(07-05-2025, 03:56 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:
(06-05-2025, 09:27 PM)dken31 Wrote: As ACT have said, the Pay Equity Act was noble in its intention but completely missed the mark. Scrapping it does not equal "wanting to be able to pay women less".
As reported, under the act, librarians were equated to fisheries officers with the difference in pay decided therefore to be due to gender discrimination. Whether librarians should be paid more, less or the same as fisheries officers is a debate you can have if you feel like it, but claiming that librarians are paid less "because it's predominantly a female occupation" is completely baseless.
Really? Then what do you think it does equate to, if not exactly that....
And anything designed to deliberatey disadvantage a section of society cannot under any circumstances be called in any way "noble"
I said the Pay Equity Act was noble in its intention.
As to what scrapping it equates to, it equates to getting rid of nobly intended but poorly executed legislation. Despite its name, the Act doesn't actually achieve its goal of ensuring that everyone is paid the same rate for the same amount of "comparable" work. At best, it just creates different inequities
(07-05-2025, 04:17 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Ever heard of Lysistrata? She sorted out a few misogynists in her time.
I do wonder though how long we'd last if women declared just a single 24 hours of general strike...
No working, no caregiving, no managing, no buying, no sex...
And how long would we last if men declared a general strike? I don't think you would be able to find any sane person who would seriously argue that either strike wouldn't be immensely disruptive, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.