There is a reported inequity
between female and male payrates (or remuneration) with the gap apparently widening
on a world wide scale. There is some history behind that because generally
males handed the remuneration out and so fixed the rates according to the
perception that ‘female was the weaker sex’, ‘the place of the wife is in the
home’ and ‘females marry so the males look after them anyway’.
That thinking remains today
but so called equality has evolved to being an excuse for poor manners or a
lack of respect such as ‘opening a door for a female (or older person)’ or
‘giving up your seat for a female (or older person)’, after all, ‘if females
want to be equal ….’. Of course manners, like language, is an evolving thing
and some females (and older people) prefer not to have such respect accorded to
them.
In an industry like mine, the
tree/plant nursery industry, payrates are generally similar for both sexes
doing similar work, though mention is often made that female fingers are more
nimble than males’ so they can make more cuttings in a day. But I’m not sure if
that is fact or a perception. Male pay rates are higher if they can use
machinery, and males generally get the driving jobs! Don’t worry females can
drive equally well – but it turns out that males get the driving jobs, usually
because males are the boss.
Likewise in Africa,
traditionally females till the soil until the tractor is purchased – then the
females are redundant!
But in industries similar to
horticulture, pay rates are kept low because of competition – increasing
payrates increases the unit price, for which there is consumer resistance. The
only other way of keeping costs down is mechanisation so people lose the
opportunity to make a living.
Similar fixed rates are in
aged care – you can’t tell me that workers caring for the aged are not worth
more than the minimum rate! It is a physically hard job and difficult
psychologically. But authorities (whoever they might be – usually government)
try to keep the cost of the facility down.
So it does not matter of the
worth of the worker or the work, their remuneration is fixed for a perceived
reason (commodity/service price) beyond their control.
It is understandable that a
surgeon is highly valued and thus remunerated – you would hope that the person
rummaging around in your innards is happy and enthusiastic in his work.
Likewise your dentist, disliked by most, not because of their nature but the
nature of their work – you open your mouth allowing them in with the hope they
find nothing untoward and that they will be gentle.
Surgeons and dentists have
measurable outcomes and so are able to justify their remuneration but what
about lawyers and accountants?
A rich client will pay a
lawyer or an account a pile of money to avoid incarceration or to avoid taxes
but is that any reason the rest of us should pay excessively for their service?
Compliance is the new catchword allowing lawyers and accountants to cream it!
Sure they have a longish period of study but they gain most from experience (so
clients are actually paying to extend professional experience) and can easily
refresh from their trusty laptops. Likewise trades people gain expertise from
experience but they have defined outcomes.
Most lawyer stuff is not
actually in the courtroom but may be court related – most are legal matters
where forms are filled and are mundane but necessary compliance stuff with a
lawyer’s signature being highly valued.
Likewise we are supposed to
think that accountants have alert business minds and their advice is gold
plated – but they have put many a client crook with their investments
evaporating! If you use an accountant to manage your tax, the Revenue
Department gives you an easier ride. The law is on their side!
There is also the matter of
tax avoidance with creative accounting and trusts – all legal but the end
result is revenue is lost to authorities. Is that not dodgy?
The cost of compliance through
lawyers, accountants and bureaucratic authorities has grown exponentially to
become a very profitable business that nobody can avoid!
All smacking of unfair cronyism.
Your nursery worked can’t dodge tax in any way and any extra the person earns
is clipped. But the manager has the capacity with lawyers and accountants helping
them dodge!
Is it cronyism? The richest 1%
of the world population own half of the world’s wealth with the richest 10%
owning 87.7% of total wealth! How does that work? And why do those 10% even
need to own so much? Did they inherit it or earn it?
Do the rich sit back while manual
workers are paid on an incentive basis or contract to make them work harder, or
more efficiently for their bosses? Accountants and lawyers on the other hand
spend a good deal of their time reading, which to the manual worker cannot
equate with hard work. Other workers put themselves at risk by doing dangerous
or dirty work and they in turn view the office worker as a parasite of some
sort.
Evaluating someone’s worth
seems to be locked in cronyism, commercialism and perception. The status quo will carry on and inequity
will prevail with occasional tweaking on a pro
forma basis.
The economy is based on a
workforce that is purchased at the lowest possible price and as always the
middlemen make the profit. Bureaucrats are in there, clipping the ticket
wherever they can. The big boys have much bigger fish to fry!
No comments:
Post a Comment