THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPARABLE WORTH:
CHALLENGES TO SEX-BASED WAGE DISCRIMINATION
by
Barbara Gwen Fields
B.A.,
Political Science and German, Tufts University
(1979)
Submitted to the Deparment of
Urban Studies and Planning
In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements
For The Degree 0F
MASTER OF CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June, 1985
0Barbara G. Fields, 1985
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to
distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.
Signature of Author
------------
/
Deparment
of 7 rb an
A
Sudies and Planning
May_213, 1985
Certified by_
J. Mark Davidson Schuster
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by____
Chairman,
(F TECHL
GY
JUL 1 1985
Phillip
L. Clay
MCP Committee
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPARABLE WORTH
CHALLENGES TO SEX-BASED WAGE DISCRIMINATION
by
Barbara Gwen
Fields
Submitted to the Department of Urban
and Planning on May 28,
1985 in
Studies
partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Masters of City
Planning
ABSTRACT
In
1984,
despite
twenty
years of
equal
employment
policies and improved educational training women working
on
a full-time, year-round basis continue to earn roughly sixty
percent of the wages earned by men.
At the same time women
work
primarily
in
sex-segregated
occupations.
Recent
research
shows a significant correlation between these
two
phenomena.
Comparable worth has emerged as one policy tool
to eliminate that part of the wage gap due to sex-based wage
discrimination.
This
thesis
investigates the
theoretical
basis
and
historical
background
for
a comparable worth
policy
and
explores
how
this
policy
has
been
implemented.
Trade
unions,
women's groups and some state and local governments
have
promoted
comparable
worth primarily
in
the
public
sector
through
collective
bargaining
and
legislation.
Legislation
can
effect
a broad range of
job
categories.
The
legislative approach relies on the efforts
of
elected
officials,
and therefore, is vulnerable to political shifts
in
the
government.
The
collective
bargaining
approach
involves
a
higher
degree
of
worker
participation,
and
depends
more
on the strength of unions at
the
bargaining
table.
Regardless
of
method,
comparable
worth
has
effectively
raised
the
wages
for
workers
in
underpaid
female-dominated
jobs.
Research
shows,
however,
that
comparable
worth
has been limited in its scope and in
its
ability
to
fully
identify
sex-bias
in
wage
setting
practices.
Still
the achievement of comparable worth
can
alter
the
economic status of women and begin to
challenge
prevailing
cultural
attitudes
which
undervalue
"women's
work".
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
J. Mark Davidson Schuster
Assistant Professor of Urban Studies
and Planning
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would like to thank the many people who helped me in
writing this thesis.
My supervisors, Maryellen Kelley, Mark
Schuster,
and Lisa Peattie,
guidance
on
appreciation
many
early
goes
to
provided critical feedback and
A
drafts.
Francoise
special
Carre.
note
Her
of
support,
encouragement, and pragmatic help made it possible to finish
this
work
in time for graduation.
acknowledge
Bennett
challenged
and
Harrison
encouraged
I would also
who
for
two
me to sharpen my
like
years
to
has
thinking
and
to explore new ideas.
Much love and many thanks to my parents and my brothers
who, as always, gave me their remarkable support, good humor
and
love--perhaps
especially
in
more
ways
than
they
appreciate the support of my
who were always there to listen to me;
Buderwitz
for taking care of me when
Youngbar,
who
intellectual
wonderful
I needed it,
is a special
and shared long after these pages begin to fade.
Cathy
and Lynn
friendship,
gift to be
I
friends
particularly,
reminded me so often that
pursuits,
realize.
like
cultivated
h,that explains
the differeice
in our salaries!
illi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
Acknowledgements
Chapter
1:
.
.
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION.
Chapter 2:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
OF COMPARABLE WORTH . . . . . . .
2
.
.
9
The Wage Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The
Wage Gap,
Occupational
Segregation
and Discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Job Evaluation and Its Role in Comparable Worth.
History of Comparable Worth as Policy. . . . . .
.
.
9
CASE STUDIES IN IMPLEMENTATION .
Chapter 3:
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . .
Washington . . . . . . . . . . .
Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . .
San Jose, California . . . . . .
Contra Costa County, California.
Vacaville, California. . . . . .
Yale University. . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 4:
a
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . 15
. . 20
. . 25
.
.
.
.
34
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
37
43
47
50
55
58
64
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Introduction . . . . .
Legislation. . . . . .
Collective Bargaining.
Summary. . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LIMITATIONS OF COMPARABLE WORTH. .
Chapter 5:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
68
75
82
.
.
.
.
.
85
Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Relevant Evaluation Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Sex-Bias in Job Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Chapter 6:
CONCLUSION. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
.
.
109
Bibliography
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Interviews
1
.
.
.
97
"If
anyone vows the value of a person and wishes
to discharge the vow:
a man shall be valued at
fifty
shekels... a women shall
be valued
at
thirty
shekels."
-- Leviticus 27:3-4
Chapter
1:
INTRODUCTION
Comparable
worth
has become one of the most
talked
about and debated public policy issues in the United States.
Trade
unions
issues;
have
seminars
can avoid this
the
Equal
"civil
made it one
of
top
bargaining
for management personnel teach how
"human
resource trap;"
firms
the former director of
Employment Opportunity Commission called it
rights issue of the eighties;"
claimed
their
it
is
"pregnant
(sic) with
and a
the
federal
judge
possibility
disrupting the entire economic system of the United
(Feldberg, 1985).
the
of
States"
Comparable worth was an issue in the 1984
presidential campaign with the Democrats strongly supporting
it,
and
official
(New
the
Reagan
stand
administration refusing
but calling it
York Times,
1984).
to
"a nebulous idea
take
at
an
best".
What is comparable worth?
Why
does it evoke such strong reaction?
Comparable
worth is a policy which seeks to
eliminate
that portion of the wage gap between men and women that
be attributed to sex-based wage discrimination,
which
occurs
influences
the
and,
jobs.
when
the sex composition of
job
i.e.,
can
that
incumbents
what an employer is willing to pay those who
Rejecting a system which places a lower
do
value,
consequently, a lower wage, on the work done by women,
comparable
worth
comparable
advocates
skill,
effort,
conditions
be
systematic
undervaluation
artifical
that
demand
equally
that
responsibility
compensated.
of
jobs
By
women's
requiring
and
working
challenging
work,
the
i.e.
the
depression of women's wages relative to the wages
would be paid if the jobs were done primarily by
men,
comparable worth addresses a type of discrimination thus far
unchallenged
Comparable
equal
by
existing
worth
equal
employment
differs from the idea of
policies.
equal
pay
for
work because it recognizes that men and women work in
different
occupations.
It differs from affirmative
action
programs because the goal of comparable worth is not to move
women
out of
their current professions but to increase
the
wages of the "undervalued" work they are already doing.
In
1984,
policies,
earned
man
despite
twenty years
of
equal
a woman working on a full-time,
employment
year-round basis
approximately 64 cents for every dollar earned by
(Smith and Ward,
labor
market
1984., p. xiii).
continued
to
At the same time, the
exhibit
a
high
level
segregation by sex with men and women employed in
occupations.
employed
for
According
to
one study,
(Steinberg,
National
distribution across occupations to
1984,
Academy
p.4).
of
In
1981,
of
different
two-thirds of
men and women would have to change jobs
their
a
in
be
all
order
similar.
a major study by
Sciences/National
Research
the
Council
(NAS/NRC) concluded that men and women not only do different
jobs,
but
substantial
that
occupational segregation
part of the wage gap.
accounts
for
a
In fact, they found that
"the
more an occupation is dominated by women,
pays."
the
(Treiman
wage
and Hartmann,
differential
p.
1981,
28).
While part of
can be attributed to
education
training differences between men and women,
unexplained
the less it
there is is
wage differential that is due at least in
and
an
part
to the fact that the jobs are done primarily by women.
In
the last decade the idea of comparable worth has
been translated into policy in a variety of ways.
30 states and over
problem
of
pressure
the
100 localities have begun to address
wage
among
public
employees.
And
Advocates have raised the issue through
education,
resulting
in
bargaining
comparable
employers
be
National
collective
comparable
bargaining,
worth
and
litigation
legislation,
collective
agreements that include "comparable worth"
adjustments,
longer
gap
the
is mounting on private sector employers to address
the issue as well.
public
More than
and
worth
know
litigation
claim.
over
Workers
the
are
wage
validity
of
the
beginning
to
let
that sex-based wage discrimination will
tolerated.
Committee
In a recent poll conducted
on Pay Equity
(NCPE),
a
by
coalition
no
the
of
labor unions and women's and civil rights groups working for
comparable
the
83% of the workers questioned
concept of comparable worth as one way of
wage gap.
The
widespread
worth
worth,
(NY Times, February 14,
fight
for
challenges
opposition.
one of the basic value
4
closing
the
1985).
comparable worth policies
controversy and ardent
supported
has
evoked
Comparable
systems
in
our
culture:
the
way in which compensation is determined
value is assigned to work.
and
As Helen Remick explains:
"Most men use their earnings as a primary measure
of
their
self-worth;
women
tend
to use
other
measures because by this measure they
are nearly
worthless and certainly worth less.
A proposal to
alter
fundamentally the manner in which wages
are
assigned is therefore likely to arouse some emotion
in virtually everyone."
(Remick, 1984, p. x).
By
challenging
relative
worth
value
raises
Arguing
prevailing cultural
of different
work
ideas
about
activities,
many uncomfortable questions
comparable
for
employers.
that comparable worth is not grounded in any
rationale,
(Livernash, 1980;
comparable
contend
worth
BNA, 1984).
that it will
Critics of
destroy
market as the basic mechanism for setting wages.
does
not,
however,
market for setting wages;
the
content
rather,
workers.
Comparable
discrimination
In
the past,
oppose
free
Comparable
of
the
it requires employers to
Wages rates should be based
not on
worth
the
characteristics
calls
from the market,
for
removal
not the destruction of
employers have used these same
arguments
of
of
it.
to
other labor market reforms which seek to reinterpret
compensation
law
of jobs,
the
dismiss the importance
pay fair market wages to women.
on
legal
employers have strongly resisted most comparable
worth activities.
worth
the
practices (e.g.
and an eight
hour
the fight for a minimum
day).
(Madison,
1983;
wage
Steinberg,
1984).
Opponents
impossible
comparing
to
of
comparable worth also argue that
compare dissimilar jobs because it
apples and oranges.
5
Yet,
Remick and
it
is
is
like
Steinberg
(1984)
point out:
"Of
course,
any particular apple may not
be
equal to any particular orange, nor are all apples
identical.
Yet, there are general characteristics
of
fruit,
such
as the number
of
calories,
the
vitamin content,
and so on,
that make it possible
to
compare
specific
apples
with
specific
oranges.
Along some dimensions of comparison,
the
apples and
oranges
compared may,
in fact,
be
equivalent, and therefore of equal value.
Likewise
certain
dissimilar
jobs may
comprise functional
tasks and characteristics that,
from the employers
point of view, are equivalent in value." (p.288).
Finally,
worth will
not
critics
charge that implementing
be too costly to employers.
is
no
continue.
ended all
justification
for
letting
at once.
costly,
discrimination
As with other labor market reforms, such
usually implemented in phases.
can
usually
be
No one has argued that all wage discrimination be
as Title VII and the minimum wage laws,
time
While proponents do
deny that comparable worth adjustments may
cost
comparable
reduce the fiscal
represent
total wage bill.
comparable worth is
Spreading the costs out over
impact.
Initial
only a small fraction of
(Remick and Steinberg,
adjustments
an
employer's
1984, p.290;
Cook,
1984, p.280).
As
country
Clarence
comparable worth activities proliferate around
the
controversy
Pendleton,
Commission,
not
gained
national
chairperson of the U.S.
attention.
Civil
recently called comparable worth "the
idea since Looney Tunes."
from
has
(NY Times, date).
the
Rights
looniest
This opposition
the present administration and from many employers has
altered
groups,
and
the determination
of
some state and local
trade
unions,
women's
governments to put an end
to
sex-based
discrimination
in
wage
setting
practices.
Rather it has shifted the locus of activity from the federal
legislative
and
judicial
arena
to
state
and
local
legislation and the collective bargaining arena.
My
thesis will investigate how the
comparable
at
worth has been achieved.
implementation
Chapter Two will
the theoretical and historical background of
worth,
look
comparable
specifically investigating the explanations for the
existence of
the wage gap,
discrimination,
occupational
the
theories of wage and
link
segregation,
between
the
and how a policy of
value
addresses
thus
employment
discrimination in wage
far
not
policies.
discrimination.
been
I
Although
race
by
and
equity
comparable
setting
addressed
focus
gap
pay
on the principle of equal pay for work of
has
employment
wage
based
that
of
practices
other
equal
specifically
on
sex
discrimination
in
wage
setting
exists,
larger,
and the extent of occupational segregation greater,
the
wage
gap between men
and
women
than that between minorities and non-minorites.
Comparable
worth policy can also serve as a basis for correcting
based
discrimnation.
In Chapter Three,
procedure
the
how implementation is affected by
for setting wages,
comparable
employees
worth
The cases
the
existing
by the degree of support
policy
and management,
race-
I look at several
case studies of comparable worth implementation.
illustrate
on
the
part
of
and by the political
which the events take place.
7
is
both
context
for
the
in
Chapter
the
Four will analyze the case studies to see
implementation of comparable worth challenges
procedures for setting wages.
how
existing
Specifically, I will discuss
how achieving comparable worth through collective bargaining
differs
from
political
achieving it through legislation and how
contexts
of
each
shapes
questioning wage setting practices,
support
the
i.e.,
process
for
how strong union
and the level of management cooperation affect
amount and type of wage supplement awarded;
the
the
how it
affects
mechanisms established to insure that comparable
is achieved.
the
worth
Chapter Five will consider the limitations of
comparable wroth policy as it has thus far been applied;
explore
what
discrimination
Chapter Six
steps
must
be
taken
will not reenter the wage
to
insure
setting
that
process.
will summarize the findings of this thesis.
8
and
Chapter 2:
THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF
COMPARA~BLE WORTH
The most significant change in the United States
market
since the end of World War II has been the
increase
in
workers.
both
the number and the proportion
of
workforce.
representing
only 27% of all workers.
more
50%
women
of
all
worked
accounting for 43% of the workforce.
over
outside
(Blau.
a period of time during which women have
workplace in record numbers,
and
years
Table 1).
women
the
By 1980,
the
home,
1984).
Yet,
entered
the
the earnings ratio between men
women has remained relatively constant.
forty
dramatic
roughly 33% of adult women were in
In 1950,
than
labor
it has fluctuated around
Over the
sixty
What causes the wage gap?
last
percent.
See
Why has it remained
unchanged?
Two different sets of explanations have been offered as
to
why
women
due
this differential
persists.
to
between the earnings of
men
and
The first argues that pay differences are
the characteristics of
workers.
The
second
set
focuses on characteristics of lgbs.
The "worker characteristic"
(supply-side) theories draw
upon
the neoclassical
with
the concept that individuals are compensated based
their
that
economic theory of
relative productivity,
investments
certain
payoffs
in
wages.
human capital
individual
9
on
theories
posit
skills
earn
productive
in the labor market.
Starting
In the
absence
of
TABLE 1
Comparison of Median Earnings of
Year-Round, Full-Time Workers
By Sex, Selected Years, 1939-1981
Median Earnings
Year
Women
Men
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1946
1939
$12,001
11,197
10,151
9,350
8,618
8,099
7,504
6,772
6,335
5,903
5,593
5,323
4,977
4,457
4,150
3,973
3,823
3,690
3,561
3,446
3,351
3,293
3,193
3,102
3,008
2,827
2,719
1,710
863
$20,260
18,612
17,014
15,730
14,626
13,455
12,758
11,835
11,186
10,202
9,399
8,966
8,227
7,664
7,182
6,848
6,375
6,195
5,978
5,974
5,644
5,317
5,209
4,927
4,713
4,466
4,252
2,588
1,356
Source:
National Committee
Myth and Facts,"
1983, p. 2 .
