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: <1096@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 13:03:09 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1096 Posted: Tue Jun 4 13:03:09 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:57:27 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 129 Summary: In article <1095@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) writes: >In article <1094@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: OK, I'll grant that the phrase "wage police" was not an entirely appropriate one, but ...... >>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. > >Depends how broad the ruling is. In any case government sets wage >levels anyway (and in my case, I wish they'd do a better job of it). I don't get it. If, for example, a secretary goes before the tribunal with the claim that she is performing work that is equivalent to that of, say, a truck driver and therefore deserves the same pay, and assuming that she wins her case, then would not all secretaries with the same classification as hers be beneficiaries of that ruling? I don't see how it could be otherwise. It certainly would not be fair if she was the only one to have her wage increased. Yes, the government does set wage levels - for *its* employees. (Actually, this isn't really true since most government employees tend to belong to unions which results in collective bargaining; i.e. the government does not *unilaterally* set the wages of its employees.) >>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. > >No evidence. True, but given the runaway nature of government I wouldn't be surprised at all. >>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. > >You imagine wrong. Read NDP policy on the subject some time. You're right, I don't know NDP policy on the matter, so while I've still got the attention of someone who does: -Once two job categories were deemed equivalent and the wages adjusted accordingly, would said wages be forever "locked" together - or only until the next contract? -If two job categories were deemed not quite equivalent, but say that job A was determined to be 95% of the value of job B, would workers in job A be entitled to a wage level that is at least 95% of those in B? This would seem to be the "fair" way to me, however, it also raises the interesting possibility of the wages in all job categories being "linked" together. I.e. it would not be possible to raise the pay in one category without having this perturbation ripple its way throughout possibly every category. -Would it be allowable to adjust wages *down* instead of up? -What would be the criteria used in determining whether two jobs were of "equal value"? -Approximately how many jobs would be affected by the implementation of EPFWOEV in the private sector? -What is the estimated cost *to* the private sector? >>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? > >The defect of this argument is that there is a large combination of factors >which come into play. It is clearly unreasonable to expect the same behaviour >of a company which is just hovering above bankruptcy as that of a company >which has just reported record profits. Further, very often the >responsibility distribution is different in different organisation. Companies which are on the brink of bankruptcy are not excluded from minimum wage laws, equal pay for equal work laws, or health and safety laws, so I don't see why they would be excluded from EPFWOEV legislation - remember, we're talking about fairness, not convenience. At any rate assuming it is possible to decide that in org. X such *disparate* occupations as secretarial work and truck driving are equivalent then I see no leap of faith involved in extending this process across companies. Thus, I still maintain that given that the point of EPFWOEV legislation is to promote "fairness" in wage levels, the "next logical step" as outlined above would therefore be to extend it across companies. And, I would be very surprised if such lobbying efforts did not immediately start upon implementation of EPFWOEV laws. >>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. > >There's no way. I'm not an anarchist (which I suspect Jim is), and therefore >accept the need to have the State limit my freedoms in order to make our >society fairer. Sorry, Vince, I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist. In fact, I wouldn't even consider myself a libertarian. Yes, in my Utopia there is a role for government. However, given government's poor performance record on managing the economy the thought of *more* government intervention is not very comforting. As for making society fairer, I think this is where we reach an ideological impasse. I believe that equality of *opportunity* is for all intents and purposes a "right". EPFWOEV does nothing for equality of opportunity. It does take a step towards economic equality. However, especially given the existence of minimum wage laws and equal pay for equal work laws, I find it impossible to consider economic equality to be anything even remotely approaching a "right". Thus, I have no qualms in dismissing the notion that EPFWOEV is a necessary component in a fair society. I'll accept that public education and (almost) free medical care are components of a fair society; but EPFWOEV? - no. I also submit that society as a whole would not benefit from EPFWOEV. This is due to the fact that paying non-market value wages represents an inefficient allocation of resources which will result in a drop in productivity and world-wide competitiveness, which will in the long run result in a decline in the standard of living. Don't forget that about 30% of Canada's GNP is generated by exports. J.B. Robinson