Topic of the Day...

Comparative Value (Worth) or Pay Equity.

The doctrine of comparable worth states that women and men should receive equal pay for jobs that are deemed to be of equal value. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantee that men and women who perform the same job will receive the same wage from an employer. Proponents of comparable worth argue that the same principle should apply across professions. If a male-dominated vocation and a female-dominated vocation are of "comparable worth," then members of those professions should receive the same salary. For example, if working in a laundry is as difficult and important as driving a truck—and if laundry workers are mostly female and truck drivers are mostly male—then laundry workers should earn the same as truck drivers.

In 1974, the state of Washington conducted a pioneering study of wage inequities in its civil service. Researchers assigned "worth"-points to 121 different jobs according to four categories: knowledge and skills necessary, mental demands, degree of responsibility, and working conditions. Salaries for predominately (at least 70 percent) male jobs were compared with predominantly female jobs of equal point value. Electricians, for one, were measured against secretaries since both jobs were "worth" 197 points. (The rating system had its quirks: Fisheries patrol officers were deemed to be worth 382 points, more than biologists and civil engineers.) The study found that in the Washington civil service, workers in female-dominated professions earned 20 percent less than those in male-dominated professions of comparable worth.

By 1989, about 20 states (including Washington) had tried to restructure their civil service pay scales according to the principle of comparable worth. That typically meant that the state would devise its own rating system and the state legislature would earmark millions of dollars to bring the salaries of underpaid female professions to the level of their male counterparts. The results were mixed. A follow-up study in Washington found that the wage gap had shrunk significantly. Job segregation remained unchanged, though, and many male civil servants moved to the private sector.

The issue gained national significance in 1983, when a federal judge ruled that Title VII protections applied to different jobs of equivalent value. (The 1983 decision was overturned on appeal two years later; comparable worth now seems to be a dead issue in the courts.) Comparable worth thus became a campaign issue. Presidential hopeful Walter Mondale endorsed it; the Reagan administration, including John Roberts, opposed it.

Critics of the policy argued (and continue to argue) that it's impossible to measure the true value of a job since economic conditions are so variable. Important factors were also left out of the rating systems, like a given job's prestige, how much fun it is, or its value to a specific community. Instead of creating a continually updated table of wages, critics say, the government should let the free market determine the relative worth of different jobs. (Slate Magazine, What's Comparable Worth?, Aug. 22)

The supporters of comparable worth point to the relatively depressed wages of those in largely female professions, such as health care, child care, and elementary education, compared to the wages of those, such as truck drivers, parking lot attendants, and vocational educators, in mostly male professions. In virtually every case, they claim, jobs that demand comparable skill, education, risk, and responsibility receive vastly different salaries, depending entirely on whether the jobs are filled mostly by men or by women. (Santa Clara University, Comparable Worth, Spring 1990)

For example, in Minnesota, state jobs were rated according to required level of education, training, stress, customer or client contact, and responsibility. To cite just one example of the findings, registered nurses and vocational education teachers were each rated the same, but the salary for nurses, who were mostly women, was only $1732 per month, while the salary for vocational education teachers, who were mostly men, was $2260 per month. Numerous other studies show that the greater the concentration of women in a job, the lower the wage employers pay that job.

Such sex-based pay discrepancies, say the advocates of comparable worth, are unjust because society has an obligation to treat people equally in the absence of any relevant differences in their situations.

Advocates of comparable worth claim that women have been victimized by a socialization process that unjustly steers them towards precisely those fields that are the least lucrative. It is true that gradual shifts in society have allowed more women to enter higher paying fields. But the supply of jobs in these occupations is far too small, social and economic barriers to women attempting to enter such occupations continue to exist, and women who have been in their careers for many years find it difficult to shift to new occupations even when institutional barriers are removed.

For the most part, the adjustments to civil service pay scales that were made in the 1980s were never repealed, but they haven't been updated, either. To ensure that jobs of comparable worth continue to earn equal pay, states would have to study the wage gap at regular intervals and adjust the pay scale appropriately.

Addition Links
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa038.html
http://www.cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/IA2.htm



aC. Sidebar

I do believe there is a gender pay gap. I don't have to read it off the internet or from the advertisements on the "L" trains telling me about it. I know it exists. I have a many friends, male and female with lucrative and non-lucrative jobs. Regardless, in the non-lucrative jobs, the pay isn't substantial. Come on, you can't tell me that a dishwasher, gardener, and other manual labor position will rake in 6-figures. Well, unless your gardening Diddy's plush condo in Boca Raton. Do you know how much cheerleaders make? I believe NFL cheerleaders make practically next to nothing. I do know that pay for being a Luv-a-Bull is meager.

The call for comparative worth is no louder than this, when you have a multi-million dollar quarterback, pitchers, and shooting guard making obscene amount of cash, while the cheerleaders, WNBA players, and the professional Fastpitch Softball players combined do not add up to equal to those of the weed-smoking, 19-year-old raping, steroid-abusing male athletes that dominate the covers of SI or ESPN Magazine. Don't get me wrong here, I'm no feminist, but I do agree with them that we all live in a male dominated society. I'm a guy, do I feel bad? Yes. Is there something I can do about it? May not as a student, but possibly as a business owner or politician I can.

The whole issue of comparative law doesn't merely surround the concepts of employment and labor laws, but beyond to sociology and history. Anthropological review should be considered of society’s relations between human and other humans, especially in dealing with the relationship of male and females. With this requirement, research, and interpretation, maybe that's why comparative worth, pay, equality is so hard to come by.

Is it our own greed? Does it come down to pure humanistic characteristics and traits interacting? Maybe. I can tell you where the economic hand of capitalism is; To the Abercrombie models, Diddy's Pepsi commercials, and 2:00 am Carlton Sheet's infomercials for the temptation for a "better" future and life for Americans. So can there be something done? Well, maybe, but we as a society may have to change individually and collectively, regardless of changing just the civil service structure. I think Reagan had it right; there are too many variables and Smith's hand in economy that affects the economy of employment and labor. You can certainly pay women more, but if we as a society can not appreciate every female on an objective basis, rather than meat, than comparative worth will fail and respect for ourselves as a society.