andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2006-10-04 07:52 am
andrewducker) wrote2006-10-04 07:52 am
Equal Pay
News here that companies have been told that length of service is _not_ a good enough reason to pay people more.
And, I have to say, about bloody time too.
True, longer service can lead to greater levels of experience and thus better productivity and usefulness from an employee - but it doesn't have to. If someone is being more productive/useful then they should be rewarded for that - paying them for length of service is jut a lazy way to avoid thinking about someone's actual contribution.
It also biases the system against women. It's very easy to justify paying women less when you can point out they've taken a year (or two) off to raise kids - but unless that has an actual, demonstrable affect on their levels of productivity, it's irrelevant.
And, I have to say, about bloody time too.
True, longer service can lead to greater levels of experience and thus better productivity and usefulness from an employee - but it doesn't have to. If someone is being more productive/useful then they should be rewarded for that - paying them for length of service is jut a lazy way to avoid thinking about someone's actual contribution.
It also biases the system against women. It's very easy to justify paying women less when you can point out they've taken a year (or two) off to raise kids - but unless that has an actual, demonstrable affect on their levels of productivity, it's irrelevant.
no subject
no subject
The government finally figured out that despite the fact that since what? 70% of the counry are too lazy to vote, they're probably also too lazy to complain, or do anything else at all.
So they can screw them in the eye! ;)
no subject