Library
April 28, 2003 Issue
The Return of Comparable WorthThe issue of comparable pay for comparable work will bring back memories for seasoned human resource professionals. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution was debated throughout the United States. The issue of comparable worth was often quoted as one of the benefits to women if the amendment passed. Although the amendment did not pass, the issue remains. Comparable worth began in the late 1800s as a demand by male-based trade unionists to prevent wage cutting by women in unregulated labor markets. Numerous federal agencies supported this principle during World War I. During World War II the idea of comparable pay levels for males and females gained more momentum. The National War Labor Board decreed that it is United States national policy to pay males and females equal wages for comparable work. At the end of World War II the issue was no longer a national priority. Numerous states passed "Equal Pay" legislation during the 1950s. The final legislative attempt, prior to the Equal Rights Amendment, came during the Kennedy administration. President Kennedy supported a national comparable worth amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. When opposition grew in Congress, he allowed for a compromise to change the wording from comparable work to equal work. The following is a review of current legislative activities regarding comparable pay for comparable work between males and females in the workplace. EQUAL PAY April 15, tax day, was also Equal Pay Day. According to wage gap statistics, it's the day when American women's wages from the present year, added to their past year's wages, equal men's wages from the past year alone. The day is symbolic of the persistent, and persistently controversial, gender-based wage gap in America. Existing legislation is intended to protect women from sex discrimination in pay. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 prohibits sex-based pay discrimination between men and women working for the same establishment in jobs that are substantially equal in terms of effort, skill, responsibility, and working conditions. In short, it states that employees must be given equal pay for equal work. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination, including sex discrimination, in all employment-related matters, including pay. THE WAGE GAP AND COMPARABLE WORTH Despite such legislation, the wage gap persists: 2001 census data show that women earn 75 cents to each male dollar. It is the interpretation of this data that forms the nucleus of the debate over further legislation. Some see the wage gap as a result of societal discrimination against women. They claim that those jobs traditionally filled by women are compensated poorly as compared to jobs of a similar worth to an organization. "Comparable worth," the doctrine that jobs of similar value should receive equal pay, is also referred to as "pay equity." Their opponents claim that the choices women make dictate their pay. Citing such factors as labor force participation, educational attainment, experience, tenure, industry, occupation, and the demands of a family, detractors of comparable worth theory argue that women's priorities have determined their place in the market. In addition, many economists see equitable pay legislation as meddling with the laws of supply and demand. LEGISLATION Comparable worth legislation would, in essence, establish job-worth hierarchies as the legally acceptable norm. Organizations would be required to evaluate their jobs, rank them in terms of importance, and determine pay scales accordingly. While a number of states require comparable worth evaluation in the public sector, in 2001 Maine became the first state to require comparable worth in the public and private sectors. In other states and at the federal level, numerous pay equity bills are currently pending. Such bills include the following:
Supporters of this activity point to the 1988 Pay Equity Act of Ontario, Canada. The wage gap between men and women, similar to that in the United States prior to Ontario's 1988 legislation, has been reduced by over 25%. However, Ontario has found it difficult to recruit new industries from outside Canada, due to concern over legislation that eliminates an organization's ability to effectively respond to employee supply and demand in the labor market. Astron Solutions will continue to monitor this and all legislative activities impacting human resource program design. As new developments arise, you'll read about them in future issues of Astronology.
Reader Poll Archive
Wonder what your fellow readers think about critical HR topics? Is your organization unique from or similar to others?Click here to view the results of our past polls!
Have a Question?
If you have a topic you would like addressed in Astronology, or some feedback on a past article, don't hesitate to tell us! Simply reply to this e-mail. See your question answered, or comments addressed, in an upcoming issue of Astronology.
Looking for a top-notch presenter for your human resource organization's meeting? Both Jennifer Loftus and Michael Maciekowich present highly-rated sessions on a variety of compensation and employee retention issues. For more information, send an e-mail to info@astronsolutions.com.
Are you reading a pass-along copy of Astronology? Click on
this button
Send inquiries to info@astronsolutions.com or call 800-520-3889, x105.
The Fine Print
We hold your e-mail address in trust. Astron Solutions promises never to share or rent your personal information. We also promise never to send you frivolous e-mails and will allow you to leave our list, at your option, at any time.
To remove yourself from this list, please follow your personalized subscriber link at the bottom of your Astronology alert e-mail. Copyright 2007, Astron Solutions, LLC ISSN Number 1549-0467 |
||
