Epic trainwreck Alasdair Thompson

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Serious issues is definitely what brings me to NZG.

Look, you might like to tard up every thread with your pseudo-psychoanlysis, intellectual dishonesty, and glib one-liners but others are trying to have a discussion. Either grow up or go play with yourself.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, well, you and I have different ideas of grown up. So I'll stick around.

[Hooker]

Originally Posted by blynk

Ok, what about smokers. They tend to take more breaks, and if they haven't had their nicotine may become more stressed and less productive.

What about computer gamers, they are probably sitting their thinking about they next chance to get home and play.

What about older people who can't type as fast. They are really unproductive. They will take 5 minutes to write an email that someone else could write in 1.

But these people physically at work.

If I had to answer your question in general, I would have to say base salaries + measureable KPI's for everyone. But most places are happy and don't ask questions as long as you get what is required done.

Unfortunately the gap in pay between a lazy worker and a competent concientious hard worker in team environment is redic. This is no doubt caused by the 'default' pay someone gets when joining a company and no more money in the budget.

It always comes down to that 'I'm leaving' with a response of 'We'll pay you more'...often too little too late.

We have people at my work who IMO we should be paying way more based on the fact that they can do double the work of the person right opposite them. Everyone knows it, you can't sack the other person but for some reason they resist giving more money to the hard worker.

I'm sure when I have kids or when I get to 50/60 and some whippersnapper does twice the work I do I'll have a different POV.

[Hooker]

dbl post...

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

The problem is what do you mean by "same job"? And doing the same JOB shouldn't necessarily entitle you to the same pay. Equal productivity isn't the same as "doing the same job".

Glib one-liners just aren't enough in relation to serious issues.

Derp.
In the context of me responding to someone by agreeing that pay should be based on productivity - then it shouldn't be hard to understand what I mean by "doing the same job". Unless of course you're just looking for another pointless flame-war.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Hooker

The former, yes that is what I said. The latter, you came up with that one.

Essentially I was trying to point out that you said "lets look at this without ethics/morals" then essentially looked at the issue with ethics/morals (indicated by the use of the word "should".)

If you want to look at the issue without ethics and morals, you need to decide first on the intended outcome of paying people to work, or whatever it is you're trying to figure out. "Should" implies some kind of implicit higher ideal (i.e. a moral/ethic/value.)

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Derp.
In the context of me responding to someone by agreeing that pay should be based on productivity - then it shouldn't be hard to understand what I mean by "doing the same job". Unless of course you're just looking for another pointless flame-war.

But you still haven't justified why people should per se be paid the same for doing the "same job", when it's generally speaking actual productivity that governs the value that somone brings to an employer. If you (and I'm assuming that you do -- alhough assuming anything sensible with you is dangerous) believe in people getting treated on merit, why would you support people being paid the same merely for doing the "same job", i.e. having the same job description. If you are actually saying that people who bring the same things to the table, so to speak, should be paid the same then your argument isn't "same job, same pay" and you should learn to express yourself clearly.

Now before you try and tard up the thread, I agree that in some cases it can be hard to objectively assess the value that someone brings to a job. But as with most things in life, we don't throw out the baby with the bath water and this shouldn't cause us to give up on the whole idea of performance-related pay.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

But you still haven't justified why people should per se be paid the same for doing the "same job", when it's generally speaking actual productivity that governs the value that somone brings to an employer. If you (and I'm assuming that you do -- alhough assuming anything sensible with you is dangerous) believe in people getting treated on merit, why would you support people being paid the same merely for doing the "same job", i.e. having the same job description. If you are actually saying that people who bring the same things to the table, so to speak, should be paid the same then your argument isn't "same job, same pay" and you should learn to express yourself clearly.

Try and keep up ffs. I just told you that the 'same job' comment was referring to a persons productivity. Which I thought was obvious from my first post - Business owners "shouldn't" pay less productive people the same as those more productive, but this isn't the issue, it's about women getting paid less when they are just as productive - ie doing the same job.

Originally Posted by cyc

Now before you try and tard up the thread, I agree that in some cases it can be hard to objectively assess the value that someone brings to a job. But as with most things in life, we don't throw out the baby with the bath water and this shouldn't cause us to give up on the whole idea of performance-related pay.

Who suggested anything about giving up on performance-related pay? You're trying way to hard on this one buddy.

[Lightspeed]

It's because he's all grow up. That's how grown ups do.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Try and keep up ffs. I just told you that the 'same job' comment was referring to a persons productivity. Which I thought was obvious from my first post - Business owners "shouldn't" pay less productive people the same as those more productive, but this isn't the issue, it's about women getting paid less when they are just as productive - ie doing the same job.

If you can actually prove a case of this happening, go to the Human Rights Commission or the Department of Labour. There are two clear breaches of two separate statutes happening -- I will let you figure out what they are.

