Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!suki From: suki@reed.UUCP (Monica Nosek) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Equal pay for comparable worth Message-ID: <909@reed.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 04:24:18 EST Article-I.D.: reed.909 Posted: Fri Feb 8 04:24:18 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:11:36 EST References: <239@mhuxr.UUCP> Reply-To: suki@reed.UUCP (Monica Nosek) Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 27 In article <239@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >What do you usenetters think of the concept of "equal pay for comparable >work"? As I understand it, this is to reduce the difference between >pay scales in "male dominated" (e.g. truck drivers) vs "female dominated" >(e.g. nurses, secretaries) occupations. There would presumably have to >be an equivalency chart or something. > >Marcel Simon Yes, and as Marcel noted, who would make up the chart? I wonder how the chart-makers will equate jobs. Can you really say that one job has the same "value" as another in assigning salaries without inciting some group or another to riot? It's a step in the right direction, I think, but what I would **IDEALLY** like to see is the whole concept made unnecessary: I'd like to see men and women able to compete equally for jobs in a common job market, not a "male-dominated" or "female-dominated" delineated one. I'd like to hear what the netters have to say; let's leave the abortion issue to net.abortion, hey? -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Monica Nosek Reed College, Portland, OR "Double it!"