RadioFreeLiberal.com

Not sure what type of industry you've been involved in...but my experience is that seniority disparity is much greater than "say a quarter an hour extra for every five years on the job."

For better or worse, traditionally "mens" jobs deep to be viewed as more skilled. Either way, 'skilled' is often subjective (sure there are examples that are very clear). And scales 'until you hit the max' can mean so many things. But in my experience sometimes that is ten years, and other times its 30 or more.

Economically, employees should want to be able to reach the maximum as quickly as possible. But what I've found tends to happen, just human nature, is that those who are already at the top question why they don't continue to get they types of raises that people working their way to the max get. (of course we're off the topic of minimum wages and minimum wage range jobs here.) I've been in too many meetings and seen that too many times. As much as we explain this is to their benefit (heck for the employer it would be better to take longer to get to the max), it still leaves a bitter taste. It just does. Then they'll ask for some additional longevity benefit...which is really no different than increasing the salary scale.

Just asking as a devil's advocate here, but in many jobs seniority is not really an issue. Once you've done it a certain period of time, you're likely to be just a good as some whose done it longer (and this is true of professional jobs as well....for example, I feel just as comfortable with a family practice physician--or even moreso a medical specialist, or a mechanic, with 13 years experience as 30.) So why should the younger person be paid less? Why should the union clerk with 8 years earn less than the union clerk with 30?

This is the norm in manufacturing. That's where most of my experience is.

Companies try to make the progression longer, unions try to make it shorter. It should only take three years or so to get to the max.

I'm talking about job classifications. Machine operators earn less than, say, tool and die makers. The nice thing about unions is that even janitors make good money and benefits.

Since you're not in this type of industry, you wouldn't know. But there's a lot to be said for what is called tribal knowledge. I learned from senior workers that knew all the tricks. Stuff management didn't know. When there's a strike, and managers are trying to do the work, it's often hilarious how much they can screw stuff up. The more experience you have at a company, the better off the company is.

But it's in the company's best interests to have senior people. So, having a bonus for seniority is something that's good for everyone.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."

vs equal pay for equal work?

It is equal. Everyone, upon hitting the seniority dates, gets it. And, you could try to make the same argument about people who haven't hit the max yet. But it's a fair system, where everyone is treated equally. And usually the seniority pay is pretty minimal.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."

Your experience in union negotiations seems to be focused more on manufacturing. Mine more on union professional, para professionals and service workers. So that may be part of the difference we've seen.

In any case, while union agreements have gone a long way toward shrinking the gap, it still hasn't brought us equal pay....or maybe it depends on how one defines equal pay. Studies show the gender wage gap in union positions is about 10% while non-union positions about 20% (2013). Of course the gap is larger for "minority" women. I suspect much of this has to do with which jobs are considered 'more important/more skilled" And clearly, as it relates to seniority, it the issue that women are the primary caregivers in the US (and most ofter places.) So men work more, longer hours and tend to have more 'seniority.'

I'm not saying that unions aren't great...What I'm saying is that there are societal issues that this doesn't solve. And working on issues in one area, often leads to complications in others. (We haven't even touched on the question of whether an employee who just does better work should be better compensated...a completely different component of the 'equal work for equal pay' discussion.)

Let's be clear: In a union contract, there are NO differences between sexes. All are paid the same. Now, the different jobs may have a difference in pay, but again, if you are doing the same work, your pay is the same per contract. Say when you start, you start at the minimum, and in two years you hit the max. That's the same for men or women. I don't have a problem with progressive pay scales. I'm not a socialist who thinks everyone in America should make the same wages. I started at the bottom, got raises, took training, and moved up.

But if you are such a person, and just thinks everyone in America should have the same pay, well, okay. We just disagree.

There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. The problem is in non-union workplaces, where the employer doesn't want you telling each other what you make, because they are paying everyone different, and paying men more than women for the same work. In a union workplace, all the wages are out in the open, and I think that's a good thing. Everyone knows, and you're pay is per a formula in the contract, and everyone is treated the same in pay, male or female, white or black, gay or straight.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU

Great in principle...however in implementation, I see continuing problems. For example, women often have fewer years experience because they tend to take time off work for family issues more than men. So, as a result a woman may 'have less experience.' How less experience impact job performance is then up to debate.

Another problem is that the principal of prior salary history also relates to men.

Maybe in the public sector, everyone will have formal job classifications and formal salary scales. In the private sector, this is much less common.

if shes doing the job she gets the pay. why should you want to short her anyway, you need her help. have you ever heard the old Elmore James tune? #when things go wrong go wrong for you it hurts me too".

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU

You shouldn't want to short her...or anyone else. But not certain, outside of adding another legal precedent for attorneys, that this will really change anything significant. Hopefully I'm wrong.