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!"