I've been thinking about this because of a personal situation and wanted to know what others thought. My own experience is different than what's listed below, but I have worked with two people in the exact circumstance that I'm outlining here:

Two co-workers, same work experience, same hire date. One is a man, one is a woman.

The man has no kids, no family.

The woman has no kids, no family.

In the next 10 years, the man still has no kids, no family.

The woman has gotten married and had 6 children.

They make the same amount of money. Is this fair?

I say no, because she's used more of the company's resources for health insurance and leave time while the man has worked more hours than she has. He's been on call more times than she has, and works late and on the weekends.

It's tough for me because I'm a working mom and I see the benefits of each side; however if I am being fair from a co-worker standpoint, I don't see the equality in this scenario.

The benefits are there to be used and should have nothing to do with the pay. There is an expectation that some employees will use more of the benefits than others because they aren't going to be applicable to everyone. So one person gets an MS degree mostly paid for and another person gets maternity leave and another person gets WLS paid for. Another person is never sick, has no kids and doesn't feel like getting a second degree.

Should the dollar values be totted up and subtracted from each pay check or the one who uses no benefits get a bonus? Absolutely not! That's not how benefits work.

Pay should be based on performance and the job being done. If they do the same job to the same level of ability, they should get paid the same. Nothing else should be a consideration.

Ahhhh, but if he is "on call" more then she is, then they are not performing the same job. Oh sure they have the same title, but they probably shouldn't. Or at the very least, she should be forced to take the same exact amount of responsibilities and on call time.

I deal with this daily. Not on a sex basis, because in reality this single issue has nothing to do with sex at all. My job has some weekend work involved. If one person is never available to work those weekends, then shouldn't he be paid less? Of course he should, or something else should be done to keep things equal and fair. Currently nothing is done, but believe me it pisses everyone else off. Not because they are lazy or not willing to do the work, it is simply an issue of fairness. Why should everyone else work more, so that this person can work less. Just because he has "family reasons" for needing the weekend off? Heck, no. In the end, he is responsible for his family and that responsibility shouldn't cost everyone else.

To be clear...the oncall time that adds up for him was becuase she is out of the office more and for longer times than he is. It's a rotating schedule, but I had to change her name to his many, many times because she couldn't do it. When she was in the office she physically she couldn't go to job sites and do the job, so he took over.

Mac, I see what you're saying - benefits = benefits and have nothing to do w/salary. But most places take into consideration the benefits that they pay when calculating the salary. I couldn't go to my boss and say, higher pay, lower benefits please, because I don't use them. It's as if people are being rewarded to take advantage of these benefits, rather than the opposite.

We used to get a small bonus for sick days not used, so people would come to work more. When they took that small bonus away, and the days don't roll over, people use every minute of sick time they get - even when they're not sick.

Some have healthcare with their spouse or private insurance, yet they are the same pay grade as others who use the benefits.

But, wouldn't it be discrimination to base her level of ability against his, if her level is only diminished due to pregnancy, not lack of intellect or experience?

He has more ability simply due to the fact that he isn't pregnant. It was partly a physical job that would go to the field and do a lot of physical work, as well as an office job.

She had a hard time with each pregnancy and was put on bed rest the last 3 months of all 6 pregnancies. No, not fun for her at all, but that also meant he took the burden.

Her performance, when not pregnant, was excellent - pretty much same level that he performs. If they're both good, but one isn't there most of the time (using the benefits) then how do you calculate that?

Also, some places don't have class benefits or wls benefits, but do have maternity leave available. In those cases, is it fair to men?

I'm just using my one example for man vs. woman because I knew the details of pay, level of experience, education, etc. I'm sure there are many cases of unfairness in so many different ways. It's just when I sat down to think about these two people I just couldn't see a fair deal for him. I felt badly for him.

I have found in many jobs I had to concentrate on my own pay and my own situation rather then compare to co-workers, or it would drive me nuts. I'm sure he probably does the same.

I don't use my companies health benefits at all. My wifes insurance is better and my company will not coordinate benefits with anyone. So I get nothing extra, but everyone else in the company costs me money??? Doesn't seem right does it.

