Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    Elements to determine salary for specific jobs..
    
       Education required....
    
       Experience required....
    
       Difficulty of tasks....
    
       Degree of excellence required....
    
       Committment required....
    
       Potential risk to health....
    
       Supply and demand criteria....
    
       Responsibilities in relationship to success of company....
    
    These criteria that I have stated are part of the current process.
    The only one that I have not stated which has been part of the salary
    determination process in the past is the need of the employee. 
    A man's needs to support his family have been a consideration for
    salaries for years.

    re: .3
    
    I don't think that's what we're already doing.  Lets look at two
    jobs with similar requirements and their respective salaries. I'll
    pick registered nurses and mechanical engineers.  I'll use the
    criteria listed in note 412.2.
    
    Education required.... about equal
    
        In California a registered nurse is required to have a Bachelor
    of Science degree.  I would imagine that most mechanical engineers
    have at least that much education.  I'd say that the educational 
    requirements are equal.
    
    
    Experience required.... about equal
    
        A mechanical engineer would have a higher chance of being hired
    with experience.  A registered nurse has experience built into the
    education.  Most nursing programs require hospital work as part
    of the program.
    
    
    Difficulty of tasks.... about equal
    
        The mechanical engineer has duties which require difficult
    conceptual tasks.  The nurse must perform tasks which require a
    great deal of interaction with many different people.  I consider
    this to be a difficult task.
    
    
    Degree of excellence required.... about equal
    
        Both jobs require a high degree of excellence.  A lack of
    excellence in either job could lead to the loss of life, however
    the chances of this are higher in nursing.
    
    
    Committment required.... higher for nurse
    
        Nurses are often required to work weekends and many work
    non-standard hours.  Most mechanical engineers have regular work
    hours.
    
    
    Potential risk to health.... higher for nurse
    
        Obviously.
    
    
    Supply and demand criteria.... higher for nurse
    
        The only things I have to back up this assertion are the number
    of want ads for each job and news reports I've seen indicating a
    critical shortage of nurses.
    
    
    Responsibilities in relationship to success of company.... about equal
    
        Only in start ups or mechanical engineering consulting firms
    would I consider a mechanical engineer responsible for the success
    of the company.  One nurse seldomly determines the success or failure
    of a hospital, or clinic.  A private practice might hinge on the
    responsibilities of a nurse.
    
    
        From the analysis of the above criteria I would state that a
    nurse has higher requirements than a mechanical engineer.  Yet the
    annual median weekly salary for registered nurses in 1985 was $434
    while the same figure for mechanical engineers was $665.  Is that
    fair?

    re: .4 
    
        I forgot to mention that the percentage of women working as
    registered nurses and mechanical engineers are 93.6% and 5.1%
    respectively.
    
        The statistics are from the September 1986 Monthly Labor Review
    magazine.
    
    ASP

    re -1:

    If it's so easy, why don't more people want to do it?
    
    I'd like to see you do it! :-) :-)
    
    Most engineers that I know of are not "on the cutting edge".  They're
    doing development, *not* research.  Big difference there.  Lots of
    engineering (of all types) is done via cookbook formulae.

    I believe that I have a *much* easier job than nurses for the
    following reasons:
    
    1) better pay
    2) more respect
    3) more advancement opportunities
    4) less physically exhausting (most nurses are on their feet all
    day)
    5) regular hours - many nurses need to shift back and forth from
    1st to 3rd to 2nd shifts between weeks.  pretty easy, huh?
    6) relatively little discrimination
    
    I mean if it were *that* easy, I would have become a nurse, not
    a software engineer.
    
    You're all wet!
    
    	-Ellen

    
    "Hard work!  You don't know what hard work is!"
    
    "Yes I do.  That's why I've never done any."
    
    				-- paraphrased cartoon caption
    
    DFW

    re: .6
    
        In support of my premise registered nurses can and often do
    have broad ranges of experience and responsibility.  My sister-in-law
    is studying to be a LVN (liscensed vocational nurse). In her training
    she will be doing many types of nursing, pediatrics, surgical
    assisting, psych ward, children's ward, etc.  Granted she will choose
    a field to specialize in but I think that thats what most ME's do.

