Last week, I didn’t truly understand the happenings of women being paid equal pay for doing the same amount of work as the male population in New Brunswick.
After someone took the time to explain to me the details?
I said - MY GOD!!! New Brunswick is living in the dark ages.
What’s funny or sad in this case? I was told it was in the Liberal platform in 2003 that women would get paid equal pay in the private sector.
I was told that small businesses told the Government that if they have to pay women equal pay as the men?
They couldn’t survive in today’s world!
In my view? This is the same statement as the owners of black slaves were saying 200 years ago.
We can’t give the black population rights because we would have to pay them! We wouldn’t be able to survive!
What a bunch of hogwash!!!!
Both Political Parties in Fredericton should hold the head in shame for not fighting for women rights in today’s world!
The whole world should know that New Brunswick would treat it female population as second-class citizens.
They told the businesses that they have five years to clean up their act on this issue!
Five years of discrimination against the females in the private sector?
Don’t we have rights in this Province? Why did these two political parties vote against this bill?
It just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever!!!
Shame Shame Shame!!!
30 comments:
So if my company requires employees to do heavy manual labor I should pay a woman the same as a man even though she is not as strong as a man and is not capable of doing the same amount of work as a man?
How would Charles know?
He doesn’t know what work is anyway.
I have no Doubts that some Women are smarter and more Capable than their Male Counterparts, in some job positions.
Whoever is best and most qualified should get, whatever the Gig Is. I don't know the Salaries for Commercial Airline Pilots.
If a male pilot is paid $50,000 per year, a Female Pilot { and their out and up-there Flying the Big Silver Birds } should they not be the same paid as their Male Counterparts ?
And Why, do people have to take Cheap Shots at a person Anytime like this :
" How would Charles know?
He doesn’t know what work is anyway. " 3:29-PM
Can we not try and keep the Christmas Spirt going as long as Humanly possible ?
We all have different view points and opinions, that to me is what makes thinking and posting on this site so interesting.
But do we have to insult, or take cheap shots at People ?
A woman driving a car is scary enough.
But a woman driving a plane?
that is just too much!
I've often wondered about this issue. I've heard the Status of Women say it often but never really provided much to back it up. Do women within government doing exactly the same jobs as men really make less? I find it hard to believe. In the private sector I might be ablt to believe it more but definately not in Government. It's time for the pay equity group to start showing some proof and compare apples to apples. If women are indeed being paid less than men for exactly the same work then by all means, let's make it right but so far the proof has not been forthcoming.
Upto recently male lawyers were paid more than female lawyers doing the same job in the government. I am not sure that has been taken of or not. Like minorities women are underemployed for their qualifications and paid less. Promotions held back for women and hence paid less.
It should stay like it is now.
Since women were allowed to vote the whole world changed.
If women would make as much money as men then there would be more women in the workforce and less women at home. More women in the workforce would mean that they wouldn’t have time to spend there time and there husband money shopping and watching women TV shows and complain.
Then Shopping malls would go out of business, Dr.Phill and Oprah and soap opera’s would get canceled, Tylonal would go out of business cause men would not need them anymore.
Any other concreete examples 5:06 that are current? I've checked out the infor from the Pay Council and it says that women are paid 78% of what men are but doesn't offer any direct comparisons. While I'm sure that overall women are paid less than men, that's often because the jobs are different. I just don't but that a female senior bureucrat with the same amount of experience and time in makes less than a male equivalent doing the same job. If that is the case, I'm the first to agree with the Status of Women that it should be fixed but examples have bene less than forthcoming.
Women used to stay home and look after the children!
I feel a lot of women would continue to stay home and raise the children if financially possible. There is nothing like a nice empty house to make a Latch Key kid feel loved! Not to mention get into trouble.
If you examine the "equal pay for equal work" line of reasoning a little more closely and think about it a little more in depth you will see that on the surface it makes complete sense. But then again you are looking at it from a WORKER'S point of view.
Try looking at it from an EMPLOYER'S point of view.
