Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould US companies be required to provide equal pay to women and men?
Results so far:
| Yes | 86% | 2031 votes | Total: 2357 votes | |
| No | 14% | 326 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
To ask if women should receive equal pay in the workforce is like asking whether all children deserve the right to a good education. Yes, women should be receiving equal pay as men, that is given the qualifications specific to the position are equal. I do believe impromptu assumptions can be made when a man makes more than a woman in a similar position, but we must be careful to notate such factors as experience and tenure. Given that, in such a day where egalitarianism has taken the stage, I am perplexed at the idea of having monetary inequality between the sexes. It seems unethical, and almost barbaric to deny a woman equal pay of her counterpart, her male counterpart.
This hot topic hits home to me, perhaps accounting for my passion on the subject. As a student I worked in a coffee shop. I started out at the bottom and worked my way up the corporate ladder. I was great at what I did, I knew it and so did my higher ups. What I didn't understand, and what really baffled me, was the fact that a coworker of mine who was promoted not too long ahead of me, male of course, was making about 15% more on his annual salary. I couldn't understand why in such a civilized company, one with an impressive mission statement where people were recognized and rewarded through merit, I was being treated unfairly? I not only knew as much as him, but I had tenure over him. I had been at that company longer, which in turn gave me more experience. I felt immediately discouraged, and very disappointed in this so called civilized company. So I took my rebellions elsewhere.
I am not sexist. I have a father, and a brother, lots of uncles, and a boyfriend, all of whom I adore. I wouldn't wish inequality on any of them. So why is it so easy for corporations and small business owners to pay women less? Is it because they value a mans work more than a woman's work? This notion bewilders me. A monetary value should be put on the position itself with some fluctuation based on experience and/or tenure. It should not be put on the gender of the employee that fills it. I find this to be a pretty reasonable request.
I am hopeful that one day pay differentials in relation to gender will cease to exist in the workforce. It is a regressive practice, one whose tactics aren't beneficial to our modern day society. Perhaps hiring managers should use better discretion when filling a position, choosing the candidate wisely, paying them what the position is worth, and not discriminating based on gender. Why this is an issue in the first place I will never know. Since when is it ok to discriminate? Since never in my book.
Learn more about this author, Meagan Macquarrie.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
To answer this we must first get the question stated more accurately. The question really asks, "Should we force companies to pay based on sex rather than performance?"
Of course the correct answer is "no," at least for people who want to live in a culture free of sexism, especially when that sexism is mandated by the state. Governmentally enforced sexual discrimination is exactly what this type of question implies.
We live in a culture that is quick to rush into things that appear egalitarian, especially if they are perceived as ameliorating a problem suffered by groups already associated with some historical wrongs. This is a prime example of something that might appear promote progress while it actually serves to undermine it. The trick is to place reason over reactionism.
To make a point, let's examine a hypothetical.
John and Mary work at the XYZ Corporation doing the same job. John is to work early, completes his assignments on time and turns in work that is at or above the expectations of his job description. Mary is also at work early, completes most of her assignments on time, but for whatever reason only completes about 85% of the work that John does.
Under the guidelines proposed by the question XYZ will have a hard time giving John a raise unless they raise the pay of Mary as well. They will also be subject to litigation and bad publicity if they do the right thing by rewarding John. Companies usually make very quick decisions when choosing between fairness and cold cash. The latter wins every time.
Under the threat of such invasive laws, the company will be hamstrung in any efforts to recognize and reward top producers. Unless, of course, those producers happen to be women.
Sexist to the very core. And illegal by our current laws.
They tried this in Ontario, Canada, where every employer must rate every job to make sure women are getting paid as much as men. The law resulted in cumbersome and complicated sets of rules from the Canadian Pay Equity Commission.
Sheldon Kaplan, of a large Canadian company that sows and sells sofa cushions lamented in an ABC News 20/20 interview, "We spent months and tens of thousands of dollars to do a 3-cent adjustment that may not have even been necessary."
A follow-up study by the Canadian Bureau of Economics concluded the law "had no effect on aggregate wages in female jobs or the gender wage gap,"
It shouldn't be surprising. It's hard to have an impact on something that doesn't exist. That supposed gender wage gap, like the one reported in America by the American Association of University Women, is predicated on faulty methodology resulting in very misleading conclusions.
The statistics are based on a raw average of men's and women's income. Thus a female file clerk who works forty hours a week is averaged in with a male chemical engineer who works fifty-five hours a week.
Pay difference, yes. Gender based discrimination, no. And it is convincing of why the legislation failed to impact the alleged gap in pay.
Until we make laws that force women to pursue different career choices, they will never earn what men do. Calling that discrimination is a duck and fade on the real issues.
Not that it would pay any company to practice such discrimination in the first place. If women were really paid only .77-cents for every dollar paid to men for the same work, as the AAUW erroneously concludes, the wise entrepreneur would only hire women.
"I hope my competitors discriminate," says Kaplan. "I want my competitors to discriminate because they will go out of business."
For companies fighting for the competitive edge, the only bottom line is the bottom line. The reality is that pay discrimination adds to the cost of doing business. Whether that happens as a result of gender bias or legal imposition doesn't make any difference.
If some companies are still foolish enough to pay women less for the same work, their increased costs and legal vulnerabilities already in place will hinder their ability to compete. Mimicking that same foolishness at the level of government is not an answer.
And speaking of answers, they tend to make a lot more sense when we are asking the right questions.
Learn more about this author, Paul Elam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