        Having worked at a company that built optical electro-mechanical
    semiconductor inspection equipment I knew many MEs.  Most of them
    considered themselves to be specialized.  Sure they knew all of
    the basics of all the areas involved, but the same is required of
    a registered nurse.
    
        Assuming that a nurse doesn't need the experience and
    responsibility that a ME does, don't the additional health risks
    (physical *and mental*) and need for commitment equal or exceed
    the experience and responsibility requirements for a ME?
    
        If I assume that my premise is incorrect for a mechanical engineer,
    how does it fit any of the following?
    
    Title                              weekly wages     percent women
    -----                              ------------     -------------
    Aerospace Engineer                     $691              5.7
    Chemical Engineer                      $723              7.0
    Civil Engineer                         $629              5.0
    Electrical and Electronics Engineer    $664              8.3
    Industrial Engineer                    $598              9.8
    
    ASP

    RE (last several)
    If it really is so much more attractive to become a ME than an RN,
    why aren't more people going into ME - and why is *anyone* going
    into nursing.  We are still dealing with supply and demand - and
    when the nursing shortage gets critical enough, they are going to
    have to do something to attract more people into it - money and
    respect are usually good things for that.
    
    Actually, the key here is to tell our children that they have *many*
    other opportunities than nursing.
    
    Elizabeth

	Slight tangent, I worked as a registered x-ray and radiation
	therapy tech for 7 years. I worked the emergency room mostly.
	It was not uncommon for me to be taking x-rays on a person with
	a broken neck or other injury where a mistake on my part could
	maim a person for life. At night in the ER I frequently did this
	alone cause the Dr and nurses were busy with other patients.

	I worked nights and went to a programming tech school for 6 months.
	My first DP job (were I went into training for 3 months and did no
	production work) had a salary $100 higher than I made at the 
	hospital. Which job is more important and should have the higher
	pay? Probably depends on whether yours is the neck that's broken.
	liesl

    <--(.12)
    
    I don't have time to do a detailed analysis just now, Mike, but
    just for the record let me suggest that you loaded your comparisons
    quite a bit.
    
    As an example:  the analog to a engineering firm from which all MEs
    have quit is a hospital from which all nurses have quit, not a doctor's
    office.  And the analog of the presenting condition should be one that
    requires continual professional care (~ product design), not a spot
    intervention (which is much more analogous to the role of the ME
    consultant).
    
    						=maggie 

    Re: .14
    
    > As an example:  the analog to a engineering firm from which all MEs
    > have quit is a hospital from which all nurses have quit, not a doctor's
    > office.
    
    Touche...
    
    In fact at first I wrote it as hospital...but I changed it to a
    doctor's office.
    
    > And the analog of the presenting condition should be one that
    > requires continual professional care (~ product design), not a spot
    > intervention (which is much more analogous to the role of the ME
    > consultant). 
    
    I was not thinking of the product design case.  I was thinking more
    of the spot intervention case.  There are many small engineering
    firms in Detroit that live on this kind of business.

    I still maintain:
    
    If you are sick or wish to remain well you want the services of
    a doctor.
    
    If you wish to design a product or fix a bad one you want the services
    of an engineer.
    
    Your care might also require a nurse and your product might also
    require a draftsmen.  They are both removed from the actual product.
    For this reason they have less control over were the money goes.
    
    					MJC O->

    "If you are sick and wish to remain well you want the services of
    a doctor"
    
    I have relied on Nurse Practioners for several years and have been
    very satisfied with their knowledge and care.  

    RE: sickness/remaining well <<<rathole alert>>>
    
    The death rate goes DOWN when there is a doctor's strike.
    
    RE: last several
    
    The hospital/Dr's office example. (To paraphrase you comment about
    the company w/no engineers) I would NEVER go to a hospital that
    lost all of its nurses. (I will try like hell *never* to go to a
    hospital, anyway)
    
    I am concerned about a society in which the prioirty is that a company
    can make a goood *PROFIT* with good engineers, and it's perfectly
    OK that a hospital *CAN'T* by paying nurses.
    
    It is more valued in this society to be able to "twiddle bits" than
    to care for the sick. ( or to care for the children and their
    education)
    
    
    Let me take this into an analagous arena with which *I* have first
    hand experience - teaching school vs. software engineering. Teaching
    school has many of the same characterisitcs as nursing, with the
    exception of life-and-death (except for the teacher :-)).
    
