By Bernard Hickey
Prime Minister John Key has warned that a court ruling forcing pay higher in sectors dominated by women could increase Government costs by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Key told 3News' First Line the Government was considering the implications of the Appeal Court ruling on Wednesday that nursing home carers were entitled to similar pay to those with similar skills in male-dominated industries.
Aged Care Association CEO Martin Taylor said the ruling would cost rest home home operators up to an extra NZ$140 million a year, which would drive more than half of them out of business unless there was an associated increase in Government funding.
He expected to have an urgent meeting with the Government within coming days to discuss the issue. He said an appeal to the Supreme Court was possible.
Key said the ruling could have implications beyond the aged care industry. He said aged care workers provided a tremendous service that helped keep people out of hospital.
"But the case here is not about that – it's about whether there is discrimination in what is a largely female workforce, and that was the test under the Equal Pay Act," Key said.
"All I can say is we'll have to work our way through that, but it's not quite as straightforward as saying it's just about carers, because there are quite a number of industries where this could now apply," he said.
"The cost for the Government is hundreds of millions of dollars, so it's not just a few million and the Government being awkward here; it's hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars potentially."
Law change?
The case has been sent back to the Employment Court to set the principles by which pay in a male-dominated industry can be compared with another female-dominated one.
Business NZ said the Government may have to legislate.
Business NZ Employment Manager Paul Mackay said the Appeal Court had judged the Equal Pay Act could be used to compare male and female pay rates and had sent the case back to the Employment Court to state the principles to be followed in creating such comparisons.
"The Employment Court will now have to establish an objective method of comparison. Given there is currently no accepted method of determining pay relativities between women- and men-dominated industries, this will be a significant undertaking," Mackay said.
"It may be appropriate that the Government consider legislating to bring clarity into this complex and ambiguous area," Mackay said.
88 Comments
Right. You are willing to sacrifice some of your own wealth so that women who want higher pay don't have to make any effort to get it, like look for better paying jobs, taking on more responsibility or getting better qualified. No doubt you'd contribute handsomely if the Government were to set up a fund for that purpose, into which voluntary contributions could be made. That would be generous of you.
But there's nothing generous or public-spirited about then demanding that everybody else should do the same, regardless of whether they share your priorities or would rather direct their wealth to some other cause. Being generous with other people's money is no generosity at all.
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2011/07/offering-other-kids-bat.html
...look for better paying jobs
No doubt you'd contribute handsomely if the Government were to set up a fund for that purpose, into which voluntary contributions could be made. That would be generous of you.
Yes I am tired of habitually lending the government money at the NZDMO tenders at the wrong, lower level of reward and gifting money to the banks to on-lend to the undeserving property speculators. I have spent the last 15 years subsidising the system.
No this isnt the argument and I see you twist things yet again seems common for you.
I see it as perfectly reasonable than men and women doing same job get paid the same. If men take a paycut as a consquence, so be it.
The effort is a legal battle it seems, where those ppl can afford to fight it their own if it was up to you rather than legislating to ensure it. For me the latter, a question of leveling the playing field so the disadvantage for some is removed.
regards
Did you see the interview last year with the woman at the centre of the legal case? Loved her job, bucket loads of empathy for the old people - just the sort of person you would like to look after your parents - and kept on near minimum wage with all that long service and experience for 20 years by her employer. Calling her out for not being more ambitious is contemptible.
You can consider that thumbs up I just gave you, wtf, to be a hundred fold. Fantastic comment, these jobs are advertised as "careers" the people working in the industry are constantly training and upskilling and yet the work remains undervalued and I have thought and said for a long time that that is due wholly and solely due to it's being female dominated. Undervaluing the work is a reflection on how the people that do it are valued.
If you want something to run a ruler over for a comparison then how about lawn mowing, anyone prepared to tell me that job is even an equally skilled one, to the point that one would receive a similar pay doing that as the stressful, skillful job of caring for elders.
I don't care if doing the right thing is a bit costly, the right thing is the right thing, no matter how it is dressed up.
Once upon a time the exact same excuses were given by those who did not want to see slavery abolished
Raegun.....I think you need to look at the whole training and upskilling industry for a kick off......an enormous industry in itself....but does it offer real value to the person undertaking the upskilling??? There is an enormous difference between holding a qualification through upskilling and the actual ability to do a job well......I would rather pay someone more for doing a job well than what a piece of paper listing their skills/qualifications tells me.
The world despite its so-called development has floundered in finding a way to measure ability......why do you think despite all the education, qualifications and training employers prefer to have the ability to trial potential employees. The employees are simply wanting to see if the person has the required potential they are looking for.
People with a high level of capability and common sense will not always get rewarded appropriately when working for others.......these people often end up self-employed to obtain a higher level of control over their lives......
The other camp of people are those who rate themselves very highly but when you cut to the chase they are all talk !!!.....This is a cultural phenomena acoss the NZ public services employees.
You state "undervaluing the work is a reflection on how the people that do it are valued" it appears that you view this from a very one-sided mind-set.......would you apply that principle to an employer.............undervaluing the employer is also a reflection on how the employment opportunities that were created are valued !!
This particular women had all the energy to take on the system, it is such a shame that she didn't channel her energies into something more productive and meaningful. If she had expended the same amount of energy she perhaps could have started her own small business provisioning the same services as she was employed to do!!
