« Canadian Doctors Pushed Themselves Away From the (Pay) Table | Main | Do You Want A Compensation Leader? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm big believer and active contributor to equal pay, but I have issues with the following statements:
If the man and the woman are in the same role, doing the same job, the years of experience should be irrelevant.
I do not agree - if you are in the same job it does not mean that quality and quantity of the completed tasks is the same and with more experience quality and quantity usually improves. You are paid for amount and quality not for how you got it and experience is tightly interconnected - you cannot take this out of equation and say that experience does not matter.

This was cute and while not exactly a parallel situation, it reminded me of the classic experiment by Frans de Waal regarding the perceived equity of rewards between two monkeys (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo). I can never help but laugh when the one monkey throws back (literally) their perceived inequitable reward at the experimenter. No word on whether the monkey on the left was female (vs. male on the right), because that would ostensibly violate experimental conditions. Still it was briefly (very briefly) fun to speculate.

And to Gunars point, the premise of equivalent performance (regardless of experience) was what I inferred to be present, but yes - experience is relevant.

Ultimately, this equal pay issue comes down to a question of "added value" that each individual employee contributes. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's stable or consistent across time, tasks and individual employee. It almost suggests the need to vary individual remuneration on a real-time basis, based on the added value that's being contributed. I'm pretty sure that's going to be a "bridge too far" to operationalize for probably at least five more years (but not much beyond that . . .).

The comments to this entry are closed.