I had an intruiging conversation with a friend the other day about equality of pay.

She said that all men and women doing the same job should be paid the same amount of money. I disagreed. I got shouted at. But I still stand by my argument that if a man is producing more output per hour, in the case of manual labour for example, they should be paid more. If say a man and a women are doing a job such as IT consultancy or accounting or the like, then yes, equal pay for sure, but in recent years the amount of prize money for the winner of Wimbledon for women has increased steadily, and now is in line with that of the men. I still don't understand how this is fair when the crowd all pays the same amount to watch the matches, but men play two or three sets more than the women. Thoughts would be appreciated...

Comments

My instinct would be to say that, like you say, pay should be meritocratic and if someone is working more efficiently/vigorously or whatever then their pay should reflect that.

BUT, if that were to be universally applied, what would people who were disabled but still able to perform work to a lesser pysical standard than others be payed? That would mean that a 60 yr old shelf stacker wouldn't get payed as much as a spritely teenager, despite probably having to expend much more effort to do their work.

Men and women with the same job should be payed the same, though, I think. Rewards for performance could then be supplementary eg bonuses. I dunno, difficult one.

It might seem a little harsh but yes I do think that someone who is less physically able doing something in manual labour should be paid less. THis is becuase he/she is being employed to do a job, and if they aren't working at the same standards as the other workers then they should be paid less.

I do kinda agree with the point about bonuses...I guess they have some sort of schemes in place in stuff like investment banking where they get huge bonuses, and I know in an industry such as television producers can get bonuses for high viewing figures for example. Seems like a potential route to go down I guess...

The point my friend made was similar to the point you raised in that they might be exerting the same amount of energy on completing a task, but in the end it is the output they produce which they should be measured on. Tough love I know...

When I have to meet certain 'case rate targets' at work.. the middle aged/elderly women and elderly men dont reach them, they dont. They seem to come to work for the chat, however if i don't meet them I get threatened with possible disciplinary action like im there for a career and it does get on my nerves. The groups of people I just mentioned regualrly fail, and they get to work together... get to be social etc. But there are 4 guys aged between 18-27 on my dept and even if we meet our targets (which we ususally do) we get seperated and are forced to work on our own in a bid to squeeze a bit more out of us to compensate for the obvious incompetance of others.

They look to employ the middle aged women because of the hours they can work, they're quite flexible. The number of teenage - mid 20 males have steadily been decreasing and the work loads put on us is now ridiculous. For example when I first started we were asked to put out 38 cases an hour, that is now 60... over 20% rise. 

But I do think in jobs where a certain amount of physical exersion is needed then I think people should get paid upon meeting AGREED targets accordingly rahter than setting out a template based on age and gender. The higher target you set yourself... the more money you stand to earn (within reason) 

As for the elderly workers... I don't mean to be ageist but if you've got to do lifting, dragging, pushing, bending.... don't apply for the damn job. Surely it puts them and the company at risk... let alone frustrate the younger workers when they need to pick up the slack. 

Men vs Women