Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

On what possible basis could it be argued that blue eyed people should be paid less than brown eyed people?
...There is no way that I can see for it to be argued coherently that equal pay has gone too far

That was my thought on reading the thread title.

But what Fried is talking about is a situation where the law says nothing about whether (for example) people who look after cats are paid the same as people who look after racehorses. Unless there is a significant gender difference, at which point it becomes a crime.

And it seems to me that we ought to be able to agree that this is not how law should work, regardless of whether there are many instances or few instances or no instances at all yet but that's the way things are heading.

Seems like there's an element of "guilty until proven innocent" here. That an employer with two members of staff doing different jobs and earning different wages is - in the case where one is female - guilty of discrimination unless they can come up with a good reason.

[Fried Egg]

I notice that nowhere in the preceding 4 pages have you provided the case citations which makes it difficult to find the judgements. They will be in the form: abc vs xyz and the date. For example, Hornsby Shire Council v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] HCA 19. Would you mind providing those citations?

Is this what you are looking for:

Ms M Thandi and Others v Next Retail Ltd and Next Distribution Ltd: 1302019/2018 and Others

There is an interesting extract from the decision above that sites the 2010 Equality Act:

“A’s work is of equal value to B’s work if it is –
(a) neither like B’s work nor rated as equivalent to B’s work, but
(b) nevertheless, equal to B’s work in terms of the demands made on A by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making”

The ASDA case has been going on ten years but has still not yet finished although it looks like the claimants are on the cusp of victory. Earlier this month the claimants won the latest stage of their case when a Manchester based employment tribunal ruled that: "12 out of 14 lead claimants in the case, which involves 60,000 people, mostly women working shop-based jobs, had roles that were of equal value to their mostly male counterparts employed in the retailer’s warehouses, despite being paid up to £3.74 an hour less."

With regards to Birmingham city council, it wasn't actually resolved in by a tribunal but rather through negotiations with the unions after an industrial dispute. While I don't think the details are public, the logic behind it the grievance the same as the others (going by the many media reports on the subject).

[Lagayascienza]

Thanks. I'll read the judgement.

[Fried Egg]

I think your spiel re those cases, seen through the prism of laissez faire capitalism as it always seems to be with you, is probably wrong.

I have to admit it is my suspicion that whether or not you think it's possible to judge (in principle) whether two different jobs are of equal value will come down to whether you think it can be determined objectively (independently from the market) what prices should be.

Market prices merely reflect the aggregation of people's subjective preferences and tend towards bringing supply and demand into balance. This is because a price that is either too high or too low will encourage competition between sellers or buyers (respectively) that serve to drive the price towards that equilibrating rate *. The equilibrating rate itself is in a continuous state of flux, reflects the aggregation of supply and demand and is only discovered through trial and error.

Also prices do not represent an equality of value (between the buyer and the seller). Transactions only happen because the both parties value what they are getting more than what they are giving up. So if I produce and sell a widget for £10, it does not mean that the value of my widget equals £10. It means only that I valued that widget less than £10 and my buyer valued it more. You, on the other hand, might not have purchased my widget for more than £7. So everything is valued differently by everybody and the concept of declaring two things to be of equal value is meaningless.

We cannot declare two different jobs to be of equal value because their value is a subjective judgement that varies from one person to the next. If the market price for one of those jobs ends up being higher than the other, it only reflects the aggregation of people's subjective preferences and there's no reason or basis to extrapolate sexual discrimination just because it leads to a statistical disparity between the rates of pay of men and women.

* The equilibrating rate is the price at which the demand and supply curves for a given commodity intersect. i.e. the price point at which there are no more sellers would have been willing to sell and no more buyers would have been willing to buy. A non equilibrating price point is what leads to gluts (when too high) and shortages (when too low).

[Pattern-chaser]

We humans make value judgements all the time, concerning just about anything and everything. It's what we do. And I don't think we're being dishonest here — no-one is trying to assert that these judgements are somehow objective.

The judgement in these cases is that the the two roles were "of equal value". What is this if not a claim to objectivity?

It's just a judgement, a value judgement. And, as value judgements are often very far away from "objective"...?

Let me put it this way, if the courts were recognise that it was only their subjective opinion that they were equal, they would have no business reaching the conclusion they did and ordering the employers to pay large sums in compensation. The courts judgement that the roles were of equal value is the correct view, the employ's judgement that they weren't was the incorrect view. There's no room for subjectivity here and mutual recognition of their differing value judgements.

I am confused. You keep on describing highly-subjective things, like value judgements, and claiming they are presented as being "objective". They are not. The judgements are rendered, but no such claims for them are made, that I have seen.

Of course we all have different opinions as to the correctness of these subjective judgements, but that's why we have such things as courts — to render judgement when the disagreeing parties have been unable to do it for themselves. And so the court's decisions stand, because of what they are, and how/why they were appointed to be so.

It doesn't matter if there are some who disagree, as you do. You don't matter. The only time you might be taken seriously is if you form part of a democratic majority of citizens who want their courts, or the guidelines they follow, changed. Otherwise, you are just baying at the moon, aren't you?

[Pattern-chaser]

Tell me what basis then the court has ordering these companies to pay compensation to the "wronged" employees?

A court is given the authority to do this, as this is the very purpose of the court's existence. Just as a policeman is given powers of arrest. Society creates courts and appoints judges, to render judgements that are hopefully just and fair.

In a case where there is disagreement, it is certain that some will be dissatisfied with the verdict. That is inescapable, and is not an indication that the court is doing something wrong. On the contrary, it indicates that the court is doing what it was created to do, yes?

[Pattern-chaser]

The question is whether there is an object fact of the matter to be determined. Did Harry murder David? Either he did or he didn't.

More of this? Such decisions, concerning real people in the real world, are rarely if ever objective. The evidence, even that which might exist, is often not available, so it cannot be used in deliberation. Your example, above, is *way* too black and white to make sense. For a start, the crime of murder is subdivided, for various reasons. Reasons that matter.

If you insist on objective laws, administered by objective courts headed by objective judges, then justice is gone, disappeared without trace. Because the real world is never, ever, as black-and-white as your example paints it.

Oh, and there is rarely no "object fact" (singular), but a huge and motley collection of evidence of all standards, that must be sifted through, and some sort of judgement reached that can be accepted as just and fair. The *context* of any alleged crime is vast, and usually plays a strong part in reaching a just decision.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser, you're getting side tracked with details irrelevant to my point.

In most forms of crime, there is an actual fact of the matter in question that the court is trying to ascertain. However unreliable or uncertain the methods are to reach that decision is not the point. That there is an objective fact that they are trying to reach is my point.

And if those "objective facts" are unavailable, for some real-world reason, as is *USUALLY* the case? That is my point.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry, in catching up with your posts, I've answered some comments more than once. I won't try to correct this, in case I make an even worse mess!

[Sy Borg]

Is there a problem with simply paying people according to their position and performance?

It's often argued that women are less likely than men to ask for a raise. I would bet that, if a study was done, it would be found that introverts are less likely to ask for a raise than extroverts. Should introverts unite in a global campaign to increase introvert pay?

Or should we just treat people and individuals? Should we pander to groups because they strategically form blocs to influence events in their favour? It would seem that the act of forming a bloc gives them advantages over subdivisions that do not organise.

Personally, I dislike blocs. They reduce individuals to pawns, ignoring that which is most important about us - our lives.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there a problem with simply paying people according to their position and performance?

Yes, that's what 'equal pay' is all about, isn't it?



[The quite different issue of work of 'equal value' is another discussion. Maybe even a separate topic, as they are so far apart, even though there is an obvious association between the two.]

[Fried Egg]

Is there a problem with simply paying people according to their position and performance?

Yes, that's what 'equal pay' is all about, isn't it?



[The quite different issue of work of 'equal value' is another discussion. Maybe even a separate topic, as they are so far apart, even though there is an obvious association between the two.]

