The answer: It will stay elusive until the law is removed. If a person is faced with a choice A or B, the price of A and B is the same, but the perceived value of A is greater than B, A will be chosen. That is normal human behaviour whether you are selecting a cake to eat, shoes to wear or your life partner. Why would it be different when you select an employee? One cannot legislate that people not have preferences, biases or discriminate on the grounds of reasons that they might not even know or understand themselves - it is for this reason that there may exist a preference to select men for certain positions and women for others. To force an equal pay regime onto situations like this one will unfairly force the decision maker to select in favour of the bias that he/or she holds - exactly the opposite of what the act's intentions are!
The only way to resolve the situation is to allow the person who is being discriminated against to be able to attain some competitive advantage. So, often when a person, in this case a woman, wants to do a particular job where there may be a bias to select men (the bias may be based on real issues such as physical strength, or on more subtle and even wrong perceptions) the only real advantage the woman could offer is a lower rate in order to obtain the job. By forcing equal pay for equal work, the law is really forcing the hand of the employer in this case to select the man. An understanding of economics will help to find a solution - not the law.
C.M. Heydenrych
September 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment