Good Honest Dollar $$

I have a question for you.

How and when do you think the world might have found out about a massive explosion which killed thirty-five workers at an illegal Chinese mine on July 14 last year?

Immediate reports from grief-stricken relatives? No. The mine owner acted very swiftly to purchase their silence.

Local officials? Not likely. They issued a false report after pretending to investigate.

Journalists? Nope – bribed also.

The mine owner? Naturally, no.

So how and when did the world find out? Two months later via some brave soul in an internet chat room, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

As a result of this brave soul, twenty-five local officials were fired, twenty-two of them now under criminal investigation.

The debacle described above highlights two important points:

• continuing problems in China with respect to accountability; and
• the constructive role which online media can play in terms of whistle-blowing.

 
China’s never-ending accountability problems
The fact that an incident like this was exposed only through an internet chat room shows just how diabolical the situation really is with respect to accountability and worker safety in Chinese coal mines.

Even at the official rate, according to the article, the average death toll rate for Chinese coal miners stands at nine per day – a staggering forty times more than America. The problem is most acute in small mines, many of which are illegal, operate in more dangerous areas and have little apparent incentive to invest in safety. Apparently account for three quarters of the deaths but only one-third of production.

And even then, these are only the official figures. They do not take into account the scores of deaths which go unreported because local officials and journalists are so easily paid off.

The situation is completely unacceptable and international governments and unions should continue to apply pressure on China to undertake some form of meaningful action to address this downright awful situation.

 
The whistle-blowing role of online media
But on the bright side, the episode also highlights the constructive role which online forms of media can play in terms of corporate accountability.

As access to online media expands, so too will the capacity of individuals to blow the whistle on cover ups. It is one thing to lock in the loyalty of local officials and media (using handsome financial incentives), but persuading every single person who has access to a blog or some other form of online media to do the same would be extremely difficult.

In the new world, online media provides a wonderful mechanism to support whistle-blowing, and in many cases it, is only a matter of time before someone exploits this capability to expose even the most intricately planned conspiracy.

Of course, online media can also be a platform to spread misinformation, perhaps with malicious intent.

And unfortunately, the sad reality is that some firms will continue to attempt cover-ups of various kinds in spite of the increase risk of being exposed due to online media. Cover ups are a reality today, and will continue to be a reality throughout the foreseeable future.

But even so, the benefits of online media in terms of a whistle-blowing mechanism cannot be underestimated, and I would think that these benefits would far outweigh any associated drawbacks.

Where other mechanisms of accountability fail, it is wonderful that the online media provides those who wish to blow the whistle with an effective medium to do so.

Especially with respect to a grave tragedy like this.  

 
Over to you
Do you think online media helps to promote better practices in terms of corporate governance? Why/Why not?

This is a serious question, and the answer is a resounding no.

Even in the most hostile of industrial disputes, I do not believe that workers should resort to the practice of kidnapping or otherwise detaining company bosses against their will, and the number of cases in which this has occurred in recent months is somewhat concerning in my view.

That said, any company boss who falls victim to this type of practice would be well advised to ask serious questions about why it occurred and how the company can improve its performance in terms of human resource management.

 
Spreading beyond France?
The practice of disgruntled employees taking company bosses hostage during industrial disputes, to be released only after the demands of workers have been met, has long been common in France. Serge Foucher, the head of Sony in France, represents only the latest example. (In an attempt to secure more favorable redundancy terms, workers shut him into a meeting room on March 12, barricading the plant with huge tree trunks. He was released the following day)

But a report in The Economist last week described how the last few months have seen several occurrences of the practice in other countries as well, and with the onset of difficult economic times, there are fears that the practice could become more common beyond French borders. 

(These kidnappings typically occur in response to disgruntlement over mass redundancies, factory closure or relocation, or disputes relating to entitlements for laid off workers)

 
No way to settle a dispute
Tempting as it may be from the viewpoint of disgruntled workers, I do not believe that the practice of kidnapping company bosses should be condoned under any circumstances.

