August 16, 2005

"Roberts' support of gender bias."

That's the headline Kos uses to introduce the news that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts opposed a judicial remedy boosting pay in jobs traditionally held by women, where market forces had left the pay lower than for jobs traditionally held by men. In the same post, Kos calls Justice O'Connor: "a tireless crusader for women rights in the workplace and schools." What tiresome exaggerations.


L. Ron Halfelven said...

The most tiresome thing is that Kos was being only slightly more tendentious than the "news" article on which he was commenting. Does the fact that he paraphrased Marx mean that he was merely laughing off the idea, or belittling its advocates?

Matt said...

It's worth noting that many people on Kos called that out for what it was (at best, a gross misrepresentation, at worst, deliberate misleading).

Bruce Hayden said...

In other words, he didn't buy into Comparable Worth - one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

The thesis is that different jobs of equal worth should be paid the same, regardless of market forces. Which implies that some outside agency has to decide what jobs are equivalent, and then mandate that those which pay less have their pay increased to be comparable.

But as noted, this short-circuits the capitalisitic price structure for wages. There are valid reasons why most of the "comparable" jobs pay less - often because they allow for easier entry and exit, lending themselves to those bouncing into and out of the job market (i.e. women raising families).

But of course, ease of entry and exit IS a feature that makes the supposedly comparable jobs not comparable (at least, as Comparable Worth has been attempted).

In other words, Rogers apparently opposed a brain dead idea and is getting castigated for it.

michael a litscher said...

Here's a little tip for the ladies (and men) who aren't satisfied by the raises their bosses offer them at review time.

The men who walk into the bosses office for their review, and walk out with the big raises, don't walk in empty-handed. They don't sit and listen, and then accept whatever offer is given. They do walk in with a list of their accomplishments over the last year, itemizing and totalling how much each of those accomplishments either saved the company, or earned for the company.

The basic idea is to sell the idea to your boss that you are much more valuable to the company than what you are currently being paid.

Every person, male or female, who's ever complained to me about the crappy raise they got in light of the huge raise their co-worker got prompts me to ask what they said during their review. And to a person, they all just sat there like lumps on a log, and waited until the review was over to complain to their co-workers. Not a one of them made any attempt to proove their worth, with hard numbers, to their bosses.

Noumenon said...

I have a coworker who kept records for months of money he was saving every single day that his coworkers weren't. This is a factory job where you can say, "I put out the sheet at .018 thick instead of .020 inches, times 100,000 linear feet is 4500 pounds of plastic saved, at .40/lb, I saved $1800." He was absolutely unable to get his raise above 1.5%, and it was very clear that it's not about pay for productivity, no matter what they pay lip service to. It's about bargaining power and a zero-sum game over the profits.