Kate.....have you ever actually been self-employed??? Have you ever started your own business form scratch.....taken an idea or concept, borrowed money, risked all, worked round the clock making sure the business worked out?????
The Honours list should be recognising SME players in NZ...they are the ones keeping the whole country going!!!!
Yes, first time from conceptual stage through to business start up - sold the business for good profit after working in it for four years. Also sold the software I jointly developed to run the business separately - and that software was subsequently sold internationally. Then many years later did it again, this time secured feasibility study funds through joint venture with government, then secured stage 1 private equity investors for proof of concept but venture failed to progress when the GFC happened. Also worked for many years in a commission only role and have done a fair share of consultancy work as well all throughout my career. Certainly am no stranger to self-employment.
rubbish - if she don't ask for more, it's her managers job to keep employment costs low.
IF she asks for more, and has value, and the company and afford it, AND she makes a decent case for "selling" her bosses on the idea, only _then_ does she deserve a pay rise.
If she is refused on the basis of gender alone (without that being part of the job) then that is contemptible.
what if the reason they're in those jobs with that pay is because of seniority, time schedule, budgetting, commitment to job, or just inability to negotiate successfully. Are they going to lift any under-paid males rates - or is this just a profits for being female thing.
How many other private contracts are the government going to overrule?
In cases of straight out sexual discrimination.... there's a court and law for it.
If it's a differential then there may be other reasons for it occurring and NOT the governments business to intercede for women.... that would be discriminating against menfolk who don't get the same favouritism/free support.
Actually, based on the information given in the article, which you can guarantee is more lousy reporting, I would disagree with the findings.
GENDER ALONE is not reason enough that she should be paid as much as some others whom just happen to have penises. Just as it's not enough on it's own to hold her at a less rate - and there's a good chance that YET AGAIN government/justice NZ has overstepped it's bounds to "correct" something that isn't wrong.
Did that person give their boss compelling reasons why they should get more?
Did they do _Exactly_ the same work, and bargin under exactly the same conditions?
Chances are no, so why should they get the same rate of pay as a good negotiator? What if the company negotiator felt that they was more desperate than a collegue, or that they would accept a lower rate than someone who was bidding for the same contract but just happened to be a different gender? It is not the governments job to do the negotiation for her.
SH - did you actually read the Court documents??
Both male and female employees received the same rate of pay from Terranova.
[6] It is accepted that Terranova pays Ms Bartlett the same wages as it pays its male employees doing the same work. However, what is claimed in effect is that both male and female caregivers are being paid a lower rate of pay than would be the case if care giving of the aged were not work predominantly performed by women.
What a poorly reported article.
What is the proof that no increase in govt funding would drive half of the operators out of business? Last time I looked some of the most profitable companies around are the aged care operators - good shareholder returns as well.
And the article suggests the additional cost is $140 million across the sector - so where does John Key get his "hundreds and hundreds of millions" comment. He's obviously overstating the impact.
It just seems to me that any news associated with boosting wages for our lowest paid ends up getting negatively reported on. And if Key is serious about wanting to lift families out of poverty, what better way than using the court ruling to advantage? You think his reaction would be absolute delight!!!!
I'll take issue with your comments over several points.
More than a few operators are struggling financially from the little I have read. I think some failed this year?
On top of that I take issue with the across sectors pay scale / parity argument and its over-stating. I have been through this (at least) once myself where being in male dominated IT, another branch of the business tried to get their money increased because we are apparantly equal. If there is a scarcity it demands a premium, simple, skill set, no. My answer to that is if you want more money, move.
So its not just this healthcae sector but many others that can be impacted. Now personally when I moved from engineering to IT apart from prefering the work the high level of job security and far better pay helped with that decision no end. However I had to move and take a paycut for about 2 years as I started near the bottom again, that gamble paid off.
Is this sector under-paid? yes and has been for decades and it should be better paid, on par with acute pay I think.
regards
Easy to say if you want more money, move, but why should a female have to move from a female dominated career to get more money?
I have oserved first hand policeman, fireman and a nurses at work. And remember a nurse needs a degree (at own cost) and post graduate training. Nurse on feet all day, rush, rush, regularly no tea break, often no meal and no replacement staff if one is off sick. Fireman paid to sit on butt for most of the shift. The s##t put up wth by nurses would never be tolerated in the stronger male police and fire unions.
Gender issue maybe?
Why not? if they are not prepared to move then Im sorry but I dont have much sympathy for them. Why? on the one hand because Ive seen so many instances of ppl who want more money they think they are entitled to but wont act and on the other because the employer takes advantage of their commitment / professionalism. Sure they are qualified and often work hard (I worked in hospitals for over 10 years btw so I know what it is like) so am I so are lawyers as equally qualifed as me but Im sure earn far more than I.
So from experience unless you can get a level playing field (or one in your favour) the only option is to move to where that is the case.
regards
The point is that when you leave the employer/industry comes under pressure to do something.
In terms of "playing" you go with the hand you are delt with. What I do know is I see friends who were nurses now doing others things, earning more money and having more of a life. The commitment and desire of youth to help gets abused out of you I think.
regards
But we, as a society, need nurses. And there are enough people in the world , still, who can move from a developing economy into a (by our standards) too low a wage job, too undervalued a job, like nursing.