[cyc]

And you're still being obstinately confusing. You're arguing about "same productivity, same pay". In that case, please fucking use the right terminology.

In other news, the CTU tards up the debate:

http://union.org.nz/payequity

An independent job evaluation report showed that when compared with male dominated jobs of corrections officers and cleaners, school support staff such as teacher aides and administrators were paid as much as $8 an hour less.

THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PAID THE SAME. IT'S JUST A FACT CUZ THE CTU SAID SO!

[crocos]

Despite them being completely different jobs? CTU are a well-meaning bunch of fucktards, but at the end of the day they're still a bunch of fucktards.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by cyc

The problem is what do you mean by "same job"? And doing the same JOB shouldn't necessarily entitle you to the same pay. Equal productivity isn't the same as "doing the same job".

Glib one-liners just aren't enough in relation to serious issues.

its fucking hilaaarious......
he's kind've agreeing with you, but sideing with the other guys 'cause you a stupid intellectually dishonest leftie'.

what do the kids say???
oh yeah.... LOL

[cyc]

Chubby, go play with someone your level. The circle-jerk with LOLspeed is elsewhere.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by cyc

go play with someone your level.

all your bullshit aside dude- you is kidding yourself.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by chubby

all your bullshit aside dude- you is kidding yourself.

Chubby, learn to write properly.

[blynk]

Far out, can at least one thread go by with out people attacking each other. A lot of people here must of sucked at debates at school.

Talk about the topic and not the poster.

[BoyWonder]

Have

[Dweeb]

My biggest problem here is we do not have proof of this happening - from what I have seen. It seems (to me) that it is the inherent leftie POV of "I'm missing out" and "why should you get more than me?".

This new bill(?) they are proposing to put through so we can all see what each other is paying is fucking ridiculous.

All of the roles I have worked in have been performance based. I know for a fact that I am on the lowest base rate out of my whole team, this is because I have the least amount of experience in this field. Also my branch and country managers are both female.

If it is true in lower paid roles there is a differential between the genders wouldn't the best way be as noted before a performance based pay schedule with KPI's.

There will always be a certain amount of fail in this area for the fact that everyone has a discrimination of two in their beliefs and would it be fair to say the world is just not equal/fair in general?

I don't think (if this problem is in fact largely true) it can be fixed by an ideal lefty philosophy and forcing others to conform. It's just stirring the pot for the sake of it. Do we not have in place already countermeasures to these problems?

D.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Dweeb

My biggest problem here is we do not have proof of this happening - from what I have seen. It seems (to me) that it is the inherent leftie POV of "I'm missing out" and "why should you get more than me?".

A lot of research still indicates that there is a part of the gender pay gap that can't be explained even when accounting for things like parental status, education, experience, industry etc. [link]

Originally Posted by Dweeb

I don't think (if this problem is in fact largely true) it can be fixed by an ideal lefty philosophy and forcing others to conform. It's just stirring the pot for the sake of it. Do we not have in place already countermeasures to these problems?

As cyc said the law already makes it illegal to discriminate pay based on gender. The idea here is that more transparency (particularly for those not covered by a collective agreement with a union) might help reduce the 'unexplained gap', which advocates of this Bill would call 'discrimination'.

[aR Que]

Ah yes, the classic, lets change the law to fix the problem that we can't quantify or specifically identify.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The idea here is that more transparency (particularly for those not covered by a collective agreement with a union) might help reduce the 'unexplained gap', which advocates of this Bill would call 'discrimination'.

These "advocates" unfortunately are frequently engaging in lazy thinking. Let's for the sake of the argument agree that there is a SOCIETAL unexplained gap of the sort alleged and its existence is beyond rational dispute. It doesn't follow from this that if A and B work in the same job (i.e. same job description) and A is paid more than B and A happens to be a man, that B is suffering from unlawful discrimination. I now hear "THAT'S NOT WHAT I/THEY ARE SAYING!" from you. That might well be but the effect of DelaCunty's Bill will be an effective reversal of the burden of proof that applies in all other instances of alleged unlawful discrimination. The Bill says that pay data (with the gender of the employees recorded) shall be available on request to an employee or his/representative. If the employer considers that the information cannot be kept confidential then it's to be handed to an independent reviewer agreed by the employer and employee.

The reality is that the information will be sought to support/investigate claims of actual or alleged unlawful dicrimination. Yet that ability is given to a private individual vis-a-vis another private individual without the requester even having to make any prima facie case of unlawful conduct. This is a ridiculous intrusion any way you look at it and somehow makes available to one group of "victims" a tool that isn't available to any other. No one who's serious about the rule of law should support this rubbish of a Bill.

If you have a prima facie case of suspected unlawful discrimination, you already get to go to the Human Rights Commission and they will (usually) seek to investigate and mediate the dispute between the parties. Within the relevant context, it's likely that (on any case that the HRC is satisfied that the complainant isn't merely on a fishing expedition) the HRC will seek relevant input from the employer to show that the female employee isn't being unlawfully discriminated against. This is a far superior and more rule-of-law preserving system.

