Are "elite rules" and "income equality" counterproductive?

Question

In the following sentence I am trying to explain a situation in a company where employers are going to impose a method of compensation which pays more money to the best workers based on some criteria, but workers resist against this rules. Eventually employers abolished those rules in order to not disappoint workers.

Workers threatened industrial action and therefore employers backed down from their elite rules; they promised to guarantee income equality.

I'm curious to know whether the bold phrases are used correctly or not?

I think paying more money to some workers for being more efficient and diligent is a sort of elitism, while paying equally to all workers is against an elite system, Am I right?

Answer 1

the only item I would have an issue with is elite rules. I do not think a rule can be elite, as they are not a person. "Rules for the elite" may be an option, however, even that I would question as in this case I do not think "best workers" falls into the definition of "The elite". The subject, I would suggest actually falls into the Bonus payment bracket, which is quite common and I am surprised at the hu ha. Try this sentence

Workers threatened industrial action; Employers backed down from implementing a bonus system and promise equal pay for all employees, regardless of the employee's efficiency and proficiency.

elite adjective [ before noun ]; belonging to the richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group in a society:Ref; C.E.D.

Answer 2

A term you can use is "performance-related pay". This usually means that there is some system of assessing a worker's performance.

... managers backed down from their proposal to introduce performance-related pay.

The alternative isn't necessarily income equality, but "experience-based pay" or "pay based on responsibilities and duties"