Is is permissible for a Catholic to reject the Catholic doctrine on the Just Wage?

[Bartolome_Casas]

The U.S. Catholic bishops web site says this:

Family Living Wage – Ever since Rerum Novarum, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, the issue of just wages has been a consistent concern of Catholic Social Teaching. In their 1986 economics pastoral, the bishops of the United States wrote: “The first line of attack against poverty must be to build and sustain a healthy economy that provides employment opportunities at just wages for all adults who are able to work.” (196) CCHD gives priority to business development initiatives that pay a living wage.
old.usccb.org/cchd/grants/pri…s.shtml#family

Here’s an article titled “Slave Wages Condemned by Pope John Paul II.” cjd.org/paper/wages.html

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia says this, in part:

Today Catholic teaching on compensation is quite precise as regards the just minimum. It may be summarized in these words of Pope Leo XIII in the famous Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (15 May, 1891), on the condition of the working classes: “there is a dictate of nature more ancient and more imperious than any bargain between man and man, that the remuneration must be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions, because an employer or contractor will give him no better, he is the victim of fraud and injustice.”…
newadvent.org/cathen/04185a.htm

 

[theistgal]

I don’t know - why would you reject it? Do you think employees should not be paid a fair salary?

 

[triumphguy]

Just shorten the question:

Is it permissible for a Catholic to reject Catholic doctrine?

We know what the answer to that one is.

Maybe your next, unspoken question is:

So why do so many…

 

[Jaypeeto4]

There are many Catholics who reject this Catholic doctrine.
I believe that many of them are, frankly, unaware of it.
It is every bit as binding on the Catholic Conscience as is
the prohibition of abortion. Not one iota less binding.

In fact, depriving a working man of his just wages, is a
“Sin that Cries to Heaven for Vengeance,” every bit as serious in the
eyes of God as unrepented murder or unrepented sodomy. Not
one iota LESS serious than these. No ifs, ands, or buts.
No appeals to “the market” being allowed to determine wages,
none of that ideological claptrap that the super-wealthy use as an
excuse to even dare to oppose the Federal Minimum Wage
((which, in most places, itself, falls far short of a truly LIVING WAGE
which is called for in Catholic Social Teaching)).
Now, a small business owner may lawfully pay a high school teenager a low wage
for a part-time job so that the kid can earn some extra spending money, because that kid is still largely supported by his parents, and a small business owner may not be able to afford to hire a full time adult breadwinner due to his own rather low income.
But those are rare exceptions.
The rule is that a full or part time working adult, if paid hourly, must be paid a livable wage.
Now, a part time worker might have to take a second job (cuz part time is not sufficient for most people), but in such a case BOTH employers are REQUIRED by God to pay the worker a living wage.
BY the way, super-rich corporate America is constantly lobbying the Republicans and fiscally-conservative Democrats in Congress to NOT RAISE or, if possible, UTTERLY ABOLISH the Minimum Wage. Considering living costs in most of America, this lobbying is criminal in the eyes of God, according to the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Those politicians who try to abolish, or keep very low, the Minimum Wage, are sinning
((if they are aware of the Church’s teaching), and sinning seriously, and cannot in the eyes of God appeal to the writings of Ludwig Von Mises, arguments about “market forces,” or any other nonCatholic, non-doctrinally-authoritative writer, to support their opposition to just, living wages for ALL working people – and NOT JUST those with College Degrees or Trade School certificates.
If you put in a full days work, you are owed a LIVING ((not a luxurious)) wage, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Those with sufficient means, who would deliberately deny it to you, are sinning far more seriously than say, someone who steals $100,000 from a multibillion dollar corporation. BOTH are serious sins, for they are
BOTH wrong, but oppressing the working man is far, far, far more evil. HE will really suffer from the injustice, whereas the multibillion dollar corporation or financial group can recoup the loss from the theft every time the Chairman of the Fed raises interest rates even as much as a quarter of one percent. And they would recoup the loss thousands upon thousands of times over, by just that one tiny raise in interest rates, and have done NOTHING to have earned that huge payoff.
But that’s the Fed. Arbitrarily creating, expanding, and contracting the money supply for their multi-billionaire friends.
Make no mistake, the multi-billionaire money elites are merciless.
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both repeatedly pleaded with them to at least
PARTIALLY forgive some of the crushing debt that poor, third world countries are suffering under so greatly, and they utterly turn a deaf ear to the papal pleadings. Ah, the Fed.
But I don’t want to get started on The Creature From Jekyll Island, LOL.
Love to all of you.