If I can get a woman to do work of equal value to a man does it not make sense to hire the woman instead at 78% of the man's earnings? Save the physical labor comparisons. It doesn't wash in todays service driven economy. Besides, machines are doing most of the heavy lifting now. Labor Code stipulates no more than 50 lbs guys.
I remember in high school when the economics teacher was bragging about what a wonderful world it would become when the computer and automation took over. How man would have so much LEISURE time to spend doing the things he liked to do. But even in high school I could see the writing on the wall. I remember telling the teacher that if computers and automation were doing all the work where and how was Joe worker supposed to make a living and feed his family.
Can you believe it? He didn't have an answer!
If you want = pay for work of = value, join a union!
Most unions do have stipulations on gender pay equality, which is why teachers generally make the same whether male or female. The difference comes in as more men assume administrative positions which usually pay more (and do less). Civil servants also have a good union, but not all unions are created equally.
In the past male nurses made more than females ones because there was a drive to get more male nurses, ironically because men are far more forceful during union-management negotiations.
Yet it's very hard to compare completely equivalent jobs, typically to avoid the legislation there is some tiny difference. In the IT sector it is quite common for men to make more than women even though they do exactly the same job. Apart from a few exceptions the 'glass ceiling' is alive and well. I had two friends who graduated in computer science, one male and one female, the male got promotions and raises and interesting work, the female was put on the 'help desk' and often had to take notes and get coffee during meetings.
Many of these women are single with no children so the 'family first' argument above doesn't hold much water (not that it does anyway).
You can tell just how few women post here by these arguments. The response to Charles posting this has been either disbelief that it really is an issue or that it SHOULD be the case so that women will stay at home. I think Charles is right, New Brunswick IS in the stone age.
Personally, I'm not sure whether it's an issue or not. The Pay Council puts out figures that women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes. That in itself is probably true on average. What it doesn't factor in is that men and women do different jobs. I truly believe men and women should be paid the same for equal work with equal experience but I don't think women's wages should be inflated unfairly. Again, the Pay Council needs to find legitimate cases in which women are being paid less than men for equal work and go after those businesses, government, etc. I have never read a concrete example from them about women being paid less. All they're using is averages which don't tell the complete story. The media, government, the public, employers and, workers, and women should hold the Pay Council responsible to do some work and prove their case. So far they have not.
That's a typical 'man's reasoning'- put an extra onus on 'proving the case' and then offer caveats on why the 'proofs' they offer aren't good enough.
First, the whole argument that women should be paid less because the work they do is 'different' is completely baseless. Why should a Tim Horton's employee be paid less than a roofer? You can't use the argument that a roofer's job is more dangerous or harder, because of course a roofer makes far less than a dentist or a tool and die maker.
Anybody who has ever been IN a Tim Hortons knows just how run off their feet these workers are, and of course Tim's in owned by Wendy's, which is a multi-billion dollar company. Likewise, an 'administrative assistant' may well work far harder than some people in male dominated industries, so again, there is certainly no reason why this should be the case. In fact many of the industries where women dominate are populated by companies that make far more money than the companies dominated by men-and no doubt that is a good contributor to their bottom line.
This also ignores the fact that the inequality goes so far as to prohibit women from the industries which obviously pay more, which is a HUGE issue in itself, but Spinks doesn't even mention it.
And again, that's a completely specious argument to claim that that proof is simply 'not good enough'. Fortunately for people like Charles who actually have a blog they know it IS good enough. As Charles says, those responsible for these things can always find excuses to make it sound reasonable, that doesn't make it RIGHT. Somebody like Spinks should know better as he's always going on about 'family values'; perhaps if these mothers were paid equally they would have more time to spend with their families. But that's usually where 'conservatives' draw the line-people should ALWAYS be responsible for their own lives no matter how unequally they are being treated in society or how little they are being paid.
However, to do as Spinks says and find the SPECIFIC jobs would be not only a waste of time but very hazardous. New Brunswick has virtually no worker protections in any industries, so to go to a woman and ask her to testify or 'go public' with a complaint would put her job at risk. Pay scales are private which means you can't 'force' the information out of companies, and as said before a company will simply give different workers a different job title. It's not like the pay council has the right to simply walk into a company and say 'we're here to analyze your workers to see if they do the same job'.
