Partimeparent<"A good illustration is when I'm on my way home after a night out, 'who do I see working at 3am?"

Barmaids, female cops, nurses, aged care workers, female ambulance drivers, female taxi drivers, female cleaners, female fast-food staff, female shop assistants, female service station staff, and yes, prostitutes- the dirtiest job of them all.

Do we want better paid staff, and thus people who really WANT to work in the industry, cleaning up our old or sick people, or do we want better paid people cleaning up our roads?

How is it fair that someone getting their hands dirty on the roadworks is worthy of more pay than someone getting their hands dirty cleaning up the faeces, urine, vomit, bile, mucus, saliva and blood of the old, young and sick in our society?

Now, remember before you answer that question, that many of these patients are also males, and that most of us end up in health facilities at least once in our life

So rather than being a gender issue, it is an issue of different values placed on different employment sectors. Women can work in the mines; men can work in kindergartens. Each person makes a choice.

The author hasn't made a compelling case, I'm afraid. Essentially she's proposing an artificial wage structure that is not based in any way on what the market will bear.

There are homeowners all over this country discovering that what the market will bear in terms of the price of their house is nothing like what they think its worth.

There are businesses, especially retailers, all over the country who set their prices based not on the cost of goods, but on what the market will bear. sometimes that means extra margin, sometimes much less. Sometimes it even means trading at a loss. The alternative is to carry excess stock and that has a cost too.

In the Community Sector, the "stock" is the workers. If the price for those workers is set beyond what the market will bear, then there will need to be a cull of the excess stock of workers.

Unfortunately, these sorts of Fabian Feminist approaches to issues that are only peripherally related to gender are creating lots of problems for more mature minds in future.

Suze,

I agree.

But,

a) You are perfectly able to pursue a career that pays more money.
b) You knew the relative salaries for various careers before you chose one.
c) If less people wanted to be nurses, they would have to pay more for the existing people. Obviously it is a fulfilling and worthwhile job even accounting for the remuneration. ie, enough people are willing to do that job at that price.

So, until there is a shortage of people doing the sh1tty jobs, there is no problem with 'productivity'. Or should we all be paid the same, regardless of training, responsibility, and the demand and popularity of different jobs.

If more of one gender decided they wanted to deliver pamphlets should we increase the salary of all pamphlet deliverers to match neurosurgeons?

The fact is nursing obviously suits many women for reasons other than pay. If men weren't more often responsible for earning the majority of the family money, nursing may suit them as well, but they don't have the luxury of picking a job based on flexible hours and fulfilment. So, if you paid nurses more, more men would become nurses, more women would have to do some lower paid job that men were previously doing that allowed them flexible hours, and would be less fulfilled. Or else they would be forced to give up their work life balance and work a full time job, or else they just wouldn't be able to find a job. Taxes would also rise. Most people would be no better off.

The value of many jobs has historical roots in trade unionism. Those professions where women dominate often had little in the way of strong union representation. Nurses in particular (men and women) and other jobs like it where human life is at stake have little bartering powers.

A shortage in a particular profession can increase salaries or other conditions to attract students, but often, in my experience, shortages just mean that the remaining employees have to pick up the slack for the shortage, often working longer hours to cope. It sometimes takes a while for the 'catch-up' effect and often it means disaster or a break in service until the catch up occurs.

For example, in the building I previously worked (in chatting to the cleaners) there was a real problem in getting cleaning staff, so the remaining staff had to work harder and often the jobs were half done or not done to get finished in the available time. A friend who did casual work in a call centre often worked extra shifts to cover the high turnover rates but still no corresponding rise in salaries (which were very low by market standards).

Now if all the employees left it might make a difference, but sadly in real life, it is not always easy to find a job straight away and in particular if there is a reluctance to use an employer as a referee while still in the job. Many casuals are students or recent immigrants whose English skills may reduce opportunities. They are more likely to be exploited.

It is too easy just to say market forces will win the day.

Houellebecq, I was actually talking more about the poorly trained aged care workers than trained nurses, but I see your point.

In many country areas there are aged care facilities built, and thus it is the often the only place for poorly educated, poorly experienced women to find work.

Most of the time they don't even have an interest in the job, but they have to work somewhere. Often they are forced by the government to find work, any work, after the kids go to school.
Many of these women are working in aged care only because they have to- not good for the residents really.

These women are caring for the most vulnerable members of our society.
Shouldn't we at least lift the bar a bit and ensure they are educated better and are better paid to attract more staff?

To say that many women need flexible working hours is also often true- but there are also flexible working hours for other jobs such as the entertainment and hospitality areas that pay much better wages.

How is it that prostitutes are considered worthy to be paid more for what they do than those caring for the sick?

A strange world indeed