The value of different jobs

Lawlor, Kersley and Steed, in their study "A Bit Rich" address the claim that those jobs which provide greater job satisfaction require less pay, by highlighting that there are many highly rewarded jobs in which it is likely that the employees would report a higher level of job satisfaction than many jobs which receive less rewards. The NEF goes on to say that if we justified certain jobs as receiving high rewards in order to compensate for the lack of job satisfaction, or the stress that they encountered, we would also expect other dangerous or unpleasant jobs to be highly rewarded (Lawlor, Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p.24). However there is evidence to show this is not the case as scaffolders, for example, work in dangerous conditions but do not receive high rewards, either in monetary terms or esteem. This may seem to point to the notion that we should reward the jobs which provide the least job satisfaction most highly and those with the highest rates of job satisfaction the least; but we cannot simply say this. For an individual may greatly enjoy a job which has high value for society, and to reward such a job poorly does not seem just. For example, social workers have a positive impact on society and may therefore obtain high job satisfaction due to this; so to then offer low rewards for this job does not seem intuitive (Lawlor, Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p.24).

Secondly, it has been said that the jobs which offer more opportunity for mobility up the career ladder are more highly paid (Lawlor, Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p.24) and those jobs which do not offer individuals the chance to develop have lower pay. I suggest that in order for individuals to reach the top in a particular career path, they must first work in positions that offer low rewards and once they develop and are promoted, the rewards they receive slowly increase. One example would be the career path of a chef, who firstly must work long and unsociable hours in return for little reward; but as they are promoted to different levels in the kitchen, the rewards increase. It seems that the individuals who wish to pursue this career path do so because they desire to reach the top and are prepared to work for little rewards in order to get there. Consequently, it is not necessary for jobs which offer vast opportunities for promotion to be, for example, highly paid, because promotion is a reward in itself.

Conversely, it could be argued that the individuals are prepared to work for little rewards because of the knowledge that they will one day receive better rewards if they persevere. This shows that high rewards are necessary as an incentive for individuals to work their way up towards them and therefore those jobs which have the possibility of mobility should be highly rewarded. But we could then ask why it would be important for individuals to want to reach these high positions? If such highly rewarded positions did not have a value for society, then it would not be essential for individuals to become skilled in the job through working in the lower positions first, so that they could then fill the top roles.

If it is important that such roles be filled, then these top roles must be of high value to society, and the reason they are highly rewarded is to prompt individuals to have the desire to do the other jobs which may not be so highly rewarded, but will eventually lead to the individual filling one of the most highly rewarded positions. Therefore, if we reward jobs in proportion to their value for society then we will ensure that individuals desire to do the jobs which are of value to society, rather than those which are not. The fact that a job which has vast opportunity for promotion is highly rewarded is because doing that job is deemed valuable for society; and the fact that the high rewards work as an incentive for people to work in the lower positions first in order to work their way up is purely a side effect.

A third myth which society adheres to according to the NEF is that those in highly paid jobs work harder (Lawlor., Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p.20). In other words, being highly rewarded is a sufficient condition for working hard (if a job is highly rewarded then it takes a lot of work and therefore deserves to receive high rewards). This corresponds to the principle of effort which states that an individual only deserves rewards for doing what is in his power (Miller, 1976: p. 109). From this principle, it would be said that if two men work for an equal amount of time and try equally hard they should both receive equal rewards even if one of the men manages to produce more radios for example, simply due to his own abilities. Advocates of this view would argue against rewarding workers based on commission. For example, employees of a sales call centre all working for eight hours a day should be rewarded equally for the number of hours worked rather than on the unequal basis of the number of sales they manage to make in that eight hours.

However, Miller argues that the principle of effort alone seems to lack any justification (Miller, 1976: p.110). This is due to the fact that the principle of effort depends on the view that what a man deserves is based purely on his voluntary actions (Miller, 1976: p. 109). However according to Miller, there is no reason to assume that what we deserve should not be based on involuntary actions also. In addition, any work which is useful will require a combination of effort, voluntary actions and those actions which are based on innate ability – or non-voluntary actions (Miller, 1976: p.110). Therefore, we should not reward work in proportion to the effort which it requires, or in proportion to the number of hours which the employees work.