This is why they must rely on hearsay to know this is the case, which people like Spinks won't accept, but anybody who actually knows people in the world knows it is the case all the time. I mentioned TWO cases and that's just from my experience in the IT industry.
This is slowly changing of course, with no help from government or people like Spinks. The fact is that a higher education is about the only guarantor of a high paying job, and in the last decade a higher proportion of women have been advancing to masters degrees and other previously 'male dominated' areas such as accountancy, medical, and scientific areas.
While women will always have an uphill battle because they have the onerous task of having to populate the species, they also show their marks in other ways. I work in landscaping and increasingly the workers are women, and increasingly employers are looking FOR women. Not only do they generally have a better work ethic but while they can't 'lift as much' (though there are plenty of feeble men out there, and plenty of strong women), they more than compensate by working smarter, and more responsibly, and take the trouble to actually learn the horticultural trade thereby increasing their chances of advancements. The one thing they are NOT, which has always been to their detriment, is be as forceful in setting up unions as men, and be as populous in government, which has the power to address these concerns. Take a look at scandinavian countries where many have over half female parliamentarians-they run their industries far differently (of course they are also proportional representational governments-yet another way we are in the 'stone age').
What's ironic is that in the future no doubt our male posters will have a far different take on the issue when/if women are earning MORE than men.
In a socialistic society my friend, you are correct. Income redistribution would take place and if the roofer were making $22.00 an hour then so would the server at Tim Horton's. However we live in a democracy and if you have a skill which is in demand, schooling/training and experience you get paid more. The man working at Tim Horton's and the woman working at Tim Horton's are paid the same. Those are the comparisons which should be taking place. Now, if people become willing to pay $3.50 for a cup of Tim's coffee then workers there could be paid $22.00 an hour. Why should women fictitously be paid more than men for unequal work? That then creates more inequality, not equality. If everyone makes the same why bust your hump in school or training when you can make the same money at Tim's? You make a fine argument from a feminist and socialist point of view my friend, but in a democratic society, there has to be proof. The Pay Council has not provided it, but again if women and men are being paid differently for the same job, I'm first in line to cry foul. So far, I haven't seen it.
You're a bad reader Spinks, you think teachers and administrators get paid a certain price because of demand? They get that because of unions. If you don't, then go down to Maine and see what teachers make. You think call centres get paid less than accountants because of demand? Nonsense, and you know it.
An electrician gets paid more because they are in a union, and everybody who works is licensed by the government. This comes from the days of guilds, which is why engineers and doctors are in a protected industry, its not like you can read tons of books and hang up a shingle. The college of physicians makes sure they control how many doctors are out there-which is why we don't have enough doctors and their wages can go up and up and up. If it were the demand, as you suggest, then we'd have doctors all over the place and immigrant physicians wouldn't be driving cabs in Toronto.
But what can we expect from poor spinks who thinks that we live in a democracy so we can't control what people are paid. What hogwash. What do you think a minimum wage is? It's perfectly within a government's power to raise the minimum wage anytime they want, its no surprise then to learn that New Brunswick has the lowest minimum wage in the country, now even lower than the miserly Alberta.
Democracy, of course, is a form of government and says nothing about income distribution. People can VOTE to have income distribution, or they can VOTE not to. That's what democracy means. Even the idea behind taxes is to make that more equal, we know that just because somebody earns more they are not 'more desirable' which is why those who earn more are taxed higher. That girl working in Tims is just as important to the economy as some PR hack working for Lord-both are replaceable but serve a purpose. Of course we know under Lord that most of the new jobs are government ones to keep unemployment levels down, that has nothing to do with demand, its all political, and of course civil servants have the best union there is, as stated, they corrected the equal pay issue long ago. Again, education has nothing to do with it, the waitress in a restaurant could well have a Masters degree, and anybody who has ever actually done that job knows it's twice as hard as being an MLA or a good many government jobs.
