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.

[bluethread]

That is not an absolute moral imperative. That is the moral doctrine of egalitarianism.

Yes, and it thereby gives good reason to take issue with the parable.

There is no inherent suspicion in unequal pay. In fact, the whole "equal pay for equal work" mantra is a canard. Though one can mathematically establish an equal pay rate, there are many ways to determine "equal" work. There is time, quantity, quality, experience, seniority, "need", etc.

All of which is commendably well argued, making a good case for there being no unfairness. I am not deficient in counter-arguments, which means that the question of fairness is far from obvious.

HOWEVER, while I agree that there are many reasons for giving some more pay than others, this aspect is absent from any lesson in the parable. There is no suggestion that the award was made for superior effort and this requires one to read new material into the tale. The good parable must stand on what it actually expresses. The point of the parable seems to be that the owner can do what he wishes with his money. This is true but hardly a commendation for a Nobel Prize. Your secondary evaluation of the parable to extract some more fairness is a credit to your powers of creative investigation.

The secondary evaluation was in response to an attempt to imply infer a quid pro quo in every difference in pay. Yes, that is not the point of the parable, but it was in the post I was responding to. I doubt that market based economics will ever get a Nobel Prize. However, the point of the parable is that whether the employer(Adonai) compensates the laborers(His people) equally or unequally is not the concern of the laborers, as long as they get what is promised.

[marco]

The secondary evaluation was in response to an attempt to imply infer a quid pro quo in every difference in pay. Yes, that is not the point of the parable, but it was in the post I was responding to. I doubt that market based economics will ever get a Nobel Prize. However, the point of the parable is that whether the employer(Adonai) compensates the laborers(His people) equally or unequally is not the concern of the laborers, as long as they get what is promised.

Dear bluethread, I have no problem whatsoever in turning to the divine and accepting that God can do what he likes and fairness has nothing to do with it. I am discussing the analogy, the players in the parable, and I am making the point that we can certainly see unfairness in the chosen parallel. This unfairness can be glossed over or dismissed or explained. All I am saying is that the reasonable reader (and I presumptuously place myself in that category) will certainly sense injustice. Hearing that Mr. Estate Owner can do what he wants with his money does not remove the human unfairness. The situation very much resembles the present day situation of paying some workers a particular hourly rate, but getting immigrant workers to do the same job for a considerably lower wage. All agree - but there is an unfairness nonetheless.

If you disagree with this style of reasoning, and you must since the parable came from Christ, then we simply agree to differ. And you buy the drinks.

[Wootah]

The secondary evaluation was in response to an attempt to imply infer a quid pro quo in every difference in pay. Yes, that is not the point of the parable, but it was in the post I was responding to. I doubt that market based economics will ever get a Nobel Prize. However, the point of the parable is that whether the employer(Adonai) compensates the laborers(His people) equally or unequally is not the concern of the laborers, as long as they get what is promised.

Dear bluethread, I have no problem whatsoever in turning to the divine and accepting that God can do what he likes and fairness has nothing to do with it. I am discussing the analogy, the players in the parable, and I am making the point that we can certainly see unfairness in the chosen parallel. This unfairness can be glossed over or dismissed or explained. All I am saying is that the reasonable reader (and I presumptuously place myself in that category) will certainly sense injustice. Hearing that Mr. Estate Owner can do what he wants with his money does not remove the human unfairness. The situation very much resembles the present day situation of paying some workers a particular hourly rate, but getting immigrant workers to do the same job for a considerably lower wage. All agree - but there is an unfairness nonetheless.

If you disagree with this style of reasoning, and you must since the parable came from Christ, then we simply agree to differ. And you buy the drinks.

So are you saying that on the surface level it seems unfair but clearly when we analyse the parable it isn't?

[marco]

So are you saying that on the surface level it seems unfair but clearly when we analyse the parable it isn't?

The usefulness of a homily or a parable, Wootah, is its accessibility to listeners, so the surface meaning is important. The deeper interpretation may well be fine but why use a parable that has the immediate effect of distraction from what is required?

[bluethread]

So are you saying that on the surface level it seems unfair but clearly when we analyse the parable it isn't?

The usefulness of a homily or a parable, Wootah, is its accessibility to listeners, so the surface meaning is important. The deeper interpretation may well be fine but why use a parable that has the immediate effect of distraction from what is required?

