From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: equal pay
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:27:01 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

	One of the refreshing experiences in my life was attending library
science school where a majority of your professional peers are women.
Originally, librarianship was considered a "man's job" just like all other
19th Century professions.  However, the founder of modern library science,
Melvil Dewey, admitted women to study librarianship on an equal,
nondiscriminatory basis with men.  Women flooded into a field where they
were treated with respect, and, as a result, librarianship is now often
considered a "traditionally" "woman's job."
	Real life is wonderful because it refuses to conform to
expectations.

-----Original Message-----
From: lee gilliland [mailto:leeandalexis at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:19 AM
To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Subject: [WSFA] Re: equal pay

Why do you think secretarial wages are so low?

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: equal pay
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:14:43 -0500

	If economic decisions were based on pure rationality, then cost
conscious employers would prefer to employ inexpensive women rather than
expensive men.

-----Original Message-----
From: lee gilliland [mailto:leeandalexis at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:28 AM
To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Subject: [WSFA] Re: equal pay

It would arguably be irrational to pay people unequally based purely on
gender, if all else is equal, and if gender were not itself relevant to
the job.  But if productivity differs from worker to worker, that could
be a rational basis for unequal pay for the same job.  Trying to ban
irrational behavior begs the moral question of whether people have the
right to be a bit irrational with their own resources, and raises the
practical objection that opinions and perceptions about what is rational
and fair may honestly differ.

Sir, you are begging the question.  If it were done on a case-by-case basis,

there would not be any problem - but it is NOT.  The practices described are

real - otherwise the employment commission would not be in business.  There
is strong historical evidence of deliberate refusal to pay people for equal
work if they are female.  This is fact, not theory.
Most jobs, as you suggest, are not well-suited to being paid on
commission, piecework, or by tips, so the employer is left to estimate
productivity and quality of work.  Employment should be a voluntary
relationship.  The employee is selling labor, and the employer is buying
labor.  The terms of the transaction should be freely negotiable.  Both
the employer and the employee should be free to agree to mutually
acceptable terms.

And I can tell that you have no kids to support - for I have been in
positions where I had no choice - accept this temporarily with a lower wage,

or let my kid go hungry.  This is not an unusual dilemmas for people with
families who MUST take what they can get.  You think those Untouchables in
India ENJOY cleaning out latrines with their hands?

I don't see the U.S. as being chock full of employers scheming to pay
women workers less than the men, but such an employer would be making a
bad business decision, in part because it would bad for morale.  As I
understand economics, wages in a free market tend to be set by the forces
of supply and demand, and employers who insist on making irrational wage
offers are working against their own economic success.

Again, sir, you know not whereof you speak.  You don't see it because you
have no need to.  Women KNOW this goes on.  How?  We EXPERIENCE it -
something that you have never done.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________