As Charles says, they do not even have a bill to make sure the private sector pays men and women equally. That the business community is saying that it will hurt them financially if the bill is passed would be enough to indicate to most educated people that the condition exists-if it didn't, the business community wouldn't care less whether they passed a bill or not. N'est pas? The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
That's what prejudice is my friend, the refusal to see the truth no matter how much evidence there is, fortunately, like with the tenants act bill, whether people like Spinks are convinced or not is irrelevant.
Of course when the people making decisions aren't convinced either, that's hardly irrelevant. Oh well, I guess I'll never make a good socialist.
If you want = pay for work of = value, join a union!
# posted by Anonymous : 9:37 PM
Unions are nothing but a Pain in the Rear End. The Government should lower the Welfare Monthly Payout, and thus force People to go out and work for Minimum Wage, Whether they like it or not :
Yes I said MINIMUM WAGE :
IT's the Unions that are forcing North American Business Operations off to the Likes Of China and Mexico.
And people wonder why Companies are outsourcing ? Its because of the Darn Unions. They should be Outlawed, Or at the Vet Minimum all have the Right To Strike taken away:
Me, I'm a Company Person All The Way, I'd Snitch on my own Mother if she was messing or snooping around a Union Hall :
Fortunately, lunatics like the above aren't in a position of power-and fortunately for his mother. But we'll keep the arguments out of 'need therapyland' to actual reality. Of course opinions are like butts, everybody has a right to a wrong one. Those of us who can read and spell words like 'company' know that they are simply wrong. Some people love the idea that some people are just miserable and other people are just filthy rich no matter what. That's their right, but some people want to build a society that has equal rights.
So the person made a spelling error,but the fact of the matter is, the person is Right.
Yhe Only thing thats going to get the Loafers off the Dole is like the person stated, pay lower Welfare to make Minimum Wage Look Great.
Company Person # 2
I see he's not the ONLY one with spelling problems, maybe the same poster. However, it's no surprise in the province of rampant Irving propaganda that people think people getting $400 a month to live off of are the problem, and not the Irvings who just got $250 million in forestry funds, over $100 million in tax breaks on LNG, and $50 million from the feds for doing nothing. As said, there's no lack of corporate lackeys out there who will do the dirty work for the filthy rich. That's the luckiest thing about being filthy rich-there's no end to the ass kissers.
Actually 8:56, I think what you have is a large number of people who don't agree with the socialistic idea of income redistribution. (Obviosuly or we'd live in a completely socialist country). I'm FAR from filthy rich or even clean rich and I don't agree with it. Like I said, I'd make a lousy socialist or communist.
More Union jobs are going to be lost, due to Technology and the Internet.
And I say good Ridance, the Unions are the reason for most of the layoffs currentky happening.
They are bringing it about themselves by their greed, which is far greater than any greed by their employers.
The fact of the matter is this, the more somebody bashes the Irvings, the more I bet they support all Irving Gs Stations, get the Irving Newspaper in hopes of getting a free Calender, and buy their groceries at either one of the Irving Mainways or a Blue Canoe Outlet.
Oh yes, they complain about the Irvings all right, and I have always found, the Louder the Complainer, the Longer the person has worked for them.
If they don't like working for them, THEN QUIT
I hope the Irvings break every Union they have to tolerate and out up with.
Income distribution has nothing to do with socialism, in socialism there is no such thing as income (read a book for chrissakes). Of course as said before, this is only a small minority of people on here, canadians have been very strong opponents of 'flat tax' ideas. That people who earn more money pay a higher percentage in tax has ALWAYS been the way Canada's taxation system has functioned, if you disagree with that, then fine, fortunately for us you're in the minority or otherwise that would have changed long ago.
In a province like New Brunswick where the only media comes from Irving I'm not surprised at the 'all praise Irving and damn the evil unions' ideology, as said, its pretty ingrained in the New Brunswick culture and helps make the province the backwater of Canada. Most of McCain's income comes from New Brunswick land, as does the profits from mining, and of course forestry and the generous tax gifts given to Irvings, yet the province with a miniscule population has the highest poverty rate in the country.
