Equal Pay for Equal Work?

[Mike11]

Given that I can not express this type of thought in polite company I thought I would ask it here.

In the early 1900s in Canada women would often be paid half to two thirds of a male's pay for the same job. The logic for this difference being these women were almost always unmarried versus the men who would need the pay to support several dependents. Wow, that was bad grammar on my part but you get the idea.

So this sort of difference was dealt with legally, the pay gap is now officially illegal in Canada. However, by Objectivist standards, it ought to be perfectly legal to pay a white male 200$ for 8 hours work and a Negress 20$ for the same 8 hours work.

So looking at the problem in the early 1900s from an ethical, rather than political standpoint, how would you as an employer or as a worker deal with this situation?

[caroljane]

Interesting. And offside, how did Jim Taggart, in the 1950s with a wife to support, and spinster Dagny apportion their pay? She was "pre-Objectivist" and he presumably had situational ethics.

[pippi]

However, by Objectivist standards, it ought to be perfectly legal to pay a white male 200$ for 8 hours work and a Negress 20$ for the same 8 hours work.

Why? Are you saying it is up to the employer and the employer only to compensate as he sees fit?

[Mike11]

However, by Objectivist standards, it ought to be perfectly legal to pay a white male 200$ for 8 hours work and a Negress 20$ for the same 8 hours work.

Why? Are you saying it is up to the employer and the employer only to compensate as he sees fit?

Such is my understanding of Objectivism. Is there something I'm missing?

[pippi]

However, by Objectivist standards, it ought to be perfectly legal to pay a white male 200$ for 8 hours work and a Negress 20$ for the same 8 hours work.

Why? Are you saying it is up to the employer and the employer only to compensate as he sees fit?

Such is my understanding of Objectivism. Is there something I'm missing?

Nope. Just trying to understand your post. It is a very good question btw.

Edited February 3, 2011 by pippi

[Mike11]

In case its a bit unclear let's say you employ 2 clerks, both with the same job description and job performance. One is a married male, the other a single woman. They work side by side. He makes 26.50$ an hour, she makes 10.25$ an hour. Regardless of the size of the company and the number of people experiencing unequal pay, this situation out to be legal per Objectivism.

My question is more about the ethics involved when an entire society practices sex based pay structures. If you know the single women are not going to easily find higher paying work while the men need the additional funds for their dependents what are the ethics involved in how much you would pay?

[Selene]

Joel:

Essentially, you are positing two factually unequal individuals in terms of what they need to provide for themselves.

The married male has "dependents," in terms of family which is not a relevant issue to the employer on it's face. His need is not a claim on your business.

The unmarried female has herself to support and her needs are also not a claim on your business.

Therefore, I do not see this as an ethical issue at all in terms of Objectivism.

What if I had a business and I only hired very competent redheaded women with nice asses? It is no ones business.

Adam

wow, I have not seen the word "Negress" in many moons, a little native American lingo there.

Does anyone find it cosmically comical that on the first day of Black History Month [which is only 28 days - DISCRIMINATION!!], virtually the entire country was blanketed by white stuff...I mean snow.

[caroljane]

Joel:

Essentially, you are positing two factually unequal individuals in terms of what they need to provide for themselves.

The married male has "dependents," in terms of family which is not a relevant issue to the employer on it's face. His need is not a claim on your business.

The unmarried female has herself to support and her needs are also not a claim on your business.

Therefore, I do not see this as an ethical issue at all in terms of Objectivism.

What if I had a business and I only hired very competent redheaded women with nice asses? It is no ones business.

Adam

wow, I have not seen the word "Negress" in many moons, a little native American lingo there.

Does anyone find it cosmically comical that on the first day of Black History Month [which is only 28 days - DISCRIMINATION!!], virtually the entire country was blanketed by white stuff...I mean snow.

He was retrospecting to the early 1900's , when such was the norm, I think.

[Selene]

Joel:

Essentially, you are positing two factually unequal individuals in terms of what they need to provide for themselves.

The married male has "dependents," in terms of family which is not a relevant issue to the employer on it's face. His need is not a claim on your business.

The unmarried female has herself to support and her needs are also not a claim on your business.

Therefore, I do not see this as an ethical issue at all in terms of Objectivism.

What if I had a business and I only hired very competent redheaded women with nice asses? It is no ones business.

Adam

wow, I have not seen the word "Negress" in many moons, a little native American lingo there.

Does anyone find it cosmically comical that on the first day of Black History Month [which is only 28 days - DISCRIMINATION!!], virtually the entire country was blanketed by white stuff...I mean snow.

He was retrospecting to the early 1900's , when such was the norm, I think.

Carol:

I know. I just wanted to answer it in today's application.

One of the reasons given for paying men more than women that I have read was the assumption that women would get married and have children as the norm.

