Order in the Ranks Part 4: Equality ≠ Sameness

photo credit

I agree with equal pay for equal work. I don't agree with some of the stupid arguments I hear about that AT ALL. I see it all the time.  Under educated, ill-informed people use the latest popular talking points and ignorant arguments while trying to support good and valid points. For instance: equal pay for women.  First off, the wording spins the topic to sound a certain way.  It should be "equal pay for equal work."  The truth is, women who write like this are wording it in order to make an unsubstantiated claim in just a tagline to infer that there's already an inequality at work based solely on the fact that they are women, and what they are actually trying to convey is that women should be given preferential treatment.  This is a dishonest treatment of a valid subject.  That is not equal treatment of women.

Women can be capable, intelligent, educated, good workers, even the best workers in many situations.  Just because "women can have babies, run a household and do it while they look good in heels" is NOT a reason women should get equal pay.  What a ridiculous argument.  I've seen people use witty and cute statements such as these, as though they were actually reasonable or a valid talking points.  Obviously it tripped my trigger.  Here's a reasonable talking point for you: We women should get equal pay for equal WORK. That is why women should get equal pay.  Anyone who's doing the job well should get equal, baseline, starting pay.

If we are BETTER at something we should get MORE pay. If we are NOT AS GOOD we DON'T DESERVE equal pay. I realize that last part is unpopular, but it's true.

If I own a business and am spending MY OWN MONEY to pay my employees, and I hire a man and a woman to carry bricks I will pay them the same.  If it turns out he can carry more bricks further and faster than she can, then guess what? I'm going to give him a raise, and yes-- pay him more than I pay her. He deserves it.  She does not.  I might even fire her and save myself and my business some money.  If I hire a man and a woman to manage my personal affairs I will pay them the same.  If she, as women are typically able to do, can multitask and get things done faster and in a more efficient manner than he can, I'm going to pay her more and give him his two week notice. (OH! here's my disclaimer: I didn't say "all women and no men" or anything like that, yada, yada... I HATE that everything has to be clarified for all the immature people!)  

I'm sick of the "men and women are the same" argument.  We're not the same. AT ALL. Making us the same detracts from both of our strong points, puts pressure on us in areas that should be able to flow from us with ease, and creates a stressful work environment. It kills healthy, ambitious competition and creates hostile, aggressive competition, which is NOT the same thing, and damages the work environment. 

People confuse "equality" and "sameness." My grandchild, a baby, expends great effort trying to grasp things with his hands.  My son, his daddy, a full grown man, expends great effort operating machinery with his hands.  They are equally expending energy and effort. They may be getting equal results, but they are not getting the same result.  Why?  They are not the same.  I will pay the same wage for the same work, not for the same effort.  It is not unfair.  It is intelligent and expedient.  Their effort may be equal and I may appreciate it, but in business, results are what matter.  If I don't get the results from one of my employees , that employee of mine is getting fired.  MY employee. Did you get that?  

When we attend orientation classes or meetings for a new job with a new company, they generally refer to us as "their employees."  Why is that a great thing when we're happy, but if we become unhappy with our situation, suddenly we view ourselves as something other than  their employee.  Suddenly we start making comments about how we're "just a number," and they don't care about us.  They don't see us as people.  We are suddenly entitled to something that was never agreed to and we want to demand that they do something for us that we did not earn. Now we don't even plan to earn it, but we still feel they owe it.  We don't want to be treated like their employee any more, even though that's what we agreed to when we hired on.

What if you hired a gardener to tend your garden and mow your grass.  Then, what if your gardener came over and decided he didn't have to mow your grass in order for you to give him your fifty or sixty bucks?  Would you pay him?  What if all your neighbors who never worked hard to build themselves a lawn or garden, and don't have or need a gardener, told you you have to pay yours even though he won't do the agreed upon work?  Would you pay him now?  Maybe you are weak and cave in to your neighbors.  Will you pay?  Does that make it right, now?

