babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Pay equity for flight attendants

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Pay equity for flight attendants
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 31 January 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Supreme Court opens door to Air Canada pay-equity investigation

quote:
The Canadian Union of Public Employees began the case in 1991, arguing that the airline discriminated because it paid attendants differently "for what it argued was equally valuable work performed by mechanical personnel and pilots."

Air Canada held that the three groups should be treated separately in legal terms because they worked in different establishments. The human rights commission agreed, but two court cases followed, which delivered split decisions.

Air Canada appealed to the top court and lost. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the three groups do work in the same establishment.

With that preliminary question resolved, Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act comes into play.

The section says it is discriminatory for an employer to pay different wages to male and female employees in the same "establishment" who are performing work of equal value.



From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 31 January 2006 11:07 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Canada's top court has given the country's human rights commission the go-ahead to investigate whether flight attendants should be paid the same as pilots and airline mechanics.

At first glance it seems a bit unnecessary to ask whether the person flying the plane, with years and years of training and with responsibility for every life on the craft should be paid more than the person who wheels the peanut cart down the aisle and points out the location of the emergency exits. I mean, is that a reasonable comparison?

I wonder how they calculate "value" for the purposes of deciding that two employees add a similar value to the organization and should be equally compensated?

At my workplace we have PDQ, or Position Description Questionnaire. It asks about a hundred questions about a position, including how much education or specialized training the position requires, how much responsibility falls on the position, and so on, and also questions like whether the position requires heavy lifting, standing all day, exposure to noise, etc. Depending on the results of the PDQ, the position is "graded" and paid proportionally. All employees at, say, grade 10 (and with the same seniority) are paid the same, even if one grade 10 is an HTML Editor and the other is the lead hand on the Shipping and Purchasing loading dock.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 31 January 2006 11:17 AM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can only hope that this is one of the final nails in Air Canada's coffin.

I would think that labor supporters would try and discourage this kind of action as it certainly illustrates some of the unreasonable demands that can come from unions at times.

Or do most people think that flying servers really do rate pay equity with pilots and aviation mechanics?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 31 January 2006 11:19 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Flight attendants and pilots the same wages? Wow. Easy enough to test, on alternative flights have the pilots work as attendants and the attendants work as pilots, see whose screwups make more difference.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 January 2006 11:22 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paying flight attendants, pilots, and aircraft mechanics the same wages - have we entered Bizarro World?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 31 January 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The alarming part for me is the knee-jerk reaction people have to even contemplating the question.
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 31 January 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the end of the article it even says that the unions have different contracts covering the three groups.

One would have thought that dividing the staff into pilots, mechanics and hospitality workers would make sense. But what do I know?


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 31 January 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RP.:
The alarming part for me is the knee-jerk reaction people have to even contemplating the question.


Taking it to multiple levels of our courts goes a bit beyond "contemplating" the question.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 31 January 2006 11:34 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hang on folks, there is some subtlety here. The ruling does not say that flight attendants must be paid the same as pilots and mechanics. It says that the work must be compared to that of pilots and mechanics to see if it of equal value.

Air Canada was trying to argue it didn't need to formally make those comparisons when setting wages.

As far as the value of the work is concerned, note that cabin staff are emergency workers. Who do you think was resposible for getting everybody off the Air France plane before it burned up?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 31 January 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I foresee lots and lots of laywers and consultants getting fat fees over the next few years...
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 31 January 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The ruling does not say that flight attendants must be paid the same as pilots and mechanics. It says that the work must be compared to that of pilots and mechanics to see if it of equal value.

If it is determined to somehow be "work of equal value", can one not assume that equal pay would be pursued?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 31 January 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CBC's analysis of the case doesn't seem to mesh with what's reported in their story further down the page.

They've been arguing about whether all three groups work in the same 'establishment'. SC's just said they do. Now the question becomes whether they all do work of equal value.

CBC makes it sound as if a trainee flight attendant will soon be paid as much as a senior captain. It really doesn't look like the HR tribunal is going to make that kind of ruling, based on their previous siding with Air Canada.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 31 January 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Um, that's the point with equal value legislation.

Look, value determination for work is a non trivial process. It is, however, a management responsibility to do it fairly. Air Canada was trying to cheat. They got ordered not to.

And yes, some people make money out of being good at it. Does that not have value?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ouroboros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9250

posted 31 January 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for ouroboros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think CUPE is saying that flight attendants should be paid the same as pilots.

My understanding is that CUPE wants to start a process like the takes place at Mr. Magoo's work place, were they grade the jobs. However, Air Canada said that they wouldn't let any comparison between pilots, mechanical personal and flight attendants because "they all worked in different establishments"

At least that's my understanding but I'm not 100% sure.


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 31 January 2006 11:54 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, that seems to make a lot more sense.

Rather than just arbitrarily assigning a wage to groups A, B & C (because they're different), Air Canada will instead have to weigh all three against each other, and determin their wages based on the comparison.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 January 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A potential problem remains: if salary equity is ever achieved between airline pilots, mechanics, and hospitality workers, why in heaven's name would anyone EVER want to go through the expensive and rigorous process of achieving accredition in becoming either a pilot or mechanic when one could simply take the (probably less rigorous) route of becoming a hospitality worker at the same rate of pay? Am I missing something here? I apologise in advance if this is a stupid or obtuse question, but I'm having difficulty understanding all this.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 31 January 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
A potential problem remains: if salary equity is ever achieved between airline pilots, mechanics, and hospitality workers, why in heaven's name would anyone EVER want to go through the expensive and rigorous process of achieving accredition in becoming either a pilot or mechanic when one could simply take the (probably less rigorous) route of becoming a hospitality worker at the same rate of pay?
I think here "equity" doesn't mean equivalent salaries regardless of work, but equivalanet based on what is done.

Take Mr. Magoo's example from his workplace. If they find that a hospitality position is 1/4 as streneuous/difficult/demanding/etc. as a pilot's, that position should be paid proportionally (i.e. 1/4 of what the pilot makes). Or something like that.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 31 January 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth, even the PDQ system has problems. A quick example occurred back in 1999, when everyone was terrified about "Y2K" issues in their computer systems. Suddenly the Programmer types in the computing areas were being headhunted, and while their "value" to our organization didn't really change, their "value" out in the world had increased. Many left (reasonable short-term planning, I guess) to take the bigger cash that was being offered.

In response, many "techie" types were given "Market Value Adjustments" to bring their pay more in line with what their value to other organizations would be. Oddly, this was protested by the union, who, IIRC, was concerned about other non-techies at the same pay grade who wouldn't be receiving the MVA.

Anyway, if all the union wants to be able to do is compare the positions and say, for example, that Attendants bring 50% of the value that pilots do to the organization and should therefore earn 50% of the salary, that seems reasonable.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 31 January 2006 12:29 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So would it mean that if it was determined that flight attendants, based on value added to the business, educational requirements, etc. were worth the same or less than what they make now, the union is gonna back off?

quote:
Originally posted by retread:
Flight attendants and pilots the same wages? Wow. Easy enough to test, on alternative flights have the pilots work as attendants and the attendants work as pilots, see whose screwups make more difference.

Interesting idea, but I don't think we need to kill planes full of people just to prove a point.

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 31 January 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, if all the union wants to be able to do is compare the positions and say, for example, that Attendants bring 50% of the value that pilots do to the organization and should therefore earn 50% of the salary, that seems reasonable.

Yes, that was my understanding of how the process works, too. People who think that flight attendants are going to get "paid the same as pilots" or whatever, are usually confused about what pay equity means.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mersh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10238

posted 31 January 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for mersh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed. And Gir, what the heck are you still doing here?
From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 31 January 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mersh:
And Gir, what the heck are you still doing here?

I wasn't aware that my passport was ever revoked.

But it does seem kind of silly to me to tie flight attendant wages to that of the pilots for the reason I highlighted above. It seems to me that "pay equity" doesn't nessicarily mean people get paid what they deserve, only that they are being paid a certain fraction of someone else's income. Kind of like when a company adopts the ISO9000 standards... they can have absolutely terrible policies, but it's okay as long as they are clearly documented and consistently applied.

Shouldn't the union simply focus on fighting for having their workers paid a fair share of the value that they add to the business such that the business is able to profit but the employee is appropriately compensated? Or is fairness not the issue as much as envy...


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mersh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10238

posted 31 January 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for mersh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I wasn't aware that my passport was ever revoked.

Well, in this thread you were called on your anti-labour trolling.

Edited to clear up confusion: Ok, you weren't suggesting pay equity would lead to crashes. My bad.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: mersh ]


From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 31 January 2006 12:58 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

But it does seem kind of silly to me to tie flight attendant wages to that of the pilots for the reason I highlighted above. ..


The reason that you tie one rate of compensation to another, is to ensure that male-dominated classes are being compared in an equitable way to female-dominated classes (and yes, it is a highly complex and contested comparison.) If the employer pays everyone depressed wages, there can still be a pay equity issue. On the other hand, you can have a depresed salary grid that respects the principles of pay equity. Pay equity has nothing to do with a company's bottom line per se.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 January 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quote: Yes, that was my understanding of how the process works, too. People who think that flight attendants are going to get "paid the same as pilots" or whatever, are usually confused about what pay equity means.

Well, the subject isn't anything I've read a lot about, so, guilty as charged. Can you steer me to a (hopefully brief) online link on this subject? Thanks.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CHCMD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10246

posted 31 January 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for CHCMD   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Also to keep in mind, "pay equity" isn't as equitable as you may think even when the arguement is won. Federal gov't CRs were awarded pay equity, but even though I made less than some CRs I didn't receive any equity cheque because I belonged to an under-represented classification. Still picks my ass to think that a fellow employee was deemed to be "worth" equitable pay, but I was not.

Oh well, fuck 'em - I'm still here and gosh as you can see, working hard


From: 1 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 31 January 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Quote: Yes, that was my understanding of how the process works, too. People who think that flight attendants are going to get "paid the same as pilots" or whatever, are usually confused about what pay equity means.

Well, the subject isn't anything I've read a lot about, so, guilty as charged. Can you steer me to a (hopefully brief) online link on this subject? Thanks.


The details can get very complicated, but here is one overview of Ontario provincial legislation:

Employer's Introduction to Pay Equity

Step 6 seems to me to best clarify what I think the confusion is:

quote:
Step 6
Compares the value of the job classes and their job rates

Private sector employers use an initial process called ‘job to job’ comparison. This is a direct comparison between male and female job classes that have similar job values; often, employers will use a point banding system to determine what is comparable. If there are female job classes that cannot find a male comparator under this approach, then they are compared under the proportional value method. This is an indirect method of comparison that looks at the relationship between the value of the work and the pay received by the male job class and applies that same relationship to the female job classes.


It is possible under the system that a flight attendant job would be directly compared to, say, a ground crew job and an equivalent rate of pay established for the two. It is unlikely that a flight attendant job would be directly compared to say, a pilot's job because of the difference in skills and training involved. However, if such a comparison needed to be made, it would almost certainly be "proportional" and based on "value," which could mean a flight attendant was determined to contribute 60% of the "value" of a pilot and therefore paid accordingly.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 January 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
robbie_dee: thanks!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 January 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The capitalist system is a car permanently on blocks.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 31 January 2006 06:02 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
The capitalist system is a car permanently on blocks.
I believe the discussion here is about airplanes, but I'm sure we all really appareciate your contribution nonetheless.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 January 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I believe the discussion here is about airplanes, but I'm sure we all really appareciate your contribution nonetheless.

And we'd appreciate it if you'd make an attempt to spell some words when making snide remarks. Thanks junior.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 January 2006 07:44 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I foresee lots and lots of laywers and consultants getting fat fees over the next few years...

No shit.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 January 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
If it is determined to somehow be "work of equal value", can one not assume that equal pay would be pursued?

Many would assert that all work is of "equal value". Who is to say that a school teacher, an airline pilot or a well-paid film actor don't all contribute equally to society.

I'm certainly not saying that but there are many that would.

I'm sorry. But flight attendants have a relatively simple job. It's silly to even try to make a comparison between what they do and what pilots (or mechanics, for that matter) do.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 31 January 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And firefighters are incredibly lazy. What do they do when there are no fires?

Yes, most of the time it's not the most difficult job in the world (still worth decent pay though). However, in an emergency the cabin staff suddenly get very important. How much is it worth to be ready for that?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 January 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quote: And firefighters are incredibly lazy. What do they do when there are no fires?

I was a Volunteer Fire Fighter up north for five years. We weren't lazy. The equipment had to be maintained every day, routines were practiced, our training updated, and the community hydrants checked and re-checked, as were all of the trucks and pumpers. Then there's building inspections. Nothing is ever left to chance - equipment failure at a fire is not an option anyone wants to encounter.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 January 2006 08:29 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
And firefighters are incredibly lazy. What do they do when there are no fires?

Yes, most of the time it's not the most difficult job in the world (still worth decent pay though). However, in an emergency the cabin staff suddenly get very important. How much is it worth to be ready for that?


My nephew says they cook and read books and crack jokes inbetween maintenance work and collecting for and organizing charity events. They're unionized, and so he makes decent pay. My nephew is a FF in a northern Ontario town, so he's not exposed to so many chemical and industrial fires. I'm glad for that and his future health. They're not so lucky in larger cities where fires often give off toxic gases, and crumbling buildings tend to be larger and more dangerous. FF's in industrial centres tend to suffer higher than average rates of cancer and respiratory ailments.

Too, insurance companies demand that professionally trained firefighters protect billions of dollars worth of assets around the world.

I know if I were trapped in a burning building, I'd be greatful for a ff like my nephew, all 6 foot five and 240 pounds of him. He keeps himself in fine physical condition all the time. His brother works as a sheet metal worker. And he's just as valuable to society and moreso to me and my family.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
m0nkyman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5027

posted 31 January 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for m0nkyman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Quote: And firefighters are incredibly lazy. What do they do when there are no fires?

I was a Volunteer Fire Fighter up north for five years. We weren't lazy. The equipment had to be maintained every day, routines were practiced, our training updated, and the community hydrants checked and re-checked, as were all of the trucks and pumpers. Then there's building inspections. Nothing is ever left to chance - equipment failure at a fire is not an option anyone wants to encounter.



Hey Boom Boom. Turn your sarcasm detector back on.