I would agree that we should not reward work in proportion to the effort required by the employees, such as the hours worked, as there are a variety of highly rewarded jobs which require less hard work than some of the jobs which receive less rewards. If it is the case that there are some jobs which require the employees to be at least as hard working as the highly rewarded jobs, but do not receive high rewards, then it cannot be said that working hard is a sufficient condition for being highly rewarded.

It may even be said that being highly rewarded is not a sufficient condition for working hard, in other words, those who are highly rewarded may not work hard. The NEF has suggested that there are factors which are not commonly taken into account when calculating how much work is required by those in certain jobs. One of these is that employees in the jobs which receive the least rewards often work just as many, or even more hours than those in the jobs which receive the most rewards (Gardiner & Millar, 2006 in Lawlor, Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p.20). The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has shown that on average, professions including science, teaching, business and health professionals earn £719 a week and work an average of 32.8 hours a week. Whereas process plant and machine operators earn an average of £426 a week and work an average of 41.9 hours a week. In addition, skilled trade occupations receive an average of £466.70 and work and average of 40.2 hours a week. The clearest example is that of health professions who earn an average of £1158.8 a week and work an average of 34.9 hours a week contrasted with transport drivers and operatives who earn on average £424 a week and work 43.1 hours a week. These figures clearly show that the jobs which receive the highest financial rewards are not those jobs which require the longest working hours.

The NEF use these considerations to conclude that those in the jobs which receive less rewards do work at least as hard as those in the jobs which have the higher rewards (Lawlor, Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p. 20). It is therefore clear that currently jobs are not rewarded in proportion to the amount of hard work required; where hard work is taken to be hours worked. But should they be? I would argue that we should not reward jobs in proportion to the hours worked within it, because once again there are some jobs which have long and unsociable working hours but which may not be of high value to society.

It is clear that these figures are subjective, and do not provide clear cut conclusions; but the NEF accept this. Despite the figures being subjective, the method does work to show differences in the values produced by different jobs.

The NEF conclude that there “should be a relationship between what we are paid and the value our work generates for society” (Lawlor, Kersley, and Steed, 2009: p. 5). This supports my argument that work should be rewarded in terms of the value it has for society, because what we are paid counts as one of the rewards we receive for our work.

An objection which must be dealt with it that of the economist, who may argue that to implement such a system of value and reward, would require a major shift in the market which is likely to cause many difficulties and affect the smooth running of the capitalist system. However, although I am considering monetary rewards, I am also including rewards such as the esteem certain jobs are held in and the status awarded to individuals who do certain jobs. Therefore, when I argue that jobs should be rewarded in proportion to their value for society, I am not simply arguing that the jobs which contribute the most value to society should receive the highest wages, but also that they should be awarded a higher status and be recognised for the value which they provide. For this reason, it does not necessarily follow that by implementing my system of rewarding jobs in proportion to the value they have for society, huge market shifts would have to be made. This is because a reward could simply be the praise that someone receives for doing work which is valuable for society.

However, an objection to the idea of attributing praise as a reward in proportion to the value of work for society is that the esteem and praise rewarded for work follows from the amount the individuals are paid. Therefore we cannot simply praise jobs which are of high value, we praise those which are paid the highest.

I disagree with this because firstly some jobs which are paid very high wages are not rewarded with praise and esteem, such as city bankers who are currently seen in a negative light. Secondly, simply because an individual is earning high wages, they may not gain a sense of esteem for the role. This could be due to the attitudes of others to the role, or if they do not feel they are doing good for society by working in that job. I argue that there is more to the value of a job than the money you earn doing it and therefore this is not the only way an individual can obtain esteem and praise for doing a job.