Essay Sample on Increase Worker Pay in NY: Prioritizing Skills, Input and Hardships

Introduction

Motivation to workers in states is essential at improving the livelihoods of the people and increasing their interests in undertaking their jobs. There are different ways that government agencies use to determine the pay workers in various jobs should receive. Workers' input, skills necessary to get the job done, and hardships that individuals endure in positions should always be given priority. While every worker in New York would be grateful for pay increases, there is a need to consider aligning the kind of work people do with the pay they receive. Emergency Medical Technicians (E.M.T.s) and paramedics endure many hardships on their jobs and should be considered in pay reviews. The pay reviews need to assess the amount of work and extent to which the workers go to enhance the safety of the residents in New York. There seems to be more consideration in terms of pay to the firefighters while leaving E.M.T.s and paramedics out.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In "Emergency Medical Workers Deserve Pay Equity" published by the New York Times on September 21, 2019, the editorial board argues the paramedics and E.M.T.s should be given better pay just like the firefighters. The editorial board relies on information collected from paramedic workers and E.M.T.s to back the argument. Further, the editorial board relies on the data collected relating to the number of medical emergencies the subjects are involved in solving.

The authors rely on rhetorical devices to support their arguments. Firstly, the article provides comparative data on the salary figures of E.M.T.s and the pay of firefighters. Additionally, the authors use ethical grounds to put the argument that since the paramedics, firefighters, and E.M.T.s engage in almost the same kind of tasks, it is prudent to equate their compensation. Lastly, the authors provide logical grounds to support their argument. In the article, the editorial board of the New York Times provides a strong argument of the case for paramedics and E.M.T.s using ethos, pathos, and logos.

The New York Times is a respected publishing institution and have substantial ethical grounds. The editorial board of the New York Times is comprised of professionals who rely on evidence to make their claims. Most of the editorial team members have iconic credentials from Pulitzer Award winners and the Harvard Law School. In these contexts, the writers of the article have strong ethos and knowledge, which is essential in making credible assertions. Further, the ethics of the article cannot be questioned because it relies on data from reliable agencies to make the claims.

The tone used in the article gives the reader all the facts and helps improve the credibility of the information put forward in the article. For instance, reliance on direct comments from Cristell Cadet, who says that he loves his job, but it is stressful, shows the credibility of the authors. They do not just make claims. They provide evidence from real human beings who engage in the activities of the state. In these contexts, the ethos of the article cannot be put into question. The article is written in a way that seeks sympathy and understanding from the readers, which help the persuasiveness of the overall assertion that the paramedics and E.M.T.s should be fairly compensated.

The article by the editorial has an emotional appeal to the readers because of the language used and the arguments put across. Firstly, the authors note that paramedics and emergency medical technicians in New York have the training to respond to almost anything that happens to the residents. Just like the firefighters who are compensated more, the paramedics and the emergency medical technicians are available to provide medical services to patients in fire incidences.

The revelation appeals to the reader in the context that, if the firefighters and the medics respond to similar incidences, why would the authorities discriminate in compensation. Further, the use of a picture of Christell Cadet is aimed at drawing the attention of the readers to see the kind of paramedics who are there to give aid to victims. The woman appears to be all set for whatever may come. Additionally, the editorial board notes that while firefighters have unlimited sick pay, paramedics and E.M.T.s have 12 days of paid sick leave per year, indicating a clear difference in terms of pay. The authors outline the differences in pay given to the firefighters and paramedics and E.M.T.s in a way that is emotionally appealing given the groups respond to and have skills to respond to similar events.

The arguments by the editorial board are logically sound with various facts to support assertions. Firstly, the authors argue that the paramedics and E.M.T.s could win a discrimination case against the city if they are able to show the practices violates the hiring practices. Additionally, there is a clear difference between the amount of base pay that paramedics receive and the base pay for firefighters. The editorial board notes the base salary for an E.M.T. as $50,604 after five years on the job while that of a firefighter to be $85,292. The difference is logically high. Additionally, the authors note that the base pay for paramedics is $65,226, although they receive more training compared to E.M.T.s.

The significant difference between pay for the employees working to save lives in the same circumstances is alarming. Another logical reasoning supporting the claim for discrimination is the racial composition of employees in the different departments. Since the firefighting unit of the city is composed of more white, the authors find there may be observations of the pay difference to be racial discrimination by the employees. Further, the article exposes the reports of deaths occurring on the job to be based on inaccurate conclusions. Although more firefighters are likely to die on a mission, paramedics and E.M.T.s die from toxic air. Such revelations indicate the need to address pay disparities. The authors argue that although it may be impossible to close the pay gap completely, it is vital to limit the compensation disparity. The arguments of the authors appeal to the logical reasoning of any reader because of the author's use of logical outline of comparative ideas.

The issue of pay differences between workers working in relatively similar situations has been in discussion. There are some views of the lack of correct payment scale to be followed by New York City. Questions on what makes pay to be fair are never conclusive. Article by the editorial board of the New York Times outlines several views concerning the differences in pay between workers who participate in the rescue of people from dangerous situations. Paramedics and E.M.T.s are viewed to be compensated unfairly compared to firefighters. The editorial board authors use logos, pathos, and ethos to appeal to the audience. The rhetorical devices enhance the opinion and ideas put forward by the authors.

Works Cited

The Editorial Board. "Emergency medical workers deserve pay equity." September 21, 2019. The New York Times. Web. September 24, 2019. <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/opinion/sunday/emt-paramedics-salary.html>.