From: Go Left. Further. Bit Further. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 31 January 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by m0nkyman:
Hey Boom Boom. Turn your sarcasm detector back on.


Oh, dear. Feel like I've been caught with my pants down.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 31 January 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I'm sorry. But flight attendants have a relatively simple job. It's silly to even try to make a comparison between what they do and what pilots (or mechanics, for that matter) do.

You're absolutely right. Dealing with rude (and sometimes agressive) passengers, having to attend to any medical emergencies that arise 35 000 feet in the air, being responsible for an orderly evacuation should the plane crash and there are survivors, and having to know all sorts of safety protocols isn't that complicated. It's a simple job that anyone can do, right?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 January 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ronny, Maggie and Brian advocated
solidarity for Lech Welesa and Polish workers. We should have no reason to believe they wouldn't have wanted the same for workers in the west.

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 31 January 2006 09:21 PM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're absolutely right. Dealing with rude (and sometimes agressive) passengers, having to attend to any medical emergencies that arise 35 000 feet in the air, being responsible for an orderly evacuation should the plane crash and there are survivors, and having to know all sorts of safety protocols isn't that complicated. It's a simple job that anyone can do, right?

It's simple with the three to six months of training provided by the company. A pilot has to spend at least $150,000 for his education with many years of training.


From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 31 January 2006 09:26 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think anyone is arguing that the pay rates for pilots and cabin staff should be the same. But in major airlines it's much more likely that cabin staff is underpaid (in minor airlines everybody is underpaid, read "Ask the Pilot" on Salon).

Much of the snarkiness in this thread is in response to the anti labour prejudices on display.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 31 January 2006 09:30 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:
It's simple with the three to six months of training provided by the company. A pilot has to spend at least $150,000 for his education with many years of training.

I'm not suggesting that the 2 types of positions are equivalent. What I intended to do was to challenge the idea that being a flight attendant is a "simple" job in the sense of being a waiter/waitress or cashier, which Sven seemed to imply.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 31 January 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're absolutely right. Dealing with rude (and sometimes agressive) passengers, having to attend to any medical emergencies that arise 35 000 feet in the air, being responsible for an orderly evacuation should the plane crash and there are survivors, and having to know all sorts of safety protocols isn't that complicated. It's a simple job that anyone can do, right?

Any job can sound difficult if you want it to.

How about a job where you have to memorize the geography of part of a city, pedal a bicycle through all kinds of weather, keep track of payments received as well as accounts receivable, have responsibility for inventory control, must work weekends, and as if that's not enough, have to remember who wants their newspaper on the porch and who wants it between the storm doors?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 January 2006 11:28 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I'm not suggesting that the 2 types of positions are equivalent. What I intended to do was to challenge the idea that being a flight attendant is a "simple" job in the sense of being a waiter/waitress or cashier, which Sven seemed to imply.

Being an emergency room surgeon or nurse is not a simple job. Being a public defender is not a simple job. Being a teacher is not a simple job.

Being a flight attendant is a simple job. Is it as simple as running a cash register? Probably not. But on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most difficult job), I'd say it's about 1.5


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 31 January 2006 11:30 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Until there's an emergency. How many times do I have to say this?

I will be polite and say that you are being obtuse.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 January 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Being a flight attendant is a simple job. Is it as simple as running a cash register? Probably not. But on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most difficult job), I'd say it's about 1.5

But the cost of living isn't 1.5, Sven. In fact, the cost of living rarely goes down anywhere I've ever lived.

Does a pilot deserve a roof over his head, food on the table, toiletries and child care more than anybody else, Sven ?. These women and men are not asking for big ticket items, just the cost of living. It costs to live in this country, in case no one's noticed that.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 January 2006 11:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Until there's an emergency. How many times do I have to say this?

Well, in contrast to firefighters, for example, or emergency room docs and nurses, the average flight attendant might see a real emergency once if they are on a million flights (essentially, never for virtually all flight attendants). There are 450,000 flights in and out of just our local Minneapolis airport every year. How many bona fide emergencies have there been here in, say, 20 years? You could probably count them on one hand.

But, for those extremely rare moments where they are involved in an emergency, being a flight attendant is not a simple job. I'll grant you that.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 January 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Does a pilot deserve a roof over his head, food on the table, toiletries and child care more than anybody else, Sven?

As a matter of fact, yes. They do.

As far as flight attendants, I'm not sure I'm aware of any starving or homeless flight attendants (i.e., they all have a roof over their heads and food on their tables).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 31 January 2006 11:50 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Being a flight attendant is a simple job. Is it as simple as running a cash register? Probably not. But on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most difficult job), I'd say it's about 1.5

Despite the repeated explanations above, it seems clear that you don't understand the job of a flight attendant. Hopefully you don't end up having to learn about it the hard way.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 31 January 2006 11:52 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is the fundamental disagreement.

Sven is not an egalitarian. Most of the rest of us here are.