I have found in many jobs I had to concentrate on my own pay and my own situation rather then compare to co-workers, or it would drive me nuts. .

That's where I need some personal growth. I have a hard time bearing the burdens of other people. I take it gracefully at work, but gripe about it later.

In Ontario Canada you get 12 months paid maternity or paternity leave. This can be shared or split if you want between parents. I think if it's the same job it's the same pay. Benefits where I am are paid 50% self 50% by company until after 2 yrs they pay all. You don't have to take them at all if you don't want to therefore not having any deductions either. The only difference I personally see is that if he is the one mainly available on the "on call" stuff - he should be looked at for promotion over her for sure. I am sure woman having the childrens would switch places with the man in a heartbeat! Someones gotta do it. I wish I could let them have a period for a month or two also..:smile:

To be clear...the oncall time that adds up for him was becuase she is out of the office more and for longer times than he is. It's a rotating schedule, but I had to change her name to his many, many times because she couldn't do it. When she was in the office she physically she couldn't go to job sites and do the job, so he took over.

Mac, I see what you're saying - benefits = benefits and have nothing to do w/salary. But most places take into consideration the benefits that they pay when calculating the salary. I couldn't go to my boss and say, higher pay, lower benefits please, because I don't use them. It's as if people are being rewarded to take advantage of these benefits, rather than the opposite.

We used to get a small bonus for sick days not used, so people would come to work more. When they took that small bonus away, and the days don't roll over, people use every minute of sick time they get - even when they're not sick.

Some have healthcare with their spouse or private insurance, yet they are the same pay grade as others who use the benefits.

But, wouldn't it be discrimination to base her level of ability against his, if her level is only diminished due to pregnancy, not lack of intellect or experience?

He has more ability simply due to the fact that he isn't pregnant. It was partly a physical job that would go to the field and do a lot of physical work, as well as an office job.

She had a hard time with each pregnancy and was put on bed rest the last 3 months of all 6 pregnancies. No, not fun for her at all, but that also meant he took the burden.

Her performance, when not pregnant, was excellent - pretty much same level that he performs. If they're both good, but one isn't there most of the time (using the benefits) then how do you calculate that?

Also, some places don't have class benefits or wls benefits, but do have maternity leave available. In those cases, is it fair to men?

I'm just using my one example for man vs. woman because I knew the details of pay, level of experience, education, etc. I'm sure there are many cases of unfairness in so many different ways. It's just when I sat down to think about these two people I just couldn't see a fair deal for him. I felt badly for him.

Decades ago, men were expected to make more money simply because they were the breadwinners for the family. Now that it is acceptable for women to work, there should be no difference.

Personally, I feel that the pay grades should be based on seniority plus performance. If, as in your example, one person is doing more work for the same pay (and they are unhappy about it) then they are always free to try and negotiate a new deal, or find another job.

I know I sound like a hardass here....but in the medical field in Texas, there really are no unions. All employment is "at will", which means that you can get fired for any (or absolutely no) reason.

I have found in many jobs I had to concentrate on my own pay and my own situation rather then compare to co-workers, or it would drive me nuts. I'm sure he probably does the same.

Plus there are often many sides to every story.

A lot of these issues are management problems, IMO. If someone consistently doesn't do their work, but continues to get raises every years as if they did, then that has nothing to do with man or woman, family or not, but with management being too whimpy to do their jobs.

Of course, some times it comes down to they see something in the other person that their peers do not that they value. It may not be a tangible thing. It could be loyalty or something else intangible.

Personally, I feel that the pay grades should be based on seniority plus performance. If, as in your example, one person is doing more work for the same pay (and they are unhappy about it) then they are always free to try and negotiate a new deal, or find another job.

Exactly.

A lot of these issues are management problems, IMO.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

In the particular case I've mentioned, the boss is childhood friends with the woman and their kids play together and all that stuff. It's a good group of people, really...they're all friends (even the guy) so it really isn't an issue for them. I was the one looking at it going, "huh." It's not something I think needs to change unless one has a problem with it, then they can go into HR and "talk".

(I'm thinking Ontario sounds really good right now!)