1 C)
Women's Earnings As
A Ratio of Men's
59.2%
60.2%
59.7%
59.4%
58.9%
60.2%
58.6%
57.2%
56.6%
57.9%
59.5%
59.4%
60.5%
58.2%
57.8%
58.0%
60.0%
59.6%
59.6%
57.7%
59.4%
61.9%
61.3%
63.0%
63.8%
63.3%
63.9%
66.1%
63.6%
on Pay Equity, "The Wage Gap:
(NCPE): Washington, D.C.,
discrimination,
economic
a
contribution
productivity).
difficult
have
worker
to
looked
is
paid
based on
to the
firm
(i.e.
Because
a
worker's
his
their
marginal
human captial
at
workers'
characteristics instead.
in
her
marginal
product
measure empirically,
differences
or
is
theories
productivity
If women earn less than men, it is
because on average they have fewer years of formal education
and
training
invest
than men a result of from their
decision
less time than men in their education and
to
training.
Women's lack of skills makes them less productive and hence,
less well
paid.
(Blau, 1984;
Stevenson,
1978; England, 1984;
Treiman and Hartmann, 1981).
In
an extension of the human capital
argues
that acquired human capital
from non-use.
they
Therefore,
interrupt
homemaking,
their
which
their productivity,
1984).
theory,
Polchak
may depreciate over time
women earn less than men because
careers
for
childrearing
and
lessens their seniority and deteriorates
resulting in lower paychecks.
(England,
Motivated by economic choice, women will choose to
acquire
skills that do not depreciate rapidly from
and
subsequently will choose to enter jobs in
are
not
dependent
upon
the
continuous
non-use
which
wages
accumulation
of
skills.
Empirically,
human
capital theories cannot
entirely
account for the persistence of the wage differential between
men and women.
1984)
women
Various studies
(Stevenson,
1978; England,
show that although the education gap between men
has
virtually
been
eliminated,
11
significant
and
pay
differentials
In 1981,
school
Furthermore,
drop-out
in
a
college
variables
(NCPE,
Lloyd and Niemi
influencing
characteristics
more
1964;)
(See
male
Table
2).
reviewing twenty-one major studies on
male-female earnings gap,
never
a woman with
earns an average of $2000 less per year than a
degree
high
persist.
usually
50% of
than
worker
accounted
the
the
(1979) found that
productivity
for less than
earnings
and
25%
and
differential,
the
residual being attributed to discrimination.
The
second set
of explanations
the wage gap focusses on job
that
different
responsibilities,
jobs
it
about the existence
characteristics.
require
Recognizing
different
skills
It may be that women are in jobs that
less
effort and responsibility.
require
The difference in
pay
between men and women would then legitimately be
on
differences
characteristics."
in
and
is expected that earnings will differ
among jobs.
skill,
of
"productivity-related
(Steinberg,
1984,
p.17).
job
based
content
However, these
job content differences can account for some, but never all,
of the intra-occupational differences in pay.
(Treiman and
Hartmann, 1981).
While
these theories address why jobs may be
rewarded
differently, they do not address the question of why men and
women tend to work in different types of jobs.
study
found that the single biggest reason women earn
than men is that,
in
The NAS/NRC
the same jobs.
less
overwhelmingly, women and men do not work
Rather,
women work in a narrow set
12
of
TABLE 2
Median Annual Earnings of Full-Time Wage
And Salary Workers* By Education, 1981
Level
of Education
Men
Women
$13,468
$ 6,788
1 to 3 years of high school
16, 328
9, 724
4 years high school
18.,876
11,544
1 to 3 years of college
20,696
13,468
4 years of college
23, 868
15,548
5 or more years of college
26,364
18,824
8 years or less
* Excludes part-time workers and the self-employed.
Source:
Helen Remick, "Comparable Worth:
Economic Equity
for Women". Manoa, HI: Industrial Relations Center,
1984, p.3
sex-segregated
occupations (occupations in which
70% of the incumbents are of one sex).
In
at
1982,
least
more than
80% of women employees worked in only 20 of the 427 detailed
occupations
(Madison,
evenly
p.6);
listed
1983,
by
the
p.6).
distributed
Bureau
of
In comparison,
Labor
Statistics.
men were much more
among more than 300 occupations
(Gold.,
less than 20% of men were employed in the ten largest
male-dominated occupations. (Grune, 1984).
Recent
work shows that over the last four decades
degree of occupational segregation,
remained substantially unchanged.
percentage
single
of women
sex)
has
in
like the wage gap,
From 1950 to
In
1982).
fact,
has
1979,
sex-segregated occupations
actually increased from
(Burris and Wharton,
the
35.7%
the
(over 85%
to
46.3%
more than 80% of women
working outside the home were in occupations which were
female,
and 22% were in jobs which were 95% female.
75%
(NCPE,
1983,
p.5)
Today,
a woman is actually more likely to
be
doing
some
type of
"women's" work than a woman working
in
1950.
In
1950,
clerical worker;
one out of every four working women was
by
1980,
a
that figure had grown to one out
of every three.
Women are not only confined to different jobs, but they
get paid less for their work.
in
1981,
by women,
Neither
The NAS/NRC study, completed
concluded that the more an occupation is dominated
the less it pays.
the
(Treiman and Hartmann,
1981).
personal characteristics of the employees
nor
the difference in job requirements can explain the extent of
the
relationship between sexual composition of
14
occupations
and the earnings of job incumbents.
worker
doing
a
compensation
In fact, the sex
job is the single best
of
that
Hartmann, 1981).
job.
(Remick,
indicator
1984;
of the
of
the
Treiman
and
What accounts for these phenomena?
How do
economists explain the apparent discrimination against women
in
the labor market?
The Wage gag.
The
OccUgational
Seg egAt ion.L and Discrimination
facts that the wage gap exists and that the
labor
market exhibits a high level of occupational segregation
sex
are undisputed.
critical
Rather,
by
the controversy surrounds the
question: how much is the wage gap and occupational
segregation due to women's choice of jobs, their restriction
to low paying jobs, or the underpayment of some jobs because
they
tend to be held by women?
charge
Comparable worth advocates
that the wage gap exists primarily because
discrimination
evidence tell
The
certain
against
women.
What does
the
of
wage
empirical
us?
first explanation is that women voluntarily choose
occupations
relatively
low paid.
attributed
to
socialization
appropriate
despite the fact that
a
variety
of
that
women);
reasons,
only certain
education
skills reduces job alternatives);
conscious
jobs
are
This preference for low paid work is
(belief
for
such
(lack
among
them:
occupations
of
are
training
lack of information;
decisions to forego certain occupations in
or
and
order
to be able to fulfill the dual demands of work and family.
While
it is difficult to assess the impact of choices,
15
because
than
choices
may be adaptations to
choices between alternatives,
attempted
women's
to
measure
position
relationship
in
constraints
empirical studies
the role of
choice
wages
and
looking
if
have
determining
continuity
The hypothesis was made that
experience.
in
the labor market by
between
rather
at
the
of
work
women's skills
depreciate over time due to the interruptions in their labor
force participation,
In
reviewing
England,
(1981)
this would correlate with lower wages.
several studies (Mincer
1962;
and
Corcoran,
and
Polchak,
1979) Treiman
found the results rather
1974;
and Hartmann
inconclusive.
Certainly,
the role of choice affects the distribution of women
occupations,
the
but
across
choice alone cannot explain the extent of
occupational
segregation found in
(Treiman and Hartman,
the
labor
market.
1981, p.53-54).
The two other explanations of women's concentration in low
occupations--exclusion
payi-ng
undervaluation
of
access
of
sex,
than
when
and
wage
discrimination.
religion,
occurs
another
for
or
ethnic
when one group
reasons
is
forms
denied
basis
origin.
of employees
unrelated
and
Employment
occurs when one class of workers
race,
to
Wage
is
paid
the
work
There are two types of wage discrimination.
performed.
is
jobs
to higher paying jobs solely or partly on the
discrimination
less
particular
of women's work--constitute different
employment
discrimination
from
two
differently;
workers
performing the same
work
are
the other type is relatively harder to
16
One
paid
detect
and
occurs
when
substantially
the
job
structure
within
a
firm
is
segregated by race or sex of the workers
and
the workers in one category are paid less than those in
the
other although the work performed is comparable based on job
requirements.