    MANY teachers (and nurses - there is a LOT of science in nursing
    education) would make EXCELLENT engineers. MANY engineers would
    NOT make excellent teachers/nurses.
    
    What's the difference? "People skills" Ability to work with, teach,
    nurture other people.
    
    It is "people skills" that are undervalued in this society. And
    it is "people skills" than women have (nurture or nature, take your
    pick for the reason) and/or use percentage-wise more than men.
    
    Dawn
    

    To continue Dawn's teaching example, consider the salaries of
    pre-school, elementary school, high school, and college teachers.
    I don't have the statistics at hand, but the percentage of women
    in pre-school education is very high, but the salaries are the lowest.
    The percentage of women decreases as the age of the students increase,
    and as the salaries increase.
    
    Why?
    
    College teaching requires writing, thinking, presentation, persuasion
    and research skills.  The hours and schedules are the lightest,
    although many work long hours.  It's competitive and carries a lot
    of prestige.  It's an important job.
    
    Pre-school and early childhood education requires presentation and
    persuasion skills, incredible patience, and the ability to interact with
    sometimes difficult people over long stretches of time (not unlike
    nursing...).  The hours can be long, but if they aren't, the salary is
    axed accordingly. Prestige?  Maybe with the kids... :-)  It's an
    extremely important job. 
                                         
    They are both important!  Women have traditionally been trained
    to think that they can only be successful in high-contact, nurturing
    jobs.  Many women only trained for such jobs.  As capable women
    move into higher paying, higher prestige, less contact-oriented
    jobs, I just don't see large numbers of men heading for those other
    fields.
    
    There are some women and some men who are greatly talented in jobs
    such as pre-school education, nursing, and secretarial jobs.  They
    should be paid partly for what it takes to prepare for those jobs,
    and partly for the responsiblity and difficulty of doing those
    high-contact jobs day and day out and be able to come up with respect
    for their work, and a livable salary.
    
    Holly
    

    re: .19
    
        I have the salary statistics and percentage of women employed
    for the levels of teaching that you mentioned.

            Teaching Level             weekly wages   percentage of women
    --------------------------------   ------------   -------------------
    Prekindergarten and kindergarten       $276              99.1
    Elementary                             $412              82.9
    Secondary                              $439              52.9
    Special Education                      $408              85.4
    
    ASP

    re .0:
    
    As an employer, I would want to pay the minimum necessary to attract
    the people qualified to fill my requirements. Period.
    
    re "nurses vs. mech e's":
    
    rates of pay should not be considered an indication of relative
    "worth". Nurses aren't paid less because they are valued less. They
    are paid less because nurses will work for that pay and also because
    the budgets of hospitals are very different than the budgets of
    technical firms. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    About supply and demand of nurses:
    
    I recently read an article in a newspaper about a local hospital
    who could not find qualified nurses.  Their solution?  Bring in
    qualified nurses from poorer foreign countries and pay them slave
    wages.  How's that instead of paying a fair wage?
    
    	-Ellen

    Of course if we increase nurses salaries then hospital fees will
    go up. Since the amount that can be paid by medicaid/medicare
    is fixed by the US government those of us who have private insurance
    will be paying more....

    <--(.24)
    
    Bonnie, d'you ever get a sense that the only time we hear this argument
    is where the salaries are those of women or minorities?  
    
    						=maggie

    <----(.25) yes.
    

re: last several

    Yes, it's  a  sleazy  thing  to  do,  but  it's  standard business
    practice.  Is  it really different from exporting the jobs leaving
    a lot of semi-comductor technicians without jobs here because it's
    cheaper  for  TI  to  hire  cheap  labor in the Philipines to make
    chips?

--David

    re: .-1
    A little different.  The semi-conductor techs aren't urged into those jobs
    as being most appropriate for their gender (or race) and natural
    talents, they aren't urged to consider their salaries as less 
    important than the societal roles they're fulfilling.
    
    re: cost
    Gee, nobody mentioned the line I always hear: why not lower doctor's
    salaries.  :-)    

re: .28:  Why not lower doctor's salaries?

