Lots of people these days talking about the need for women to get equal pay for doing the same jobs as men. But this appears in many cases to be just lip service (no pun intended), because often these are the same people who rail against unions. But it’s unions that have been the most successful in guaranteeing that women get the same pay as men if they’re doing the same work. Hypocrites abound.
Those who rail against unions aren’t pushing for equal pay for equal work and usually find reasons to rationalize paying women less.
Perhaps these people want to achieve equality by reducing men’s pay down to the level of women’s pay.
People want women to get the same pay as men for equal work. It’s the “for equal work” part that is important. Unions (generally) want* equal pay regardless of equal work; e.g. a slacker gets paid just as much as a hard worker.
-
- “want” is perhaps too strong a word and unions would not phrase it that way. However their practices lead to that conclusion.
Yes. Interestingly the deity of the modern GOP is Reagan, who was a very active Union activist as president of the Screen Actors Guild. He served six terms, and is the only president in recent history to have been a active Union member. Reagan was quoted "one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.”.
I worked union shops all my life. A lot of good comes from unions and a lot of bad comes from unions. Typicaly in a union shop 20% of the employees are doing about 60% of the work. They very often vote themselves out of a job by raising their own wages higher than the employer can stay competitive at. Older long term employees are often over ruled by a majority of younger workers favoring wages over benefits.
Promotions are usually based on seniority instead of ability. Unions tend to loose strength when jobs are hard to find which is a good thing.Poor logic. Unions may promote gender-equal pay… among other things. It’s the “among other things” that the “hypocrites” don’t agree with.
The OP logic suggests people should support any group that even mildly aligns with a minor shared goal regardless of said group’s main stated or demonstrated goals. E.g. if you probably like puppies you should like puppy mills because they make lots of puppies. If you don’t you’re a hypocrite.
They say they are for equal pay, but the market will ensure this of course. Any woman looking for work will research average pay in the industry sector and the company, and will refuse to take a job that pays under the rate for a man. Companies, feeling a shortage of labor, will then be forced to raise wages for women to make them equitable. Any woman not doing this research and accepting a job with lower pay should blame no one but herself.
And if a woman has to wait until an equitable position opens up? She can tap into her trust fund.
Right, conservatives?
I’ve never worked in a union shop. 20% of the people still do 60% of the work.
I have found that the inclusion of “equal work” in an equal pay demand is a significant, if not primary, problem. “Men can do 25% more work here than women can, since it requires heavy lifting and other strength-based activities; that’s why the men get 25% more” doesn’t cut it. More and more, the call was for equal pay for “comparable work”; if women can do only 75% of what men can do, then they should be paid the same as men for doing that 75%.
If women are significantly underpaid, then any company that hires men is making a serious mistake - they can get equally qualified women for less money.
Right, liberals?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, yeah. But that’s sexism for you. It’s always ultimately at your own net detriment. That’s why we had to pass civil rights legislation. Hiring minorities for cheaper (as there was a higher supply) would have made you much richer, but the free market wasn’t enough to beat racism.
The fact that the free market hasn’t eliminated sexism (or racism)is part of the rason that we liberals recognize that the free market isn’t perfect. It’s the libertarians that think civil rights legislation is stupid.
And this type of thinking, BTW, is the OP’s answer. Anti-union types think that there isn’t a pay gap problem. Anti-union types worship the free market. All the problems they have with unions are how they frustrate the free market.
So, in their minds, if women are paid less, it’s because they deserve to be paid less. The Free Market wouldn’t allow it to happen otherwise.
And that’s not even to say that unions as they currently exist are perfect. But, if you’re trying to fix what isn’t perfect, you aren’t against them. We don’t call someone anti-Christian because they try to fix the problems in Christianity, now do we?
Air traffic controllers excepted, of course.
I would prefer that women be paid equally without being forced to pay a union, if that’s what they choose.
You mean the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (affiliated with the AFL-CIO) and the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (affiliated with the AFL-CIO) didn’t exist in the Reagan years?
People should be paid for their ability to do work, regardless of gender. If there is a job that for some reason women can’t do as well then they shouldn’t get paid as well. Should software engineers all be paid the same despite some being smarter than others?
Am now receiving my union retirement. Every contract that I worked under stated with equal qualifications the promotions are based on seniority. Which meant that most of the time the promotion went to the best qualified not the most senior. In most shops 20% of the employees do 60 % of the work. Usually be cause the 20% are working a profession where as the other 80% are working a job.
In negations managements first response to the union’s proposal was along the lines of “If you give you that we may as well close the doors.” And the unions response was along the lines of show us where this will bankrupt the company and we will adjust our proposals.
Funny thing while there was no money to increase wages for the employee’s, the board members, CEO, and senor execs are giving raises and bonuses. While the company is loosing money and the stock is dropping in value.
One time when I was on the negotiating committee I made a counter proposal. WE would accept a freeze on wages with no raises for three years as long as the company was not making money. But if corporate officers received a raise of bonus then we would get the same percentage raise or bonus. The next meeting the company’s labor lawyer countered with a raise of $1.00 the first year $1.25 the second year and $1.35 the third. With the down economy that year we were hoping to get $0.75 to$0.90 each year. In fact the warehousemen only got $0.25 6 month earlier in the year. Best negotiating tool ever used.
The unions fell apart in the controllers strike. And in the end it cost them.
What pun could you possibly have feared people would infer from that?
I love it!