In fact, some of us consider non egalitarians odious.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 01 February 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's egalitarian? I think everyone should get a living wage. I don't think I should necessarily be paid the same as someone who has studied much harder and longer to learn their trade, has to apply it under much harder circumstances, and has much greater responsibility resting on his or her shoulders than I do. On the other hand, I don't think that person should necessarily make hundreds of times what people with less demanding jobs make. This is just human nature ... why take on extra work and risks if there's no benefit? On the other hand, groups tend to exagerrate the risks and work their work takes; a balance is needed.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Here is the fundamental disagreement.

Sven is not an egalitarian. Most of the rest of us here are.

In fact, some of us consider non egalitarians odious.


Saying a flight attendant's job is "simple" is being non-egalitarian??? That's silly.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 February 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, I studied art. I can't tell you how much it burns my ass to hear folks in the gallery say, "My five year old could have painted that."

Some of the posts stating flight attendants have a 'simple' job read like those oafs in the art gallery. Unless you've worked in a job you have no idea what skills are involved. Any flight attendants among you? This thread handily demonstrates the need for jobs to be evaluated more stringently and free of gender bias.

One big example that comes to mind is evaluation of physical demands. Flight attendants stand alot during the flight. Not only does this take a toll on their feet and legs it poses a very real risk of injury during a bumpy flight. Broken bones and head injuries are not unheard of. Pilots don't have to worry much about turbulence-related injuries because they're strapped into a seat far away from that Sword of Damocles we call 'carry on luggage'.

I'd ask my flight attendant friend to weigh in on the debate but he just started a well-earned month off in Hawaii.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 01:05 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
You know, I studied art. I can't tell you how much it burns my ass to hear folks in the gallery say, "My five year old could have painted that."

Some of the posts stating flight attendants have a 'simple' job read like those oafs in the art gallery. Unless you've worked in a job you have no idea what skills are involved.


So, your description of the pilots' relatively safe jobs (injury-wise) must mean that you are a pilot? I can only assume that because you are admonishing people for criticizing or commenting on a job that they don't actually do themselves.

One does not need to go to "flight attendant school" to have a pretty good idea of what it takes to be a flight attendant. Being a teacher, a nurse, a firefighter, an electrician, etc., etc. are jobs that are incomparably more difficult to do well than to be a flight attendant. Standing on one's feet all day?? People on assembly lines do that. Store clerks do that. It's just not that big of a deal.

As far as art goes, I'll have to say that there is some art that a five year old could do because it's so bad. Just because a person spends years studying art doesn't mean that the work they do is worth anything. Not all art is of equal worth.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2006 01:22 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

As a matter of fact, yes. They do.

As far as flight attendants, I'm not sure I'm aware of any starving or homeless flight attendants (i.e., they all have a roof over their heads and food on their tables).


Your profile says your were born in 61, so here goes. Archie Bunker comes homes from woik one day in the 70's. He's full of himself because they gave him a three percent pay raise. Meathead tries to calm everyone down to inform an elated Archie that his wage gain wasn't really a gain at all because inflation is running at 4 percent!(7% on average in the States during that decade). Over time, that adds up, Sven. Airline workers aren't the only people asking for more pay. A butterfly flaps its wings over the Indian Ocean where the ripple effect travels and swells into a tidal wave in the Caribbean. Ridiculous prices for oil was a butterfly then as much as it is today, Sven. People have a right to exist, whether they can drive a bus or a bus with wings out the side.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 01:31 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
People have a right to exist, whether they can drive a bus or a bus with wings out the side.

I never even implied that anyone doesn't have the right to exist.

But, I am saying that flight attendants' work isn't even comparable to a pilot's work.

What's the value of my work? Whatever I can get. I don't "deserve" and I'm not "entitled to" $150k, or $100k, or $50k or $10k for what I do. I get what the market will pay. If I can repair hearts the value of my work is greater than if I drive a garbage truck.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 February 2006 01:38 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
heeeeeeey. and i thought the 'Sword of Damocles' bit was pretty darn-tootin' good.

quote:
I can only assume that because you are admonishing people for criticizing or commenting on a job that they don't actually do themselves.

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying Sven - right on the next line I said jobs need to be "evaluated more stringently and free of gender bias." It's not up to me or you to say who's got a 'simple' job. As for the luggage issue - haven't you ever seen those things pop out of the overhead bins? I googled some injury stats from the FAA - if you can find some info off the FAA website that sez being a flight attendant is simple I'd be interested to read it!

quote:
As far as art goes, I'll have to say that there is some art that a five year old could do because it's so bad. Just because a person spends years studying art doesn't mean that the work they do is worth anything. Not all art is of equal worth.

Heh. I shoulda been clearer. I have heard such comments at the National Gallery of Canada. Gee, maybe that was you I saw in front of the Picasso exhibit?