 

[Lancer]

You are right…but you have overstated your case on doctrine and the sameness in binding conscience…in my opinion/understanding.

Abortion and just wage are not the same absolutes…in doctrine or natural law. There is no “gray area” in what is or isn’t an abortion…but there are plenty of gray areas on the just wage…legitimate different approaches how to define and how to attain a just wage society/community. We certainly need to fix our broken system of injustices between employer and employee…pay as well as many other issues.

However, you even come up with some rare exceptions…on just wage issues…but no one can offer any rare exceptions that makes abortion acceptable or a gray issue.

If you want to be fair…besides blaming Republicans/conservatives… just look at the gross injustices done to every citizen by the gross inequities in the excesses of public sector pay and benefits…versus the private sector. In other words…someone making a minimum living wage…is paying very high taxes so the public sector can have all of its most generous pay and perks…all at the taxpayers expense…to include the citizen making the minimum wage…just wage…or living wage.

CATECHISM

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.

Pax Christi

 

[jpjd]

I don’t think anyone objects to the doctrine in principle. It’s when the principle gets put into practice that the situation gets thorny:

What is a “living wage”? How much? How high a standard of living?
Does a living wage mean you should have the income you need to support your family size, whatever that may be (2, 4, 6, 8 + children)?
Is it enough to afford a roof over your head in any neighborhood, or is it only a livng wage if you can afford to live in a safe (middle-class) neighborhood?
Is it enough to have donated or second-hand clothes, or is it only a living wage to be able to afford some new ones?
Is it a living wage if you can afford food, clothing, and shelter, but there is no extra money for the kids sports and lessons and a family vacation?

Because, isn’t the point of a living wage to make sure the worker is not poor… therefore there will always be someone who will say that unless a living wage allows a family to live a middle class life, then they are poor and therefore they are not making a “living wage”.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**If you want to be fair…besides blaming Republicans/conservatives… **

Hi, thanks for your comments !!
Actually, I don’t blame only Republicans/conservatives, it’s just that they can’t seem
to come up with anything new besides mantras such as cut taxes, etc.
Public sector pay? In some areas it is good. My sister works for the County,
and she makes a decent, not exhorbitant living. But people who work for the
STATE of Florida, for example, are paid really LOUSY wages. I have received
automatically-generated job postings from the state of Florida. The job descriptions describe requirements, often, of doing enough work for three or four people, I mean
ridiculously excessive requirements for one person, and a pay scale that is appallingly low. No wonder you can never get anyone to answer the phone at a State Agency most of the time. Or you are on hold for an hour, and then get someone who quickly transfers you to someone else because THEY can’t answer your questions.
Republicans/conservative politicians are enamoured of the multibillion dollar corporations who, I know for a fact with regard to my own company, DID NOT USE the Bush tax cuts to create new jobs here, as promised, but lined the pockets of their wealthy shareholders AND shipped many jobs OVERSEAS where they can pay their foreign workers, in India especially, what would, HERE, amount to a Slave Labor wage. And, what would SHOCK social conservatives (who care about abortion, sexual morality, etc.) these same companies take their massive profits (my company brags about how profitable it has been even throughout the recession, by the way) and use part of them to FINANCE those things (Planned Parenthood, Gay Pride Parades, lobbying Congress to support Gay Marriage and ENDA, etc) which horrify most conservatives.
I didn’t make any exceptions for a living wage. I was speaking of teenagers who are still financially supported by their parents, who take a part time job to have some extra spending money for themselves with a small company that perhaps can’t even afford to hire ANYONE, but do so out of kindness and consideration for kids who nobly want to do a little work after school.
God bless you!!
Jaypeeto4

 

[markomalley]

My, you are full of questions for a new person. My question for you is are these really your questions, or are you simply being Socratic for the purpose of an agenda?