,
So - would we be better off to value and pay nurses like and as we value them, or should we encourage nurses to leave, which would mean (with the current turn over our world can sustain) that nothing will change in the nursing industry within our lifetimes, or even within your children's lifetimes?
.
As the Act is there - why not use it? Why not work towards a more just society?
I dont dispute that we need nurses, police etc, the Q then has to be why are they as an essential paid not very well while laywers (say) or accounts paid a lot more?
The difference here with the case is actually more of the semi-skilled anyway, ie a cook or cleaner.
Do the people want this? the act is pie in the sky as it stands, so why not vote for it? why isnt it a current election issue?
regards
Roger Douglas lost his nerve to extend reform beyond the working to lower middle class earning groups, hence they retained a strong professional guild to exclude practioners from the Indian/Asian continents with all the unwanted impertinence of offering to work for less.
If you as a person need a nurse. pay for them yourself.
"Societies" don't need nurses, individuals need nurses/nursing care.
"we" don't value nurses. I don't need one thanks, don't agree with the constriants they agree too, or the system that they uphold. So I disagree with paying them...at all. If I need one, THEN I will pay for what is required to their employer to retain them and buy their skills.
What I'm hearing from folks like yourself is:
"She studied a low paying industry, in a place where she will not be in a position of respect, that is well known for mistreatment of staff. Having committed herself to this role, getting a job based on the criteria that she will be lowly paid and not in a position of power or company responsibility. She continues to support the conditions within that industry.
And now because she's jealous of someone else who didn't put up with the same crap, rather than sell the idea to her boss, or go elsewhere where the conditions are better, she gets the government to play pervy uncle so she gets her way, not by negotiation, but by legal force.... and not only that but the government is now expected to change everything, "just for them" because they are incapable of starting business to compete, and unwilling to go elsewhere.
It is completely sexist. Are we going to see similar leveling legislation that is pro-male for other industries?
I don't understand the problem... the woman in question has done research, taken the initiative, and used the resources at her disposal to work for better pay and conditions. Why should the fact that she has worked through our legal system rather than our market system make the result any less valid?
Again it does depend on how the article has been spun.
According to the journalism - she has decided that she's better than everyone else and when she didn't get her way she goes for the power over rort. And I would expect her bosses to look at closing that now-unprofitable position.
However, if the journalism is poor, and we make the _assumption_ that it was purely on gender that she was discriminated against. (I had female friends in the butchery industry who were exposed to blatant gender discrimination, and I have faced it personally when applying to "hobby jobs" which were deemed parttime "women jobs") Then it is appropriate for her to use the law for what it was designed for - not for getting the payrise you've been turned down for (or never applied for) but for punishing the illegal act of discrimination (not a rort).
The former is a rort because it's not money she's owed and she is seeking increased gain from her action.
The later is not a rort because it recognises an action that is a violation of the law, and seeks redress in the court (after other negiotiations have failed).
Go read the appeals court comments.
The way I read it, oth male and female cooks in the same place and even the gardeners appear to be paid the same. So I cannot see there is any direct sex discrimination. So the union falls back on an old law trying to justify that her femal dominated job is underpaid even when it includes a few males.
The court rightly fears to tread here IMHO.
I can see JK solving this under urgency, I would, new law/ammendmant, poof problem solved.
regards
I'm going to have to find out how to stop this stuff showing up in my Inbox....
What I find interesting:
If I have a (male) employee for 10 years, at a contract rate that was ok (reasonably above minimum wage) and they stay on for that whole time, with inflation orientated payrises and bump-ups for upskilling.
If I then expand and want bring on more staff in a similar role - but the new staff (gender and age irrelevant) are demanding 20% than my existing worker.
Does the government expect me to pay all existing contracts more to "match market"?
Are my customers going to be happy (or even able) to accomodate the increase?
(industry, video processing)
My income is actually ok.
The problem isn't _my_ income. It's the _farming_ income. I have several businesses and income flows, but the farming is the biggest turnover, and one of the worst yields!!
It is the farming income where outsiders are making demands and expecting it for free.
It's farming income where I would like to pay more people more for their time, including extra development in line with proper business developments. Completely regardless of gender.
But customers don't want to pay more for their product.....
... and in the aged care industry who is going to paying these people (not just women) more? Their customers.
that woman makes more than many farmers do. yet you're not giving them support are you
Since you want to make it personal, I'll do you the following favour.
I rarely drink, don't smoke and don't do drugs (except otc painkillers for my feet).
One of my jobs _requires_ me to be on-site and available 24x7, it provides shelter, storage and other facilities to make this possible. This requirement is not a business or personal choice, it is a legal imposition. There is no choice in location or design and the accomodation is not "mine", it also is not subject to Residential Tenancy Laws as it is part of the actual job requirements. Thus it is not income. But I don't have rental accomodation costs elsewhere (just the same as mortgage-free housowners have). But a futher advantage is that providing such premises for work use is an expense directly attributable to the business activity. So insurance, rates, repairs are all business expenses. Just to reinforce, this availability is legal requirement, not a "tax trick". Non-employees aren't permitted residence or extended stays because of this - and I haven't been the only employee to be accomodated here simultaneously (ie it's not "my place", it's a _business_ asset).
