[SUBMITTED] Unequal Work For Equal Pay

[Australian rePublic]

Title:  Unequal Work for Equal Pay

Description:  Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter 

Validity:  Must allow women labourers, must have wage equality

Options:  

[option] “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair "I come in day in day out, I bust me gut lifting heavy things, as well as making the couches, whilst the women only have to make the couches, but we take home the same pay. This ain't fair. I Should be paid more!"
[effect] gender pay gaps have been legalised

[option] "I'll tell ya' what ain't fair" says @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a woman who works at the same factory "These men think we're lazy, when we work just as hard as they do. We might not do no liftin' or carryin' stuff, but we do the same amount of work behind the machines. We have the same bills, we have the same expenses, and should have the same pay"
[effect] employers often fear paying commissions due to allegations of sexism

[option] "Why do we still have human factory workers?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a robot enthuisest "Robots are superior to human in every manner, and are most effective than human beings, can tollerate almost every operation, and do not request payslips, much less start disputes about what defines the arbitrary phrase "equal pay". Fully automatic factories are the way of the future. Why not start today?"
[effect] people often buy "Made in @@NAME@@" products to bring jobs back to @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ robots

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter

Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.

Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Although, a "can women [strenuous manual labor here]?" issue is probably going to be very similar in general form and option/effect type to #427. Since warfighting is just a specific instance of [strenuous manual labor here].

[Australian rePublic]

Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter

Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.

Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.

Hmm I completely forgot about 173. I will take it into account when re-drafting. 472 is about soliders getting paid, this about how much labourers are paid. But thanks for your suggestion. I will re-write this and try to make this extremely different

[Australian rePublic]

Also, I'nm sorry, but I don't see what's sexist about saying that men are asked to lift more boxes than women are. I really don't see how that's sexist

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Scientific evidence is fairly thin on the ground here. Did a literature search:

file:///C:/Users/GP.F81036/Downloads/The%20role%20of%20gender%20on%20the%20%EF%BF%BDphysical%20work%20capacity%20%EF%BF%BDprofile%20of%20workers%20in%20an%20electricity%20supply%20c.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40967762?s ... b_contents

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7598155

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTW ... pter-5.pdf

Unsurprisingly, men do seem to perform more strongly with upper body strength related work than women. However, I think your issue could use a little nuance and more awareness of the complexity of this ethical question. You've got the basics down, but it's worth noting that the very parameters of performance are being defined in a masculine fashion - how many boxes can you shift, how heavy a box can you move?
If you were to redefine the parameters - for example, what is the all-point effect on a company's economic output of workers of a given gender? How likely is this worker to accept additional tasks without complaining or demanding increased treatment? How likely is this worker to engage in workplace bullying or poor teamwork? Well, you start to get different answers. Also, of course, there's the wider societal picture of whether judging people by productivity is the best way to determine their earnings.

It's a good topic, but could use some subtlety and nuance.

[Australian rePublic]

Scientific evidence is fairly thin on the ground here. Did a literature search:

? What has science gotta do with it?

Unsurprisingly, men do seem to perform more strongly with upper body strength related work than women. However, I think your issue could use a little nuance and more awareness of the complexity of this ethical question. You've got the basics down, but it's worth noting that the very parameters of performance are being defined in a masculine fashion - how many boxes can you shift, how heavy a box can you move?
If you were to redefine the parameters - for example, what is the all-point effect on a company's economic output of workers of a given gender? How likely is this worker to accept additional tasks without complaining or demanding increased treatment? How likely is this worker to engage in workplace bullying or poor teamwork? Well, you start to get different answers. Also, of course, there's the wider societal picture of whether judging people by productivity is the best way to determine their earnings.

It's a good topic, but could use some subtlety and nuance.

I see. Thank you very much!

[Caracasus]

An idea, broadly based on a conversation I had with a union rep regarding manual handling etc.

Basically, their take was "If you're spending a significant amount of your work day carrying/doing manual labour that is so strenuous that a woman couldn't do it then you shouldn't be doing it either". They were getting at the serious cumulative harm to your health done by strenuous manual labour day in and day out.

You could tie it in to the automate everything option quite nicely.

[Australian rePublic]

An idea, broadly based on a conversation I had with a union rep regarding manual handling etc.

Basically, their take was "If you're spending a significant amount of your work day carrying/doing manual labour that is so strenuous that a woman couldn't do it then you shouldn't be doing it either". They were getting at the serious cumulative harm to your health done by strenuous manual labour day in and day out.

You could tie it in to the automate everything option quite nicely.

I see. Thanks fore that!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

? What has science gotta do with it?

Seriously?

Science has got to do with everything. Science =/= technology. Science is a methodology of forming beliefs on the basis of evidence rather than assertion, and always testing and challenging those beliefs. It's also absolutely vital to creating issues that have any sense of balance of verisimilitude. Making an issue like this (or indeed any good issue topic) demands research of what the situation in reality is, and the only way to look at the situation in reality is to do research.

