A bunch of unions are taking the Government to court over pay equity.
They are having several stabs at it – the Bill of Rights is in play and the democratic process is up for debate.
One of the things the unions claim may happen if they win, is a select committee would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament would have to take place.
That’s the "show trial" part. Select committees hear from the people you would expect to hear from: broadly, it's people opposed to whatever change of law is in play.
And a debate in Parliament hears both sides, one for, one against, with the Government of the day prevailing, given it is they who have the numbers and indeed that is why they are the Government.
Which is essentially why court is a waste of time, remembering of course the Government is the ultimate court and if they want to pass a law, they can.
Making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation is a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, were one of the many claimants putting an equity claim forward before the law was changed.
To my eye being a high school teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it, women do it, there are lots of them and they aren't paid on gender.
It's not a profession where 99% of them are women and because they are women, they are poorly paid.
High school teachers are paid quite well. You could equally argue they are not paid as well as they could be because the union insists on them all being paid the same based on time in the classroom. If they got paid on merit it would be a different world.
Kristine Bartlett's case became famous because we could all see the care industry was mainly female and the pay was poor. I would still argue the pay was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is not of great numerical value.
If it was, rest homes would pay more, charge residents more and we'd happily foot the bill. But we don’t.
Anyway, the upshot is the best the unions can hope for is a court win. The win can then be used to beat the Government about the head as big, bad meanies.
But it will still not get them paid under an equity deal because the court is not the Government.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
One of the things the unions claim may happen if they win, is a select committee would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament would have to take place.
That’s the "show trial" part. Select committees hear from the people you would expect to hear from: broadly, it's people opposed to whatever change of law is in play.
And a debate in Parliament hears both sides, one for, one against, with the Government of the day prevailing, given it is they who have the numbers and indeed that is why they are the Government.
Which is essentially why court is a waste of time, remembering of course the Government is the ultimate court and if they want to pass a law, they can.
Making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation is a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, were one of the many claimants putting an equity claim forward before the law was changed.
To my eye being a high school teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it, women do it, there are lots of them and they aren't paid on gender.
It's not a profession where 99% of them are women and because they are women, they are poorly paid.
High school teachers are paid quite well. You could equally argue they are not paid as well as they could be because the union insists on them all being paid the same based on time in the classroom. If they got paid on merit it would be a different world.
Kristine Bartlett's case became famous because we could all see the care industry was mainly female and the pay was poor. I would still argue the pay was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is not of great numerical value.
If it was, rest homes would pay more, charge residents more and we'd happily foot the bill. But we don’t.
Anyway, the upshot is the best the unions can hope for is a court win. The win can then be used to beat the Government about the head as big, bad meanies.
But it will still not get them paid under an equity deal because the court is not the Government.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
If these people were paid by performance, many of them would be owing the State every payday rather than drawing a salary. Primary teachers who don't teach kids to read and write, for instance......
I believe it will be lot of fuss about nothing . Parliament has spoken and ruled . End of story. If there was a NZ Bill of Rights issue the Attorney General would have intervened. And then there is the long standing matter of Comity between Parliament , Executive and Judiciary to act with mutual restraint and respect towards the other parties . The Minister of Justice gave a defining speech to the Law Associaion and available on Breaking Views, June or July 2024
The pay equity issue is a complete myth.
Up there with the loch ness monster and Big Foot.
IT DOES NOT EXIST
If any employer was allowed to pay woman less money, then why would they employ a man?
Why we even have a "Pay equity court" is a complete mystery.
Time and again this issue has been debunked.
Maybe we should just ask a construction worker or brick layer whether she thinks she is being underpaid compared to her male colleagues and see IF there is a reason why?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.