Equal Pay for Equal Work: First, Define the Term "Equal"
Posted: Sunday, July 05, 2009
by Alf Gordon
I am about to offend a whole segment of the work force--and frankly, I do not care. I want an explanation for what I see going on in today's workplace. Notice, I said "explanation", not "excuse."
A situation has occurred in recent days which has brought the phrase "equal pay for equal work" into sharper scrutiny on my part. A complaint was raised concerning the raises which our company will be issuing shortly. Someone commented that the differences in salaries for different people doing the same job should not be in evidence. If two people are doing the same job, they should receive the same salary for it. And then the phrase was uttered: "After all, equal pay for equal work."
I so badly wanted to ask the individual what the definition was for the word "equal" in that sentence. After all, I know a number of people who work in the same company, have the same job title, work for the same group, and are on the same pay scale. Should they receive "equal pay for equal work" when:
* One is constantly looking for ways to reduce the workload for the group, while the other does barely enough work to get by?
* One has no education and ten years of experience with the company, while the other has a bachelor's degree and twenty years of experience in the field?
* One responds to new assignments with "Sorry, that is not my job", while the other says "Let me help you find out how to resolve the issue"?
* One puts in the necessary hours to complete work assignments, even if it means unpaid overtime, while the other looks for every opportunity to start work late, leave work early, and avoid working on weekends and holidays at all costs?
* One constantly takes unscheduled time off to take care of "family emergencies", while the other follows policies when requesting vacation and sick leave?
* One does the job with little or no complaint, while the other continually voices concerns about what is "fair" and "right"?
Now, before some of you get all self-righteously angry and start writing those stop-the-hatred-and-prejudice comments (and you know who you are), let me assure you that (a) each of the examples above describes two individuals--but not always the same two individuals; and (b) the two individuals in each example above are not necessary on opposite sides of a given fence--it is not always male-versus-female, or black-versus-white, or gay-versus-straight. Each is a real-life example, using people with whom I have worked over the years, and modifying some of the details to protect the guilty. (No, that is not a typo.)
So let me ask again: In these examples, how would one define the term "equal?" In each situation, it is very obvious that one person is either more qualified, more motivated, or more conscientious than the other. So where is the equality in the workplace? Is simply assigning the same amount of pay to every individual regardless of their experience, education, and work ethic "equal"? Is rewarding people for working harder, smarter, and more efficiently showing favoritism and encouraging prejudice? Especially in today's economy, is the basic law of evolution, "survival of the fittest", not applicable in the business world?
I know where I stand on the issue. I look forward to your comments on the matter.
A situation has occurred in recent days which has brought the phrase "equal pay for equal work" into sharper scrutiny on my part. A complaint was raised concerning the raises which our company will be issuing shortly. Someone commented that the differences in salaries for different people doing the same job should not be in evidence. If two people are doing the same job, they should receive the same salary for it. And then the phrase was uttered: "After all, equal pay for equal work."
* One is constantly looking for ways to reduce the workload for the group, while the other does barely enough work to get by?
* One has no education and ten years of experience with the company, while the other has a bachelor's degree and twenty years of experience in the field?
* One responds to new assignments with "Sorry, that is not my job", while the other says "Let me help you find out how to resolve the issue"?
* One puts in the necessary hours to complete work assignments, even if it means unpaid overtime, while the other looks for every opportunity to start work late, leave work early, and avoid working on weekends and holidays at all costs?
* One constantly takes unscheduled time off to take care of "family emergencies", while the other follows policies when requesting vacation and sick leave?
* One does the job with little or no complaint, while the other continually voices concerns about what is "fair" and "right"?
Now, before some of you get all self-righteously angry and start writing those stop-the-hatred-and-prejudice comments (and you know who you are), let me assure you that (a) each of the examples above describes two individuals--but not always the same two individuals; and (b) the two individuals in each example above are not necessary on opposite sides of a given fence--it is not always male-versus-female, or black-versus-white, or gay-versus-straight. Each is a real-life example, using people with whom I have worked over the years, and modifying some of the details to protect the guilty. (No, that is not a typo.)
