AABP EP Awards 728x90

Fairness is hard to define

/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BR_web_311x311.jpeg

If Iowa Senate File 182 ever becomes law, settle back and enjoy the show.   With a long list of sponsors behind it, this bill is designed to eliminate unfairness in pay for women. A simple and admirable concept. And yet …

First there’s the problem of defining what, exactly, we’re talking about. “A person or employer … shall not discriminate in compensation for work of comparable worth between jobs held predominately by women and jobs held predominately by men,” the bill says.

Aren’t we in the midst of a long societal transition away from “women’s work” and “men’s work”?

OK, you say, but it’s still true that some jobs are filled mostly by one gender or the other. We have day-care workers and we have ironworkers.

So let’s tackle that “comparable worth” part. According to SF 182, “‘Comparable worth’ means the value of work as measured by the composite of the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions normally required in the performance of work.”

Not a simple measurement. Society has been trying to figure out for centuries which work deserves to be most highly valued, and we’re not there yet.

CEO work, for example, can be extremely well-compensated even in the midst of company-wide mismanagement. At the other end of the ladder, there’s really nothing more important to society than getting rid of its garbage – but there’s not much money in it for the guys driving the trucks.

And, of course, the bill fairly notes that “as to employment an individual must be qualified to perform the services or work required.”

Remember, this is not just talk. If the bill becomes law, violators would be committing a simple misdemeanor.

If you pay a woman less than a man for exactly the same work duties or job title, you would break the law. Sounds reasonable.

But trying to establish the proper relationships between dissimilar jobs and agonizing over whether a crane operator should be paid the same as a registered nurse is wildly impractical.

Sounds like something the central planners of the old Soviet Union might have tried.