(Ibid,
Exclusion
opportunities
p. 9).
occurs
are
their race, sex,
when
employment
or
restricted to certain workers
religion, or another social
Neoclassical
economists
discrimination
theories.
offer
One
several
theory
employees
which
employers
workers
men.
prefer
for
some
certain
motivated,
and
may
or
Statistical discrimination occurs when
to hire members of a particular group
may not apply to
The
access
"crowding"
into certain occupations,
differences.
the
particular
women
and instead
Productivity
differences
their
in
are
"crowded"
creating an oversupply of
of the sexes increases
of
group
worker
theory states that
to high paying jobs,
separation
are
workers,
because of prevailing stereotypes about this
question.
The
that
to pay more to hire a particular group of
in this case,
denied
are not economically
on
employment
argues
simply have a preference or "taste"
that
based
characteristic.
employers
willing
promotional
labor.
productivity
together
with
an
oversupply of women workers holds women's wages artificially
low.
(Blau, 1984;
England, 1984;
Stevenson,
1978;
Wallace,
1982).
Radical
workforce
job
is
theorists
argue that the segregation
a result of a segmented labor market
characteristics
and industrial
17
structure
of
the
wherein
combine
to
funnel
women into low paying,
primary
market
high skill
where
are characterized by high
level,
women
Movement
secondary jobs.
and occupational
are
betwen
pay,
mobility;
concentrated,
lack
the two tiers is
Jobs in the
stability,
secondary jobs,
these
virtually
qualities.
non-existent.
This dual labor market in which jobs and workers are divided
into distinct categories increases the power of employers by
providing
them
with a low wage
workforce
and
preventing
worker solidarity through the artificial division of workers
along
sex
and
Stevenson,
race lines.
1978;
Gordon,
(For further
Edwards,
Reich,
discussions
1962;
see
England,
1984).
Treiman and Hartmann
studies
(Schlei
sought
to
within
firms.
and Grossman;
Malkiel
and
They
to detect
treatment
of
concluded that although it
employment
discrimination,
men and women in job
assignment,
based on their sex does exist.
empirical
Malkiel)
document employment and discrimination
difficult
etc.,
(1981) reviewed several
that
patterns
is
often
disparate
promotion,
Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 outlawed this type of behavior, making it
illegal
for an employer to discriminate in
practice--hiring,
firing,
promotion-,
compensation--based on the sex,
origin
of
an employee.
Still,
race,
job
any
employment
assignment
religion,
or
or ethnic
such conduct has not
been
eradicated.
The
that
other explanation of lower pay rates for women
is
women's work is underpaid because it is done primarily
by
women.
When
the
substantially similar,
detect,
how
although
similar
Equal
Pay
similar
done
men
and
women
is
the discrepancy in pay is easier
to
jobs must be to be
made it
question of
"equal".
considered
passed in 1963,
wages
work.
by
there still remains the legal
Act,
different
work
illegal
to men and women performing
The
to
pay
substantially
Identifying differences in pay
rates
when
jobs performed are substantially different in effort, skill,
responsibility,
Comparable
and
worth
practices.
task
policy
content
is
is
harder
designed
to
to
detect.
eliminate
While the empirical evidence is limited,
such
there
are several documented cases where job evaluation procedures
were
examined and it was found that the sex composition
the workforce influenced the pay rate.
case
(See War Labor Board
(Newman, 1976); Washington State study
For
example,
demonstrates
a
1972
case against
General
determining
relative
intentional
sex-based wage discrimination.
the
rates and was
International Union of Electrical,
Workers
(Remick, 1980)).
Electric
how an employer violated its own criteria
pay
of
found
guilty
In a
Radio
for
of
lawsuit,
and
Machine
(IUE) was able to show that the wage rates for men's
and
women's jobs were set by the same job evaluation method
and
despite
women's
jobs
similar
was
below
(Treiman and Hartman,
In
reviewing
segregation
concluded
and
ratings the
the lowest rate
evidence on the
differentials,
wage
for
1981, p.58-60; Newman,
the
wage
highest
men's
between
NAS/NRC
that theories focusing on women's choice
19
for
jobs
1976, p.270).
link
the
rate
job
study
of
low
paying
to
jobs and their exclusion from high paying jobs
fully
explain
the
extent
of
the
wage
fail
gap.
THe
undervaluation of work because it is primarily done by women
accounted for a substantial part of the observed wage gap:
"The committee
is convinced by
the
evidence... that
women
are
systematically underpaid... [and3
that
the
strategy
of 'comparable worth' merits consideration
as
an
alternative policy intervention in
the paysetting
process." (Ibid, p.66)
Job Evaluation and its Role in ComaaCable Worth
Theories of occupational
attempt
segregation and discrimination
to explain why men and women work in different jobs
and
why the pay differential
yet
they do not explain how wages are set within the
Comparable
wage
worth
setting
understnad
between those
jobs
persists,
seeks to end sex-based discrimination
at the firm level,
copensation
thus it is
important
procedures.Historically,
and Beatty, 1984, p. 59).
relied
determine
upon
the
organization.
some
in
to
employers
have kept their systems for allocating wages secret
have
firm.
(Beatty
Traditionally however, employers
type of
job
evaluation
plan
to
relative worth or value of each job with
an
Comparisons with market wages are then
used
to set pay levels.
Job
evaluation
systems
management
tool
used
(Steinberg,
1984,
p.19)
employers
job
to
are
a
evaluate
hundred
and
year
assess
old
jobs.
Today it is estimated that 65'4 of
in the public and private sector use some type of
evaluation
plan
(Walker
and
Grune,
1984,
p.1).
Employers who do not have formal plans use market prices for
20
certain
firm
"key" jobs to peg the wages of related jobs in
and,
thereby,
develop internal
hierarchies
the
without
evaluating job content.
More systematic job evaluation plans commonly involve a
two
part
process:
described
job
job hierarchy.
often
through
content is
analyzed
so that jobs can be ordered or placed
internal
Most
first,
employers
within
Then wages are assigned to
determine
external valuing,
i.e.
internal
salary
employers survey
"prevailing
adjust
wage."
Usually there is
no
jobs.
ranges
determine
attempt
wages among job families to establish equity.
differences
are
considered
by
reflections
of market forces of
1980, p.406;
Beatty and Beatty,
There
are
to
be
supply and demand
of
job
classification
federal
involves
government
was
used
to
The
Jobs are ranked on the basis
content.
system,
(Remick,
structures.
of overall worth or value to an organization.
breakdown
Such
1984).
job hierarchy and wage
one is job ranking.
to
acceptable
several methods of job evaluation
determine internal
simplest
some
an
salaries
with same job families at other firms in order to
the
and
Another
originally
There is
method,
developed
for civil service jobs.
This
no
the
by
the
process
first establishing a number of pay grades or
jobs
classes.
Broad descriptions are then written for the types
of
which
jobs
descriptions
assigned
are
are
fit
in
each
grade.
Individual
compared to the grades' descriptions
accordingly.
job
and
Ranking and classification
systems
considered non-quantitative evaluation methods
because
21
they
do
not produce precise scores for
employer's
assess
a job's overall
each
value
and
job;
rather
determine
a
position for each job within the firm's hierarchy.
The
job
point factor method is a quantitative approach
evaluation
analyzed
in which the various segments of
to produce a job "score."
explicit
This
method
criteria for rating job factors.
factor systems vary,
described;
factors--usually effort,
These
are
rated based
Although
skill,
on
are
provides
most share a common process:
descriptions
conditions.
a job
to
point
jobs are
"comparable"
responsibility, and working
ratings are added to create a job score;
and scores are used to assign jobs to pay classes.
Traditionally assumed to be fair and neutral,
the
use
of job evaluation may reinforce patterns of sex-bias and can
be
discriminatory in several ways.
(Remick,
1984,
p.99).
First,
an employer may use more than one evaluation plan to
assess
all
workers,
jobs within the firm
one
for
the
shop
another for office workers, another for management
personnel).
evaluated
to
(i.e.