Futhermore, power to the property is required, as is computer services (I let them use my more impressive computer), as is a phone line (I'm happier with cell and Skype). Cellphone is considered a business requirement in this day and age, as is Internet connectivity.
My vehicle is sold to the company by me. The value of that sale is 100% forwarded to the company. All vehicle and upkeep repairs fall 100% proportion to the company.
My availablility limitation means that I can't go down pub or pursue many other interests. So travel and outside expenses are low.
I consume around 1 litre of milk a week. This is provided by the farm business and is under the limit of declaration. meat, if I don't purchase it in town, is often from destroyed animals, as no animal is raised "for staff purposes (aka renumeration)". This is also a low cost, other meat is also donated by neighbours who have excess on a kill. I have no choice in which animal or cuts, as I'm not "shopping" nor "trading". Similar happens with vegetables - although I often give them away as I receive excess. People tend to give me stuff later for that reason, again this is not contract or conditional. they have excess and remember my kindness, and return it. I then often pass such items on to people who better appreciate them, perpetuating the cycle. This isn't done as trade nor are such favours recorded. Some of the people I don't even know their names, and a few don't know mine.
Clothing and footwear on-farm are also low key, as they are when just sitting around. Work clothes which include gumboots, helmets and wet weather gear, are considered safety items and uniform, which are business expenses.
So I have no housing cost, no phone cost, no vehicle cost, no internet cost, no insurance cost, and reduced food and clothing costs.
Yesterday I personally bought some more PV panels (to run my NAIS, router and laptop on a separate line). I borrowed the money to achieve this, so yes I have unreclaimable interest costs. But once it's setup, it reduces my private power consumption even futher. I 12 months, I only expect to have stove/oven and 3d printer coming through on my power bill. (heating the staff and premises is a business expense, and often uses a wood fire).
I purchase these things on credit because I will pay for them in the future, right now I only have to pay the debt servicing fee. I pay PAYE like everyone else, but borrowed money isn't income. This allows my tax paid income to stretch rather well. I also have to pay Child Support on my actual income, so making getting big paychecks not worthwhile (upwards of 70% deductions).
I'm looking at purchasing a personal house that fits within my employment contract (ie this one, from the company; which the company will put the money towards the larger asset aquistion (which includes the house)). This will mean that mounting my solar gear permenantly will be an option.
My money is mostly spent on research, DVD/Bluray collection (which touches on the video processing business), and reducing costs. The rest is put in places like the FX market, which result in positive returns.
so as you should be able to see - MY income is sweet. What does concern me then is that NZer's don't seem to understand basic business and financial rules. MY income, is not FARM income, is not VIDEO business income, is not any other tranche incomes. I am a paid farm employee (part-time managing director), and sole proprietor (Video business, some FX accounts). For me to be transferring money into a business to meet customer expectations is VERY VERY bad. It was what had me _very_ concerned when gordon mentioned he was propping up his retail business - I've been there...lost that. It very seldom works out well. Looked at what happened with SCF when they factored out their worst debts!
DFTBA.... this is not a nurse but a carer in a nursing home........they used to be called nurse-aids.........I know heaps of people who look after their elderly family members in their own homes.......If I decide to look after an elderly family member in my home and attend to the same tasks etc as a paid carer....do you think I would get paid anything for doing this task? Because I can tell you that you don't get paid if you choose to look after your own family members........but if you put them into a nursing home.....someone else picks up the bill.
To clarify a few things for you.
A qualified nurse will/should usually be on duty with the carers.....the qualified nurse overseas the carers and is there for dishing out any drugs and other medical concerns that can arise...
The carers role is to: either assist or undertake duties like feed, wash, bath, dress, toilet, turn bed-ridden patients et.......
NAC - i think a lot of people here can't see the wood from the trees.
.
The issue here is not the difference in pay between a nurse and a nurse's aide. The report c;early states that the level of remuneration their (the nursing home) staff are receiving is on a scale between 13 something and 15 something.
.
The issue at hand, is that the Court has found that so called "soft" industries, where the gender of staff is predominately female, have a lower level of pay than 'hard' industries, where the gender of staff is predominately male.
.
The argument is that the female dominated industries' employees are being paid a lower salary because they are women. It has nothing to do with level of education, or level of skill. The report is trying to interpret the Act (and found it poorly worded...), and has come to the conclusion that the original argument needs to be cosnidered, and reviewed, and that it could well be the case that there still is an institutionalised gender bias (shock - surely NOT).
And it is THAT which the Court recommend the government address and rectify, as they have signed the Act. So they're legally bound.
.
And THIS is what JK is seeking advice on - from his, no doubt, generously paid male lawyers, to see if he can wiggle out from under it,
.
and THAT is what BusinessNZ has said that in their opinion, that part of the law "should just be changed". Meaning we can just all carry on pretending what women do somehow matters less than what men do.
Amen to your comment DFTBA. I previously used the comparison earlier between a nurse, fireman and policeman. One female verse two male industries all non private sector (largely) so reasonably comparable. Anyone who took a look at the work conditions, barriers to entry, day to day responsibility, requirment on be on top of the latest research, work load and so on would see how skewed the pay and conditions are for our registered nurses. Why is this one would ask? Answer gotta be gender doesnt it?
What the argument is ignoring is there appears to be a difference between the "hard" industries and the "soft" industries. Based on what you have just said above is that the pay differentiation is from which industry the person is working in , and is actually irrelevant to their gender identity.
The differnce between hard and soft industries is merely who's employed in them, and the pay follows gender stereotyping.
.
Teaching used to be a profession performed by men, and remunerated accordingly. It's now a 'soft' industry, as it has 'feminised'. Cue pay has dropped, and so has the vlaue we give the whle profession.
.
Where men have pushed out women an taken over an occupation, the regard for this occupation has soared, andso has its pay. The revrse has happened where women have pushed out men.
.
All of this is based on gender, none of i on skill, inherent or otherwise.....
no its not.
teachers often were men. correct. The did not have teaching degrees. It was a "hard" industry because it was rigid, heavily tested, positions were academic and very rigid, heavily heirarchial.
teaching softened as the academic discipline approach was removed due to US population influences and war. Focus became less disciplinarian, less copying of military systems (public schooling vs tutoring was used to keep children off the street and out of crime, not for any other benefit - the 3R's modelled on the Romans and Greeks was due to the intellectual fondness for such cultures not for any practical purpose). The use of woman in these roles was often through volunteer and public service, and often at difficult times. While many of these women were educated they were educated in the arts, not in "hard sciences".
modern teaching is entirely different from the early disciplinarians, it's a group activity, and focussed on an entirely different skillset. Payment is no longer derived directly from performance criteria, and if the recent fiasco over the computerised payment system is to go by, the payment system is a massive chimera of mismatched pieces - a sign of poor discipline, poor development, and entire "soft" options. This is also reflected in the poor quality of the individual results.
There is no need to attribute the change to gender identity. The changes are in the results, and the resources consumed. Resource consumption has skyrocketed, results have dropped. This is not gender associated.... although there are issues in parallel with gender, and possibly influenced by hormone and gender roles, which have that affect - but that means it up to the gendered individuals to "improve their ways"; to expect the government or other Super Ego body to fix it or make it right.... well that's one of those "gender influenced, but not directly gender related" attitudes which is causing difficulties for those gendered people holding that attitude.
And the most recent time I heard a woman depreciate herself as "just a woman" for making a making a simple typing mistake was -yesterday- (30oct14). A shop front person, I decided against the whole lecture, as she seemed overly self-depreciative already and went with an anecdote about a male friends stuff up which was similar but oh so much dafter. To close with "I think you're probably better than you think". It's self-depreciating "feminine" attitudes like that cause problems, that create bad image, that feminine is weak and needs protecting, that causes the issue - and it's easy for some people to buy into it - either so they have excuses, they don't have to work so hard, or because they give up the fight. And running to the courts for pay rises....isn't going to impress prospective employers in the industry...what sits on the mind when hiring is "what is she going to run to courts/authorities/media about next time", "what publc mess am I going to end up in if I take a chance to hire a woman, when I say "No" or turn down a daft request she thinks she's entitled too, am I going to wind up in court?"
Yes, gender discrimination does occur. and when it happens to a person the court is there to deal with damages.
But pretty much by definition, discrimination can't occur against an industry.
Oh and since others were getting personal on the topic let me overshare this.
My ex-partner was aged carer (night shift) for about 12 months when I shifted from Dunedin to Palmerston North. I pulled the bully partner card and made her quit eventually as the tiredness from the job was leading her to verbal abuse our child (a small error never requires a three hour tirade).
Yes the wages are crap. the work is often disgusting.
but here's the relevant bit - the work required (off paper) is differently allocated for males and females, not because of their gender but because of gender associated differences. the males were much more physical, had more body weight, more empathy, less care in the majority of cases. They got the violent ones, the lifting cases and more reprocussions for social time (chatting, family related matters) when compared to women doing a similar job. There was also far less menfolk willing to come into the industry, so scarcity was a factor in their contract bargining.
Sadly my partner was excellent at the job, it was just the hours that didn't suit a working couple with a child. And as she is physically powerful and impressive she was frequently sort out when the men weren't available - yet took time to treat the aged as equal people, not as a task to be done. Sadly most NZ people have such poor financial situation, the rest homes have many expensise to cover, and as an expensive protected industry it is nearly impossible to compete with the encumberents, and their are only so many Masonic facilities available (especially with the falling Masonic rolls in modern NZ)
And finally.... I'm signing off at this point. So apologies I won't be reading your follow up (which apparently isn't a socially contract thing to do, even though it should be, just for a Manners Mode thing ;) )
I'm throwing a kill file (automatic delete) on my email to make sure posts don't come through any more. so apologies in advantage. I bid you all wealthy and healthy, and hope you use it wisely. adieu.
DFTBA.....
"Key told 3News' First Line the Government was considering the implications of the Appeal Court ruling on Wednesday that nursing home carers were entitled to similar pay to those with similar skills in male-dominated industries".
Similar pay to similar skills......is a big stretch in many industries......where are the boundaries on equality = effort??
You can have the same skills but if you're not putting in the same effort should you be paid the same?? This whole issue stinks of the living wage mentality all people regardless of their physical effort paid the same.....
Loads got paid extraordinary sums for just deliveing US Treasury printed USTs to the Federal Reserve QE programmes - I did something similar for 16 years and retired at 45 - no effort whatsoever. Why would I deny any hard working person a decent wage to enjoy what is in reality a short life?
