Monday, 16 March 2009

Useful Idiot of the Week

The award goes to Charles Cotton who is reacting to this news:
Large companies could be forced to reveal the pay gap between the salaries of male and female staff, under plans being considered by the Government.
It's clear that the next step will be compulsory changes in pay scales. And what does Mr Cotton have to say?
"There is a business case for ensuring all employees are paid fairly and equally according to their skills and contribution, not their gender or any other irrelevant attributes.

"But this case is likely to be harmed not helped by blunt legislative measures at a time when businesses are struggling to stay afloat."

If there's a "business case" for doing something then business people will do it anyway. Why should anyone else be involved? And are "blunt legislative measures" OK if the economy recovers. I note that Mr Cotton is a spokesman for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. My own company employs just one person - myself. I can't afford to employ a personnel manager. But the companies that can will generally be able to absorb the costs of these changes. Some small companies will be wiped out. Is that the plan?

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

I was with you until "If there's a "business case" for doing something then business people will do it anyway." 
Let me know if you regain contact with the real world.

18 April 2009, 12:23:42 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

With this insight the man could make a large fortune. All he needs to do is set up a business, preferably in a field lrgely staffed by men- and only hire women. depending how he plays things he will either have a workforce equal to his rivals, but at less cost, hence much more business and lots more profit- or he will have a superior workforce at the same cost-with the same end result. In the process he will drive his competitors to raise wages for women so achieving his moral objective also. 
Sounds like a no brainer- unless of course he's lying. Couldn't be could it

16 March 2009, 22:44:44 GMT