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 01:47 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
Heh. I shoulda been clearer. I have heard such comments at the National Gallery of Canada. Gee, maybe that was you I saw in front of the Picasso exhibit?

Lest there be any confusion: No. That couldn't have been me. I don't have any kids (five years old or otherwise).

You must admit that there is a lot of "art" that's just crap, no?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2006 01:56 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
But, I am saying that flight attendants' work isn't even comparable to a pilot's work.

I understand what you're saying. Pilots should be compensated for their skills with reasonable salaries,and they are. And sometimes pilots go on strike for more pay, too. Why? Usually because corporate profits have also risen in spite of inflation.

In a true democracy, people should be able to bargain with employers for appropriate wages. You mentioned market and what it will bear. Workers sometimes react to the threat of a lower standard of living, and we're not speaking about their ability to buy another car or luxury goods. Scratch the idea off the screen whereby you believe female airline stewardess' are asking for salaries on a par with dentists or physicians or CEO salaries. That's not realistic, and they understand that too.

A large extent of the time, workers are simply scraping by trying to make ends meet with rising costs for food staples, child care, prescription drug prices, rent, car payments, rising utility rates, cost of commuting to and from, etc etc. I think half of working Canadians don't earn $30 thousand a year. The average cost of living in a major Canadian city is estimated to be $34500 or somewhere close for a family of four who rents an apartment. Do you see what I'm getting at?.

What I'm also trying to say is that if this is a free market with market forces acting on everyone in an unequal manner, depending again on their levels of income, workers have a right to react to those market forces in an entirely free market manner - by bargaining for more wages in lockstep with inflation. There is a caveat to this in that wealthy people and their assets, money etc are hurt to a larger degree by modest inflation rates moreso than the population of workers individually. You may find someone who disagrees with that and pointing to examples of runaway inflation in 1920's Germany or Argentina or some other basket case economic scenario, but a healthy economy isn't affected by healthy rates of inflation of anywhere between, say, 3 and 11 percent. Rich people's wealth will be affected moreso, but they would like you and me to believe that inflation, even 1 or 2 percent, is the ruin of us all. And there's more proof that fighting inflation costs more to an economy than does a healthy, bustling economy with more equal distribution of income.

Unions are a natural reaction to market forces, and one of the things unions do for workers is bargain for living wages collectively on their behalves. The big corporation, with its top-down style of management, are examples of command style entities themselves within a larger economy, and especially so in the case of airlines. They often depend on taxpayer handouts to stay afloat in the "free market" with its various market forces acting like a house of cards. If we pull out one of the cards at the bottom of the house, say the Queen of Bitumen, and allow crude capitalists to hang on to it, something bad happens in the free market scheme of things. Have you ever heard of the term "FUBAR" before, Sven?.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 February 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

You must admit that there is a lot of "art" that's just crap, no?

Oh yes, there's crap art out there. I've seen it and it frightens and saddens me. But I've never heard dismissive comments at those venues where bad art tends to congregate. Weird.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 02:12 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
A large extent of the time, workers are simply scraping by trying to make ends meet with rising costs for food staples, child care, prescription drug prices, rent, car payments, rising utility rates, cost of commuting to and from, etc etc. I think half of working Canadians don't earn $30 thousand a year. The average cost of living in a major Canadian city is estimated to be $34500 or somewhere close for a family of four who rents an apartment. Do you see what I'm getting at?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median annual earnings of flight attendants were $43,440 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $31,310 and $67,590. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $23,450, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $95,850."

Those are USD wages. That USD43,440 would be about CND50,000. That's not "scraping by". I would say that "scraping by" is what my mother did in the 1930s.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2006 02:25 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're not in Kansas anymore, Sven. This is a Canadian thread discussing Canadian wages. And your airline industry is just as far removed from free market forces as ours are. Also keep in mind that the cost of living in Little Rock isn't the same as it would be in Hartford or San Francisco in your country.

Too, there's a measure of prosperity known as Purchasing Power Parity. It varies from country to country and even city to city. It's estimated that the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in Canada have more of it than the same group on your side of the border. And we live longer on average to enjoy it all, too.

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Those are USD wages. That USD43,440 would be about CND50,000. That's not "scraping by". I would say that "scraping by" is what my mother did in the 1930s.

$50K is what I was earning in Ottawa in 1997 entry level wages. I was living single, renting, and I wasn't living too high on the hog. If I'd had a family in tow, the money situation could have been tight without a second income. I'm sure, in fact, I know I couldn't have lived on those wages in San Fran or San Jose. I was making considerably more than $50K a year USDN while living there in San Jose, CA, and I was "scraping by." I couldn't have afforded to buy a house then with housing prices the way they were then and now down there. And those houses were nothing very fancy at the same time. No basements for one thing.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 02:33 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
It's estimated that the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in Canada have more of it than the same group on your side of the border.

Estimated by whom?

