Talk:Equal pay for equal work/Archive 1

Archive 1

[untitled section]

This article seems biased to me; otherwise, it's very minimally informative. I would have expected better from wikipedia.

Yeah, this article is crappy, especially the criticism section which reads like a diatribe rather than a description of criticisms. The criticism section is POV and like 3 times longer than the description of the idea it's criticizing. 65.26.144.173 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no criticism, the so called section is the description. It is merely an explanation of why the issue exists and after it that there are efforts being made by people to break the balance. If you'd like to add to the section regarding action for change you can go right ahead...

Dubious factual claims

This article makes several very dubious factual claims. For example, the article claims that "The principle reasons that men get paid more than women is salary negotiation." Numerous reasons have been proposed for the disparity between the salaries of men and women, and it's hardly clear which is the greatest factor. For example, women are far more likely than to take time off work to raise children; this means that when they return to the workforce they will have less experience than their male counterparts, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect that they would then receive less pay. Women may also go into lower-paying fields at a greater rate than men do.

Clean Slate

This article was clearly not up to WP standards by any measure: I have restarted it here. Excuse the minimalism, but I will try to make improvements in subsequent edits. For now, I believe erasing the entire article and starting anew is the best course of action: it's better to have nothing than faulty and misleading information. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blanking an informative and fairly well referenced page seems like a step much too far. Sure the criticism section was too large, but I don't think that means there shouldn't be a criticism section. The page has problems, but I think it can be salvaged instead of erased.Masebrock (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try and clean it up a bit. Let me know what you think. Masebrock (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Warren Farrel

Surely something should be mentioned of his research in the area of pay inequality and the reasoning behind it? As far as I am aware its the only actual research done to examine what causes the pay gap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.90.93 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of equal work?

• (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

You mean they are doing equal work, even if a merit system says that one's work is "better" in some way or that one employee is earning more for the company?

This harks back to Marx's Labor theory of value that proposes to pay an unskilled cook (who ruins any recipe he touches) with an inspired chef or baker whose meals are considered tasty and nutritious. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Workshop: let's remove the bias from this section

Support for equal pay for equal work

The U.S. Democratic Party has historically supported legislating equal pay for equal work. Its 2008 party platform reads: "When , it doesn’t just hurt women; it hurts families and children. We will pass the 'Lilly Ledbetter' Act, which will make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will modernize the Equal Pay Act." The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law in January 2009.

Why this section is a problem

It assumes that the reason "women still earn 76 cents for every dollar that a man earns" is pay discrimination, i.e., numerous violations of the Equal Pay Act. It dismisses any contemplation of the notion that women might have (a) deliberately chosen lower-paying work or (b) taken time off from their careers to raise a family (so that their seniority or skill level is lower).

We need to make explicit the argument that the Democrats are making here: their contention that by making it easier to combat violation of equal pay for equal work, the overall pay of women will substantially rise (even taking into account choice of work or time out of the workforce).

We ought to balance this with any other advocates arguing, perhaps, that personal choices and time out of work are factors that will continue to keep women's wages lower than men's even if the EPA were enforced perfectly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TALK's instruction to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nice try Ed. Go back to Conservapedia and continue preaching your hatred of women there. It isn't welcome at Wikipedia. 212.139.225.237 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusion with the broader issue

I support leaving the problematic section in the article pending a fix. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• But these two sentences are not about equal pay for equal work. They are about the gender pay gap:

  Its 2008 party platform reads: "When women still earn 76 cents for every dollar that a man earns, it doesn’t just hurt women; it hurts families and children. We will pass the 'Lilly Ledbetter' Act, which will make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will modernize the Equal Pay Act."

Please work with me here, instead of reverting my changes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a mistake in inference or something else?

To provide a simple example: In the case of an employer who holds an unfair prejudice against women, he will always hire the man given the requirement to pay both equally. However, if the women offers to be compensated slightly less than the man despite having equal talents, the employer will have to pay for his prejudice if he still hires the man. In this case, a competitor now has access to an employee who is both equally skilled and willing to work for less, which will thus put the discriminative employer at a competitive disadvantage.

