Comparable worth in the united states legal and administrative developments in the 1980's

Abstract

During the 1980's, the concept of comparable worth has become closely identified with women's rights and sex discrimination concerns, and is now recognized by advocates and critics alike as one of the major affirmative action issues of the decade. Simply put, comparable worth refers to the idea of equal pay for dissimilar jobs of equal value to an organization.

According to comparable worth proponents, jobs traditionally associated with women have been systematically undervalued in the marketplace. The net result is a disparity in pay for women when compared with that for jobs largely held by men. It is also argued that this compensatory bias against women can be revealed and eliminated by assessing the economic value of disparate occupations through the use of objective standards of evaluation. For example, although secretarial and janitorial jobs are dissimilar in function, it is argued that pay equity can be achieved by assessing such factors as working conditions and the amount of training, responsibility and effort required for each job.

Critics of comparable worth take strong exception to these assertions. They argue that the wage differential between men and women is more the result of career choice and market forces than sex discrimination. Moreover, they contend that employers must often pay a higher wage for some occupations than others in order to remain competitive and to attract the best qualified personnel. Finally, critics of comparable worth maintain that job evaluation systems are inherently subjective. Therefore, any comparison of dissimilar jobs is at best arbitrary.

These conflicting points of view have formed the crux of the comparable worth debate during the past 10 years. The purpose of this review is to assess some of the outcomes and trends established by this debate as well as what those trends appear to indicate for the coming decade. To do so, we shall examine the comparable worth issue from legal, legislative and administrative perspectives.