Okay, Fidel, I've gotta hit the hay. Have a good night...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 01 February 2006 03:04 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If I understand the ruling, all Air Canada employees are now part of the same "establishment" which means that their salaries can be compared according to federal pay equity rules (eg. if one federally regulated company increases wages across the board, then others are not forced to meet those wages).

Within the company and under pay equity, employees should be paid based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

info

Obviously, pilots have more skill and responsibility than flight attendants so they will be paid more, even under pay equity.

The problem is how much of a difference is appropriate. Critics of pay equity point out that many of these comparisons are apples to oranges for any tribunal to consider and that the only objective measure is the market itself, based on supply and demand for the particular skills involved.

If there is a general thread on pay equity, we should link to it now.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2006 03:22 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ya, why even have poverty lines and cost of living indexes at all when free market forces will adjust our wages for us automagically ?. Iiit's a mir-a-cle, it's a miracle!.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 February 2006 04:17 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quite impressively, Magoo simplified the debate and discussion in the second post of this thread. And yet... And yet we see an apparently endless troop of people who come in and say 'Flight attendants and pilots getting the same pay is dumb.' Clearly these folks have not read the whole thread, nor do they understand the issue at hand.

Because that's not the issue. Getting the same consideration is the issue.

Go back to your kneejerking now.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 09:45 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
The problem is how much of a difference is appropriate. Critics of pay equity point out that many of these comparisons are apples to oranges for any tribunal to consider and that the only objective measure is the market itself, based on supply and demand for the particular skills involved.

What's more valuable: An apple or an orange?

Now, what's more valuable and, even more importantly, how do you appropriately quantify the difference in the value between:

The work of a classics professor who went to school for 20+ year and then has taught college for 20 more years OR the work of a high school drop-out who invented something that is used by millions of people?

The work of general practice physician OR the work of a small animal veterinarian? Side Bar: This question is not for deep ecologists, for whom the answer is obvious.

The work of a brilliant artist whose work is loved by many OR the work of a dedicated social worker who helps single moms?

The work of a hack musician (who will be forgotten forever in a dozen years but who is fawned over and adored by millions of teenagers through their music store and concert ticket purchases) OR the work of a small string ensemble musician who is unappreciated in the tiny local venues she plays at but is absolutely a brilliant musician?

And this novel comparison: The work of a flight attendant or the work of an airline pilot?

There is really no fair and logical way to quantitatively compare that work. Let the market determine the answer.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2006 10:19 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
There is really no fair and logical way to quantitatively compare that work. Let the market determine the answer.

Do you mean market like when the invisible hand of the market place shovels taxpayer handouts to privately owned and operated airlines to insulate them from free market forces, Sven ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 10:25 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Do you mean market like when the invisible hand of the market place shovels taxpayer handouts to privately owned and operated airlines to insulate them from free market forces, Sven ?.

I think giving corporate handouts is generally inefficient.

Back to labor, how would you make a value comparison in the examples I gave you, Fidel?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2006 10:35 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I think giving corporate handouts is generally inefficient.

Back to labor, how would you make a value comparison in the examples I gave you, Fidel?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


That depends on the annual amount of taxpayer-funded handed-offs to the airline, presumably to maintain jobs and a smooth running economy rather than pad the pockets of multi-billionaire friends of "the party", Sven.

How would I create value comparisons? I think the company would have to look at how they would maintain business if all airline workers were to walk off the job in a show of solidarity for one another. IOW's, We'd have to look at "what would the market would bear", in this instance.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 February 2006 10:40 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
But, I am saying that flight attendants' work isn't even comparable to a pilot's work.

If you've actually read and understood this thread (which you obviously haven't), you'd realise that the whole question of whether or not flight attendants should automatically be paid the same as pilots has already been addressed. The whole question of determining how much "value" someone's work is, in case you missed it, has been at the heart of this thread.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 01 February 2006 10:44 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The point of pay equity, Sven, is that we have to try. We have to make those comparisons. We have to be able to demonstrate that the compensation is linked to objective aspects of the job, and not a deep-seated "belief" that something is just "simpler".

I don't understand the negative reaction here to the fact that a pay equity scheme imposes that kind of obligation. The scheme demands that some effort go into analyzing different jobs so that we avoid falling into easy characterizations of what has been female-dominated work. Pay equity is imposing a certain PROCESS in determining salary levels, so that sex inequality is minimized. I think that's a good thing.

Pointing to extreme examples doesn't add much to the analysis; it just comes off as dimissive.

Having said that, pay equity is a tough thing to achieve; sometimes those comparisons will be damned hard. But, again, I think it's a positive thing that certain employers are expected to at least try.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 01 February 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stuff is going to hit the fan when the pilots union catches wind that their wages could drop because their jobs are not as important as they would like to think.