Yes, that's what it should be about but it unfortunately isn't anymore. The concept of "Equal Pay" really should be about people's pay not reflecting arbitrary distinctions that are irrelevant to the job in question (i.e. race, sex, sexuality, etc.) It should not be about necessarily getting equal pay. This is because, in a truly meritocratic system, people's pay would reflect their productivity in the role. Just because two people share the same job description, it doesn't make them equally as productive.

Therefore, I think the equal pay principle in law has already been taken too far (before we even get on to the way it is being interpreted in the cases I brought up in this thread). The problem is though that proving actual discrimination took place can be really hard to do and it's much easier to just look at the outcomes (such as statistical disparities) and then put the onus on the employer to prove they didn't discriminate (or had good reasons for awarding different rates of pay).

But then there's those that don't actually care about discrimination itself, they only care about equity (i.e. the thing they are trying to achieve is equal outcomes, not the absence of discrimination).

However, you are right that this is a topic probably best left for another topic. For the purposes of this discussion I wanted to focus on the idea of whether it's valid to try to compare different jobs and infer unlawful discrimination on that basis.

[Good_Egg]

Tell me what basis then the court has ordering these companies to pay compensation to the "wronged" employees?

A court is given the authority to do this, as this is the very purpose of the court's existence. Just as a policeman is given powers of arrest. Society creates courts and appoints judges, to render judgements that are hopefully just and fair.

In a case where there is disagreement, it is certain that some will be dissatisfied with the verdict. That is inescapable, and is not an indication that the court is doing something wrong. On the contrary, it indicates that the court is doing what it was created to do, yes?

You think that is what law is for ? To take some matter on which subjective value judgments vary (amongst people of good will), and to deem some particular subjective value judgment to be a crime (for which punishment is due) or a civil wrong (for which compensation is due) ?

That sounds like "tyranny of the majority" at best. Why would any moral person (I.e. someone attempting to treat others as they would like to be treated) want law, if that's what law is ?

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, that's what it should be about but it unfortunately isn't anymore. The concept of "Equal Pay" really should be about people's pay not reflecting arbitrary distinctions that are irrelevant to the job in question (i.e. race, sex, sexuality, etc.) It should not be about necessarily getting equal pay. This is because, in a truly meritocratic system, people's pay would reflect their productivity in the role. Just because two people share the same job description, it doesn't make them equally as productive.

You believe a meritocratic system is what will benefit us most? I'm not necessarily arguing for anything different, I'm just questioning an obvious assumption that has just appeared, as if by magic. Is meritocracy what we need, or what we want?

[Pattern-chaser]

Tell me what basis then the court has ordering these companies to pay compensation to the "wronged" employees?

A court is given the authority to do this, as this is the very purpose of the court's existence. Just as a policeman is given powers of arrest. Society creates courts and appoints judges, to render judgements that are hopefully just and fair.

In a case where there is disagreement, it is certain that some will be dissatisfied with the verdict. That is inescapable, and is not an indication that the court is doing something wrong. On the contrary, it indicates that the court is doing what it was created to do, yes?

You think that is what law is for ? To take some matter on which subjective value judgments vary (amongst people of good will), and to deem some particular subjective value judgment to be a crime (for which punishment is due) or a civil wrong (for which compensation is due) ?

This is not about "law", it's about the purpose of a court.

In most cases, we call upon courts to try legal cases, according to the law. But we also call upon courts, and their judges, to consider other matters too. Public enquiries are one example. What we are discussing here is more like a public enquiry, but it also harks back to our ancient civilisation, before the Saxons invaded our green and pleasant land, when disputes that could not be resolved were referred to a druid for judgement.

In modern times, we have lost our ancient wisdom, and druids may be found only at an eisteddfod. But courts, judges and juries substitute for them. They're the best we now have.

That sounds like "tyranny of the majority" at best. Why would any moral person (I.e. someone attempting to treat others as they would like to be treated) want law, if that's what law is ?

It sounds like that, because that's what democracy is. And let's rephrase so that we're clear what you are asking: "Why would any individual want law, if that's what law is?" Well that is what the law is, and you must obey it. Not because you, as an individual, "want" it, but because you, as a member of society, are bound by the laws set down by our society.