One hint: CCHD and anything to do with it are left-wing societal re-engineering efforts. I would not take seriously anything written on a CCHD web page unless you can independently verify it with actual Magisterial teaching.

There are two factors that are classically involved in a just wage: distributive justice and commutative justice (S. Theol. II-II-61). Distributive justice informs us that the wage should be in proportion to the contribution the individual makes to the society (in this case, the society would be the firm where the individual is employed). Commutative justice informs us that the wage should be as agreed to between the two individuals involved in the commutation.(in this case, as agreed to between employer and employee).

Leo XIII brought those basic Thomistic teachings into the industrial age. In his Encyclical Rerum Novarum:

1. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.
2. If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

You will note carefully the bolded text in paragraph 46. The workman’s wages should allow him to support himself, his wife, and his children. John Paul II, writing in Laborem Exercens (19), drills down into this a bit farther:
Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family fot his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.
So he is advocating that the wage be altered based upon family size. The goal here is to allow women to stay out of the workplace when they are raising children and devote themselves to child-rearing. Or, alternatively, that society (again, using the principle of subsidiarity, this reads to me as the employer) grant the mother sufficient means so that she can stay home…in other words, indirectly altering wages to correspond to the family situation.

Based upon that, I would say that the Church’s teaching on a living wage (for low income workers) would be in correspondence to the contribution of the worker to the enterprise; however, with a floor that is determined based upon the family situation of the individual worker.

In this country, such a floor would be highly illegal. (As it would discriminate against those who were childless, were homosexual, etc.)

So while it is not permissible, in principle, for a Catholic employer to reject Church teaching on a “just wage”, in practice, particularly with those employers who hire lower-wage workers, it is not legal, in practice, for a Catholic employer to comply with it.

(And, by the way, for those who would simply say to pay everybody more, that would be a violation of distributive justice)

 

[LumenGent]

It isn’t a violation of distributive justice if workers are payed more than what they are currently earning since the current figures are not calculated or set with the slightest degree of distributive justice in mind or any justice for that matter. Naturally, it is expected that law makers would set the wage bar much higher for themselves and reduce it for other professions. Yes, it is true that a baker and a lawyer don’t deserve the same wage for the work they do, however, for the purpose of illustration, what makes it just that the former should receive $10 per hour and the latter $1000?

Ideally (and no this isn’t utopian) each person should be able to afford a comfortable living since this is exactly what God wants. How people spend their earnings is another story and is not covered by the Church’s teaching on social justice. What is covered, is that workers are payed a fair and just wage, and it certainly is not just when a person is earning for the purpose of illustration $300 and must spend $400 for a modest living.

If the state will not bend into the Church’s teachings, here it becomes the strict obligation of Catholic employers to do so and not limit it to the State’s system. This is a working model employed by many Catholic employers that I know.

 

[markomalley]

Summa Theol II-II-61-2.:

in distributive justice something is given to a private individual, in so far as what belongs to the whole is due to the part, and in a quantity that is proportionate to the importance of the position of that part in respect of the whole. Consequently in distributive justice a person receives all the more of the common goods, according as he holds a more prominent position in the community. This prominence in an aristocratic community is gauged according to virtue, in an oligarchy according to wealth, in a democracy according to liberty, and in various ways according to various forms of community. Hence in distributive justice the mean is observed, not according to equality between thing and thing, but according to proportion between things and persons: in such a way that even as one person surpasses another, so that which is given to one person surpasses that which is allotted to another.

I said nothing about it being a violation of justice to pay workers more. I said that it would be a violation of distributive justice to simply pay all workers more to compensate for the needs of those who have families. In other words, if that was the only purpose of increasing worker salaries. It would be a profound breach of distributive justice to pay somebody more than the value of his contribution, just as it would be a profound breach of distributive justice to pay a person less than the value of his contribution – taking into account that the minimum specs laid out in Rerum Novarum and Laborens Excercens are accounted for. And, yes, that corresponds to the c-levels who earn 8 or 9 figure salaries (unless the levels of those salaries can be substantiated), the baseball players who earn 7 or 8 figures, and so on, as well as the poor slobs who earn less than minimum wage.

