I WAS most surprised to see the report in the Sunday Times of May 4, 2014 in which the GTU’s General Secretary is reported to be making a case for differential (higher) pay and benefits for male teachers, just because they are numerically less represented in the teaching profession than their female colleagues. Gender-based compensation has always been wrong, is wrong, and can never be justified. Differentials in pay and other forms of compensation must be based on objective criteria; and gender is clearly not one of them.
Typically, pay differentials are determined through a formal system of job evaluation and current, relevant, credible, market surveys. Of course, in places like Guyana, where trade unionism ought to be ‘alive and well,’ periodic “negotiations” between representatives of employers and employees also help to determine pay rates and differentials.
It is inconceivable that any trade union worth its salt will, in this day and age, countenances pay differentials based on gender. I would personally be most surprised that in a profession as dominated by women, as the referenced article projected, the GTU will be allowed to bargain for higher pay for male teachers, just because they are not attracted to the profession due to its relatively low compensation package.
We must try to raise the bar for all teachers. What about nursing? It is even more dominated by women, and apparently less attractive to men. Should we also differentiate between male and female nurses? And what about those jobs that are male-dominated? Should we differentiate in favour of women to get more female policemen, firefighters, cane-cutters etc.?
I would be troubled by a system that brings in people as teachers whose main attraction to the profession is money. I hasten to add that money is very important, but its importance does not differentiate between men and women, especially as the women are equal, if not sole breadwinners in many homes.
Much has been said about the need for “male role models,” but is the role modeling relevant only in the classrooms? Are there no other scenarios where the role modeling is, and can be, as powerful? What about fathers, brothers, sportsmen, neighbours, priests et al? How come so many of us who went to schools headed by women and ‘manned’ mostly by women are not deficient because there were too few male teachers for us?
Some jobs/professions ‘naturally’ attract more males or more females, and over time, or across cultures or for other context-specific factors, the differentials may vary. We might very well be fighting an inevitable trend, and would lose in the long-run if we choose the wrong battle or the inappropriate weapon.
NOWRANG PERSAUD