me how there can exist *effective* EPFWOEV legislation without a means of enforcement (i.e. "wage police") I'd love to hear it.