As for the state bending to Church teachings, you are kidding. I employ about 60 people right now as part of my job. If I was to pay one person significantly more due solely to family circumstances than I pay his/her peers who were equally qualified and with similar experience, I would be taken to court so fast, I would get windburns.

 

[Brendan]

Justice, according to Aquinas, is giving to others what they are due.

It would be a denial of Justice to deny a worker the wages they are due.

But that does not mean that an employer is obligated to pay more than the labor is worth to the employer, for that too would be an injustice.

The concept of a ‘Just Wage’ is often mistaken for something that it is not.

What it requires is for both the employer and employee to put aside any greed and to do an honest evaluation of what the labor is worth, and to pay accordingly.

 

[Captain_America]

The above poster makes the quick mistake of mistaking prevailing wage for a just wage.

They are different. The prevailing wage is not a just wage.

Just wage concept refers to the amount of money needed to generate human flourishing. The point is to avoid squalid living conditions and twisted, stunted lives.

 

[Dymphna82]

The employee makes the full, conscious choice to be paid the set salary when they agree to take the job. The employee has agreed that the wage is acceptable. To me, that means it’s a just wage. The employee is free to say No and look elsewhere.

On the other hand, what would be unjust is if we got rid of the minimum wage, because that sets a limit on just how low someone can be paid. It makes it so that we don’t have a bidding war, working at a sweatshop’s wage. I am also against paying illegal immigrants below minimum wage and outsourcing. Those companies should pay those people the same minimum, at least. It would cause everything to cost more but it’d be just.

 

[LumenGent]

Hi Mark,

My post wasn’t in refutation of anything you said.

Justice, according to Aquinas, is giving to others what they are due.

It would be a denial of Justice to deny a worker the wages they are due.

But that does not mean that an employer is obligated to pay more than the labor is worth to the employer, for that too would be an injustice.

The concept of a ‘Just Wage’ is often mistaken for something that it is not.

What it requires is for both the employer and employee to put aside any greed and to do an honest evaluation of what the labor is worth, and to pay accordingly.

The prime issue is that distributive justice is in the theory and not in practice. The putting aside of greed and making an honest evaluation of what the labor is worth and paying accordingly is sadly not too often employed in modern businesses.

 

[markomalley]

Hi Mark,

My post wasn’t in refutation of anything you said.

The prime issue is that distributive justice is in the theory and not in practice. The putting aside of greed and making an honest evaluation of what the labor is worth and paying accordingly is sadly not too often employed in modern businesses.

Do you have some examples to share? Where a single minimum wage employee is responsible for bringing in hundreds of dollars of revenue for a company each hour?

Now mind you, that revenue needs to be deducted for the cost of materials, the cost of equipment depreciation, the cost of the rent (if working in a building), utilities, and so on.

I can’t think of any examples when you actually do the math on what really makes a business run.

Now I will agree that CEOs of really big businesses probably make more than what they’re worth, but even if they worked for $1 salary (making their money solely off of dividends from their stock holdings), it generally works out that this sacrificed salary, equally divided among the employees, would net each employee a raise of about 50 cents to 10 dollars a year. So killing the CEO’s wage won’t materially help the employees at all. (If you doubt me, publicly traded corporations have to disclose the top salaries of executives in their SEC filings. You can do the math for yourself. The only typical exception is for technology companies with really small staffs…and, in general, everybody in those firms is well paid)

For most businesses, the choice of significantly raising employee wages must be paid for by higher prices to the consumer. (Unless you think it is right to decrease profit margins which generally are less than 10-15 percent per year…again, with the exception of technology outfits like Microsoft, which made, if memory serves correctly, around 25 percent or so last year. But I haven’t heard too many complaints about Microsoft’s wages)

We must remember the words of Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno:

1. In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers. If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of energy or lack of initiative or because of indifference to technical and economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the compensation of the workers. But if the business in question is not making enough money to pay the workers an equitable wage because it is being crushed by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price, those who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they deprive workers of their just wage and force them under the pinch of necessity to accept a wage less than fair.

