>So the average person is paid according to years in service and not by qualifications or quality of work? That was how the government here worked for government employees and it is disastrous in general...

Of course qualifications will contribute to it, and quality of work in some, but not all cases. If I take my wifes example. Every year she gets a little increase. The amount of increase is depended on both the quality and qualifications. But there is a ceiling to the scale she is in. If her qualifications increase, she can jump to a different scale, which has higher ceilings. In general this means, that the longer you work for this company, the more you earn. But since she is working part - time, she does not jump to another scale as another. So she does not earn as much as someone doing the exact same work but is working full time or is longer with the company.

In her company you'll see that the men on the average are earning more, because:
- They work full time
- They work at the company for more years.
- They often have higher qualifications (may of them do studies after hours)

I know the office manager personally, and since she is a women herself, I don't believe for a moment this has anything to do with sex discrimination. This in this office is a natural phenonima which occurs since many of the women do work part time and are busier than the men with the raising kids.

And if the media just reports this blunt fact, it often fails to nuance this with giving the possible reasons for it.









>
>
>>>>Oh yeah, this topic will make a difference of world affairs. How is this important in which candidate to select ?
>>>
>>>World affairs is not the only criterion by which we choose a candidate.
>>>
>>>Making the assumption that the basic accusation (Obama pays women less for equivalent work) is accurate, you would not find that a relevant piece of information in determining which candidate to support? It may not be the final determinant but "Does he practice what he preaches?" is absolutely an important consideration.
>>
>>That is assuming that the consciously pays them less and discriminates them, which I find hard to believe. It is most likely any thrid person is responsible for the wages, not him. Even up here women often have a lower wage than men in the same position, but it often does not really have something to do with deliberate sex discrimination. For example, many women up here, work part time or stopped working during the years that the kids are young. This puts them into a less favourable position to ask for or get a raise. In most branches the number of years and whether your full time or part time employed are the best indicators for the difference in wages.
>>
>>To me this is one of the stupiest reasons to choose one candiate over another and another example of very poor journalism.