Michael Ignatieff is Right About Pay Equity
December 11, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
Below, Richard notes a couple of new initiatives by the Liberal Party, including their intention to recognize pay equity as a human right.
Here’s the thing, they are, partially, correct.
A quick caveat, I am, generally, not a fan of the way pay equity is wielded. A concept that was born to address discriminatory behaviour against vulnerable segments of the population has become a weapon used to engineer wealth redistribution surreptitiously. It’s dishonest, and it’s an abuse of the legislative process.
A second caveat, I am on record as being against the expansion of ‘human rights’. I hold a narrow definition, and I do not think pay equity (even the good kind) falls into it. Further, I am offended by the Human Rights industry in Canada.
So, let’s assume, arguendo, that we’re talking about an acceptable form of pay equity, and by ‘human right’ we mean some good legislation that the government enforces through an appropriate process. (I know this is open for debate, but these topics are being debated thoroughly on Richard’s post; I want to talk about something more narrow.) With these assumptions, Michael Ignatieff is right.
From the article in The Toronto Star:
To that end, he [Michael Ignatieff] introduced Wednesday a private member’s bill aimed at reversing a controversial measure in the 2009 federal budget.
The budget essentially reclassified pay equity as a labour issue to be negotiated in collective agreements, stripping the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its authority to adjudicate pay equity complaints.
Anyone see the same problem with the Conservative’s re-classification that I do? The Conservative’s measure has put pay equity in the hands of unions. If we assume that pay equity (however defined) is worthwhile, it has no place as a bargaining chip in a contract negotiation; a union should not have the right ditch it on behalf of its membership and those who will eventually join the union.
You could almost argue that Stephen Harper’s government is acting as a shill for Big Labour.
(By the way, I’m not suggesting that any unions would do away with pay equity in order to secure a better dental plan; I’m just saying we shouldn’t even give them the option.)
Now, I can envision a convincing counter-argument that pay equity isn’t a good thing as it is currently enacted, and that its enforcement shouldn’t be delegated to Human Rights Commissions. These may be solid points, but they do not justify the action taken by the Conservative government. Just as it is wrong to use pay equity to enact wealth re-distribution, it is wrong to use procedural measures as a salvo against the nature of pay equity and the use of Human Rights Commissions. It seems especially egregious to do it through the budget. If the government wishes to take on pay equity or Human Rights Commissions, they should do so head on. Crafting duplicitous legislation is unbecoming of a democratic government.
I still don’t trust Michael Ignatieff with the task of crafting appropriate pay equity legislation, but I don’t really trust Stephen Harper with it either.
Apparently, you do not know all sides of the issue in the federal government. I do, as I worked in the staffing and classification system. Michael Ignatieff’s legislation is dangerous for all the reasons you stated. It would take too long to explain why. The conservatives are on the right track.
What do you think is a fair wage for a high school grad with one year of experience starting as a private sector receptionist who gets full health and dental benefits and a fully-indexed pension? I am thinking not over 42K. Don’t forget generous accumulating sick leave, vacation and leave benefits, and fantastic options for adjusting the work week. As well, if you speak French, that is good for another thousand or so a year. Think GM for a perspective.
The conservatives have learned what happened several years ago and continues to distort market rates of pay. This needs a fix. Classifications and bargaining were designed in the 1960s. Being a woman, I am all enthusiastic about equal pay for men and women for the same job and quals, but you would be surprised how the issue can get way out of hand (and did). HRC interference would cost us millions, for no benefit to Canadians.
If the determination of “pay equity” has been taken away from the HRC, who will the unions turn to in any negotiations to force employers to shell out?
“What do you think is a fair wage for a high school grad with one year of experience starting as a private sector receptionist who gets full health and dental benefits and a fully-indexed pension? I am thinking not over 42K.”
Kind of ironic when we put ourselves in the position of deciding on behalf of people we don’t even know what a “fair” price for their labour is. At any rate, the federal government’s bizarre regulatory maze seems like a separate issue that also needs urgent reform. What does it have to do with pay equity?