 

[theistgal]

Keep in mind that a lot of employers are themselves employees - of their own business - particularly in small businesses. The employer who is also an employee should also receive a just wage (i.e., a fair profit) from his/her business.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Keep in mind that a lot of employers are themselves employees - of their own business - particularly in small businesses. The employer who is also an employee should also receive a just wage (i.e., a fair profit) from his/her business. **

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement, and with the statements of Leo XIII
in Rerum Novarum. I am NOT a Leftist (they are generally atheists and hostile to God),
and I must confess that for many years I used money very foolishly and humbly beg God’s forgiveness and merciful help (and yes, I have confessed it, been absolved, and am doing penances for the salvation of others (for example) in order to make up for it).

I can be very emphatic in my posts against the super-rich corporations, so much so that some good people on here mistake my statements for advocacy of all-out State Socialism, which I do NOT advocate. My disapproval is of large, very wealthy corporations who take the government’s huge tax cuts for them to create jobs,
and instead OUTSOURCE tens of thousands of the jobs to foreign countries where they literally can pay the workers 1/10 or 1/20 of what they had been (and still SHOULD BE) paying now-unemployed AMERICAN workers, namely what would be here a slave labor wage, oppose ALL efforts to raise, or even keep, the Minimum Wage, pay their salespeople as little as they can legally get away with, then pay them commission,
then ENCOURAGE customers to Return Items through their much-advertised “extremely generous return policy” which costs THEM nothing or very, very little (I know this for a fact), and then dare TAKE BACK the commission their employees RIGHTFULLY EARNED by doing the actual LEG-WORK and accomplishing the SALE of the item.
The fact that the customer, in my experience often on mere whim, decides to RETURN the item, is NOT moral justification for robbing the employee of the commission they had JUSTLY EARNED. Remember, the company gets fully compensated for the returned item via a “damage ticket” by which the vendor recompenses the company for the returned item. So, not only have no MORAL right to TAKE BACK a worker’s already earned commission because of Returns (which, again, THEY encourage), but they have not even the slightest NEED to do so and cannot honestly CLAIM to have such a need.
This is very serious. Personally, I accept their robbing me of part of my pay via Returns when they steal back some of my commission, as a “penance” for some of my forgiven sins. But I DON’T accept that they do this to my CO-WORKERS, nor to me if I didn’t feel I should offer their THEFT of my legitimate, hard earned wages, as a penance.
For myself, I accept it as a penance. But their DOING IT is still EXTREMELY SINFUL.
It is theft, even if the employee agreed to work under such conditions, as I did,
because the economy is so bad that I took the first job I could get, after 2 years or more of unemployment hell and terror, and am truly grateful (despite how I might sound) that God got me this job. But the company BRAGS about how wealthy and profitable it is, more than you could possibly believe are they rolling in wealth in this recession.
Of COURSE they are. They gyp their super-hard working sales associates of about 20% or more of their pay each week. If YOU gypped the government like that,
you would be put in a federal pen. They do it to the “little guy” and get away with it and it is legal and they genuinely (hard-heartedly) see NOTHING wrong with the practice. CONTINUED BELOW.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Also, I vehemently disagree with the poster above who wrote that
he or she considers a wage “just” if both the employer and the employee agreed
to it up front. In general, that’s a good argument, but by no means always,
especially when the hiring situation is **so very bad **that you have to take what you can get or starve and have to default on all your bills, which would then get you sued by your creditors and you can’t afford a lawyer cuz you’re unemployed and broke.
I am being discrimated against for office jobs because of both my AGE (especially) and
my gender ( I am male ). I have a very GOOD resume, with 22 years professional office and media coordinating experience as well as secretarial. I can’t get an email back from office jobs applied for to save my life !! They can’t LEGALLY tell you that you are too old for them (and might cost them more than they want to pay due to that AND your obvious YEARS of experience, as I have). But they still do the math. They see that I worked for five years here, then 22 years there, and they put two and two together and don’t even bother to send even an AUTOMATED EMAIL acknowledging the job application.
They don’t want to pay me a wage my experience calls for, so they hire what they DO want: a cute little hottie chica with big breasts and a tight butt who will work for $8.00 an hour (no overtime permitted), work like a dog for that small wage, and even make coffee for everyone and sound perky and cute on the phone to boot.
Also, the question of what a person’s JOB is WORTH to the company (or the society if you prefer) is highly controversial and philosophical. Does a pen pusher making $175,000 a year really deserve that high a wage for what he does (which he often delegates to others, so he sits around chatting with friends on the phone and takes weeks to sign invoices that need paying because he wants to chat it up with his favorite employees in pointless “meetings” in his office??? I have seen this way too many times.
Is he REALLY (just because he has a Degree in Business Administration) REALLY worth more to the society/company than the poor black janitor who cleans the floors, rugs, bathrooms and toilets, making the place a decent place to work in for 8 long hours a day or more, AND being exposed to EVERY disease known to man by having to clean everybody’s feces off the toilets, etc., and their urine off the floors and toilet seats (I’m sorry, but some men have the disgusting habit of NOT lifting the seat, and the poor janitor has to clean up this filth). Now, without the janitors, the office complex would be dirty, smelly, highly unsanitary and frankly, disgusting. They do the work, though, with NO HAZARD PAY for the germs, diseases, and dangerous chemical that they are exposed to all day long, and for usually the minimum wage or just above it, and they are usually kind and gentle and respectable, and will even work a second part time job, thus aging well before their time in exhausting work, just to make ends meet. Is THAT really “just”??? And the “executives” actually have the gall, some of them, to actually look DOWN on these low paid workers and – when they aren’t around – sometimes openly express their belief in their superiority over these people.
Is it just for a man or woman janitor to do backbreaking work exposed to filth, diseases, and dangerous chemicals all day long, for very little pay and almost NO basic respect??
Is the pen-pushing, mostly-work-delegating, highly paid college educated executive REALLY worth that much more to the company that he should, justly, be paid 155,000 dollars a year MORE than the janitor whose job is much harder and much more dangerous to his or her health??? And without whose services, the workplace would be INTOLERABLE to work in??? These are very philosophical/moral questions, I think.
Anyway, I’m rambling. May God forgive me, and all of you good people forgive me too.
Love to all of you, in Jesus’s dear name.
God bless you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