Therefore, the investment in training would be lost when the women left your employ and would probably not be back because she would be raising a family.

And then Rosie the Riveter arrived, followed by positive feminism in the 1950's.

[caroljane]

However, by Objectivist standards, it ought to be perfectly legal to pay a white male 200$ for 8 hours work and a Negress 20$ for the same 8 hours work.

Why? Are you saying it is up to the employer and the employer only to compensate as he sees fit?

It was Ayn Rand who said it.

[caroljane]

In case its a bit unclear let's say you employ 2 clerks, both with the same job description and job performance. One is a married male, the other a single woman. They work side by side. He makes 26.50$ an hour, she makes 10.25$ an hour. Regardless of the size of the company and the number of people experiencing unequal pay, this situation out to be legal per Objectivism.

My question is more about the ethics involved when an entire society practices sex based pay structures. If you know the single women are not going to easily find higher paying work while the men need the additional funds for their dependents what are the ethics involved in how much you would pay?

My guess is that the Oist employer would pay each worker according to his evaluation of their performance and worth to the company. So in your case above, the man and woman with equal performance would get equal pay. The boss would disregard the societal norms and legality (if he was moral). If he chose, he could award the needier man with the family a bonus as charity.

[caroljane]

Since 118 people have now viewed this topic, and no one has offered any relevant Rand evidence, I will go further and say that I would guess Rand paid her own employees the going rate, no more no less, and when she was offered free labour she took it. The value to those who worked for her would have been immeasurably greater to them than to her. I'd love to know what she actually paid or did not pay to secretaries, assistants, researchers etc. Her signature statement was the dollar sign which John Galt traced in the dirt.That is, the air. Making it not "filthy lucre" anymore.

Edited February 3, 2011 by daunce lynam

[pippi]

My guess is that the Oist employer would pay each worker according to his evaluation of their performance and worth to the company. So in your case above, the man and woman with equal performance would get equal pay. The boss would disregard the societal norms and legality (if he was moral). If he chose, he could award the needier man with the family a bonus as charity.

I agree with this.

Joel, do you not? If you agree why the question in the first place?

[Kat]

I think women should be paid more than men, but I'm a bit biased being female and all.

Actually, I think an employer should be able to recruit for a position, have a certain salary range in mind and actually specify what it is and if they prefer a male or female, what experience they want, along with salary range. Nowadays job hunting is so difficult because of all the dancing around what should have been laid out in the first place. Most of the time they give you no idea what the salary range is until the second interview. If they laid it all out at the start people wouldn't waste their time sending out hundreds of resumes and employers wouldn't have to sift through all that.

Once in the position that was posted at a certain range, the employer should be free to give raises and bonuses as they see fit, even if it would create a salary gap. It's their company.

[PDS]

I think the "Objectivist" answer to this question is that the employment relationship is a species of general contracts: i.e., two parties contract with one another for labor on mutually agreeable terms. Absent fraud or the point of a gun, the parties to the employment contract are presumed to know their best interests, such as rate of pay, benefits, and the like. There should be no legal requirement to pay people equally, as that gives one party to the contract the threat or actuality of initiating force to gain better terms.

But here, like in many areas, the moral is the practical. As an employer myself, it would be impractical for me to pay men differently than women for the same work. Not only would this be bad for morale generally, I would run the risk of leaving my employee's best efforts at the door, and additionally run the risk of losing good employees to my competitors. Therefore, it is in my self interest to pay people equally, when they do equal work, even if they happen to be of different genders.

[anthony]

My guess is that the Oist employer would pay each worker according to his evaluation of their performance and worth to the company. So in your case above, the man and woman with equal performance would get equal pay. The boss would disregard the societal norms and legality (if he was moral). If he chose, he could award the needier man with the family a bonus as charity.

I agree with this.

Joel, do you not? If you agree why the question in the first place?

Pippi, and I agree with your agreement.

Daunce laid out the Objectivist position very well, I think.

Why Joel put out a question he must know was going to get so easily answered, Objectively, is anyone's guess.

Tongue in cheek?

Broadly speaking, this employment issue is one of the best illustrations of self-interest in action.

Apart from a good rebuttal of altruism ("to each, according to his need"), which would ultimately make charity cases out of any employees, it stands for value-for-value, individual choice, rationality, respect, productive pride, -- you name it.

As PDS indicates, it connects the practical to the moral, ... which is a good enough proof of Rand's is/ought rejection, for me!

When you have seen what damage State regulation and Trade Unionist intervention have done to this moral relationship between employer and employee, you'd have to be blind to still think they are benevolently motivated.

Tony

[Selene]

But here, like in many areas, the moral is the practical. As an employer myself, it would be impractical for me to pay men differently than women for the same work. Not only would this be bad for morale generally, I would run the risk of leaving my employee's best efforts at the door, and additionally run the risk of losing good employees to my competitors. Therefore, it is in my self interest to pay people equally, when they do equal work, even if they happen to be of different genders.