The three unions have never gotten along. When the flight attendants went on strike many years ago the pilots union did nothing to support them.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 10:50 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
If you've actually read and understood this thread (which you obviously haven't), you'd realise that the whole question of whether or not flight attendants should automatically be paid the same as pilots has already been addressed. The whole question of determining how much "value" someone's work is, in case you missed it, has been at the heart of this thread.

If you had "actually read and understood this thread (which you obviously haven't)" you'd see that the discussion is not about paying flight attendants "the same as" pilots. I've not asserted that and that's not the direction of the thread. The question is: How do you quantitatively compare two jobs that are qualitatively so very different?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:
Having said that, pay equity is a tough thing to achieve; sometimes those comparisons will be damned hard. But, again, I think it's a positive thing that certain employers are expected to at least try.

Trying and doing are fundamentally different.

Rather than brush off my examples as "extreme", perhaps you can try and outline basic foundation principles for making a quantitative comparison between those kinds of jobs.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 01 February 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven, I will say one thing about your examples: they deal with people who do similar kinds of things, but not, generally, in the same workplace.

Pay equity is pretty narrowly focussed on workplaces, so the examples are inapt.

Now, I suppose we could get into the argument of why pay equity isn't practiced on a society-wide scale, but that's not the current situation, and I don't buy the "blue sky" argument as a knock against the current pay equity framework that we DO have. In other words, I don't think the objections being made to pay equity in this thread by you and others, is really about the fact that its reach is too narrow.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 01 February 2006 10:57 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Rather than brush off my examples as "extreme", perhaps you can try and outline basic foundation principles for making a quantitative comparison between those kinds of jobs.

I just explained why I think the comparisons are inapt.

Here's one of your examples:

The work of a classics professor who went to school for 20+ year and then has taught college for 20 more years OR the work of a high school drop-out who invented something that is used by millions of people?

Give me the sitch in which the current regime requires pay equity between these two, and then we can talk.

You also said: "Tyring is not the same as doing."

Are you really saying that in order to support progressive change we need a 100% ironclad guarantee that the regime by which it is governed, works perfectly? Have you taken a look at the human rights complaint process in this country?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 February 2006 11:00 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Google provides a lot of information on Flight Attendants. Here's one interesting one on training: Flight Attendant Certificate Program

"In general, the most important role of a Flight Attendant (Cabin Crew) is to assist in ensuring the safety and comfort of airlines passengers Other Flight Attendant duties include in-flight announcements, safety demonstrations, serving meals and beverages. Most of all, the Flight Attendant's role is to anticipate the needs of their passengers, and offer these services in a friendly, courteous and willing manner. In the air, helping passengers in the event of an emergency is the most important responsibility of a flight attendant."

I spoke to my sister who was an Air Canada Flight Attendant for many years, and she said there was occasionally quite a bit of stress on the job, but wouldn't be specific.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 February 2006 12:35 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pookie, I think that the narrower scope that you mentioned is more workable, in theory, than a society-wide pay equity comparison. But, making an internal comparison between two positions’ relative value really cannot be done outside the context of wider society values placed on those same positions.

For example, during the dot.com boom in the late 1990s and very early 2000s, the pay for information systems technical people climbed precipitously (at least relative to most other jobs). So, let’s say that prior to the dot.com boom the compensation of a computer programmer in an organization was deemed to be of equal value to a marketing manager in that same organization (based on whatever valuation matrix may have been used to arrive at that conclusion). Then, with the dot.com boom, let’s say that computer programmer compensation jumped up 30% over a couple of years because of a huge market-wide demand for that skill. In order to maintain pay equity internally at that organization you would, presumably, have to pay the marketing manager 30% more as well because they were determined, internally, to be of “equal value” to the company.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 02 February 2006 03:30 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Do you mean market like when the invisible hand of the market place shovels taxpayer handouts to privately owned and operated airlines to insulate them from free market forces, Sven ?.


Handouts to individual companies will go into the pockets of the investors. Handouts to an industry will, for the most part, end up in the pockets of the workers.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 02 February 2006 03:37 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fundamental problem with pay equity is that it is based on a tiny number of bureaucrats considering a tiny number of factors. In general, the "value" of a job will be righly determined by how many people need the work done and how many people available to do that work. There are a limited number of exceptions where this may not apply: doctors, soldiers, teachers. Our health, security and minds are not something that should be valued in the market (nor bargained for collectively).

"The market" (such as it is) is a big information processor that tells us the monetary value of this that or the other thing. Only in the limited circumstances I mentioned above should we overrule it or substitute the arbitrary judgment of some friend of some politician.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 February 2006 04:01 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:

Handouts to individual companies will go into the pockets of the investors. Handouts to an industry will, for the most part, end up in the pockets of the workers.


We can point to examples of corporate welfare handouts to profitable and unprofitable companies under the guise that the support payments are to be used to maintain and create jobs and investing in innovation. But the current experience in general is that workers are rewarded with offshoring, layoffs and reduced benefits while profits are funnelled toward excessive CEO, CFO and management salaries.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca