Previous | Next 

PERSONAL OPINION
The inequity of inequitable pay equity

John H. Redekop

Some governmental decisions, including court rulings, are made with laudable motives but have profoundly detrimental consequences. The decision-makers either misdiagnosed the situation or misjudged the consequences of their policies or both. The current controversy over the Federal Court ruling concerning “pay equity” is such an instance.

Now that the federal government has lost the case in a pay equity suit launched by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), we do well to analyze this landmark decision. A fundamental point to note is that the question of “equal pay for equal work” was not at issue. We should also acknowledge that, unfortunately, there was a time, even in Christian circles, when women were not always paid as much as men for doing the same tasks. But such practices have been virtually eliminated. In any event, they were also made illegal in 1977.

At issue, at present, is a quite different question. Its roots lie in a statement in Section 11 of the 1977 Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits “differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.” As long as this prohibition was applied to the same kind of work, it served society well. Surely the vast majority of people, including all Christians, would agree that there should be no salary discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sex.

Here is some relevant background. In 1983, PSAC, a civil servants’ labour union, filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, arguing that clerical workers were being treated unfairly. Numerous investigations and tribunals followed. The dispute involved the comparison of totally different jobs. For example, should female filing clerks be paid the same as male gardeners or chauffeurs? Should female typists be paid the same as male plumbers? The comparisons were endless.

Eventually, on July 29, 1998, a tribunal ruled that about 200,000 current and former federal workers, almost all women, were owed 13 years of additional back pay, with interest, costing Canadian taxpayers up to $5 billion. On October 19, 1999, the Federal Court upheld the tribunal’s decision. Thus, Ottawa’s astonishing legislation has produced an outlandish, if not ludicrous, result.

What’s wrong with the Federal Court’s ruling, and why should this matter be of interest to Christians? Let’s review first the practical aspects and then the more fundamental philosophical issues. Four practical considerations are central.

First, the 200,000 federal civil servants, who were allegedly exploited, were all along given salaries and benefits as negotiated by their powerful union. Ten years ago, virtually all of them earned between $20,000 and $35,000 a year, often slightly above private sector wages. The contracts were happily accepted. There was no arbitrariness or abuse by the employer.

Second, if it is right to compensate for 13 years of some alleged pay gap, then why not for 20 years or 30 years or 50 years? Given the largess of the settlement, additional groups may well clamour for back pay, and Canadian taxpayers will see crucial programs cut in order to cover the alleged shortchanging.

Third, this appalling way of calculating wage gaps and addressing real or imagined discrimination may well spread to the provincial and municipal levels of government – British Columbia already has similar legislation – and then to the private sector, including schools, churches and care homes. Obviously, the consequences could be very serious. With the affected PSAC workers and retirees standing to collect about $30,000 on average, a similar result in the private sector could be financially crippling, not to mention chaotic.

Fourth, the allegation of “systemic pay discrimination” is unconvincing. Those who applied for telephone-answering jobs also had the opportunity to apply for the ditch-digging jobs which, apparently, paid a higher wage. There has been no allegation about discrimination of any kind in the hiring process.

At the more philosophical level, we should raise the following objections:

First, the government’s, the union’s and now the court’s policies about this form of pay equity ignore the greatly differing aspects of the work required – physical exertion, unpleasant aspects, inside versus outside, etc. Educational requirements and years of experience are only two relevant factors.

Second, this approach ignores the realities of supply and demand. Rather, ideology is followed.

Third, this line of reasoning relies on a virtually arbitrary calculation of labour value. Three supposed experts would likely come up with quite different formulas and different results in comparing the work done by a telephone receptionist and a security guard. This is no scientific calculation, only an adventure in guesswork.

Fourth, an underlying assumption seems to be that, in general, wages should be equalized and salaries levelled. As applied here, this once-popular ideal has now been rejected even by most previous supporters.

Fifth, this approach to establishing salaries assumes that government knows best, that a bureaucrat with a slide rule or computer is better at assigning appropriate values to work than the marketplace. History grants no credibility to this mindset.

Because of the flaws in the key arguments, the unwarranted increase in governmental intrusion, the misuse of public resources and the potential impact on religious institutions, Christians and all other thoughtful citizens should oppose this latest governmental and judicial experiment in social engineering.

John H. Redekop is on the faculty of Trinity Western University and is a member of Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C.

Previous | Next 

Last modified December 3, 1999.

© 1999 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.