The wood and trees is whether the gender was the only reason she didn't get advanced.
If she was rude or offended her bosses with her approach for pay increase, or didn't seek a contract change at all, then gender isn't the issue.
For all we know is that she's not good to work with and is the type that runs around behind peoples' back, complains/slacks off, demands everyone makes things for her ease, and requires others to fill in her work gaps..... if that were the case, and management only keeps on people like that because they're cheap... then it's not a gender issue, and the courts are discriminating illegally by giving her benefits based only on gender orientated information.
Cowboy,
What's being considered is the disparity in pay between whole industries.
We're not talking about advancement, or her employment history (and if she was a difficult employee, surely the company would have brought his argument in the original case).
.
We're talking about a disadvantage which is systematic and institutionalised.
.
Before you decry a woman fighting such an institutionalised and systematic disadvantage, try and be awaare of the advantages you enjoy by sole virtue of being a man.
Women are seeking equality. Not a role reversal. But yes - scary thought, right?
Um no, there always disparity between industrys/jobs what being claimed here is discrimination based on sex but the supporting argument is very indirect to say the least. Anyway if the skillset is transferrable then the worker should easily transfer to the better paid one, this creating scarcity where she was and forcing better pay. Or do like I have done and re-train and move to the better paid one.
On top of this we have one worker as a test case and not a statistical significant sample, to look industry wide on. So it would be very easy for the Union to cherry pick someone at the top of capability and use her specifc case to infer all her fellow workers are as good as her because if she was in another sector she would be paid more and hence they all should be.
Also the judge appears to have looked at men and women in the same role in the same company and even similar roles and the same sector and sees little argument that woman is being dis-advantaged because she is a woman in that context. So what the union is doing is trying to claim that a different industry pays more because its male dominated and for no other reason.
You are really twisting your reasoning left, right and centre. Meanwhile this case looks like more of an argument its underpaid as a sector so should get more than its a sex issue.
No its not scary, beyond its scary the crazy thing the union is trying to claim.
I dont argue women and men should not be paid equally for the same job in the same sector or role, they should. So a male cook and female cook should be paid the same no matter what sector if the job is the same and the only difference is male/female. Anything else is a business and an employment relations nightmare, involving huge costs and disruption and maybe even loss of provision.
regards
What I concerned about is whether the employer retains their right to offer to pay what they see fit - to lump everyone one into "a whole industry" is _wage_control_. A clear violation of rights and NZ law fundamentals... not to mention it's discriminatory as people who work hard or have better abilities or make bigger sacrifices have no way to bargin for better terms in their contracts... otherwise government/courts will interfere.
And I'm not decrying "a woman" nor have I enjoyed any advantages "as a man". I appreciate it if you would cease being gender-discriminatory towards me.
I'm decrying a person, who would blame pay issues on gender; then possibly seek court assigned benefits from that gender issue....while violating employers rights, and the rights of other employees while doing so!
a) Well there is the nightmare of trying to do business in an environment where at any moment a court can arbitarily change and indeed break your entire business model and contract and send you out of business to start with.
b) The law is aspirational to say the least if the apeal docuemnt I read is any indication. ie it lacks any mechanism to action this. It is also vague and poorly worded....oh boy...
c) Just how is this achieved across sectors? take account of differing capabilities and abilities? One thing about going out to the market it ensures the best price for your skill set far better than having a clueless court try and deal with it.
As an example I have worked in both acute hospitals and a mental health hospital and frankly the difference in the quality of staff on the same wage (as it was nationally agreed) was substantial.
So when I see that male cooks and female cooks (female dominated) and gardeners (male dominated) in the same sector appear to have the same wage there for me is no real sec discrimination apparent.
Also bear in mind that some skills are in great demand and yet others are not. For instance I am a B.Eng (Hons) in Building Services and Energy Engineering. Yet I work in IT and have no formal qualifications in it. I earn 50% more at least than if I'd stayed in the engineering sector and have a very high level of job security due to my practical skill set that is in great demand, unlike engineering which was hugely problematic.
How would a court workout that say a woman in my old job who was equally qualified as I am yet earns 30% less is fairly treated or not? or what about a degree qualified librarian? Or what about a remale lawyer or account who will eanr more than I? do I have a case to go to court as well?
What would this do to the court system btw? bring it to its knees?
What would this do to a business who finds that after an expensive court case maybe going on years they cannot afford they get awarded against with backpay and cant pay it? so they go bankrupt or cease trading as a result?
So do I think its unfair that this sector is under-paid? yes I do, given the tough job they do (having worked in a mental health hospital I know this) they should be paid more IMHO.
this however comes back to the Govn we vote for and not the court, the resounding defeat handed to the left this election clearly points at no thanks.
regards
Benwave, that would technically be a rort ()and thus illegal).
The question is, did she suffer damages directly from the employers treatment for her apparent gender (and no other factor). That is illegal, and such damages are worthy of redress.
seeking better conditions and pay through the courts is inappropriate use of courts (illegal) and law.
Well, you might reasonably argue about whether you think the law is worthwhile but I don't think it makes sense to go around calling it illegal - It's clearly not! The decision made by the courts is consistent with the law of the land as it currently stands. No offense meant but I trust the decision of a group of legal experts over an anonymous internet commentator! : )
Yes Key pulls figures out of his backside without challenge from most of the media. They just report it and wait for the opposition to offer a refutation, and report that. Job done.