If
this
occurs,
dissimilar
jobs
based on different techniques and never
one another.
workforce,
may
compared
Due to the extreme sex segregation of
the use of
be
the
separate evaluation plans could serve
to reinforce the undervaluation of female-typed jobs.
Second,
basis,
personal
even if the same system is used on a firm-wide
job evaluation would still
bias.
incorporate cultural
and
The job evaluation process is based on the
subjective judgements of those who rate the jobs.
Employers
who
stereotype
job,
but
may
lower
workers may place considerable value
the identification of women with its
the
jobs
rating
relative
on
a
performance
to
jobs
done
predominantly by men.
Finally, the factors used in evaluation may reflect and
reinforce
sex
biases
in the
lifting of heavy boxes,
jobs,
is
usually
go
(i.e.,
the
male-dominated
therefore
given more points) than
the
a task required of many female-dominated
such as nursing.
unrecognized.
nurturing--often
example,
considered more difficult and
lifting of people,
may
For
a task done in many
worthy of greater value
occupations,
market.
Furthermore, certain skills
Skills
thought
such
as
guidance
to be intrinsic skills
of
and
women
rather than skills required to perform certain jobs--may not
be formally included in job descriptions.
Dictionary
higher
cggugational Titles (DOT)
of
than daycare workers.
overlooked
jobs,
many
job
confusing
these
jobs
plans
and
of
that
job content with employee characteristics.
the
Treiman and Hartmann, 1981).
limitations of
job
evaluation
do provide a systematic method
analyzing
have
whether jobs of
for
played
a
pivotal
comparable
role
in
occupations.
for
As
women
in
highly-segregated
methods,
comparing
worth
to
Indeed, these
implementing
comparable worth in the wage structure of firms and
compensation
DOT
female-dominated
employers are being consistently compensated.
methods
zookeepers
rated
Researchers found
characteristics
(Steinberg, 1984, p.23;
Despite
For example, the
winning
undervalued
a technique used to identify sex-bias in
wage setting, job evaluation must fill two roles:
"First
it
must determine whether
the
salaries
associated
with
female-dominated
job
titles
accurately reflect
an explicit
and
consistently
applied
standard of
value
or
whether
they are
artificially depressed because women fill the
jobs.
Second,
it
must pinpoint job titles that
may
be
undervalued
and then develop estimates of potential
costs of correcting for this
wage discrimination."
(Steinberg, 1984, p.19)
One
aim
of comparable worth policy
is
to
eliminate
discrimination
in
application
a particular job evaluation system
of
wage
setting
jobs in an establishment;
and
valuation
biases
in
of
the
systems
vulnerable
to
the
compensable factors to adjust
are
job
content.
unscientific,
criticisms;
drawbacks,
to
it
for
are
is difficult
all
choice
sex-
Because
they
validate that they measure what they say they
their
consistent
a second is to change the
assessment of
evaluation
through
job
fairly
to
actually
do.
Despite
they can be used to systematically assess
jobs to see if they are being fairly compensated relative to
other jobs within a firm.
most
(Verma and Wallace,
comparable worth cases,
the point factor
1982).
In
system
has
been used to critique existing job evaluation systems.
point
The
factor method is used most often because its criteria
are explicit and it is relatively easy to use, and hence, it
may be more reliable.
quantification
it
is still
(Beatty and Beatty,
1984).
of this method may make it less
While the
subjective,
subject to the problems outlined above.
Job evaluation studies have served as the base for more
than two dozen comparable worth claims.
24
(Steinberg,
p.21).
Despite differences in evaluation techniques,
these studies
consistently arrived at the same conclusion:
predominately
female
jobs are paid less than predominately male
comparable
findings
worth to the employer.
jobs
Table 3 summarizes
of three separate studies done in
of
the
Minnesota,
San
policy of comparable worth has evolved as one
way
Jose, and Washington State.
History of Com2arable Worth As Policy
The
to rectify the sex discrimination that results from the link
between
the wage gap and occupational segregation
1984b).
By
comparable
(Remick,
calling for equal pay for work of equal value,
worth
advocates are rejecting
a
system
which
places a lower value on and, consequently, pays a lower wage
for,
work
done
by women.
Comparable worth
demands
the
remuneration of work based on the relative value of the work
to
an
employer,
(Feldberg,
that
regardless of
1984;
jobs
NCPE, 1983).
valued
equally
compensated
on
employment
policies,
discrimination
specifically
employee
an
at
equal
concerned
The underlying principle is
by
an
basis.
the
employer
As
focus
the firm
characteristics.
with
is
level.
should
other
on
Comparable
be
equal
correcting
worth
with eliminating sex-bias within
firm's compensation system;
is
a
it does not address problems of
wage differences due to employemnt in diffrent firms.
Although
concept,
the
it
may
seem
to
be
a
relatively
recent
idea of comparable worth in wage setting
been raised and fought over before.
25S
has
Comparable worth policy
TABLE 3
Comparison of Worth and Salary of
Selected Jobs From Job Evaluation Studies
MONTHLY
SALARY
JOB TITLE
NUMBER
OF POINTS
MINNESOTA
Registerd Nurse (F)
Vocational Ed. Teacher (M)
$1723
2260
275
275
Health Program Rep. (F)
Steam Boiler Attendant (M)
1590
1611
238
156
Data Processing Coord. (F)
General Repair Work (M)
1423
1564
199
134
750
758
288
124
Senior Legal Secretary (F)
Senior Carpenter (M)
665
1040
226
226
Senior Accounting Clerk
Senior Painter (M)
638
1040
210
210
WASHINGTON
Registerd Nurse (F)
Highway Engineer 3 (M)
1368
1980
348
345
Laundry Worker (F)
Truck Driver (M)
884
1493
105
97
1122
1707
197
197
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
Librarian I (F)
Street Sweeper Op.
(M)
Secretary (F)
Maintenance Carpenter
(F)
(M)
*Points and salaries are not comparable across studies.
Source:
National Committee on Pay Equity, "The Wage Gap:
Myth and Facts."
(NCPE): Washington, D.C.,
1983,
p. 5.
26
has
evolved
outgrowth
over
the
past sixty years
of equal employment policy.
development
as
an
The first stage
of
involved the passage of state
National War Labor Board Orders.
worth
primarily
activities
federal
laws
et.al.,
1984).
have
and
been
legislation
More recently, comparable
set into
regulations.
motion
(Steinberg,
by
several
1984;
Dean,
The early history of pay equity focussed on the
of equal pay for equal
during
however,
rights
a demand which was articulated
groups.
It
was not until
World
as
women
moved into the
to replace the men,
legislation
prohibiting
workforce
in
complaints.
wage
first national-level case to challenge
the
professionally
War
Labor
Board
evaluating
determine level of skill,
Electric
equal
jobs
pay
established
within
sex-based
A 1945
that
their
case
despite
plants
to
effort and responsibility, General
used separate scales one for men and one for women
by which to set wages for all
jobs.
On average,
women's jobs were one third lower than men's jobs,
General
and
Blumrosen, 1979).
discrimination came during World War II.
before
At
passed
sex-based wage discrimination
(Steinberg, 1984;
II,
large
several eastern states
National War Labor Board heard thousands of
The
War
that the issue received widespread attention.
time,
numbers
the
policy
the early part of the century among trade unions and
women's
that
work,
and
Electric's
own evaluation system showed
were comparable in terms of evaluation points.
wages for
although
the
jobs
In fact, the
highest paid female job was paid less than the lowest
grade
men's
job.
In a similar case,
women's jobs 18-20% less than
result
of these findings,
Westinghouse Electric paid
"comparable" men's jobs.
the War Labor Board
As a
granted
an
exception to the national emergency wage freeze, ruling that
women's wages should be paid in accordance with value of job
worth and not on basis of
527;
sex of employee. (Newman, 1976, p.
Treiman and Hartmann).
Following
World
discrimination
War
focussed
wages for equal work.
II,
efforts
primarily
on the call
In the 1940's and
get national legislation mandating equal
failed,
due
1964).
A decade later in 1963,
in
part to anti-union
to
end
wage
for
equal
1950's, attempts to
pay for equal
backlash.
the U.S.
work
(Steinberg,
Congress finally
passed
the Equal Pay Act,
paying
different wages to men and women performing the same
which prohibits
employers
from
work.
