Parable of the workers in the vineyard, is it really fair?

[lostguest]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work? Or what if an employer decided to pay, for example white people more than people of other races (or minorities and people from third world countries) for doing the same amount or even more work?
Also, even though people normally agree beforehand to certain work conditions as far as pay and type/amount of work, they still have an expectation of payment proportional to their work. In my opinion it would be different if they knew prior to agreeing to work under those conditions that others would get paid the same for a fraction of their effort and knowing that they would be carrying other people's weight.
I understand that the householder was trying to be generous to the laborers who came late. However, personally I think that the parable could only be considered fair if for instance, the householder had "loaned" the payment to the late workers but had then come back to work another day to make up for the hours they didn't work, given the fact that the early workers were not aware of all the facts prior to agreeing to work. Or maybe the householder should have let the early workers go home early once the late workers arrived while still paying them the agreed upon amount.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by lostguest]

...is it really fair?

I've found there's a lot in the bible that's not 'fair'. Rather or not that's a good thing or we should expect the bible to be 'fair' are two totally different things to consider outside the scope of this thread it seems.

The bible is written in such a way that many different concepts can be pulled from the same passage.
While most (all?) believers won't agree with the following statement (go figure), it shows that christianity can be tricky - word games and deceit are, at least partially, part of the christian fundamentals.
Granted, there are many assumptions to be made - such is the life of the parable.
Likely, the parable wasn't meant to reference a bartering system, however, it is what it is.
I wonder why a teacher would insist on making such terribly vague examples instead of just saying "do this" or "do that"....? Surely, there would be less confusion with less ambiguous wording?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by lostguest]

That parable is certainly evidence for me that God is not a 'leftie'.

I also recognise the parable is not there to discuss work place relations. What is its purpose?

However why is it unfair for a person to spend their money how they wish? Surely it is unfair to restrict a person in how they spend their money?

[lostguest]

[Replying to Wootah]

However why is it unfair for a person to spend their money how they wish? Surely it is unfair to restrict a person in how they spend their money?

It's not unfair for a person to spend their money how they wish, but it is unfair for a person to perform work under false expectations. That's why humans create laws to prevent some people from getting taken advantage of.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by lostguest]

Does the parable imply the owner created false expectations?

The way I understand it is that he entered a contract with some people and honoured it and entered into another contract with other people and honoured it.

[lostguest]

[Replying to Wootah]

I understand that it's hard to consider the idea that something Jesus said can be questionable simply because Jesus said it. But lets say for example that you find out tomorrow that your co-worker who just got hired and does the exact same work you do, gets paid 10 times as much as you, would you still think it's fair to you? Would you honestly feel motivated to remain in your current job position?
Like I said originally, the employer has the right to give away his money if he wants to, however when work is involved there is an implied expectation of equality. No one is expecting to carry the weight for others and there is an implied expectation of pay proportional to the amount of work. And if there isn't, in my opinion, there should be a disclosure beforehand so that the employee can make an informed decision as to whether he wants to work there under those conditions or if he would rather go work somewhere else.

[bluethread]

[Replying to Wootah]

However why is it unfair for a person to spend their money how they wish? Surely it is unfair to restrict a person in how they spend their money?

It's not unfair for a person to spend their money how they wish, but it is unfair for a person to perform work under false expectations. That's why humans create laws to prevent some people from getting taken advantage of.

However, who are the one's who would have false expectations? Would it not have been those who started latter. The workers who started in the beginning were told exactly what they would be paid.

I understand that it's hard to consider the idea that something Jesus said can be questionable simply because Jesus said it. But lets say for example that you find out tomorrow that your co-worker who just got hired and does the exact same work you do, gets paid 10 times as much as you, would you still think it's fair to you? Would you honestly feel motivated to remain in your current job position?
Like I said originally, the employer has the right to give away his money if he wants to, however when work is involved there is an implied expectation of equality. No one is expecting to carry the weight for others and there is an implied expectation of pay proportional to the amount of work. And if there isn't, in my opinion, there should be a disclosure beforehand so that the employee can make an informed decision as to whether he wants to work there under those conditions or if he would rather go work somewhere else.

Your example is backwards, they did not do the exact same work. The later workers worked for a shorter period of time and got paid the same amount. It is true that someone may not be motivated to start work at the beginning of the day in the future. However, it would be easier to find workers later in the day. If that is important to the land owner, then he is getting what he is paying for.