Exactly PDS.

It never ceases to amaze me that certain commentators cannot fathom the simple fact that what you stated above is selfish in its motivation. I brought these principles to city government in the 1970's and you would have thought that I was attempting to kill all the power brokers children and pets.

I also put into effect merit bonus pay and had the most efficient and happy office in the administration.

Well stated.

Adam

[caroljane]

When you have seen what damage State regulation and Trade Unionist intervention have done to this moral relationship between employer and employee, you'd have to be blind to still think they are benevolently motivated.

Tony

Ah, but I must take issue with this, at least with the trade union part for now.

As I've said before, there should be no need for unions. They only exist because of bad management. Unfortunately, most employers are not Objectivists, many are not moral or even sensible, and some are dishonest and exploitive, in the bad sense. Some consider injustice and discrimination to be a prerogative, however damaging it may be to their bottom line. Workplaces are unionized on a regular basis due to these factors. All union contracts are about money, of course, but the mantra of the workers who gather the courage to challenge the injustice is never "Better pay", but "Respect and Dignity".

Don't make Adam bring back Norma Rae!

[Selene]

Carol:

"...most employers are not Objectivists..." I will stipulate to that.

"...many are not moral or even sensible..." Really? Many means more than fifty per cent (50%) or less than fifty per cent (50%)? Or, do you have a set of numbers?

"...some are dishonest and exploitive in the bad sense..." Really? Some has an objective per cent? And I am not sure you can even be dishonest in a good sense, but I do think you can be exploitive in a good sense.

"Some consider injustice and discrimination to be a prerogative..." Really? Some has an objective per cent?

below

However, we do know with certainty that Unions, like the NY City Teachers Unions are moral and sensible. Moreover, we know that Unions are honest and do not exploit their membership. And we certainly know that Unions only consider justice and anti-discrimination as their top prerogative.

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

"...most employers are not Objectivists..." I will stipulate to that.

"...many are not moral or even sensible..." Really? Many means more than fifty per cent (50%) or less than fifty per cent (50%)? Or, do you have a set of numbers?

"...some are dishonest and exploitive in the bad sense..." Really? Some has an objective per cent? And I am not sure you can even be dishonest in a good sense, but I do think you can be exploitive in a good sense.

"Some consider injustice and discrimination to be a prerogative..." Really? Some has an objective per cent?

below

However, we do know with certainty that Unions, like the NY City Teachers Unions are moral and sensible. Moreover, we know that Unions are honest and do not exploit their membership. And we certainly know that Unions only consider justice and anti-discrimination as their top prerogative.

Adam

For many, I'll be charitable, say 15%. Since there are a lot of employers, that's still many people.

Continuing in good faith, for some I'll say 5%.

I was talking about why workplaces unionize initially, as I'm sure you know, and "A is bad but B is worse" is below your usual standard of discourse! I think everybody is interested in righting wrongs caused by longterm results/unintended consequences of righting past wrongs caused by righting even longer-past wrongs caused by...

"but the 1820s Declaration....the common rights of Man proclaim"

-the Corries

(only appropriate folksong that occurs right now)

Of course I meant "in the bad sense" to attach only to "exploitive", not to "honest", should have added a comma to make clearer,

Edited February 4, 2011 by daunce lynam

[anthony]

When you have seen what damage State regulation and Trade Unionist intervention have done to this moral relationship between employer and employee, you'd have to be blind to still think they are benevolently motivated.

Tony

Ah, but I must take issue with this, at least with the trade union part for now.

As I've said before, there should be no need for unions. They only exist because of bad management. Unfortunately, most employers are not Objectivists, many are not moral or even sensible, and some are dishonest and exploitive, in the bad sense. Some consider injustice and discrimination to be a prerogative, however damaging it may be to their bottom line. Workplaces are unionized on a regular basis due to these factors. All union contracts are about money, of course, but the mantra of the workers who gather the courage to challenge the injustice is never "Better pay", but "Respect and Dignity".

Don't make Adam bring back Norma Rae!

A closed-shop Union strips the worker of respect and dignity - by the intrinsic assumption that all workers are equal, in energy, training, application and motivation.

An open-shop is completely valid, and often justified, as a voluntary association that can negotiate with management on wage, working conditions, etc. on behalf of its members.

In that unknown state of a fully free economy, your "bad managements" will expire, along with their companies.

There has never been the 'right' to make profits - or, the 'right' to work, the 'right' to better pay, or the 'right' to dignity; these are fabrications by those who want to pit Labour against Capital, for their own power base.

A false dichotomy? maybe, when one considers the symbiotic relationship that will always exist between employers and employed.