[Australian rePublic]

? What has science gotta do with it?

Seriously?

Science has got to do with everything. Science =/= technology. Science is a methodology of forming beliefs on the basis of evidence rather than assertion, and always testing and challenging those beliefs. It's also absolutely vital to creating issues that have any sense of balance of verisimilitude. Making an issue like this (or indeed any good issue topic) demands research of what the situation in reality is, and the only way to look at the situation in reality is to do research.

Fair enough, but how is who's getting paid to lift boxes related to science. It's an issue about payment...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Science comes in because the assertion that men should get paid more for moving more is based on a belief, that belief being that men move more.

Step one is to examine that belief and see if it's true, which it turns out it probably is.
Step two is to examine whether that's the right question to ask, which it may not be.

Doing this less us formulate what the real argument is, and to life the nuances from the real life debate and put them into our balanced narrative.

[Australian rePublic]

Science comes in because the assertion that men should get paid more for moving more is based on a belief, that belief being that men move more.

Step one is to examine that belief and see if it's true, which it turns out it probably is.
Step two is to examine whether that's the right question to ask, which it may not be.

Doing this less us formulate what the real argument is, and to life the nuances from the real life debate and put them into our balanced narrative.

But wouldn't visiting an actual factory paint a better picture than science? Also, if who's getting paid for what isn't the real issue here, than what is?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You're asking whether anecdotal evidence is better than population based evidence?

The answer is no, at least in terms of forming an accurate opinion.

If, of course, the goal is to be persuaded of a viewpoint, then a face to face interaction with emotionally involved individuals is always going to be more persuasive. However, that's not the same as being more accurate.

For sure, good science needs good data, but how you collect and measure that data is really important. I'm just asking you to think a bit deeper than "it's common sense", and to look at the questions that start "is is true that...?"

You're basically presenting an issue that presents the male worker's argument very reasonably, observing that they shift more boxes, so they think they should be paid more. Option two is a decent counterargument, but it loses it's way halfway as it starts talking about the costs, and doing different roles, whereas actually it should be about how value is measured in the same role.

[Australian rePublic]

So what could I actually change in the issue to make it better?

[Mississippabama]

In option one, it should be: “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair.

[Australian rePublic]

In option one, it should be: “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair.

Damn it! How did I miss that? Thanks!

[Mississippabama]

In option one, it should be: “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair.

Damn it! How did I miss that? Thanks!

You're welcome. By the way, I replied to your comment on Confusion with Chemicals.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.

Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.

So basically, in answer to your question as to how to improve this issue, I would suggest following AHR's advice here. Perhaps even collaborate, as it could benefit from his mindset and approach while still having your gem of a core idea.

[Katalaysia]

Title:  Unequal Work for Equal Pay

Description:  Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting I think prompting would be a better word here you to act on the matter.

Validity:  Must allow women labourers, must have wage equality

Options:  

[option] “This ain't fair, @@LEADER@@" complains @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a furniture factory worker, carrying half an arm chair "I come in day in day out, I bust me gut lifting heavy things, as well as making the couches, whilst the women only have to make the couches, but we take home the same pay. This ain't fair. I should be paid more!"
[effect] gender pay gaps have been legalisedI feel this one could be edited to make the effect a bit more interesting, but then that's just opinion

[option] "I'll tell ya' what ain't fair!" says @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a woman who works at the same factory, "These men think we're lazy, when we work just as hard as they do. We might not do no liftin' or carryin' stuff, but we do the same amount of work behind the machines. We have the same bills, we have the same expenses, and should have the same pay! or ."
[effect] employers often fear paying commissions due to allegations of sexism

[option] "Why do we still have human factory workers?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a robot enthusiast "Robots are superior to humans in every manner I'd consider changing the word here, but that might just be me, and are moreeffective than human beings, can tolerate almost every operation, and do not request payslips, much less start disputes about what defines the arbitrary phrase "equal pay". Fully automatic factories are the way
There was one too many spaces here of the future. Why not start today?"
[effect] people often buy "Made in @@NAME@@" products to bring jobs back to @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ robots

[Kesshite]

Description: Male blue collar workers have started complaining that their female counterparts earn the same wage, despite doing less manual labour. This has caused a rather unusal protest, where men in hi-vis vests dumped a pile of bricks on your desk, promoting you to act on the matter

Is your issue meant to be a follow-up to #173? If so, you're going to want to reframe this so that women's "doing less manual labor" is not presented as a given natural fact. Certain political factions and interests might assume that women "[do] less manual labor," but the issue frame itself should not assume this.

Not only would this be less inherently sexist, but it would also leave the player free to choose the sexist option if so desired.

Except the issue doesn't say that women are doing less work. It says men are complaining about women doing less work. These are two very different things.

[Australian rePublic]

Yea, I tried to fix it based on AHS (wait, that's his account, right) and CWA's suggested, but was too stupid to figure out how So I just submitted and hoped for the best