Although the comparable worth standard was part of
original Equal
after
Pay bill,
the
it was deleted from the final bill
lengthy debate in Congress.
Consequently,
the
Act
stopped short of mandating comparable worth, calling instead
for
equal
pay for men and women doing the same
interpreting the Equal
work.
In
Pay Act, the courts have ordered that
only jobs with substantially similar content, i.e. a nurse's
aide and an orderly,
By
the
late
unchanged.
discrimination
must be compensated on the same basis.
1970's,
The
the wage
Equal
Pay
gap
Act
remained
only
in jobs with overlapping
essentially
addressed
requirements.
wage
It
offered
no
specific
content and,
women
who
provisions for jobs
with
dissimilar
therefore, did not affect the vast majority of
continued
to
work
in
occupations
that
overwhelmingly female-dominated and substantially
from men's jobs.
situations
similar
were
different
The Equal Pay Act, applying only to those
in which men as well as women are employed doing
work,
offers
little protection
to
most
working
women.
In an effort to end employment discrimination, Congress
passed
the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
specifically
employment
Act
both
outlawed,
referred to equal employment
discrimination.
in
terms
Title
discriminate
worker's
VII
in
race,
of
opportunity
and
Going far beyond the Equal
Pay
coverage
made
it
religion,
institute
However,
instead
equitable fashion,
for
and
types
illegal
of
for
behavior
employers
to
any employment practice on the basis of
or ethnic origin,
certain limited exceptions).
longer
Title VII of the Act
or sex
a
(with
Therefore, employers could no
separate pay scales for
men
and
women.
of blending the two pay scales in a
more
employers often combined the wage scales
men's and women's jobs and simply assigned women's jobs
the lowest wages.
Treiman
(See for example,
and Hartmann,
1961,
p.
Westinghouse case
58).
eliminate wage disparities employers just
Thus,
in
rather than
institutionalized
them in a different format.
What
followed from Title VII was an affirmative action
program
mandating
programs
and
quotas
and
hiring policies.
29
timetables
for
Supporters
of
training
Title
VII
believed
that
qualified
its
implementation would open all
applicants regardless of
background,
and
that
eventually
sex,
(Lloyd and Neimi,
Twenty
years
later
or
men and women
evenly distributed among all occupations,
earning gap.
race,
jobs
to
ethnic
would
thus closing
be
the
1979).
neither legislation to
end
wage
discrimination, nor improved opportunities for education and
training
of
the
have significantly altered the economic
majority of women.
average,
roughly
Women
continue
to
60% of white male earnings.
earn,
occupations
important components of the effort to achieve
equity for women,
Pay
Act
on
While equal
pay laws and improved access to non-traditional
are
situation
they fall short of their goal.
economic
The Equal
does not address the fact that men and
women
are
found in sex-segregated dissimilar occupations.
Title
VII
and
affirmative action
programs
directly
addresses the problem of occupational segregation by working
to
expand
enter
the opportunities for women
male-typed occupations.
action
programs
opportunities
Wharton,
while affirmative
is
far
slower than the
in female-dominated occupations.
Today's economy is marked by a
sector
jobs are found),
to
some
women
male-dominated occupations, the pace of
integration
1962).
manufacturing
minorities
have fostered the movement of
into higher paying,
occupational
However,
and
growth
of
(Burris and
declining
(where many high paying male-dominated
and a rapidly growing service sector.
paying female-dominated occupations,
including
Low
secretarial
and
clerical
growing
who
and
nursing,
are among
occupations in this emerging
and Kuhn,
could
work,
1982).
Thus,
the
fastest
economy.
(Bluestone
even if occupational
integration
guarantee a narrowing of the wage gap for those women
move into higher paying male
action
occupations,
neglects the fact that most women will
remain in female dominated occupations.
offer
affirmative
most
likely
Thus, such remedies
As
limited relief to the majority of working women.
the NAS/NRC study concluded:
"Equal access to employment opportunities may
be
expected
to be more effective for new entrants
than
for
established workers and more effective for
those
who have
invested less in skills than for
those who have invested
more.
Since many women
currently in the labor force have
invested years
of
training
time
in
their
particular
skills...access to other jobs may not be
preferred."
(Treiman and Hartmann, 1981, p.66)
The
their
goal
of comparable worth is
chosen
professions,
not to move women
but rather to
out
compensate
of
them
fairly for the work they are already doing.
Despite
if
conceptual,
efforts.
to
close
its
drawbacks,
not legal,
(Steinberg, 1984).
the wage gap
Title
VII
does
provides
framework for comparable
a
worth
In the 1970's, as the struggle
continued,
women's
groups,
civil
rights organizations, and unions stepped up their efforts to
achieve
VII.
pay equity based on a broad interpretation of Title
Among
campaign
in
the
earliest activities
was
the
successful
1974 by the American Federation of State County
and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME),
the
Washington State Women's Council,
with the cooperation
to get the State
of
of
Washington to agree to undertake a comparable worth study of
state
employees--the
first
such
statewide
study.
(For
further discussion of this case refer to chapter 3).
While
these activities were taking
interpretation
broad
of Title VII remained unclear.
the
legal
Was the law
enough to cover cases where unequal wages were
paid
for
dissimilar jobs of relatively
employer?
that
being
equal value
to
in Gunther v. County of
Wgshingtgn
Title VII does have broader implications beyond
pay
for
equal work.
While not specifically
validity of the comparable worth issue,
Title
which
equal
judging
the
the Court held that
VII could be applied to cases of wage
discrimination
men and women did not fill exactly the same
(Treiman and Hartmann,
laid
an
In a precedent setting decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in June 1981,
in
place,
1981,
p.5).
This historic
job.
ruling
the groundwork for further comparable worth campaigns.
Comparable
worth
has
been
promoted
as
an
equal
employment policy which specifically addresses that part
of
wage discrimination neglected by the Equal Pay Act and Title
VII:
whether
undervalued
either
consistently
because
the
work
because
women
do
is
systematically
job evaluation
has
not
applied to dissimilar male and female jobs
the content of women's jobs has
been
been
or
inaccurately
assessed, or both.
Most
comparable
state and
local level
worth activity
initiated
on the status of women.
initiatives
dealing
with
has
by unions,
Currently,
sex-based
occurred
at
the
or by commissions
twenty-six states have
wage
discrimination.
Through
legislation,
collective bargaining,
studies,
and
litigation, comparable worth advocates began to press for an
end to sex-based wage discrimination--a practice which
believe
violates federal
law and is largely responsible for
keeping women's wages artificially depressed.
But how does
the concept of comparable worth get translated into
What
are
implement
chapter,
the
different
strategies and
tactics
comparable worth in wage setting?
I review several
they
cases of
In
implementation.
policy?
used
the
to
next
Chapter 3:
CASE STUDIES IN IMPLEMENTATION
Comparable
the
country,
and
local
over
worth activities are happening all
around
primarily in the public sector at the
level.
Currently,
state
more than thirty state
and
one hundred localities have initiatives dealing
comparable worth.
women's
groups
comparable
Leaders in state and local governments,
and
worth
legislation,
unions are addressing
through a variety of
litigation,
The
standards
bulk
of
the
tactics
collective
need
for
including
bargaining.,
evaluation studies, and data collection.
1984).
with
efforts to apply
job
(NCPE, 1983;
NCPE,
comparable
worth
to pay inequities has been in the public
but sex-based wage discrimination has also been
sector
challenged
in the private sector, although there are fewer cases.
public
sector
is the locus of action on comparable
The
worth
primarily because job descriptions and wage structures
public
information,
(generally
speaking,
are
this type
of
information is not readily accessible in the private sector
(Bell,
1985,
p.
289)),
and because elected officials are
more receptive to public pressure.
worth
requires
that
an
employer
Furthermore, comparable
consistently
dissimilar jobs;
as
government
a wide spectrum of jobs
have
value
substantial employers state and local
well-suited
for
comparable worth evaluation.