Anyways, I would imagine that the reason the Harper government tried to define pay equity as it did wasn’t to act as a shill for big labour, but to try and handcuff big labour. Consider: pay equity is now something that unions have to bargain for (most of the public-sector ones can’t really afford not to bargain for it, I suspect, since they have large numbers of female members). So they have to make concessions in order to maintain pay equity. Concessions like that better dental plan, to use your example.
The initiative is murky enough that I share your suspicion that there is a motive lurking below the surface of the legislation, but I’m not sure it’s the same motive you say it is. I too am in favour of honest, head-on approaches.
In other words: if we assume perfect motivations, conditions and outcomes, it follows that a politician is right to sanction a given policy. Um, yeah, agreed. Hard to argue with those assumptions in place. Can I use this in future threads?
No, the government has put “equal pay for work of equal value” into the hands of the unions. No union is going to accept that employees working the same job should receive different pay grades based on gender, regardless of what the government says. On the other hand, if the unions want to gridlock their collective agreements on the dubious idea that a local representing bakers should keep striking until they’re paid the same as autoworkers, that’s their prerogative, but no arm of the government will be stepping in to take their side and force the issue. Exactly right. Case closed.
Exactly, Martin – the unions should take this on, not the terrible HRCs. Ignatieff’s idea would create a happy mad house for Jennifer Lynch.
They loved to appeal every decision government managers ever made, even on 4-month part-time acting assignments. Much better to let PSAC tie itself in knots and do the trade-offs for their members.
@Liz
Thanks. I do understand the classification system of federal government hiring. Further, pay equity – in its purest form – has nothing to do with the wages and salaries offered by government. I’d explain why your non sequitur doesn’t apply to this debate, but it would take too long.
Regarding your second comment, why on earth should a union have control over an individual’s rights and legal protections?
@PS
Yes, definitely. The Conservative’s measure could be a ploy to put the unions off balance. By opening up something that is supposed to be protected by law, both sides of a negotiation could try to abuse it.
@Martin
That was a bit of a jump. I didn’t assume perfect motives, conditions and outcomes. I’m saying that there are a bunch of potential questions here: (1) What, if any, is the appropriate form of pay equity; (2) Should people be able to make pay equity challenges via the Human Rights system; and, (3) Should pay equity be subject to collective bargaining? It was my intention to discuss the third question. It seems to me that in complex matters, it is important to properly address each individual aspect.
And, yes, you can use that in other threads.
Yup, I agree, and I said as much.
Again, agreed. I have no time for this sort of “pay equity”.
My riff on your assumptions was meant to be a bit of snark for fun, but now you’ve got me interested. If we agree that “equal pay for equal work” is a moot point from a policy enforcement standpoint, and “equal pay for work of equal value” is something we are against, what is the the other “acceptible” form of pay equity that we’re assuming Ignatief is talking about, for the sake of argument?
Martin, some playful snark is always welcome.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘”equal pay for equal work” is a moot point…’. I think I may have gone too far down the rabbit hole in my rather theoretical analysis.
Here’s what I mean an acceptable form of pay equity, the determination of an employee’s salary cannot be, in general, based on the employee’s race, gender or religion (did I forget any?).
Granted, that’s pretty anodyne, and I don’t think that’s what Michael Ignatieff is talking about. Nonetheless, that seems like defensible government policy and seems like something that should not be exposed to collective bargaining.
So then we get into a discussion about what rights are inviolable, which rights can be waived, which rights can be assigned to a representative, and whether we even have a right to decide which rights are which without getting the Supreme Court involved. But I don’t think it will ever come to that. The primary benefit of being in a union is better pay than non-union work. It would be institutional suicide for unions to start bargaining away the pay equity of large swaths of their memberships. No, the only pay equity issue at stake here is the dubious kind, forcing employers to increase the pay of “underpaid” employees doing work “equal” to other job descriptions based on some pie-in-the-sky academic analysis of the value of the work being performed. The government should have no part of it, either through legislation or by allowing it’s quasi-judicial agencies to make rulings.