Eliminating the Gender Pay Gap

Comparable Worth

The concept of comparable worth takes the idea of equal pay for equal work one step further by comparing not only jobs that are the same but jobs that have the same value to the organization. This idea is not included in the Equal Pay Act, but proponents claim that it is inherent in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, comparable worth extends the concept of "equal pay for equal work" to "equal pay for jobs of equal value." Comparable worth flows from an observation that women are paid less than men and the idea that when jobs filled mostly by women are judged "comparable" to jobs filled mostly by men, wages for both should be the same. Proponents of comparable worth argue that women have been "crowded" into certain occupations and therefore the labor market discriminates against them. To overcome this kind of discrimination they call for equal pay for jobs of comparable value within an organization. This differs from EPA. The EPA dictates that the jobs being compared must be substantially equal in terms of duties, responsibilities, skill, and working conditions.

Arguments for comparable worth

Proponents point to the 84-cent dollar and claim that a major part of this discrepancy exists because women's jobs are undervalued by society in relation to men's jobs. Proponents feel that comparable worth will be served by comparing men's and women's jobs using job evaluation, and that if this is done it will show that women's jobs are indeed undervalued by society. In fact, this has been done in Oregon, Los Angeles, and San Jose, and the results show there is an undervaluing of women's jobs.

The watershed court ruling on this act was in the 1981 case of Gunther v. County of Washington.

However, since this decision, lower courts have been hostile to Title VII claims challenging gender pay discrimination.

Arguments against comparable worth

Opponents of comparable worth contend that comparable worth ignores the labor market. They perceive organizations as merely paying market rates for jobs, and to do otherwise is to destroy the market mechanism. Further, the idea seems to them to be impractical. They see comparable worth as involving four elements that are objectionable and hard to achieve:

1. comparing dissimilar jobs
2. comparing these dissimilar jobs on their so-called intrinsic value
3. developing an unbiased job evaluation plan
4. requiring third-party intervention to make these determinations

In short, opponents see comparable worth as impossible in the labor market and impractical in administration.

Viewed in this way, paying women less than men is simply following what the market dictates. The claim is that administrative interference with wage setting would lead to inefficiency and would not work because these wage increases would result in employers hiring fewer individuals in that labor market.

Resolution

Both these positions are all-or-nothing. In fact:

• market rates are used for setting the value of jobs, but not exclusively
• jobs differ in the degree to which it is useful to try to determine market rates
• jobs can be compared successfully using job evaluation

ERI agrees that job evaluation is a tool that can compare apples and oranges, which the opponents of comparable worth say cannot be done. Organizations can and do have job evaluation plans that evaluate all jobs within the organization and these result in effectively establishing a fair and equitable hierarchy. In the end, market rates and job evaluation must be used together to establish the salary structure and resolve the comparable worth question. We will show you how later on in this course. Also, ERI DLC Course 34: Using Job Evaluation in Your Organization, has a demonstration on how to do job evaluation using the Point Factor Method.

Pay Transparency

In an effort to close the gender pay gap and promote pay equity, state and local governments are enacting salary range disclosure laws, pay data reporting mandates, and prohibitions on pay secrecy.

Salary Range Disclosure - some states now require employers to disclose job pay ranges in job postings while others require disclosure upon request.

Salary History - it is illegal in many states for employers to ask a job candidate about their salary history because the practice can perpetuate past pay disparities.

Discussing Pay at Work - under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employers may not require their employees to keep their pay a secret. However, pay secrecy is still encouraged in many organizations despite the federal law so many states are enacting their own laws to prohibit salary secrecy.