If a blow torch was held to Key on most of what he says, from economy to ISIS, he would look stupid. Mind you, his adoring flock would hate the impertinent media for challenging him!
From the Report:
"However, in a report written in 1979, a review committee appointed by the Minister of Labour recorded concern that despite this progress, in some agreements the equal pay rate for work that had been traditionally performed by women was too low to attract males and was therefore still a female rate. It recommended that future reviews of the Act should compare earnings in female-intensive occupations with those in male-intensive occupations to determine whether despite the Act there was still sex discrimination in pay treatment of women in predominantly female occupations.24 The recommendation was never adopted. "
Interesting. Too expensive, no doubt.
No I think too hard and complex.
Reading the docs it looks rather difficult to do, a nightmare for the court to determine, and should it be the court doing it? or Govn?
I mean who makes the fudge factor up to determine the pay difference to compare apples with apples? who arbitrates when an agreement cant be reached? Such cases could take months and months to work through as experts fight experts....
If say we have say a cook working in the retirement sector for less pay than another sector why cant the cook move to better pay? ie is teh cook not very good and hence cannot get a better paid job? lots and lots of Qs....one huge bag of worms. and that is comparing 2 cooks, what about a cook and a builder? or a cook and who?
oh boy.
regards
or another classic scenairo which often occurs :-
A prospective employee is desperate and wants any job to meet the bills. Will sign up for much less industry going rate to "get in the door" and "put food on the table".
employer refuses them, on the basis that should that person be hired, when the employee is on their feet, their representative (collective, legal or media) will claim that they were disadvantaged, and the employer took advantage of there situation. The difference being extracted by courts, or by blackmail of a courtcase. The courts personnel are well paid employees and not in a competitive industry as such they have no concept of contract price bargining and will see any such contract as oppressive and opportunistic, rather than representing an opportunity. Media, and many well off people (high income or supported by others will also see it as oppression, not understanding ground-floor opportunity). This group tends to include a higher representation of "resource consumers" compared with "resource providers" (to use some technical terms)
I disagree
I don't think that this would be too hard, or too complex.
Equal pay between women and men had been implemented in the public service sector by the Government Service Equal pay Act 1960.
From the report:
"
At the time, wage fixing in the private sector was primarily regulated by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1954 and was highly centralised. The predominant bargaining system was compulsory conciliated bargaining for blanket-coverage awards that set minimum terms and conditions of employment.11 Some awards were limited to local industry labour markets but many of them were regional or national in scope. The awards were negotiated by unions and employer representatives and then submitted for approval to the Court of Arbitration. If the parties could not reach agreement the dispute would be resolved by state-sponsored arbitration.12
[21] Approximately 40 per cent of all employees in New Zealand were covered by awards and industrial agreements under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.13 That Act was subsequently replaced by the Industrial Relations Act 1973 but national awards remained common.14
[22] Prior to 1972, awards often expressly provided separate rates for female employees.15 The female rates were invariably lower than the male rates. In some awards, gender bias took the form of different job titles being allocated to men and women undertaking substantially the same work. Again, the men received higher rates of pay.16
[....]
"
[26] By the end of the initial five year implementation phase, the Act had been effective in eliminating separate male and female rates in awards and other types of employment agreements.22 Between 1972 and 1978, the ratio of female to male hourly earnings increased from approximately 70 per cent to 78.5 per cent.23
(excerpt copied earlier)
[28] In the years that followed the gender wage gap remained largely constant, prompting calls for a new review of the Act."
"
[35] The 1987 Phase One Report of that study confirmed that there was still a substantial gender pay gap in New Zealand31 and that although the causes of the gap were complex and interrelated, many contained elements of discrimination.32 One of the main causes identified by the report was the segregation of women into occupations and industries characterised by low rates of pay. There was found to be a strong statistical link between female dominance in an occupation and low pay rates.33
[36] As the report also observed, there was growing literature supporting the view that the lower level of earnings in many female-dominated occupations was
discriminatory, being in large measure attributable to historical factors no longer relevant – such as the fact that paid employment for women was seen as a stopgap until marriage and therefore not deserving of higher earnings – and to the undervaluation of skills needed in female-intensive jobs, such as manual dexterity.34 Such skills were undervalued because they were seen as innate or natural skills (as opposed to acquired skills) and/or as an extension of women’s unpaid work in the home.
[37] We pause here to interpolate that it is this view that is encapsulated in the Employment Court’s phrase "systemic undervaluation of the work derived from current or historical or structural gender discrimination" (systemic undervaluation).35
And the above is for Cowboy, too: gender based wage discrimination does exist, and is widespread.
.
Your disagreement with this fact does not make this fact untrue.
The government is looking for an easy way out - that's all. It just has different priorities as to where it wants to spend (our) money....
It appears a very wide interpretation has been given to Similar Pay to Similar Skills.......
This could well work in the governments favour.......many of the managers within Government depts are paid far too much to say their counterparts in private enterprise......so I'm suggesting that a haircut is in order.
If I can run the office....do all the compliance.....write all the reports.......employ staff......write contracts.......basically manage the whole shebang while wearing the risk then no bureaucrat should be paid more than me when they are at management level......
Now take a farmer or any other self-employed person.....maybe they prepare all the bookwook......does the GST, PAYE, and the plethora of other duties.....not only are they the office manager, they will be HR, H&S, Marketing and Advertising and far too many other skills to list......so the farmer has just set the skill level and the pay level for all similarly skilled people........so I suspect that there are many out there who are being overpaid!!
Now we'll take another view of a farmer.......they look after livestock. pastures, soils, water etc.....highly important to the NZ economy.......their skill set is enormous........so if we match similar pay to similar skill then everyone who is not a farmer or other exporter is overpaid.......now all those managers in Councils and other organisations need to take a wage decrease because their skill set is not the same.
Business NZ what the heck do you think you are doing????
I have a friend that does unpaid volunteer work. Organising, writing reports, overseeing staff, setting targets, arranging budgets. Will we see government types cut to her unpaid level?
Or will the charity she's working for get forced to pay her the equivalent government/private equivalent. Her work invovles over 30hrs a week, frequently over 40hrs.
The non -profit sector is underfunded for this. The living wage has caused coinsiderable problerms to the sector so would have the min. wage proposed by the opposition. The Government should pay they have offloaded the risk and insufficient funding for years to this sector...it isn't just aged cared effected by this.
The non -profit sector is underfunded for this. The living wage has caused coinsiderable problerms to the sector so would have the min. wage proposed by the opposition.
Certainly not in respect of my wife and others like her who volunteer their foreign language speaking skills to assist refugees on behalf of the appointed non-profit organisations. The ratio of paid to non-paid persons in these outfits is one to too many.
all I know is that when I was at uni there was always loads of 'female-only' low-paid jobs, that I would have loved to have had the chance to do, on account of being dangerously broke (was in oz -no student loan/allowance as a kiwi). These included aged-care, cleaning, child-minding, promotional work, cashier, reception work and so on, requiring no experience or formal qualifications. I luckily found work mowing lawns and talked my way into a warehouse job. My point is that having easy access to female dominated roles is a MASSIVE perk women have. The downside is that they are often easy access jobs, which means these same employers can sidestep demands for higher pay with newbies.
Makes the case for leaving the minimum wage, getting rid of WFF and most benefits and instead introducing a UBI/GMI.
Let people work/volunteer how and where they choose. There is a wave of automation and robotics coming that is going to devastate high and middle income jobs as well as low income and unless we want a third world dystopia, we need to embrace job sharing, casual and contract work and fewer hours while still having some security
Not going to happen as long as corporations have the key to the economy, trust me. Many (and I mean many) years ago when I was just a little tacker at primary school, my teacher told of a time when machines would do most of the work and us lot would sit back and enjoy the fruits of the labour they took over. The world he described would have required all citizens to have a stake in those machines instead what we have is (mostly) corporations seeking to maximise profit while minimizing wages paid. People are just cut out of the loop and as real jobs getter fewer and fewer alll we are seeing is those who still have work they can enjoy of life off turning on those who don't. Lord of the Flies would have been a more accurate predictor of what is going on.
Yep we're fast approaching a crossroad where robotics, AI and automation will be of benefit to everybody with more leisure time and a UBI funded by some fair redistribution or a nightmare of a few uber wealthy and the rest of humanity poverty stricken drones. Jetsons or Bladerunner? No political party has this stuff even on the horizon. Still stuck in a 19th century mindset.
http://unframednz.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/robots-unemployment-and-the-universal-basic-income/
Musk on AI
"In 2000, Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems and a huge figure in computing history, broke ranks with an article for Wired entitled “Why the future doesn’t need us”. He saw that many of the dreams of Silicon Valley would either lead to, or deliberately include, termination of the human species. They still do – believers in the Singularity look forward to it as a moment when we will transcend our biological condition."
Peak natural resources.
Automation, AI and robotics can't dramatically increase production because there won't be enough natural resources including oil. Mass adoption and fierce price competition will be deflationary.
Nor will robots and technology be consumers to buy that production. A complete rethink of capitalism will be needed with increased productive capacity but fewer resources and human worker/consumers.
So Key is suggesting that these people should not recieve equal pay for equal work because it is going to cost the government a lot of money????? I thought that we had these arguments and changed the law accordingly decades ago. So is Key suggesting that somehow the government does not have to obey it's own laws???
The man has absolutely no moral compas and is totally unsuitable to lead the country.
Er... this is the guy who allowed millions in tax cuts targeted at the most wealthy, now saying its unaffordable for the most vulnerable who have fought through the courts for a modest pay rise?. I think 40 years ago we learnt equality will cost money, if we want to accept women in the workplace as equals. The sky didn't cave in then, and it won't now.
I think John Oliver puts the discussion on equal pay into perspective. Give it a view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsB1e-1BB4Y&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
I would say "Tough" to Steven Joyce
For a start these low paid workers will immediately lose 17.5% tax
Then they will spend every cent of their net income on necessities -another 13% GST
Of the spend at least 20% will go to the IRD on added turnover of downstream businesses
Any cost to the tax base is probably a net 50% of the added wages.
Do I fret over my tax going out to these low paid? Not a chance.
I would like to see a high paid lawyer prove they are worth $500+ an hour
Incidentally why do our PM and cabinet ministers get salaries higher than those of other countries many times the size? That is the type of expenditure I object to.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.