For one thing, it is dangerous. Whilst physical harm or injury is generally not the intent of those workers who partake in this kind of activity, human behavior is unpredictable, and with stakes and emotions running so high, things could get out of hand very easily. I would think that it would only be a matter of time before someone gets hurt if this type of practice becomes more common outside of France.

Moreover, there are better ways to solve disputes. Granted, workers may not have many good options in the event that management is not willing to engage in constructive negotiations and make reasonable compromises. But even then, there are surely better options than kidnapping.

 
A wake up call to management
Nevertheless, whenever this type of thing happens, it should serve as a wake up call to management.

Granted, you never expect decisions such as plant, factory or mine closures, or any other forms of mass redundancy to be especially popular, and no matter how well the firm handles these types of matters from a personnel perspective, I would not imagine that one or two incidents of unruly behavior from individual employees would be entirely unusual.

But I could not imagine that a whole group of staff would act together in this manner unless there were serious problems with the company’s handling of employee relations. Even plant closures, if handled properly should not lead to this, and where bosses find themselves caught up in this situation, any half sensible management team would start asking serious questions about what has lead to this situation and why employee relations have deteriorated to such an extent.

 
Should police become involved?
An intriguing final question is that of whether police should become involved.

On one hand, holding a person against their will represents a criminal act in most western countries. You can’t have people taking the law into their own hands in this manner without their being consequences, and police involvement may serve as a deterrent toward any future action of this kind.

On the other hand, reluctance on behalf of police to involve themselves in what is essentially an industrial dispute is more than understandable. For one thing, police interference could potentially cause the situation to escalate if it leads to panic on the part of one or more of the perpetrators.

Also, there is a much greater prospect of the restoration of some form of harmony in terms of workplace relationships in cases where the staff involved can be persuaded to let the boss go voluntarily rather than by force.

Personally, I don’t have a particularly strong opinion as to whether police involvement in these matters is warranted, but I would be very interested to hear your viewpoints on this issue.

In last week’s discussion, I wrote about the importance of the concept that male and female staff should be entitled to receive substantially similar levels of remuneration when performing work of a substantially similar nature.

Today, I would like to briefly examine some evidence relating to the magnitude of the problem of gender based discrimination in remuneration practices.

 
A simple, but not so useful measurement
The simplest and most common measurement of gender based equality in remuneration levels compares the Average Weekly Earnings for full time female staff with their male counterparts. In this regard, the average earnings of women employed on a full time basis in America is equivalent to just seventy-five per cent of that of a full time man. (refer article)

At first glance, it would be tempting to look at this statistic and conclude that gender based discrimination in remuneration practices is rampant across America.

But the above measurement paints a somewhat misleading picture, and the gender based pay gap which it implies does not necessarily represent incontrovertible evidence of discrimination in remuneration practices.

Men and women are not the same. Overall, neither gender is superior or inferior to the other. Nevertheless, each exhibits differing tendencies with respect to a wide range of employment related matters and decisions. Such differences include, but are not limited to, the type of industries in which they are employed, educational qualifications, levels of managerial responsibility and authority, family related decisions, preferences for part time or full time work, and time spent in and out of the workforce.

As a result of these differences, one would not expect the average earnings of women and men to be equal, even in absence of any form of discrimination based upon gender. Accordingly, measurements which merely tell us what we would expect (that a gender based pay gap exists) are of limited value in terms of understanding the impact of gender based discrimination upon modern remuneration practices.

 
A more revealing study
In order to gain a clearer picture with respect to the gender based pay gap, it is necessary to examine its nature and composition in greater depth, and to attempt to identify and quantify any factors which are known to contribute toward the gap.

In this regard, an American study completed in 2007 by AAUW researchers Judy Goldberg and Catherine Hill is of significantly greater value.

In this study, the researchers attempted to explain away the pay gap using twenty-six variables which are known to affect remuneration levels. Their conclusions – even after excluding the effects of such factors, the average American woman who is employed on a full time basis still earns approximately five per cent less than her male counterpart one year after completion of her studies. This pay gap increases to twelve per cent ten years after graduation.

Accordingly, it would appear that average remuneration levels of American women are below those of their male counterparts even when performing work of a substantially similar nature.

