Yeah - I kind of assumed they meant "per hour", otherwise it made no sense at all. But it could still be the case (and usually is!) that a part-time worker working 50% of full-time is probably worth less than 50% the value of a full-time employee.
My partner is on job share since having Adam. She's working 60% of her previous hours and someone else now does the other 40%. However, the inefficiencies introduced as a result of having to co-ordinate between two workers and keep everything synchronised means the actual efficiency of their combined work is well below what she used to achieve single-handedly.
Because of "equality" they had to give her a job at the same pay rate after the birth even though their overall costs increased. Great for us, of course, but I have genuine sympathy for her employers.
Personally, I would have packed her stuff into a box as soon as she got up the duff, but I guess I'm not allowed to say that sort of thing!
Spot on!!!
I would go further and also say that if there is a genuine reason why Betty being female (that's an assumption I've made there) makes her more valuable to my employer (maybe she can use her feminine wiles to make more sales or something?), then that's acceptable too.
In some areas of work, what sex you are, what race you are, what age you are, etc. can make a genuine difference to your value as an employee. If, for example, your religion demands that you spend 5% of your day praying (just an example here - no offence intended) instead of working. If you make up for this by being 5% better than everyone else or working 5% longer than everyone else, fine. If not, it's not arbitrary discrimination when you are the one that is out the door first - it's not because of your religion, it's becuase you're doing 5% less work than the others!
Exactly - and it's not just the 3 sets vs. 5 sets thing - Womens' tennis and Mens' tennis are completely different sports. If the women think they deserve to earn the same money, they should all (men AND women) play in one big mixed tournament for the combined winnings. Somehow I don't think the women players would go for that one though, eh?