I'll ask my brother when he gets back from the hospital.  He's been
doing it for 15 years, and on his 40th birthday, he was at the hospital
from 7:00 am till 8 in the evening (because he wanted to take the previous
Saturday off).

Martin.

    re 27
    digital hires cheap foreign labor too
    our chips are assembled overseas...
    

    Overseas you can hire hard working motivated people for $3 per hour.
    Have you been to Burger King or McDonalds lately ? And seen what
    kind of people you can get here for $4.50 an hour ? I wouldn't trust
    these people to assemble a sandwich, much less a microchip. The
    American worker has priced himself out of the world market.

In a long essay masquerading as a book review in Scientific American
about a year ago, Lester Thurow claimed that the problem with the
American labor market isn't the workers, it's the management.

My family came out of the sweatshops of the early 20th century.  I
wouldn't wish that on another generation, either of Americans or
Asians.

Martin.

    re: .31
    
        The reason that you can hire hard working motivated people for
    $3.00 overseas is because the cost and standard of living overseas
    is much lower too.  The 'value' of $3.00 varies from country to
    country so one can't present an absolute equivelence.  However here
    is the per capita income of several overseas countries.
    
    Indonesia         $560   (1982)
    South Korea      $1187   (1978)
    Malaysia          $714   (1975)
    Philippines       $772   (1982)
    Taiwan           $3000   (1984)
    Thailand          $828   (1985)
    
    I can't find the per capita income for the United States, but here
    are a few examples for states.
    
    Alabama         $10,510  (1985)
    California      $15,255  (1985)
    Massachusettes  $15,790  (1985)
    
    Pay the people at MacDonalds $30.00 per hour (comparing them to
    the people who earn $3.00 per hour in Thailand) and I'm sure that
    you'd find them hard working and motivated.
    
    ASP

    I think quite a few writers on management (Robert Townsend and Peter
    Drucker spring instantly to mind) consider that the problem with
    US productivity should be laid largely if not entirely at management's
    door.
    
    						=maggie

    Re: 412.24
    Friend of mine spent one night in hospital in NYC, did not receive
    a meal - not an aspirin - nothing.  Had a brief proceedure performed
    and was discharged the same morning.  His bill was $3000.00 for
    one night!  When he questioned the hospital, and requested an itemized
    bill, he was informed that he could not obtain an itemized bill
    - unless he requested one through an attorney.  The insurance company
    merely pays the bill - the patient does not receive details of costs
    - so I don't imagine that increasing nurses salaries or not plays
    much of a part in the whole medical mess!
      

    Your friend could (and should!) have demanded an itemised bill.
    As signs in doctors' offices and hospitals frequently remind us,
    *we* are the ones responsible for the bill.  We may have a financial
    arrangement with an insurance company to pay on our behalf, but
    it is *we* who will be sued should the insurance company default.
    
    That having been said, I quite agree with you that increasing *nursing*
    salaries would not have the devastating effect on the total hospital
    budget that profit-oriented hospital administrators would wish us
    to believe.
    
    						=maggie 

    Ah, the typical situation is usually far more complicated than
    'the insurance company pays the bill'.  I think Blue Cross used
    to come quarterly, inspect the records and say, 'Well, 60% of your
    patients were ours, and they account for 75% of your patient-care
    costs, and we pay %90 of that.'  There are also weirdnesses like
    there were different but equivalent lab or xray series sometimes--
    one for insurance patients and one for *others*--with different
    and non-equivalent prices.  It wasn't exactly 'Well, non-insured
    patients are 5 times less likely to pay, but we only charge them
    twice as much for a spinal series', but it resembled gambling like
    that.  The opposite would happen too: for dialysis, BC would only
    reimburse having 3 out of the 6 hematology tests; individually the
    tests were about $3, the series of 6 was $6 (total)--these things
    generally run through a machine that gives out all six; but if you
    signed someone up for the series instead of the 3 individuals,
    the insurance company'd fuss.
    
