4 ms·

Say a person X is paid more than person Y in the same role because X's child has a health issue that requires extra income for X's family to stay afloat. There

Say a person X is paid more than person Y in the same role because X's child has a health issue that requires extra income for X's family to stay afloat. There was a private agreement between the X and the employer because X needs the extra money, and X is a valued employee. Then Y raises the issue. The employer can't afford to pay Y the same as X. Is Y owed some kind of explanation? How is that explanation given without violating the privacy of X?

crdoconnor 10y ago
So in essence you believe that employers keep secrets because they're terrified that everybody will discover that they're actually kind hearted?
- programmarchy 10y ago
  Nice non sequitur. Rather, the intention of my example is to point out privacy concerns for employees.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
colanderman 10y ago
I think that's kind of the point. X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause, for the sole reason that such subjective valuation leads most immediately to discriminatory remuneration. (As an example, maybe Y needs money because she donates to nonprofits. Probably the kind-hearted boss would also give Y a raise if Y gave the money to curing childhood cancer. But what about if it went to the NAACP? Or an evangelical church? Normalizing subjective need-based remuneration promotes discrimination.)
- programmarchy 10y ago
  > X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? > Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause If Y has equal need for the money, then they can also make their case, privately. There's no reason for Y to even know about X's cause, because it's none of their business, which is more to my original point. The examples you provided are of a different category, because Y isn't facing insolvency if they don't make a donation.
  - thirdsun 10y ago
    > > X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. > What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? Those are completely different issues and I think the above commenter is right. Kids, sickness, mortgages should be as relevant to an employer as my potential affinity for expensive cars, audio equipment or playing golf. Which is to say not at all. The employee's value to the company is the only thing matters in my opinion. Should you be paid less because you opted for cheap living space and your coworker bought a mansion he can't afford? Of course not. And don't get me wrong, I'm not indifferent to sick children - it's just that most other countries use social security systems like health care, financial child support, great public schools or welfare to deal with these issues. It is not the employer's responsibility to decide which misery is worthy to support.
  - colanderman 10y ago
    > Do you also oppose welfare? Absolutely not. The distinction is one of objectivity. Programs like welfare, and policies such as tax deductions for dependents and charitable donations are objective. A boss's empathy is almost by definition subjective. Y should not be forced to "make a case" to the boss for the exact reason that by placing their needs at the boss's judgement, they also subject themselves to the boss's discrimination.

crdoconnor 10y ago

So in essence you believe that employers keep secrets because they're terrified that everybody will discover that they're actually kind hearted?

programmarchy 10y ago
Nice non sequitur. Rather, the intention of my example is to point out privacy concerns for employees.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

colanderman 10y ago

I think that's kind of the point. X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause, for the sole reason that such subjective valuation leads most immediately to discriminatory remuneration. (As an example, maybe Y needs money because she donates to nonprofits. Probably the kind-hearted boss would also give Y a raise if Y gave the money to curing childhood cancer. But what about if it went to the NAACP? Or an evangelical church? Normalizing subjective need-based remuneration promotes discrimination.)

programmarchy 10y ago
> X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? > Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause If Y has equal need for the money, then they can also make their case, privately. There's no reason for Y to even know about X's cause, because it's none of their business, which is more to my original point. The examples you provided are of a different category, because Y isn't facing insolvency if they don't make a donation.
- thirdsun 10y ago
  > > X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. > What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? Those are completely different issues and I think the above commenter is right. Kids, sickness, mortgages should be as relevant to an employer as my potential affinity for expensive cars, audio equipment or playing golf. Which is to say not at all. The employee's value to the company is the only thing matters in my opinion. Should you be paid less because you opted for cheap living space and your coworker bought a mansion he can't afford? Of course not. And don't get me wrong, I'm not indifferent to sick children - it's just that most other countries use social security systems like health care, financial child support, great public schools or welfare to deal with these issues. It is not the employer's responsibility to decide which misery is worthy to support.
- colanderman 10y ago
  > Do you also oppose welfare? Absolutely not. The distinction is one of objectivity. Programs like welfare, and policies such as tax deductions for dependents and charitable donations are objective. A boss's empathy is almost by definition subjective. Y should not be forced to "make a case" to the boss for the exact reason that by placing their needs at the boss's judgement, they also subject themselves to the boss's discrimination.