Of course propaganda works because people don't see it as such. They think that all their ideas have been reasoned out by their individual minds with no outside influence. They can't 'think outside the box'. I've known many who were like that, particulary bashers of unemployment. The only time I've seen it change is for a few acquantances who have become unemployed then found out what it's like.
Like I said, though, there's no point in arguing with people so entrenched in their paradigm. Like racists down south they were simply brought up in a certain environment and can't, or won't, bother to try to get out of it. It's sad, but not unpredictable.
It's pretty apparant by the utter nonsense spouted. That people must work just to survive which keeps them in poverty is exactly the situation that lots of people love to see. Unions in virtually every society where they operate have increased the distribution of wealth and property and cut poverty back immeasurably. This isn't surprising, every union wants MORE members, but every owner wants more profits.
In the seventies almost half of canadians were in a union, just go look at the statistics for that decade, homelessness and poverty weren't even issues. Take a look right now at scandinavian countries where almost three quarters are in unions, again, those countries have next to no poverty. Yet here in Canada, and in the states, whose example we have followed, now less than 20% are in a union and poverty is rampant.
Of course as said, there are plenty who will cheer on the owners as they suck the money out of communities, they will never be welcome in the homes of the rich, but they never seem to mind. Fortunately, they are in the minority. Most canadians don't think the rich should be as rich as they are, or the poor as poor as they are, or the middle class as minimally served as they are. Others, well, we have good examples of exactly the kind of world they prefer-as unequal as possible.
Sorry 1:22 that I don't know how to read. Sheesh, no need to be rude. You have some socialist ideals and ideas. That's fine. I for one am just not buying what you're selling. Income redistribution is one of the steps towards the socialist ideal although it's spun in a way to not sound as radical. The NDP by and large don't like being called socialistic either but most I've met would like nothing better than to take this country in that direction. However, obviously most Canadians still aren't buying what they're selling either.
When I corrected what you had said about democracy did that mean that I had 'democratic ideals and ideas'-of course not. People are, of course, entitled to their own ideas-the one thing they give up when they express those ideas in public is the right to other people's respect and lack of ridicule when they display wanton ignorance and prejudice.
It's a small price to pay, in many societies where people express ideals that go contrary to a country's legislation they are shot or arrested-so consider yourself fortunate that your prejudice results in only some online jibing. But we've seen Spinks sensitive side before, a good apologist can represent the most disagreeable ideas with civility.
Wanting equal rights has nothing to do with socialism, something you would know if you DID read sometimes, instead of writing. Every country in the world has human rights legislation-none are socialist or are even 'on the path' to socialism. Even trade unionism has nothing to do with socialism, and never has. It's a mark of a lack of intelligence that has people jumping to odd conclusions from facts that have never even been presented.
All you state is that you don't like sharing, perhaps that was a result of your upbringing, or some genetic dislocation, we don't need to know or care. Most canadians, when they see people who have no rights, want to change that-apparantly you don't, that's your business, we certainly don't need to be polite to you about something that is quite despicable.
When most of us were children we were taught to share, those who took more than they needed were chastised and usually an adult was brought in to rectify the situation. As teens that was 'educated' out of us, and as adults it's rammed down our throats by Irving and of course the mainstream press which are OWNED by those who 'take more than they need' that that isn't the case. It's no wonder so many teens take mind altering substances, their education itself is so altering from what they learned as children that it is simply nonsensical.
But by all means try to pretend that your prejudice and desire for inequality simply means you aren't a good socialist. Slave owners said the same thing, as do mafie hitmen. Just remember the kind of company you are keeping. For me, I prefer those in the right rather than the money changers in the temple.
New Brunswick and the Country as a whole would be far better off, if the Unions Vanished.
I have no pity for anybody who has to have an organization for bargain for Wages, or any other Perks that go with a position in the work force.
If you're a good worker and have talent, which is required in some professions, you will do Just Fine:
I wonder if some of the Canadian Auto Workers can learn to ask ?
Would You like to have fries with that sir, Ma'am ?
"All you state is that you don't like sharing"
Gee Mike for a guy who doesn't know me, you're making quite the assumption. I'm all for helping the poor but that doesn't mean I agree with taxing me to death to achieve that. Comparing me to a slave owner? Mike that's low, buddy and I think even you know, not accurate.