Another
grown
in
reason
that
the public sector
the labor market.
comparable worth
is
has
due to the changing nature of
In the post World War
34
activity
II era,
the public
sector has experienced high growth.
labor
force at an increasing
public sector employment.
unions
were
women.
to
overall.
rate,
women
be
in
have entered the
and many have gone into
At the same time,. public sector
also growing and beginning
Today,
likely
Women
in
to
attract
more
the public sector are twice
a union than
women
in
the
as
workforce
(Bell, 1985).
This high level of public sector unionization and high
level of women within those unions is significant.
of
the
cases
I will
consider,
unions
have
important role in promoting comparable worth.
unions
most
relatively
high
County
percentage
of women
and Municipal
American Nurses Association
struggle
pay
equity.,
sizable
however,
numbers
addressed
their
of
(nearly all
the
effort
concerns.
as these cases demonstrate,
address
the
increasing
have
worth issue
in
the
identify
and
et. al.,
35*
not
1984).
represented
necessarily
1979,
p.
445).
unions have begun
because
participation in positions of
and because addressing the issue might
and the
dissimilar jobs is a
(Blumrosen,
Rather,
comparable
to
(Portman,
they
the
female).
even when unions have
women,
a
sector
female);
(45% female);
sex-bias in wage setting of
the past,
the
have
public
Employees (40%
relatively new area of concern.
In
and
unions have historically been involved
for
eliminate
Indeed,
an
the American Federation of
Service Employees Union International
While
played
active in comparable worth campaigns
employees in their membership:
State
In each
union
of
to
women's
leadership,
attract new
workers
from
the
growing
service sector to unions in a
declining union membership.
1985;
Chernoff,
(Bell,
time
of
p.28 0 ; Rondeau,
1985,
1985.).
Methodology
I
have chosen six cases to illustrate how
wage inequities have been addresssed.
historical
I chose only
cases
where wage adjustments have actually been made, although in
none
to
of these cases were the initial wage increases enough
fully
close the identified gap between
male-typed
public
and female-typed jobs.
sector
state level),
illustrate
the
of
the
level and two
the
legislative approach to
at
Two cases
comparable
while four show the collective
worth
bargaining
Comparable worth is a policy still in formation.
approach.
I
at the local
wages
Five cases are in
and one is a private sector case.
implementation,
Thus,
(three
the
also chose cases for which
information
to
I could obtain
make analysis meaningful.
information include personal
published case studies,
interviews,
enough
My sources
union
of
materials,
state government publications, and
newspaper and magazine articles.
WASHINGION STATE
worth
Comparable
November 1983,
in
a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington
when
state
the
that
ruled
boost
important
an
received
of
Washington
discriminated
had
against female employees in not granting equal pay for work
and
back-wages
present
bringing
to pay equity levels--a $600
up
salaries
paying
by
situation
the
The state was ordered to remedy
of comparable worth.
million
award.
Although the state is appealing the case, the decision that
was
state
the
(Remick,
institutionalized discrimination"
proponents
a major victory for
as
hailed
and
overt
"direct,
practicing
1984b) has been
of
comparable
worth.
The
Washington case began in
Women's
State
Employees
Federation
initiate
system.
The
a study of the
state's
service
civil
the
and Washington became
governor agreed,
of
the
(an AFSCME affiliate) requested that
governor
state in the United States to evaluate public sector
first
explicitly to see if
employment
between
jobs
Associates,
traditionally
held
traditionally
and
Washington
Council and the
State
1974 when the Washington
a
held
The
by men.
by
governor
appointed a ten member advisory
governor's office,
labor,
and
those
hired
Willis
women
personnel consulting firm,
representatives from business,
existed
pay differentials
to do the study
committee,
including
women's groups, the
and the state personnel department,
monitor it.
*.., /
to
sex-segregated occupations
were
a
sending
involved
jobs where the incumbents
(i.e.
questionnaire
points to the jobs based on the level of
were
system,
service
which
were
on
based
skill,
Point levels
civil
state's
compared with pay scales in the
then
assigned
knowledge,
and effort the job required.
accountability,
1600
of
sample
to a
the committee
Using point rankings,
employees.
process
evaluation
The
sex).
70% same
least
at
represented
that
"benchmark" job categories
121
compare
to
chose
committee
the
job
thousand
three
all
state,
the
in
classifications
at
look
than
Rather
elaborate
surveys of employers throughout the states.
salary
(Remick, 1984,
p.102).
study's
The
key
finding
jobs were being paid,
dominated
male-dominated
comparable
there
male
For
only 80%
example,
of
a
points,
monthly while a highway engineer III,
a male-
was
female
and
on average,
occupations.
dominated job with 345 points,
shows,
female-
dramatic:
a female-dominated job with 348
registered nurse,
earned $1368
was
earned $1980.
As Table 4
virtually no overlap in salary
job
categories
with
the
between
point
same
rankings.
These
women's
wage
results
were received enthusiastically by
groups and unions who had argued
discrimination was widespread
in the
that
the
systematic
state.
greeted the study's outcome more skeptically,
the
Others
arguing that
market would never permit such blatant discrimination.
38
TABLE 4
THE 1974 WASHINGTON STATE STUDY
S1400
12
.
e
1000-
s00-
0
'00 o
-* .
*00i
ofemale-domin ated
.male-domin ated
*
*
P 100
300b
200
soo
Comparable Worth Points
FIGURE 19-2
Willis Data, Classified Staff Only
Source: Helen Remick, "Beyond Equal Pay for Equal Work:
Comparable Worth in the State of Washington".
In Equal Employment Policy for Women. Edited by
Ronnie Steinberg Ratner. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1980s p.411.
-39-
At
this
the
and
disbanded
force
task
the
point,
The
implementation process moved to the legislative arena.
legislature.,
to
refused to appropriate any funds
however,
correct the wage inequities.
Shortly before leaving office,
supporter
of comparable worth,
the governor, a strong
included $7 million in his
comparable
budget to begin implementation of initial
1976
on
campaigned
which
included
support
in office,
however,
rather
platform
a
Once
comparable worth.
for
than
its methodology, claiming
she challenged
accept the study,
Ray,
Dixy Lee
The incoming governor,
worth adjustments.
that comparable worth was like "comparing apples, pumpkins,
and a can of worms"
104),
1984, p.
(Remick,
and refused to
Throughout her four years in office,
institute any raises.
Ray actively opposed any implementation efforts.
opposition,
the
Washington Federation of State Employees continued to
push
1978,
the
issue
the
legislature
the
in
adopted
estimates
ardent
In
legislature.
state
a union-sponsored bill
worth
biennial
its
with
conjunction
in
the
requiring
office to prepare comparable
personnel
state
governor's
the
Despite
cost
salary
These reports were to
recommendations to the legislature.
show the cost of equalizing salaries of jobs which appeared
to
be
underpaid;
mechanism
for
but
the statute failed
documenting
the
During
the
1980
a
Such
and 1983.
gubernatorial
candidates supported comparable worth,
40
provide
disparities.
pay
reports were prepared in 1979, 1981,
to
election,
but once in
both
office
the
In
issue.
new governor paid little attention to the
1981, the legislature again considered a bill mandating the
implementation
prevailed
and
discrimination in compensation.
comparable
worth
bill
the
thereafter,
Shortly
into
was reintroduced
state
the
with the strong lobbying efforts
This time,
legislature.
intentional
alleging
(EEOC)
Commission
Opportunity
AFSCME
Employment
Equal
a suit against the state with the
filed
state,
by inaction on the part of the
disgruntled
1982,
July
In
bill died in session.
the
opposition
the
but
comparable worth,
of
of AFSCME, SEIU, and the Washington Nurses Association, the
bill
The new law included provisions calling for
passed.
comparable
implemented
over
appropriations
job
classes
compensation
award
total
a
for initial
paid
as well
ten year period,
implementation.
least
at
20%
below
million) to begin
actual
as
in
Employees
average
the
were awarded $100 per year for two
of $1.5
be
to
worth salary increases to close the gap
closing
(a
years
gap.
the
Additional appropriations to further close the gap over the
next decase are expected to be forthcoming.
8,000
some
all
individuals,
in
This affected
female-dominated
job
categories.