 
Does this necessarily indicate discrimination?
Probably, but not necessarily.

It is likely that a portion of the gender based pay gap referred to above can be attributed to discriminatory practices in remuneration. But it is also possible that unknown factors, or factors for which the effect is not possible to estimate or quantify also account for some portion of the unexplained gap.

For example, Goldman and Hill themselves acknowledge the possibility that part of the gap could represent a manifestation of the individual bargaining process as opposed to gender based discrimination. For example, it is possible that women have an overall tendency to: (a) be less assertive than men during salary negotiations; (b) have lower salary expectations than men; or (c) prefer remuneration arrangements which are less competitive in nature, as opposed to the ‘winner takes all’ schemes which are preferred by some men.

To the extent that such tendencies contribute to the gender based pay gap, they do not necessarily represent a form of unfairness or injustice. In any form of bargaining, those who adopt a more assertive negotiating position tend to derive more favorable outcomes than those who don’t.

Salary negotiations are no exception, and individual staff may achieve varying results according to the manner in which they negotiate, even when compared to others in similar roles within the same industry or even within the same firm.

It’s not necessarily unjust - it’s simply the nature of the bargaining process.

 
But surely some discrimination is occurring
Nevertheless, given the results of the Goldman and Hill’s study, I find it very difficult to believe that modern remuneration practices are completely free of gender based discrimination, particularly in America and probably in many other parts of the western world.

To the extent that this is indeed the case, such practices represent a breach of the human rights and not be considered to be acceptable.

Christine Kwapnoski had every right to feel somewhat miffed about public assurances from senior management at Wal-Mart with respect to the fairness of its labor practices.

When working as a dock supervisor for Sam’s Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, Ms. Kwapnoski discovered that she was earning no more than one of the men under her supervision. Later, according to a New York Times report in 2006, she was promoted without a raise, even though accompanying pay raises were offered to men who also received promotions.

Her case highlights an important point – that despite legislation which disallows gender based discrimination in remuneration practices, women in the US (and no doubt in other parts of the world) can still find themselves receiving less pay than their male counterparts even when performing work of a similar nature.

 
Equal pay mini series
This discussion is the tenth discussion in my (albeit interrupted) series of discussions about worker rights and responsibilities in the modern workplace.

Today, I would like to turn attention toward the issue of gender based discrimination in terms of remuneration practices, and the fundamental right of both women to receive substantially similar levels of remuneration to those which are awarded to men for the performance of work which is similar in nature.

I would like to examine this topic in some depth and thus have decided to split this topic into a three part mini-series. Today’s discussion will focus on why the concept of equal work for equal pay is so important. Discussions about evidence relating to gender based pay discrepancies (and the causes of such discrepancies), as well as what should be done in order to address such discrepancies will follow over the next two weeks.

 
Defining the objective
I feel that it is very important to clearly define what our goal should be in this context.

I do not believe that our goal should be equality of the full time average weekly earnings for women to equal that of men. Instead, the goal should be that women and men who perform work of a similar nature, should be entitled to receive similar levels of remuneration.

Men and women make different choices and exhibit different tendencies with respect to a wide range of employment related characteristics, such as education levels, field of study and employment, family related decisions and levels of managerial responsibility, just to name a few. Because of these differences, it would not be reasonable to expect the average income of full time working men and women to be equal, nor should that be our goal.

But all other things being equal, women who perform work of a similar nature to that of their male counterparts have every right to expect to receive similar levels of remuneration.

Same qualifications, same performance, same responsibility – same pay.

That should be our goal.

 
Why it matters
There are several reasons why the receipt of equal pay for equal work is important, but the first and most obvious reason relates to the basic principle of natural justice.

 
• A fundamental human right.

The right of women to receive equal pay for the performance of work of a substantially similar nature (and vice versa for men) represents a fundamental human right which is not only enshrined as such in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (article 23(2)), but is also given recognition as a legal right in the United States and no doubt across the vast majority of the civilized world.

It is a right which is beyond any form of reasonable dispute.

 
• Practical implications for working women.

Then there are the practical implications for working women, particularly for those who are not married or who are the dominant income earners within their families.

