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
I don't actually have an objection to experience affecting pay - insofar as it's justifiable and relative to the amount of extra usefulness that experience grants. i.e. someone with 2 years experience is definitely worth more than someone with 1. But 15 years vs 14 isn't worth the same differential.