    But never confuse charges with costs.  Charges are what you get
    on your bill.  Costs are only the hospital's business.
    Still, the hospital functioned and everybody got paid something.
    I don't know how many bean-counters this system required, but it
    had to be several.  (It must have been designed by a committee :-) .)
    It's not a job I'd choose.
    Well, this was 6 years ago.  These sorts of things are also subject
    to state regulations
    
    And no, I wasn't seriously suggesting reducing anyone's salary.
    I knew a few who worked long shifts, including lab techs and ICU
    nurses.  (Occasionally me, but it wasn't really a shift, it was
    by choice.) 
    
    Arguing with a hospital can be an unrewarding experience.  If you
    think nurses are not well-paid, you should consider the case of
    the typical administration clerk. 

    RE .34 "Up the Organization" by Robert Townsend. Absolutely.
    His chapter on Personnel:People vs.  is the best I've read
    on Theory X - Theory Y. Unfortunately, management is not one
    of DEC's strengths. Re-reading the book a while back, I got
    the feeling that DEC was systematically doing the opposite
    in every case. Scary.
    Dana

    Read my note again - friend did request an itemized bill for his
    $3000.00 overnight - the only way he could receive this itemized
    bill was if an attorney requested it.  They will give you an itemized
    bill for Estate Purposes only.  The insurance had PAID the bill
    without question and he was upset at the charges...
    
    Since the bill had been paid by the carrier - the hospital didn't
    feel it was any of his affair.  No wonder the medical costs are
    skyrocketing.. 

    But this is also the case if you have your car repaired: your insurance
    company and your auto body shop agree on a price over the phone,
    behind your back.  (I've had enough people try to smash my cars
    this year: I know.)  Insurance appraisers make their living keeping
    track of reasonable costs for repairs (or medical care) and arguing
    with shops (or hospitals) about appropriate services.
    
    A difference between the two cases is before-hand inspections.
    Ultimately, however, the insurer takes the shop's or clinic's word
    that the services were performed.  If your friend wishes to inform
    the insurance company that they were charged for services not
    performed, this is something to be addressed to the insurance company,
    who then may pursue it if it's deemed to be true.  How much does
    your friend know about actual hospital charges and costs?  How do
    you know that the insurance company paid the bill without question?
    How do you know the insurance company has actually shipped little
    dollar bills into the hospital's account. As I described earlier,
    the finances between hospitals and insurance companies are an intricate
    pas not a simple money-goods transaction.
    
    Medical costs are high because of the amount of care involved and
    the number of people involved in that care, not because we have
    insurance companies who pay bills.

    Deming also says in his book _Out_of_the_Crisis_ and his seminars
    and lectures, that most problems are management's responsibility
    to fix.  If for no other reason, people don't understand what their
    job is.
    
    BTW, a group that seems to be systematically doing the oposite of
    what Deming reccomend is the legal system.  Now *that's* scary!
    
    Elizabeth
    

	I'm not sure exactly what I can add since the issue is so
	complicated but:

	(1) There definitely is a management problem in that giving more
	    money to an organization does not guarantee a trickle down.

	(2) Given you can solve (1), how many of you are willing to put
	    your money where your mouth is?  How many of you voted for
	    proposition 2 1/2 which is slowly putting our schools out of
	    business?

	    Would you be willing to pay more taxes and more insurance
	    insurance if we could solve (1) (maybe solving (1) would even
	    make that more not so more, but who knows)?

					eileen

    Engineers and technicians make a certain rung in an industry. Engineers
    design and technicians implement. Doctors prescribe and nurses
    "implement". So why are we comparing the salaries of engineers and
    nurses. Lets compare salaries of nurses and technicians. I think
    that they are in the same ballpark. Too bad, it takes a lot more
    education to "implement" in the medical profession (that makes me
    feel comfortable, when I am sick :-). )
    

    
    
    sorry...saw the .0 note and did not read any replies...
    sorry.
    
    but....
    when you start a new planet...
    with a whole new social/political system that works
    "for the people, by the people and of the people"
    
    this is  how you set the scales....
    
    if it takes 30k to live a happy and enjoyable life...
    anyone putting in 32 (i want a shorter work week!) hours
    at any job at all deserves at least 30k.
    
    after that, depending on special skills and special demands...
    the import of the job, the demand of the job....you pay people
    more.
    
    see?
    easy!
    i'll be your minister of finance if ya want??
    

(Without permission from the September 4, issue of the San Jose Mercury News)

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in a generation, women's wages have increased
sharply relative to those earned by men, substantially narrowing the earnings
gap between the sexes during the last seven years, the Census Bureau reported
Thursday.

