It's quite clear that it's a case by case basis. You can't just say 'Oh, because you're female, you're paid £5k less a year than that male' even if the female is some bulky woman that is much better at being a firefighter than a scrawny guy.
Personally, I would hire the people most skilled for the job then pay them initially all the same wage. (Fluctuations here and there for cost of living etc.) People that show increased effort etc. can have bonuses. But it depends on the situation, if the government is hiring female firefighters to meet quotas, that's ridiculous, why are we hiring less able people if we have more able people that are unemployed?
Also, it depends on the actual job and how you rate performance. How do you rate a firefighters performance? How many people they save? Or how many lives they don't save? And do you rate it on the firefighter themselves, or the people they are saving? Likewise with police officers, do you rate themselves, or the people they catch? It changes on each situation, like I believe teachers should not be rated purely based on results of students.
- - - Updated - - -
One of the Police officers that has our village as his primary focus area, let's just say he's a tad large. I mean, I'm sure he's a great guy, and he's great at some aspects of his job, but I'm sure even I could outrun him. Whilst I can see how people can start going on a discrimination rant, it only make sense to have the most suitable people in these lines of work.








Reply With Quote