Now regarding your statement, "No one is expecting to carry the weight for others and there is an implied expectation of pay proportional to the amount of work.", I'm not sure what world you live and work in. I don't know of any profession where no one caries the weight of others and everyone is paid the same for the same amount of work. That is an idealistic view of the world and is the propaganda of unions and government programs. The truth is that there are slackers in unions who can't get fired and must be paid the same as the good workers. Also, government programs are designed more to spread the wealth than promote actual equal pay for equal work.

[lostguest]

[Replying to bluethread]

Your example is backwards, they did not do the exact same work. The later workers worked for a shorter period of time and got paid the same amount. It is true that someone may not be motivated to start work at the beginning of the day in the future. However, it would be easier to find workers later in the day. If that is important to the land owner, then he is getting what he is paying for.

Of course I know that the later workers in the parable worked less than the early worker for the same pay. But that is equivalent to someone getting paid more for doing the same work. But if you need a modern day example that matches perfectly the situation described in the parable, tell me if you'd think you'd feel you are being treated fairly if you were required to work 8 hr work days while all of your co-workers were required to work just 1 hr a day, and you will all get paid the same amount? Be honest!
And once again, we are not trying to find out what's more beneficial or fair for the employer, we are talking about fairness for the workers.

Now regarding your statement, "No one is expecting to carry the weight for others and there is an implied expectation of pay proportional to the amount of work.", I'm not sure what world you live and work in. I don't know of any profession where no one caries the weight of others and everyone is paid the same for the same amount of work. That is an idealistic view of the world and is the propaganda of unions and government programs. The truth is that there are slackers in unions who can't get fired and must be paid the same as the good workers. Also, government programs are designed more to spread the wealth than promote actual equal pay for equal work.

What is fair has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in reality. Just because some people know how to get away with things doesn't mean that what they do is correct or fair. Criminals get away with crimes all the time and that doesn't make what they do fair or correct. Everyone has an expectation of justice even though we all know that many guilty people will never pay for their crimes.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

Your example is backwards, they did not do the exact same work. The later workers worked for a shorter period of time and got paid the same amount. It is true that someone may not be motivated to start work at the beginning of the day in the future. However, it would be easier to find workers later in the day. If that is important to the land owner, then he is getting what he is paying for.

Of course I know that the later workers in the parable worked less than the early worker for the same pay. But that is equivalent to someone getting paid more for doing the same work. But if you need a modern day example that matches perfectly the situation described in the parable, tell me if you'd think you'd feel you are being treated fairly if you were required to work 8 hr work days while all of your co-workers were required to work just 1 hr a day, and you will all get paid the same amount? Be honest!
And once again, we are not trying to find out what's more beneficial or fair for the employer, we are talking about fairness for the workers.

Maybe not to that extreme, but I have experienced this quite often in my lifetime, especially when I have worked with union workers. Mind you, I am not saying that all union workers are slackers, but I have seen much more inequity when wages are controlled, than when they are not. That is one of the points of the parable. You can spend your life griping about not being treated "fairly", or you can get on with your life and make the best of it.

Now regarding your statement, "No one is expecting to carry the weight for others and there is an implied expectation of pay proportional to the amount of work.", I'm not sure what world you live and work in. I don't know of any profession where no one caries the weight of others and everyone is paid the same for the same amount of work. That is an idealistic view of the world and is the propaganda of unions and government programs. The truth is that there are slackers in unions who can't get fired and must be paid the same as the good workers. Also, government programs are designed more to spread the wealth than promote actual equal pay for equal work.

What is fair has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in reality. Just because some people know how to get away with things doesn't mean that what they do is correct or fair. Criminals get away with crimes all the time and that doesn't make what they do fair or correct. Everyone has an expectation of justice even though we all know that many guilty people will never pay for their crimes.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with "fairness", especially the way that term is used today. If something does not work in real life, it does not work in theory. Also, whether something is criminal or not has nothing to do with "fairness". It is based on what a society decides to codify as illegal. "Fairness" is just a propaganda term used to influence legislation. It is called "price fixing" if it is done by the free market, but if it done by the government or unions it is called "fairness". Tell me, how is that "fair"? The only truly fair price is the one that is negotiated in an arms length transaction.

[Wootah]

[Replying to lostguest]

I understand that it's hard to consider the idea that something Jesus said might be true but let's press on and examine it.

If I found out my co-worker was doing the same work for more money I might ask for more. That's my perogative. It is not an issue of fairness. It will come down to cost effectiveness. Whether the boss agrees is a matter of many considerations and fairness is rarely one of them.

Why do you think that way? Why do you think fairness or equality exist? Are there examples in reality that you can point to? Is it fair that the fox eats the sheep?