Mike's Minute: The pay equity court case is a "show trial"

If Grant Robertson thinks the Covid inquiry is a "show trial", then what is about to unfold at the High Court as of the end of this month can't be far behind. 

A bunch of unions are taking the Government to court over pay equity. 

They are having several stabs at it – the Bill of Rights is in play and the democratic process is up for debate. 

One of the things the unions claim may happen if they win, is a select committee would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament would have to take place. 

That’s the "show trial" part. Select committees hear from the people you would expect to hear from: broadly, it's people opposed to whatever change of law is in play. 

And a debate in Parliament hears both sides, one for, one against, with the Government of the day prevailing, given it is they who have the numbers and indeed that is why they are the Government. 

Which is essentially why court is a waste of time, remembering of course the Government is the ultimate court and if they want to pass a law, they can. 

Making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation is a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, were one of the many claimants putting an equity claim forward before the law was changed. 

To my eye being a high school teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it, women do it, there are lots of them and they aren't paid on gender. 

It's not a profession where 99% of them are women and because they are women, they are poorly paid. 

High school teachers are paid quite well. You could equally argue they are not paid as well as they could be because the union insists on them all being paid the same based on time in the classroom. If they got paid on merit it would be a different world. 

Kristine Bartlett's case became famous because we could all see the care industry was mainly female and the pay was poor. I would still argue the pay was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is not of great numerical value. 

If it was, rest homes would pay more, charge residents more and we'd happily foot the bill. But we don’t. 

Anyway, the upshot is the best the unions can hope for is a court win. The win can then be used to beat the Government about the head as big, bad meanies. 

But it will still not get them paid under an equity deal because the court is not the Government. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
If Grant Robertson thinks the COVID inquiry is a show trial,
then what is about to unfold at the High Court
as of the end of this month can't be far behind.
We've got a bunch of unions who are taking the
government to court over pay equity. Now they're having several stabs.
The Bill of Rights is in play, democratic process is
up for debate. One of the things the unions claim
may happen is if they win is a select committee

(00:20):
would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament
would have to take place. Oohoo, that's the show trial part.
I mean select committees here from people you would expect
to hear from, broadly people opposed to whatever change of
the law is in play, and a debate in Parliament.
Here's both sites, one for one against, with the Government
of the day prevailing. Given it is they who have

(00:40):
the numbers, and indeed that is why they're the government,
which is essentially why court is a waste of time. Remembering,
of course, the government is the ultimate court and if
they want to pass the law, guess what they can
making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation. Of course,
that's a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, we're one of
the many claimants putting inequity claim for it before the

(01:01):
law was changed. Now, to my eye, correct me if
I'm wrong, but to my eye, being a high school
teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it. Women
do it, lots of them, and they aren't paid on gender.
It is not a profession. We're ninety nine percent of
them are women. And because the women, they're poorly paid.
High school teachers are paid actually quite well. You could
equally argue they're not paid as well as they could
be because the union insists that they all get paid

(01:23):
the same based on time in the classroom. If they
got paid on merit, now that would be a whole
different world. Christine Bartlett's case became famous because we could
all see the care industry was mainly female and the
pay was poor. Now, I would still argue the pay
was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is
not of great numerical value. If it was, rest holmes
would pay more, and they would charge residents more, and

(01:46):
we'd all happily fit the bill. But we don't want
to do that, do we. Anyway, The upshot is the
best of the unions can hope for is a court win.
The wind can then be used to beat the government
about the head as big bad meanings, but it will
still not get them paid under an equity deed because
the court is not the government. For more from The
Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to News Talks A B

(02:08):
from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.