You've stated quite frankly that you don't believe that there should be legislation granting equal pay to women who do equal work. What does that have to do with 'taxing you to death'? It has nothing to do with taxes at all. Slave owners also didn't think they should have equal rights, theirs were practical reasons, while yours are to state that you don't believe the people who say there is a problem in the first place (in which case the legislation would simply have no effect). So the arguments are different, yet the effect is the same: no equal rights for equal work. It's pretty simple and that's where the similarity lies. So your for 'helping the poor', you're just not for giving equal rights to them. In most cases thats what the poor demand-justice, not charity. Of course where would people be without their sense of righteous magnanimity.
To the guy above that, what the heck are you even doing at this website? It's been well proven that the only people better off without unions are owners. Read some history about what life was like in the 1800's and early 1900's. Perhaps that's what you want, but those guys in Nackawic were plenty talented, as were those miners in Bathurst, but it didn't help them. Unions are different in every case, to say get rid of unions because of one is like saying let's get rid of companies because there are some bad ones out there. Try making sense and stop shouting the Irving morning chant.
Hey 3:36-pm :
I think your mentality is still in the 1800's and early 1900's.
Get Real : This is the 21 st Century, ask any College Student what their facing in this day and age, just to get into the work force Period :
As Technology advances, the Unions will DIE. And good ridance to them as well like the above chap stated.
Well Mike, back to the subject at hand, most folks these days seem to want proof, so all I'm saying is the Pay Council would have a far easier job if they could offer some. No one needs to convince you obviously but most other people do. If this is truly an issue and it very well may be, all they need to do is provide some examples. So far they haven't. Until they do, they're going to have a tough time.
That's what they said about roomers and boarders not having rights until Charles clamped onto it. As far as convinciing people, as I said, all you need to do is ask most people whether there should be 'equal pay for equal work' legislation and you'll find most people in agreement. We've already hashed out the specifics, you simply don't want to agree with them. I know FOR A FACT of two cases where the condition is true, I"m sure if you bothered to contact them they would provide you with others, but you really haven't bothered have you? People's rights simply dont' mean that much to you, the onus is on them to come to you and present there case so absolutely that you have no doubt. Don't be surprised when people don't bother.
As for the legislation it would be done in an hour and presented as quickly as the tenants rights bill was. If, as you say, there is no problem, then the bill would be passed with no complaints, it certainly wouldn't be the first time legislation was passed with little applicability. As I mentioned before, this term we've got legislation recognizing 'podiatry' and other little tidbits of no use to just about everyone. Yet you continue to state that not only are you not convinced, but that legislation should not be presented even just in case. So again, we realize just how deep your prejudice runs. It has little effect on you, it isn't like you need to do any work.
As for the other chap, this is why I love discussions on the internet, eventually the truth comes out. He says it quite fitfully "what students are facing in this day and age just to get into the workforce". That says it all, it isn't so much that unions are bad, it's that 'working conditions' and availability are so bad that they are a danger. That says it all, but of course that's not the unions fault, it simply means that corporations now have slaves in other parts of the world which they can whip into work. If only WE were still the slaves of last century then those jobs would be here.
However, the world keeps on turning, unions are begining in those places now, and actually young people are at the forefront to bringing unions to new industries in Canada. Of course it won't be to New Brunswick, which is why everybody always leaves the province and the population is declining. Of course griping against unions today is like kicking a caged cat, unions have no teeth, unless they are teachers or civil servants. And look how New Brunswick prospers! Compare that with the autoworkers in ontario who have just gotten billions from the feds to keep carmakers there-when's the last chunk of federal change you've seen down this way?
If the Pay Council provided examples as you say you have to the Government and the Public, they'd probably get further quicker. It's true, I don't agree that someone pouring coffee at Tim Horton's should make the same as a roofer or a CEO for that matter. That's our capitalistic society and for all it's flaws I'll take it over anything else anyday because it has a better chance of rewarding those who go to school and work hard. Like I said I'd make a lousy socialist.
Post a Comment