Don't tell that to the CTU and DelaCunty, though.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

If you have a prima facie case of suspected unlawful discrimination, you already get to go to the Human Rights Commission and they will (usually) seek to investigate and mediate the dispute between the parties. Within the relevant context, it's likely that (on any case that the HRC is satisfied that the complainant isn't merely on a fishing expedition) the HRC will seek relevant input from the employer to show that the female employee isn't being unlawfully discriminated against. This is a far superior and more rule-of-law preserving system.

I'm assuming that these "advocates" are arguing that if you don't know your pay rate in relation to a co-worker whom you think that you're on par with - then how would you suspect that wage discrimination is going on?

[TD]

Does anyone else read CTU as Counter Terrorism Unit?


/24

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I'm assuming that these "advocates" are arguing that if you don't know your pay rate in relation to a co-worker whom you think that you're on par with - then how would you know that wage discrimination is going on?

"Wage discrimination" isn't illegal in law. Discrimination based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Act and breaching the Equal Pay Act is. Unlawful discrimination tends to manifest itself in other ways beyond obviously underpaying someone. Employees can also talk to each other and there's still the reality that no other class of "victims" have such intrusive tools in their favour.

An alternative and much fairer provision might be to establish an independent body where an employee can apply to seek such information by establishing at least a prima facie case of discrimination or at least a prima facie, reasonable suspicion of unlawful discrimination. But the CTU and DelaCunty also likely won't like this.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Unlawful discrimination tends to manifest itself in other ways beyond obviously underpaying someone.

What are you basing this on? Because if it doesn't, then wouldn't it be hard to bring 'a prima facie, reasonable suspicion of unlawful discrimination'?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

What are you basing this on? Because if it doesn't, then wouldn't it be hard to bring 'a prima facie, reasonable suspicion of unlawful discrimination'?

What am I basing this on? Common sense, maybe? Things like composition of management team, promotional patterns, and the like can also be used to found unlawful discrimination suits.

And even if making these claims can be hard, so what? Making civil claims or exercising intrusive powers against another individual SHOULD require you to have some proof, if you care about the rule of law. Why should we literally tear down the rule of law just for ONE class of potential victims?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

What am I basing this on? Common sense, maybe? Things like composition of management team, promotional patterns, and the like can also be used to found unlawful discrimination suits.

I guess Delahunty's argument is that because 'a societal unexplained gap' does exist - then this suggests that frequently unlawful discrimination doesn't 'manifest itself in other ways beyond obviously underpaying someone'.

Originally Posted by cyc

And even if making these claims can be hard, so what? Making civil claims or exercising intrusive powers against another individual SHOULD require you to have some proof, if you care about the rule of law. Why should we literally tear down the rule of law just for ONE class of potential victims?

The argument isn't that you shouldn't have some proof, rather that a disclosure of peoples pay might provide evidence of unlawful discrimination where it's happening unnoticed.

My concerns are to do with forcing people to disclose how much they earn and the 'reversal of the burden of proof' you mentioned ie if a man is legitimately being paid more than a women in a similar role then should it necessarily easily be justified?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My concerns are to do with forcing people to disclose how much they earn and the 'reversal of the burden of proof' you mentioned ie if a man is legitimately being paid more than a women in a similar role then should it necessarily easily be justified?

It may or may not be -- that's in all likelihood fact-dependent. But I am just uncomfortable with the idea of potentially unlimited fishing expeditions, which is what that Bill currently is. As should be obvious, I am not deadset against some of the objectives of the Bill -- I just find the implementation of it unbearable.

[doppelgänger of someone]

I always though Thompson got a point, but the public can't hear it because his foot was in his mouth.

[cyc]

Not so much they can't hear it (at least some can -- insofar as the issue of employers being justified in paying more for more productivity is concerned) but that the issue has been co-opted by people with a much wider agenda, who've also succeeded in labelling and drowning out anyone who dares to disagree with them.

[Lightspeed]

He had no point. Unless we all start believing that all our bosses pay us based on clearly defined and measurable outcomes, not based on what they think and feel about us.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

He had no point. Unless we all start believing that all our bosses pay us based on clearly defined and measurable outcomes, not based on what they think and feel about us.

Yawn. Here's Lightspeed with his shitty one liners again.

[Lightspeed]

You seem to struggle with reality a little, cyc. Like the reality that we're posting on an internet forum now, where a significant majority of posts are only a sentence or two (your posts being a notable exception.)

Or the reality that regardless of whether people should be paid for actual productivity, very little effective measuring of productivity takes place at the individual level in the workplace.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You seem to struggle with reality a little, cyc.

Ironic!

[Lightspeed]

An essential component to good reality testing is knowing the limits in testing reality.

[CCS]

dranked