Nope. You belie the fallacy of your arguement YBF, for what work is deemed valuable which produces no results. Is the baker's act of baking(work) valuable if he burns his twinkies? Who is that valuable for? Himself? His employer?
Ephort takes it out of YBF's error by talking about following orders but that doesn't get there either.
What is missing in most of these arguements except one, is the competency of the worker, which goes beyond following orders(Hi Ephort..how have you been?). An employee can " follow orders" and be slow, unpleasant, do the minimum required to get the job done, etc., we've all worked with that person, right? His results are at the bare minimum to do what is required.
His work is of more value to the employer than the incompetent baker who burns his product, who should not get paid for his "effort". The reason is that the "result" of his effort tastes nasty....but is the minimalist employee's effort, although "work" as valuable without the same "result" as the energetic baker who produces twice as many twinkies that have that soft squishy creamy taste that we all remember?..well most of us ...unless you're a communist....and deem it anti-socialistic to munch on sweet treats...;-)
Fair pay is what a willing employer and employee agree on. I don't see salary compensation being more important or special than any other. Employers pay the least they can to get a employee with the required qualifications. If a employee feels underplayed he will be unhappy and looking for another job, increasing a employers training expenses.