The bureau said that, in the first significant change in pay ratios in
decades, the average wage for full-time women workers increased from 62
percent of what men earned in 1979 to 70 percent in 1986.

"The figures show that women have made tremendous progress in the 1980s," said
Gordon Green, assistant chief of the bureau's population division.

Several leaders of feminist organizations said that, however heartening the
progress is, women remain far less well-paid than men.

John M. McNeill, chief of the bureau's branch of poverty-and-wealth statistics
and one of the authors of the study, said the average wage for full-time women
workers had been stuck at about three-fifths of the average for men for three
decades or more.

"In 1960, it was 61 percent, and in 1979 it was 62 percent," McNeill said.

Green and McNeill said the major reason for the gain in wages is that women
increasingly are finding jobs in higher-paid occupations such as law,
computers and engineering, that once were considered "male" domains. In the
past, they said, women had been clustered largely in "traditional," low-paid
jobs such as teaching, nursing and clerical positions.

More Women in Professions

For example, the study found that among full-time workers the proportion of
accountants and auditors who were female increased from 34 percent in 1979 to
45 percent in 1986; the proportion of computer programmers who were women
increased from 28 percent to 40 percent; computer-systems analysts from 20
percent to 30 percent; lawyers from 10 percent to 15 percent; and electrical
and electronic engineers from about 4 percent to about 9 percent.

The study's findings correspond to separate Labor Department studies on the
same subject.

Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women, said the 70
percent wage ratio figure is "nice but why isn't it 100 percent? When it gets
to be 100 percent we'll cheer."

She said, "Title IX of the 1972 education amendments opened up the professional
and technical schools" to women and thus was directly responsible for the new
opportunities in better jobs. Yard said she fears that this progress may cease
if a Supreme Court decision narrowing the scope of that law is not reversed
by Congress.

'Still Not Equal'

June Inuzuka, an attorney for the Women's Equity Action League, a non-profit
group focusing on women's economic issues, hailed the improvement and said, "A
lot of the developments we're seeing now are the results of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, particularly Title VII, on discrimination in employment and of
lawsuits that have opened up doors for women since the 1960s."

But she said, "They're still not equal. A persistent gap still exists, and a
significant part of it cannot be accounted for by known variables. It's the
conclusion of many that it's due to sex discrimination in pay, hiring and
promotion policies."

The study found that although women more frequently than men take time out fo
their careers for family responsibilities -- and therefore accumulate less
seniority and promotions than men -- that is not as important a factor on
relative earnings as once thought.

Time-off Factor

Many analysts have speculated that the bulk of the wage gap is the result of
a woman's movements in and out of the labor force, but the Census Bureau study
found that they account for about a fifth of the wage gap among high-school and
college graduates and a seventh among non-high school graduates.

Yard said this shows that "women are in low-paying jobs, and it has nothing to
do with taking time off."

The study found that about three-fifths of the remaining gap between
average men's and women's wages results form factors such as education, work
experience and seniority, the presence of a union, the size of the company
worked for, the pay structure of the occupation, the geographic area and
similar factors.

But the remaining one-third to two-fifths of the difference was unexplained.
Women's groups often contend that at least some of that difference is because
of sex discrimination.

    >"The figures show that women have made tremendous progress in the 
    1980s," said Gordon Green, assistant chief of the bureau's population 
    division.
    ...
    >Green and McNeill said the major reason for the gain in wages is that women
    >increasingly are finding jobs in higher-paid occupations such as law,
    >computers and engineering, that once were considered "male" domains. In the
    >past, they said, women had been clustered largely in "traditional," low-paid
    >jobs such as teaching, nursing and clerical positions.

    I heard a piece on NPR this weekend (in honor of labor day) that said that 
    one reason women's wages have increased to 70% of men's wages is that more
    men are earning low wages.  I think the piece I head said that something
    like *31% of workers are earning wages below the poverty level.  I wonder 
    what percentage of that 31% are women....  Does anyone have more info about
    the increase in the "working poor?" 
          
    * that 31% figure sounds high to me.  Did anyone else hear the story
    and remember the percentage cited?
    
    Justine