(Anyhow, show me the money, and I'll take care of my own dignity. )

Tony

[Selene]

Carol:

Good.

So, essentially, would you agree that between 5% and 15% of (non-government) businesses may, because of their poor/immoral business practices require forming unions ot guilds to protect workers interests?

I can work with that number.

Secondly, since government is, in Canada, trustworthy and competent to run the health care system, why would any government worker need to be unionized?

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

Good.

So, essentially, would you agree that between 5% and 15% of (non-government) businesses may, because of their poor/immoral business practices require forming unions ot guilds to protect workers interests?

I can work with that number.

Secondly, since government is, in Canada, trustworthy and competent to run the health care system, why would any government worker need to be unionized?

Adam

Of course I do not agree with "require" and "need"; you are projecting an argument I wasn't advancing.

1- the workers in the bad business may, or may not, attempt to unionize, for their own reasons. The requirement would be judged by them. I can only speak of the one workplace I knew where such happened.The place may go out of business, the boss might retire and somebody better take over, the workers could win the Lotto, anything may happen. I don't prescribe what should happen. Unionizing is one solution which has often worked.

2. - David Harriman called - he wants his title back!

"The government" as an employer is as trustworthy and competent as the individual directors, managers etc are in their individual offices.

Labour and management are not monoliths except to economists.

I am sure you were a wonderful boss.

[Selene]

Carol:

Good.

So, essentially, would you agree that between 5% and 15% of (non-government) businesses may, because of their poor/immoral business practices require forming unions ot guilds to protect workers interests?

I can work with that number.

Secondly, since government is, in Canada, trustworthy and competent to run the health care system, why would any government worker need to be unionized?

Adam

Of course I do not agree with "require" and "need"; you are projecting an argument I wasn't advancing.

1- the workers in the bad business may, or may not, attempt to unionize, for their own reasons. The requirement would be judged by them. I can only speak of the one workplace I knew where such happened.The place may go out of business, the boss might retire and somebody better take over, the workers could win the Lotto, anything may happen. I don't prescribe what should happen. Unionizing is one solution which has often worked.

2. - David Harriman called - he wants his title back!

"The government" as an employer is as trustworthy and competent as the individual directors, managers etc are in their individual offices.

Labour and management are not monoliths except to economists.

I am sure you were a wonderful boss.

Carol:

Bad choice of words - require or need. Essentially, what I meant was that management/bosses who do not fall into that 5-15% do not provide the necessary soil fertilized by incompetence and corruption to permit a union to grow.

Rand's Rearden Mills example.

As far as government unions are concerned, I would like to develop this issue because:

1) it is overlooked by the citizenry;

2) government unions are literally breaking the financial integrity of the US, all 50 states, [or 57 as O'biwan claimed] almost every county, township, city, and village in my country; and

3) I think it is a valid question to ask as to why a government union is necessary or justified.

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

Good.

So, essentially, would you agree that between 5% and 15% of (non-government) businesses may, because of their poor/immoral business practices require forming unions ot guilds to protect workers interests?

I can work with that number.

Secondly, since government is, in Canada, trustworthy and competent to run the health care system, why would any government worker need to be unionized?

Adam

Of course I do not agree with "require" and "need"; you are projecting an argument I wasn't advancing.

1- the workers in the bad business may, or may not, attempt to unionize, for their own reasons. The requirement would be judged by them. I can only speak of the one workplace I knew where such happened.The place may go out of business, the boss might retire and somebody better take over, the workers could win the Lotto, anything may happen. I don't prescribe what should happen. Unionizing is one solution which has often worked.

2. - David Harriman called - he wants his title back!

"The government" as an employer is as trustworthy and competent as the individual directors, managers etc are in their individual offices.

Labour and management are not monoliths except to economists.

I am sure you were a wonderful boss.

Carol:

Bad choice of words - require or need. Essentially, what I meant was that management/bosses who do not fall into that 5-15% do not provide the necessary soil fertilized by incompetence and corruption to permit a union to grow.

Rand's Rearden Mills example.

As far as government unions are concerned, I would like to develop this issue because:

1) it is overlooked by the citizenry;

2) government unions are literally breaking the financial integrity of the US, all 50 states, [or 57 as O'biwan claimed] almost every county, township, city, and village in my country; and

3) I think it is a valid question to ask as to why a government union is necessary or justified.

Adam

You are certainly right that the majority of nonunion workplaces are not broke and don't need fixin', due to good management.

Your government union point is an important one, but I do not know the American situation, indeed I don't know the Canadian one in this sense -are our unions threatening the financial integrity of the country and all 10 provinces and 3 territories? And if so, is it necessary to prove that unions are not justified, to prevent disaster?

I don't think so. It's a question of strict pragmatism, of working out a way of maintaining the economic structure without violating the rights of the individual worker (including the right to belong to a union). Who can do that, I have no clue.