!!!! My main question is: And what if employer is female? Does this imply that all managers are male, or should be male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.249.118 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Only people (both men and women) in jobs done traditionally by women can complain that their work is undervalued." - UM no, that isn't a fact. Council workers / garbologists, artists can complain that their work is undervalued and those jobs are not historically held by women only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.224.16 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference between equal pay for equal work and equal pay for work of equal value

There are NPV, bias problems with this section. The example of nurses and electricians is not mentioned in the source and seems absurd or editorial (please forgive me if I'm not current on what arguments are being used in the equal pay for equal effort debate). The source does not contain these examples that are given in both columns, indicating a three card trick in stuffing biased opinions. I enjoy opinions but not here unless we have a citation. Specifically, the sentence about nurses and electricians, and the sentences that mention that men could seek damages for making less than women. Nowhere in the source does it give those examples. I intend to remove the last sentences that are not stipulated or implied by the source. Or, at the very least, I will mark them as source orphans (no source) and remove after a reasonable amount of time. JanetWand (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The news of unequal pay for equal work: potential copyright issue

The United States subsection of "The news of unequal pay for equal work" is a verbatim copy-and-paste of nearly the entire Huffington Post article it cites. I am not sure that this doesn't violate Huffington Post's copyright on the text of the article. --Rogermw (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also non male/female issues

Mention Equal pay for equal work/Archive 1 in terms of Foreign worker vs. domestic worker. Jidanni (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan

This section reads like a google translation of its source. Can we have someone clean this up so it can actually be understood by readers? KezianAvenger™ 23:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here Alarichall (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Massachusetts

Massachusetts has a new law: [1] [2]. -- Beland (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hungary

Can someone better explain (and/or provide a source) for this wording under Hungary in the table?

"Equal pay for equal work was included in the constitution. But it has changed, now there is only equality between men and women, and the pay is in the Labour Code."

Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Equal pay for equal work. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206144556/http://dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140206140256/http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/resources/what_diff.php to http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/resources/what_diff.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518234720/http://www.marxist.com/women/equal_pay.html to http://www.marxist.com/women/equal_pay.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Iceland

Is "amandment" a specific term for what Iceland did, or is it a misspelling of "amendment"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.25.160.193 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Gender Pay Gap Sections Clear Bias and Unfounded Statements.

"they could be doing the same job and everything but the male would still get paid more"

"There are plenty of studies proving the gender pay gap and how big of a problem it is"

"The gender pay gap is a big problem in many different countries and this problem does not seem to be getting better"

All 3 of these statements either need references attached to back up the statements or need to be phrased as opinions/quotes.

Particularly the "and everything" part is a problem as it is a complete assumption as it implies that the 2 participants have NO features other than gender to separate pay but this is not known and so should not be assumed or phrased as a fact.

On top of that complaint, this whole section of the Article seems overly biased and gives no real context or explanation as to what the gender pay gap is believed/believed not to be.

There is no reference to any counter-arguments such as the flaw that comes with not taking into account the different paths men and women choose to take.

There is also only 1 reference to an article in the section and this article is hardly outstanding quality as in just its 1st paragraph it makes an assumption that contradicts its previous sentence:

Sentence 1: "It is against the law to pay women less than men for the same or broadly similar work, and these data do not reveal whether this is happening"

Sentence 2: "indicating that across the country women are being undervalued by their employers"

This obvious bias and lack of factual/proven information is clearly a problem on such a controversial issue.

I am not a very good writer so I don't ideally want to have to edit this myself, however, I will if I must to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshyboy1 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

wow

"Only people (both men and women) in jobs done traditionally by women can complain that their work is undervalued." Goodness, that seems a little inequitable. What about our sisters in metalworking and such? I understand that this is probably not a legitimate complaint; the source says what the source says. Moreover it's from a .gov... But wow... Canadian equal opportunity legislation is not what I expected it to be. You are welcome to delete this talk comment as irrelevant noise, but hey, on reading that reference I felt I had to say something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.150.78 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliaruch. Peer reviewers: NBurgos27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rhenr069.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katinawiley, Amirarussell, Jazzy4554, Carolehmaidan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)