This post is more on point, so I will answer it as a stand in for the one you wrote to me. The immediate effect is not distraction. The middle east, especially in Yeshua's time, is a barter society. Yeshua's point fits right in with that economy. The bartered amount is the price for THAT job, done by THAT worker, for THAT employer. To back track to your reference to modern controlled economies, the sense of unfairness is created by the governing authority. One would have to add a third entity to the parable for it to relate to modern workers in controlled economies. If one were to look at other parables, one could guess, who that other entity would be.

[marco]

I think, Bluethread, instead of moving into deeper irrelevance, we can look at the actual close of the parable, where the workers are paid their denarius.

So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

So you see, I am not alone in perceiving unfairness. The characters in the tale felt the same. The late comers didn't seem to barter at all, by the way. It would be no surprise if the vineyard were destroyed a few days later. But that's another story.

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.�

The conclusion of the tale contains almost a sadistic touch. What is on naked display is an owner demonstrating that he can do whatever he wants. It is the boast of power. There was no envy involved - just a correct sense of injustice. They don't want to be paid a higher price than what was agreed - but those who avoided working through the hot day merited less, if indeed a denarius was the correct rate. The summarising statement: The last shall be first and the first last is also an example of prima facie unfairness. I can imagine the reaction to this idea were it applied in the Olympic Games. Even the order in which the men were paid is unfair, since it is grotesque to keep those who have already worked longest till the last pay out.

Yep - the more you look at it, the worse it gets. I can come to believe that Christians can defend ANYTHING, as long as the name of Jesus is attached to it.

[Wootah]

So are you saying that on the surface level it seems unfair but clearly when we analyse the parable it isn't?

The usefulness of a homily or a parable, Wootah, is its accessibility to listeners, so the surface meaning is important. The deeper interpretation may well be fine but why use a parable that has the immediate effect of distraction from what is required?

Not really. Jesus did not intend his parables to be understood easily.
-
Mark 4:10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]�
-
The key to understanding fairness is to understand that almost no criminal thinks they deserve to go to prison.

[marco]

Mark 4:10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]�
-
The key to understanding fairness is to understand that almost no criminal thinks they deserve to go to prison.

Hmmm. I believe Pythagoras introduced esoteric truths to his pupils in the same way. I didn't think the story contained any difficult points but if one must see the parable through criminal eyes that will be where I am deficient.

[bluethread]

I think, Bluethread, instead of moving into deeper irrelevance, we can look at the actual close of the parable, where the workers are paid their denarius.

So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

So you see, I am not alone in perceiving unfairness. The characters in the tale felt the same. The late comers didn't seem to barter at all, by the way. It would be no surprise if the vineyard were destroyed a few days later. But that's another story.

I never said you were alone. What I am saying is that the point of the parable is that this sense of unfairness is misplaced.

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.�

The conclusion of the tale contains almost a sadistic touch. What is on naked display is an owner demonstrating that he can do whatever he wants. It is the boast of power. There was no envy involved - just a correct sense of injustice. They don't want to be paid a higher price than what was agreed - but those who avoided working through the hot day merited less, if indeed a denarius was the correct rate. The summarising statement: The last shall be first and the first last is also an example of prima facie unfairness. I can imagine the reaction to this idea were it applied in the Olympic Games. Even the order in which the men were paid is unfair, since it is grotesque to keep those who have already worked longest till the last pay out.

Yep - the more you look at it, the worse it gets. I can come to believe that Christians can defend ANYTHING, as long as the name of Jesus is attached to it.

No it is not a correct view of injustice. It is a self centered sense of injustice. Charity is not unjust even though it is not earned. The principle, which is also taught elsewhere is that egalitarianism is bogus. It is not unjust for things to be unequal. That is one of the problems with the term "fair". It combines the concepts of just and equal. As the parable points out absolute equality can be seen as unfair. However, your argument that hourly rate is the "fair" way to compensate people, opens a Pandora's box of grievances. What about the ones who harvested more per hour, for example. Is it fair to pay them the same as those that harvested less per hour? The point being that Adonai's kingdom is not egalitarian. Judged by egalitarian standards, the last are first and the first last.

[Wootah]

Mark 4:10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]�
-
The key to understanding fairness is to understand that almost no criminal thinks they deserve to go to prison.

Hmmm. I believe Pythagoras introduced esoteric truths to his pupils in the same way. I didn't think the story contained any difficult points but if one must see the parable through criminal eyes that will be where I am deficient.

It could be true. No one comes to Jesus without repenting first.