 

[LilyM]

The employee makes the full, conscious choice to be paid the set salary when they agree to take the job. The employee has agreed that the wage is acceptable. To me, that means it’s a just wage. The employee is free to say No and look elsewhere.

On the other hand, what would be unjust is if we got rid of the minimum wage, because that sets a limit on just how low someone can be paid. It makes it so that we don’t have a bidding war, working at a sweatshop’s wage. I am also against paying illegal immigrants below minimum wage and outsourcing. Those companies should pay those people the same minimum, at least. It would cause everything to cost more but it’d be just.

As has been pointed out already, employees in a job climate like the present often really have no choice, or at least feel that they have no choice, but to take any job they can get.

Secondly, most employers have absolutely no interest in paying an employee what their work is actually worth, but rather they will instead pay the minimum that an employee is prepared to accept.

And the ‘value’ of that labour often can only be assessed by what someone is willing to pay for it, which depends on many factors other than the inherent value of the work.

Take the medical profession. You will pay more to get an injection/pap smear/whatnot from a doctor than from a nurse in the same clinic. Yet they are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING! With exactly the same inherent value.

Do you think that doctor really has more training or experience in giving injections or taking pap smears than that nurse? In many cases, no.

Patients pay more because
a) the doctor has a lot of fancy letters after his or her name, and that must mean something, right?
b) the doctor has enormous student debt that they have to pay off sometime before they retire, much more so than a nurse
c) doctors have (as the numerous ones in my family tell me ) what is known as a ‘God complex’ - a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority, a sense that they’re worth scads of money. Drummed into them as they go through their training. Unlike nurses.

 

[LumenGent]

Well Liliy,

As always, you continue to hit the nail on it’s head.