Those pay equity claims have been a bit random. I don't know if you know how this works, but basically, if people can prove that they're underpaid because they work in women-dominated jobs, then they can get a pay rise.
And how they prove this is by finding men who are doing a similar job and then showing that there is a difference in pay.
But the problem is, it really isn't. It isn't comparing apples with apples, it's often apples with oranges.
For example, librarians. Librarians are currently trying to get a pay rise by comparing themselves to traffic engineers.
Now, no disrespect whatsoever to librarians, but the Dewey Decimal System is not that hard. I'm pretty sure that most of us could learn to do it and become librarians in about 20 minutes flat.
I think it takes a little bit longer to train up as an engineer who specializes in designing and planning and constructing and operating and maintaining a transport system.
And the same goes with the admin health staff who are trying to compare themselves to mechanical engineers, and the same goes with the social workers who are trying to compare themselves to air traffic controllers. You can see the trouble here, right?
Now, from what I understand, what Brooke van Velden has done today is going to save the country billions of dollars - in the Budget that we're getting in 2 weeks' time.
Apparently, this is one of, if not the single biggest savings in the Budget. And apparently over 4 years, it counts for something higher than $10 billion. That is a significant amount of money.
And as we know, the country is financially stuffed.
However, someone will pay for this, and it's going to be the Government.
They will be punished for this in political capital in the years to come, because this attack basically writes itself.
Heartless Government takes money from underpaid working women - and that is why it is so ballsy, because the pay equity system is clearly, when you look at the detail, deeply flawed.
I mean, it's a lovely idea, let's pay women more, but the system that we use to do that is deeply, deeply flawed and obviously needs this overhaul - but the politics of it is gonna be very, very rough.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
Go Brooke. ...!! It is worth the 'flack' and it is the sort of 'sort-out' needed for NEW ZEALAND to survive.
As the Speaker in Parliament might say ; Mmph perhaps you need a second try at that Heather, it isn't quite understandable , not there yet.
Of course the pay equity law change will save money - that was the entire point of it. The Govt needs more money in the budget, and they have to get it sewn up by the end of Friday: hence the passing of the legislation under urgency. The criteria for pay equity are irrelevant here: they're simply a justification after the fact. And as for Heather's reckons, they just amount to, 'I know what my employer wants me to say, so I'll go along with them to keep my good salary'.
My own experience as a pharmacist over 50+ years is that pay equity was absolute and total in that profession.
Any suggestion that males could be paid different rates from females would have been thrown out with contempt.
The examples cited here e.g. librarians vs engineers are certainly in the 'comparing apples with oranges' league.
However, it strikes me as legit to compare occupations that require qualifications that are comparable. For instance, primary teaching and general nursing both generally require a 3-year degree, so a case could be made for expecting the same level of remuneration. (That's basic salary; things like shift allowances could come on top of that.)
Unfortunately, this sensible approach overlooks market forces (supply/demand) and the lure of higher salaries outside NZ. At the end of the day, you're not paid what you're 'worth' (a rather dubious measure) but what the market is prepared to pay you.
My comments elsewhere about slovenly checking in the past of proposed legislation certainly applies here. It is yet another area of legislation which must have delighted the highly lucrative make work legal profession (who are always careful not to question any pending bonanza). NZ seems unable to decide if we are a capitalist free market society or what. Unless a full socialist country there needs to be some element of supply and demand in wages. The clamour for qualifications is basically to reduce this. It is absurd that wages for a sector should be based on the equivalent of a university competition debate without the humour (but with huge fees). Indexing of everything to everything else in one way or another as is now the situation, is the most certain path to inflation. It has become absurd. Bed makers in a rest home are compared with outdoor construction workers etc. Day care providers compared with top level secondary teachers. A person with knack and no extensive education can do the former but not the latter.
Pity our Govt doesn't give the same urgency to sorting out our racial issues, which are costing the country a lot more than pay equity issues
Post a Comment