I want to go back to this idea of, you know.... In some respects, we're lucky that this doesn't refer to pay equity, because it's not. We should be really clear that it is not. It's probably more about inequitable.
On the question of individual women having the resources to be able to fight a case all the way through against their employer.... This is not about the employer and the union sitting down and figuring out where the inequities are. This is about an individual person, or a group of women, having to take that on. That's not easily done. How many women, in any of the cases that we've quoted this morning, would have been able to stick with it? That's one thing.
The other thing is that the offensive part of this—there are many offensive parts—is the comparisons to the market. Isn't the market what got us into this problem in the first place? The market doesn't look at the value of a job. They say, if this group of workers over here is being paid poorly, then why would we pay this group of workers who do similar jobs over here any better? We're going to go out and say workers in the federal sector have this wage rate. The comparison is not with men and the value of comparable jobs done by men. The comparison is with women in the private sector—non-union, in all likelihood—who are paid less. Shouldn't the solution be bringing up those other women's wages rather than driving everybody else's down?
I mean, why is it being done? Obviously I'm not privy to....