Gender based discrimination with respect to remuneration practices represents an unfair hindrance on working women and their families to afford a comfortable life style, attain financial security and plan for a comfortable retirement.

Also, in the case of married women, such discrimination may also have an adverse impact upon their career development where economic circumstances dictate that the lower income earner within the marriage partnership assume the bulk of the responsibility with respect to domestic or family related matters.

 
• Implications for other family members.

In addition, the implications extend beyond working women themselves and have an effect upon other family members.

Gender based discrimination in remuneration practices has an unfair impact upon the well being of children in the cases either of single motherhood or where the mother is the pre-dominant income earner. And some fathers, too, may wish to sacrifice work hours in order to spend additional time with children, but may feel prevented from doing so for financial reasons in cases where their wives are not able to earn the similar amounts of income for each hour worked.

 
• Economic implications.

As noted above, gender based discrimination in remuneration practices represents a hindrance to the career development of working women.

Not only is this unfair for women, it is also detrimental from the perspective of the broader economy, through its impact upon both the size and skill of the available workforce.

 
Summary
The right to receive similar remuneration for the performance of work of a similar nature is a fundamental right to which all women and men should be entitled.

This is the ninth discussion in my (albeit interrupted) series on worker rights.

Today, I would like to discuss the extent to which expatriates of western countries or other foreign employees should be expected to tolerate employment practices in their host country which would not be acceptable in their home countries.

Broadly speaking, I feel that acceptable employment practices should be defined according to the laws and customs of the host country, and that it is the responsibility of expatriate staff to adapt and fit in with their host culture.

But there are limitations to this, and expatriates should not be expected to tolerate work practices or conditions which are either represent a breach of contractual or human rights or are otherwise unreasonable.

 
Working overseas – a rewarding experience
Working in a foreign country can be a wonderful experience, both for expatriate employees and their host employers.

Such arrangements offer the opportunity for expatriate employees to experience full immersion into a culture and way of life which is different from that of their home country, whilst at the same time providing the host employer with fresh perspectives, exposure to global best practice, professional expertise (which may potentially be lacking at a domestic level) and a better understanding of target markets within the developed world.

Personally, my experience in Korea, where I have taught English in a public school for the past three and a half years, has been easily the most rewarding experience in my (albeit short) career to-date, and one which I will no doubt cherish for the rest of my life.

 
Cultural clashes
Problems can arise, however, where cultural values clash, and expectations of what is acceptable differ between expatriate employees and their host employer.

In such circumstances, I feel that both parties have a responsibility to exercise a considerable degree of flexibility, and to adopt a position of mutual respect toward the cultural values of each other.

Nevertheless, as stated above, I feel that the laws and cultural values of the host country should take precedence over those of the home country of the expatriate in terms of defining acceptable employment practices, and that it is primarily the responsibility of the expatriate employee to adapt to the ways and customs of his or her host employer, not the other way around.

 
Some practices not acceptable
But there are limitations to this, and there are certain practice which in my view should never be considered to be acceptable, regardless of cultural considerations.

Such practices include.

• any practices which constitute an abuse of human rights;
• failure on behalf of the employer to honor contractual obligations; or
• any practices which are otherwise plainly unreasonable or unfair.

The second point above is an area where I have seen conflict arise over and over again during my time in Korea, where attempts by host employers to short change expatriate employees on contractual provisions with respect to wages, housing or working hours are all too common. (The former employer of one friend of mine once literally doubled her work hours without providing any increase in pay)

Granted, these problems are usually the result of cash flow issues or simple bastardry, but cultural issues may also be a contributing factor, since contracts do not carry as much weight as they do in western countries.

This should not be tolerated. Any lack of respect for contractual rights of expatriate staff represents a form of manipulative behavior which should not be tolerated, regardless of cultural considerations, and employees who are subject to this form of treatment should not feel obligated to continue in service to their host employer unless an amicable solution can be reached.

(Fortunately for me, I work in the public school system, and have personally experienced any problems in this regard, or else I would have been on the first plane home.

But I have heard plenty of stories from others who have not been so fortunate, particularly those who teach in privately owned academies.)