Benefits are usually based on all employees in a pool which helps lower costs. It might be factored into total salary package but doesn't differentiate between married and single people except when you choose single or family medical coverage. Some will give you a cash refund if you refuse health insurance (if covered under a spouse) - but that is negotiated. If a person works overtime (weekend on call) then they should have negotiated for overtime pay. THIS IS WHERE UNIONS COME IN AND WHY WE NEED THE FREE CHOICE ACT HERE - TO MAKE IT EASIER TO JOIN UNIONS. Unions help level the playing field. Corporate CEO's negotiate their contracts - why shouldn't the worker who actually does all the work for the company? As to making pregnancy some kind of punishment in the work force. ABSOLUTELY NOT. We women have worked too hard just to get to the point where we could continue to work during our pregnancies to have it now be used as a punishment because we don't just squat in a field, have the baby and return to work. Come on - if men got pregnant - it would be a sacrament with a year off with full pay. Only in the US do we treat pregnancy as a "you made your bed - so you lie in it" mentality. Unpaid leave, no benefits. So, back to the main issue. Women and men should be paid the same for the same work. If one works more than the other then a change in title and pay is called for. As for giving bonuses for sick leave not used - that works. You see what happened when they took that away and didn't allow days to roll over. Why wouldn't people use all their days? There is no incentive not to. Again, here is where unions come into play. They negotiate these things. And it is in the best interest of the employer to have its employees on the job - not just taking days so they don't lose them.

We've got to quit pitting men against women and start looking at it as employee and employer.

The one thing I don't agree with, "seniority". I'm sorry, but the pay more for seniority is way over used. Yes, if the seniority actually equates to productivity, or means they are doing a different job, but no, if it just means they have been at the job for 15 years instead of 10.

I think the concept of just paying people more because of more years of service is partially what makes the average pay for women lower. Many times women take a few years off for children. They often times change jobs after this, or aren't considered as senior. It's too often just an excuse to pay someone less for the same work.

Some occupations are actually better paying for women then they are men.

Aviation, being the one I'm familiar with the most. An average woman in aviation will make somewhere around 1 million or more then the average man with the same exact career path.

Why? Because the better jobs are always desperate to hire women and will hire them much sooner in their careers then they will hire the men. Just a fact.

I really don't recommend aviation to most people, but if it is a young woman who is interested, I am very positive and highly recommend the career.

Edited April 12, 200917 yr by Jaffa

We value experience in the work force and the one way to value it is to pay for it. The more years on the job, the more experience, the higher the salary. It might not mean that person is more productive but productivity cannot be measured in every job. It might not always seem fair to those with less senority but it is a concept in the workplace that most understand and accept as fair. Yes, women have always been penalized in the workforce for being the bearer of children. First when they were fired for being pregnant and even before that for just being married, then for the time off of work to care for the baby and also for lack of paid maternity leave and childcare. We like to portray our country as "America - where we love baseball, Mom and apple pie" - Yeah, we love Mom as long as she doesn't ask for paid maternity leave to have her baby or affordable and available childcare. Our attitude toward women and children in this country compared to other industrialized nations is shameful. Women have paid a heavy price for it and making only 75 cents for every dollar a man makes is only part of it.

I strongly feel that men and women should be paid equally. A persons sex should not affect their pay.

Seniority is important for experience and it is not reasonable to expect higher pay for this . . . but I really feel that productivity and the job performed should outweigh some other factors in determining compensation. A person who is relatively new but consistently outperforms senior staff members should command more pay for work performed.

A person who continually makes themselves available on evenings, weekends or is just willing to go the extra mile should also command more pay. If family responsibilities make a person less available, that is fine but it doesn't make that person equal to one who is more available.

I do agree some jobs are difficult to measure productivity. But I don't think that is really very often. Seniority systems of pay are really just a good old boy system disquised.

If you work all day putting luggage on a cart, then a person can't really say, it takes much more then a year to figure out the job. After the first year, the pay should be equal.

The seniority based pay is just what unions do to try and take care of the workers who have been there longer. They do that because they know the workers who have been there longer tend to have more enfluence. It almost never has anything to do with productitivity. Its just a form of office politics.