So let me ask again: In these examples, how would one define the term "equal?" In each situation, it is very obvious that one person is either more qualified, more motivated, or more conscientious than the other. So where is the equality in the workplace? Is simply assigning the same amount of pay to every individual regardless of their experience, education, and work ethic "equal"? Is rewarding people for working harder, smarter, and more efficiently showing favoritism and encouraging prejudice? Especially in today's economy, is the basic law of evolution, "survival of the fittest", not applicable in the business world?
I know where I stand on the issue. I look forward to your comments on the matter.
This Article has been viewed 2,102 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)Thank you Mr. Gordon for your focus on the issues that management faces every day.The same job description and requirements do not necessarily require the same dollar value pay.The true meaning of "equal pay" is that the baseline salary starts at the same dollar figure for each in the positions. The determination for higher pay from the baseline number are just the criteria you discuss: the experience, the results, the broadbase thinking to improve the company. All these things are evaluation and hiring salary criteria.If you have a good human resource department, good management training and good evaluation tools, the company can promote "equal pay" for the baseline starting place and validate the additional income opportunities for those that produce results.In reality, what you describe in the alternate persons are truly reasons for that person being out of a job.In this work environment, no company should tolerate that behavior pattern when there are so many talented people looking for employment. Business needs to take advantage of cleaning house and recruiting real talent and then equal pay will become a non-issue!Diane, I find it telling that the individuals who like using the "equal pay for equal work" line are those who feel they are not being paid enough for what they do. In my personal experience, they are also the ones who are not doing the level of work for which they've been hired. I cannot say that I have ever heard someone who worked hard and went over and above the call of duty complain how they were being overpaid while others who did not work as hard at the same level got less pay. I wonder why that is. Thank you for your additional observations.
Alf, this was interesting to read, as your writing always is for me. I define the term. I am self-employed with no employees because of phrases like "equal pay for equal work." I retain independent contractors as needed.
Hope all is well.
I wish survival of the fittest applied to today's business climate, since it certainly does in the sector I work. The news tells us otherwise, however, as banks and mortgage companies (and auto makers) get bailouts for not being the 'fittest'. Remember, whenever the government is involved the 'fittest' is replaced by 'neediest'. Good job.Michael, I only wish the government's definition of "fittest" WAS "needy". Neither businesses nor individuals who deliberately let their outgo exceed their income deserve assistance. They made their bed; it is time they lie in it. The truly needy, the ones who work hard and try to make every penny count and still cannot get ahead, are the ones who deserve assistance.
After managing people for over 20 years in manufacturing I have found every example you described. The worst excuse I've heard is "I will work harder if you pay me more." I have always found that a person with that type of attitude did not understand the word "initiative". If we could only get people in the United States to get out of "victim mode". Thank you for your writing.Jon, I work with people who believe the same thing. Give me the promotion and I will show you I can do the job, even though I have never evidenced the ability to do so in anything I have done to date. Of course, we cannot blame people today for feeling this way. After all, our standing President did the same thing when he ran for office. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Although I completely agree with the article, I myself have found myself angry that someone with less experience, less education, and a poor annual review is able to be transferred/hired into a position with the exact same job description making more money.If we look at my reportore with the company, I have excelled and increased my workload substantially since I first started working with the company. A two day a week job has turned into a week long full time position, with responsibilities that can either make or break the company. (This is a government facility) And I have been coined for work excellence 3 times by General's in a one year period. Now in a situation like this, how does this other person get hired into a position similar to mine, who can barely answer phones and use a computer get more money that I?
I am a teacher and have always had a problem with teacher being paid solely on years of service. Some teacher prepare for one subject and teach the same lesson 5 times a day. I teach 6 different subject and have to teach an extra period during the day. We both get paid the same just as long as we have the same number of years of service. How do you fix this inequity?
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.