hi there,
As a person working as an ALT for a dispatch company, and reading about this new Equal pay law that many are talking about, I still don't really understand how that will apply to dispatch companies?
https://www.jassa.or.jp/english/law_system/index_5.html
What does equal pay really mean? (Reading from one statement from the link above:
""" To ensure "equal pay for equal work" for temporary agency workers, the agency must choose to follow either the "system for equality and equitability enforced by the client company" or "system according to the staffing agency's labor-management agreement."
-System for equality and equitability enforced by the client company (Principle)
A temporary agency worker receives the same treatment as the client company's employees who do the same work receive.
* The client company needs to provide information about the treatment (It will be compulsory by law.).
-System according to the agency's labor-management agreement (Exception)
The treatment may be determined if the agency's labor-management agreement meets the following 3 requirements:
- (1)The wage level is equal to or higher than that for other workers doing the same type of work.
- (2)A temporary agency worker's skills and abilities are properly evaluated and reflected in his/her wages to help with his/her career development.
- (3)The treatment that a temporary agency worker receives other than wages is not unreasonable compared to that given to the agency's permanent employees. """"
Though the law seems to be very fair, in its title, I just can't help to feel that dispatch companies can easily find a loophole in this new la"***"equal pay for equal work"!!!***
If anyone can kind of explain what this new law really mean, cause "***"equal pay for equal work"*** aren't all ALTs doing the same work with almost equal pay???
Thank you
Gay Adult Performer Armond Rizzo Drags Studio for Paying Tops More Than Bottoms
So I have been at a company (hotel) since August 2018 and have never received a raise. I am the relief shift and work only 2 days per week. I have trained 3 new employees for the full time shift coverage. I have just learned that the full time employee I trained in October 2019, who does the exact same work, is being paid $7/hr more than I am.
How can I address this with my employer?
I was thinking of asking for a performance review as I have never had one. Stating all the great things I do and have done for the company and asking for a raise. Realistically I would think only a dollar raise would be appropriate for a little of a years employment but I want to be paid what the position is worth. Is this even realistic?
I’m not in a position to walk away from this job as I am in my final semester of school and will be changing fields soon and cannot handle the pressure of graduating and job training.
TLDR: best way to ask for a large raise as the person I trained is making $7/hr more for the exact same work
Hi, I'm a federal employee that's working a job with a surprising level of responsibility for the pay grade, I also work with a very small team with just three of us including my supervisor. My supervisor filled a 6 month temp position with a person who has very little qualifications, yet is working at two GS grades above me. This happened as a result of my supervisor changing the Position Description to call for a higher pay grade with the intent of attracting someone with higher skills. Higher skilled applicants took employment elsewhere and we ended up with the least skilled applicant. What makes this worse is the Position Description does not directly fit what this new person, and the rest of us actually do.
I will be training this person, though their background will not allow them to assume any of the most challenging responsibilities we face, so I and the supervisor will shoulder the extra load this season.
I look at this as an unfair situation. My supervisor attempting to game the system, and the plan backfired.
Does the Office of Personnel Management have anything in place to remedy situations such as this?
-
First, there are very few jobs where two people would even have the opportunity to perform equal work. As soon as one person takes an extra vacation day, or takes longer to complete something, or interacts with someone differently...their work is no longer equal.
-
The best example of 'equal work' is really union jobs. And these already literally pay equally, as 'advancement' is only based on tenure and not getting fired. In every case where an employees raises and other benefits are pre-determined regardless of performance, the pay is equal with no inequalities based on gender.
-
Similar to 'feminism is the fight for equal rights', I think the phrase 'equal pay for equal work' needs to be re-thought to be more accurate, less confusing, and less open to easy counter arguments. The problem they are trying to solve has to do with gender bias in the work place, and 'equal pay for equal work' does not get someone started in understanding that issue.
My view can be changed by demonstrating that the phrase 'equal pay for equal work' is the best phrase to use to describe the problem it's meant bring awareness to
> This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please ***read through our rules*. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to ***message us***. Happy CMVing!
https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/d24pl8/the_female_players_will_earn_what_the_male/
If you thought /r/europe hated immigrants more than anything, think again. The one topic that constantly collects the most downvoted threads and circlejerk comment sections is gender equality.
After the Finnish football federation announced they would pay women the same money they pay men when they travel around the world to play for the national team on their holiday breaks, the Swedish federation made a similar announcement. Of course, this is reddit, so everyone has an opinion about Sweden:
> Sweden doesn't make sense. I feel whole country became an experiment: how long we can go before everything goes to sheit
> Didn't have to finish reading the title to know it was happening in Sweden... Sweden, what happened to you?
> Sweden is really a weird place.
and the usual bullshit you expect from reddit:
> Another victory for the regressive left!
> Thats incredibly stupid and the exact opposit of fairness
> it's a completely idiotic move
> This is stupid tough.
> I also want to enforce a 50% female quota on prisoners to increase gender equality. [+66]
> If only there were more female coal miners and garbage disposal workers. Goddam patriarchy. [+35]
> Isn't this discrimination against male footballers? [+179]
> To give women the exact same pay they will be payed significantly more of the profit percentage than men. Meaning they generate less value but will get payed more. [+56]
That last one is especially puzzling: paying women the same means paying them more?
As you imagine, very few people have read the actual article, which in fact is in Polish, and the person who posted a translation got massively downvoted.
> So clubs won't run a female team anymore. Genius!
No dumbass, this has nothing to do with clubs.
A big part of why this is a great example of a circlejerk with no actual reasoning behind it is that all the top comments claim the same thing: people should be paid according to how much money is made from their personal performance. But at the same time: it is perfectly fair that all players in the team make the exact same money.
> They should give them the same protift percentage and be done with it. This whole conversation is stupid. [+211]
> many see it as being unfair to pay people the same when they bring in far less money, generate far less interest, and
... keep reading on reddit ➡Hi CMV,
I did some thinking yesterday (not at all because some things came up in the debate) and I realized that my views on "equal pay for equal work" and paid maternity leave were contradictory.
I think both are good (although for paid maternity leave its more like it's a bad idea not to have it). A mother should not have to suffer financially because she is having a child, and two people doing the same thing with the same quality should have the same pay. However, paid maternity leave as an option I think counts as less work for the same pay for a period, especially when paid paternity leave is not as prominent. Plus even when there is paid paternity leave, the physical strain on a pregnant woman would probably affect her work, and hence I can't reconcile the two.
Should be a pretty easy CMV, but I haven't been able to figure it out.
> Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to ***read through our rules*. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to ***message us***. Happy CMVing!