This brings us to an additional problem of the day: if you hire someone at any wage, and then they turn out to be sub-standard workers, you can't just fire them. You have to jump through a hundred hoops for fear of being sued for being a racist or for gender inequality or some other unequal, or dare I say nor non-preferential treatment. You run the risk of having public opinion destroy you even when you are justified in your decisions.

You have to safeguard your company and insure it's survival, so you hire people at a lower starting wage.  For this lower wage you've been squeezed into paying in order to be able to absorb the cost of the lawyer you are now forced into keeping on retainer, you get one of two things: unskilled workers that might compromise the quality of your product and eventually your reputation, or you get the government trying to force the minimum wage higher.

(So you take your business out of this neighborhood and move it across town to get away from the neighbor's demands and strong-arm tactics, and now everyone blames you for sending the jobs away and not caring about the old neighborhood!)

Then... if this isn't all a big enough hot button, try this: ANY "other" minority, 'protected' religious group, or special interest,  can run a business and hire people based on what they believe and support and it's perfectly acceptable, even endorsed ...just not men. More specifically, not white men. Women can hire disproportionate numbers of women. Hispanics can hire disproportionate numbers of Hispanics. LGBTQ can hire disproportionate numbers of LGBTQ. The list goes on. They can pay members of their own group disproportionately if they choose to do so. Let white people, men, and evidently Christians try that and the government will get all wrapped up in it and mandate quotas, wage requirements, benefits and allowances. We won't even start talking about the "refusal of service" issues here!

I'm old school. I think that if I created a business, worked hard myself and built it, I alone should decide who I will hire.  I think that I can pay them as much or as little as I choose if they have agreed and taken the job for that wage.  I don't care if I run a two man diner or a two million man corporation. If I am in the USA, the land of the free and the land of opportunity, I should do what I want with what is mine. I should not be punished IN ANY WAY for becoming a success in this country, no matter popular opinion or loudmouths, community outrage, or any other thing. 

I believe that's true if I am benevolent and charitable, and I believe it's true if I am a total jerk.  If I'm doing things poorly I believe that a thriving free market economy will either pull me into line or run me out of business.  I don't need bureaucratic paper pushers, government micro-managers or social media popularity polls to tell me what to do.

People have a choice: work for me or don't. Those used to be, and still should be, the only choices they have in this situation.  You are doing me NO FAVOR by working for me.  I am doing you a favor by giving you a job and by compensating you according to an agreement we made going in.   We can benefit each other, grow and increase one another and improve our incomes and standards of living, or we can terminate the agreement.  Period.

I also believe that IF a business belonged to you (or anyone as an individual) and you worked hard to succeed, you would feel exactly the same way. If you pull it down to a small scale it becomes clear. Start as a mom and pop hair salon and you're cute, and quaint and you and everyone else believes that whatever you earn is yours.  People are happy for your success.  If you hire someone, they agree to your wage or they don't take the job. If they take the job, they like you and stay or they don't and they quit. The end. Everyone is clear, everyone is happy, no problem.

Raise that to a new level,: Mom and pop hit it big, They wind up with many shops across the country. They reputation is good and they become so popular that they start selling franchise licenses. Did they create this? Did they do the legwork?  Did they do the research and take the risks?  Is it still theirs? Are they still the owners, beginners, founders, hardworking mom and pop? No, not according to the masses. Now they are greedy business owners who should be forced to hand over certain percentages of their OWN EARNINGS because people they never met and probably never will, don't like it, and are probably just angry about the same age old argument whose root is in class envy.

It sucks, but it's true.

If we were playing a simple board game and changed the rules as often as we do for things like this in our lives it would be completely unplayable.  There are rules for a reason.  We have GOT to stop, bending, changing, "reinterpreting" our rules every time we don't like or understand them, or something offends us or make us feel bad, or is too hard.  Grow up, citizens.  Carry your weight.  Stop whining.

My 2.
Let the butthurt commence.

"And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ." - Colossians 3:23-24