It had to happen one day!
- Thread starter D_Hailsham
- Start date
Sponsored Links
J
Johnmelad502
Never...
from reading the article, it's rediculous anyway..
the women claimed that it was unfair that as care workers etc, they were being paid less than men IN HIGHER PAID JOBS such as refuse collecting...
based on that, i think it's unfair that I don't get paid as much as MP's in higher paid jobs....
it's like comparing the wages of a burger king employee to the wages of a top london chef... they don't correspond i the slightest
I can see the point if the female refuse collectors were getting less than the male refuse collectors for lugging the same amount of trash every day..
the women claimed that it was unfair that as care workers etc, they were being paid less than men IN HIGHER PAID JOBS such as refuse collecting...
based on that, i think it's unfair that I don't get paid as much as MP's in higher paid jobs....
it's like comparing the wages of a burger king employee to the wages of a top london chef... they don't correspond i the slightest
I can see the point if the female refuse collectors were getting less than the male refuse collectors for lugging the same amount of trash every day..
Sponsored Links
T
toasty
I don't agree with the equal pay for equal value jobs I'm afraid.
Surely it comes down to supply and demand.
i.e there are only a handful of people who could be brain surgeons / rocket scientists (i.e have the ability and the training) - so they get paid loads due to the fact that there are very few potential candidates around.
most people here, if they wanted to, could work in McDonalds (no offence to people who do, but you need very little training and any specific ability) hence they can pay a lot less because they have lots of potential employees to choose from.
I know some professions (law society spring to mind) limit their intake in order to artificially throttle supply and therefore keep demand and salaries high, but I really do believe that in the most part this is how it works.
The good news is that I can't in a lot of cases (surgeons and rocket scientists accepted) see any real correlation between intelligence/skill and those jobs that are well paid, the key is just finding yourself a niche.
As for women and men getting the same pay, I'm all for it if they do the same job.
Surely it comes down to supply and demand.
i.e there are only a handful of people who could be brain surgeons / rocket scientists (i.e have the ability and the training) - so they get paid loads due to the fact that there are very few potential candidates around.
most people here, if they wanted to, could work in McDonalds (no offence to people who do, but you need very little training and any specific ability) hence they can pay a lot less because they have lots of potential employees to choose from.
I know some professions (law society spring to mind) limit their intake in order to artificially throttle supply and therefore keep demand and salaries high, but I really do believe that in the most part this is how it works.
The good news is that I can't in a lot of cases (surgeons and rocket scientists accepted) see any real correlation between intelligence/skill and those jobs that are well paid, the key is just finding yourself a niche.
As for women and men getting the same pay, I'm all for it if they do the same job.
D
Deleted member 105431
yet more taxpayers cash pi$$ed up the wall. 
JohnD said:
I'd say that you've hit the nail on the head there. The problem of course lies in how you rate the value of any particular kind of work.
Here in the NHS, our lords and masters actually came up with a solution. It was called Agenda for Change and it involved spending huge amounts of taxpayers' money on a scheme to rate the value of every job in the NHS. Since we're the biggest employer in Europe, that's a lot of different jobs!
First, a large number of existing jobs were given scores in a multitude of categories as diverse as communications skills and the need to work in unpleasant conditions. The scoring method was then tested on the actual employees to see how well their scores correlated with their existing pay.
Next, the scoring system was adjusted for best fit. This resulted in greatest weight being attached to the two categories of responsibility and required knowledge and skills. No surprize there really.
After that, all of our jobs were scored and we were all 'banded', as it is now known. Some gained and some lost but, on average, it worked. Now look back a bit and see what has actually happened. The scoring system was based on existing jobs, that is jobs whose pay had been determined, as usual, by supply and demand. The relative values of all NHS jobs are now rated according to the supply and demand that existed in 2004.
Sponsored Links
