Mind the (gender) pay gap!

I don’t know where I’m going with this. But I just feel like dribbling over the page to unclutter my mind. And maybe the cluttered untidy tiny minds of others who use market arguments to defend the indefensible.
So mainly white men at the BBC get paid the highest amounts while their female colleagues are paid less, much less. Decision makers defend the very large sums by referencing the market for talent. So if there is a market for talent and if it is working well, then the BBC will not be alone. Yet no one is making that point. Instead some make the point that this is particularly offensive at the BBC because it’s the public’s money. This is the same idiocy which says we should have top to bottom pay ratio limits in public sector organisations. Why should it really matter whose money is being distributed?
If this kind of facile idea is able to at the same time make things fairer yet have no negative affect on the Organisations ability to produce results, then why wouldn’t it apply to all Organisations? And how should we determine what is a fair ratio? Can the same ( failed ) market which produces the widely varying salaries be relied upon to settle at the right ratio?
Yet these same people, the ones who say we are operating in a competitive market for talent, without pause for thought say that the unequal gender distribution is obviously wrong. So the market which you rely on to pay white guys huge sums of money is obviously unreliable when it comes to deciding women’s pay. By this logic if we say the market decides then we must also say that women should be paid less than their male equivalents. Because they are.
Right thinking people conclude rightly that this is a market failure. It is a market failure because this market relies heavily on the judgement of people and it appears that the decision makers are biased. Otherwise the market would work perfectly. It is a no brainier that it should be fixed.
What we value in our society is a strange and interesting thing. I can’t begin to think how we unpick the many injustices which exist, or appear to exist, across different professions and vocations. Footballers, actors, nurses, firefighters, soldiers, accountants and engineers are rewarded differently by the labour market. I am clear that a chief executive should be paid more than say a receptionist but I am not clear by how much. I rather think the answer is that it depends. And here we need to rely on the (unreliable) market modified when necessary by those whose money is being distributed in return for the expectation of a good job well done. That is shareholders or the tax payer or their representatives.
To set an arbitrary ratio seems to me to be the action of one who feels that something needs to be visibly done but who cannot confront the difficulty which a fair resolution would involve. Do something, the gap is too big. Right let’s set a limit. Easy, but nonsensical. Popular with the lower paid but ultimately designed to destroy their world.
Here’s a little rhyme….
When men and women
Don’t get equal pay
For doing the same job
It’s not OK.
It’s wrong we should fix it.
Fix it! We know how.
It’s wrong we should fix it.
And we should fix it right now!