Despite
these
actions,
the
AFSCME
Washington suit went to trial as scheduled.
handed
down
his guilty verdict in November
vs.
State
of
Judge
Tanner
1983,
ruling
that the past and present state compensation practices were
unfair
towards women.
He ordered the state to
41
institute
immdate
aar
stt
in
employees
and ordered payment of
jobs,
dominated
.for
rase
female-
back wages for the
The
two years prior to the initial complaint being filed.
instituted
Had the state
state is appealing this ruling.
pay increases at the time of the completion of the original
study, the total cost of correcting the wage gap would have
of
total
a
cost
out over
spread
loses its appeal,
state
25% of
approximately
While
award
the
appeal may
three
Presently,
gap.
take
plans.
groups
several
years,
The
Washington.
by
calls
legislators
and
(Remick,
Wilson, 1984;).
for
a
are
working
State legislators are expected
of the plans by the summer of
one
statute
six.
cost
could
payroll.
state
state's
act
the
If
mandated by legislation is considered
implementation
pick
to
refusal
implementation
total
payroll
the
to be a downpayment on further efforts to close the
unions
wage
annual
The state's
years.
on comparable worth continues in
action
$100
several
the
the law suit and the back pay award.
in
resulted
approximately 5% of
ten
year
1985.
While
1984a;
1984b;
NCPE, 1984;
to
the
period,
implementation
the unions are hoping to complete
1980;
on
it
in
Turner and
MTmm~qnISTO
the
the state of Minnesota authorized
In March 1982,
first stage of implementation of comparable worth increases
to
amounting
undervalued female-dominated job categories
for
increases
Together the
1985.
be awarded in
to
expected
is
increases
of
phase
second
The
million.
$21.7
period
amount to only 4% of state payroll over a four year
and benefit more than 9,000 state employees, 90% female and
positions.
clerical
54% in
largest
The
employees
state
approximately
represents
which
AFSCME,
union,
workers,
60% of Minnesota state
working together with the Minnesota Council on the Economic
Status
deal
of Women successfully lobbied the governor to
The governor set up a
with the issue of comparable worth.
including
Pay Equity Task Force and appointed its members,
legislators from both the House and
union representatives,
members from the Council, representatives from the
Senate,
The
Office of Employee Relations, and several businessmen.
Task
Force
compensation
to
system
with
accordance
charged
was
with
see whether pay
findings
the
evaluating
of
scales
a
state
the
were
statewide
in
job
classification study done by Hay Associates, an independent
consulting firm, in 1979.
The Hay study included only executive branch jobs (90%
of
employees work in that
state
legislative
salaries
jobs
were
exempt,
were set by statute.
female-dominated
job
branch).
primarily
Judicial
their
because
The Hay study revealed that
categories were undervalued
43
and
by
the
classification plan by
service
civil
20%.
approximately
Task Force used these results to estimate the cost
The
of
The total
the undervaluation of traditionally female jobs.
cost of correcting pay inequitites was calculated to be
4%
of the state's annual payroll.
in
As
Due to
legislative arena.
the
support,
the
the
its
of
issuance
bipartisan
widespread
legislation
legislature passed the enabling
and
providing
a phase-in of comparable worth adjustments.
In 1982,
mandating
for
following
Task Force disbanded and implementation moved
the
report,
to
Washington,
the first
the
comparable worth as state policy
appropriation of $21.7 million was authorized by
collective
and then distributed through
legislature,
bargaining.
Employee
The legislation requires the Commissioner of
Relations
to report to the legislature on a biennial basis
listing
the
Additionally,
must
job
the
classes
with
inequities.
wage
(DER)
Department of Employee Relations
pay
of
the initial pay equity increases were based
on
provide
a cost estimate for equalizing
the
undervalued job classes.
While
the
will
Hay study,
future job classifications and
be the responsibility of the DER.
system with one modification:
evalutions
DER uses the
they give greater weight and
including
compensation to jobs requiring repetitive tasks,
Employees may be
movements.
small
muscular
about
their job requirements,
44
Hay
interviewed
but classification
is
not
Any worker dissatisfied with his/her job
over.
barqained
classification can appeal to the DER for an audit.
legislature
have
inequities
wage
Once
been
identified,
the
them.
The
must appropriate money to correct
are
based
on the number of underpaid classes each
of
distribution
Actual
bargained;
is
represents.
collectively
then
classes
job
only go to those
can
money
the
funds
units
bargaining
divided up among the various
funds
designated as underpaid.
distribute
decided
to
equally
among
workers
got
all
cost
eligible
appropriation
million
$21.7
the
classes;
in
of living adjustments
addition,
all
well.
Even
as
though the state bargains with eight unions (11
varying levels of female membership,
units) with
inter-union equity has
the
been a problem because all state employees are on
same classification and pay scale
for
unions
The
in 1983 through negotiations with the unions.
not
made
first installment of wage equity increases was
The
system.
Appropriations
the second two-year installment of pay equity will
The total
decided on in 19e5 by the Minnesota legislature.
cost of implementation
making
be
has been spread out over four years,
comparable worth adjustments only 1% of payroll
per
or 4% total.
year,
Bonnie
Minnesota's
First,
the
Watkins of the DER attributes the
comparable
success
worth program to several
factors.
state already had done a job evaluation
when
the comparable worth issue was raised by the
This
eliminated
any disageements over whether or
45
of
study
unions.
not
to
rather,
order an evaluation study,
worth
comparable
the issue was to apply
the
standards to see if
underpaid female-dominated job classes.
plan
existing
Watkins explains:
to
"The study did show a 20% gap so we decided
[wage3
getting
was
concern
immediate
Our
it.
use
worth
Some comparable
for women.
adjustments
of
system
the
on
attention
much
focus too
programs
Most
inequity.
the
on
of
instead
evaluation
although done differently, do show a wage
systems,
:you don't
gap between the sexes. As my boss says,
a mile
a microscopic instrument to see a gap
need
wide."
the
Second,
to
able
with
legislature
for
support
an
reach
its
comparable
agreement
The
worth was crucial in
Finally,
through the state government.
to get the appropriations,
easy
going
before
recommendations.
well-
and
The Task Force
allowing for a smooth operation.
balanced,
was
Force composition was broad
Task
the
to
bi-partisan
getting
it
it was relatively
because Minnesota was
in
good financial shape at the time.
Due
in
to the success that the state government has
had
level,
the
at
the
implementing comparable worth at the state
decided to implement comparable worth
legislature
as well.
local
level
bill
mandating
governments'
including
In 1984,
comparable
compensation
cities,
counties,
the legislature passed
standards
worth
systems.
and
school
All
in
local
localities,
districts,
expected to implement comparable worth by 1987.
a
are
SAN 3 OSEL_ CALIFORNIA
1961,
On July 14,
United
was signed between Local
States
American
Federation
Employees
(AFSCME)
(AFSCME,
1962).
The
equity
"internal
had
marked
Jose,
two
year,
$5.4
also
allocated
the
of
California.
contract
million
$1.5
job
classes.
worth
the
collective
It also marked an end to the nation's
bargaining process.
worth
strike
by
the
Local,
AFSCME
representing approximately 2000 of the 3000 city
in clerical,
for
the first time the issue of comparable
comparable
for
million
adjustments" to underpaid
in
Municipal
and
successfully negotiated through
been
first
County
and the city of San
but
employees,
This
State,
of
101
not only a 15% across the board pay increase
included
all
the concept of comparable worth
incorporating
contract
the
the first collective bargaining unit
employees
administrative, parks and recreation, library
and airport refueling positions.
AFSCME
San
first raised the issue of comparable worth
Jose in the mid-seventies.
Progress was
in
temporarily
stopped when the voters in California passed Proposition 13
When negotiations between the
and city wages were frozen.
union
and the city reopened in 1981,
issue
resurfaced
refusing
as
a
major
the comparable worth
bargaining
issue.
While
to address the comparable worth concerns of
non-
a
wage
management
employees,
the city manager agreed to
study of management positions within the city, although not
specifically
addressing
differences
female-dominated job categories.
47
between
male- and
Non-management positions
collective bargaining
be
city
the
study because
those wages
that
insisted
manager
the original
from
excluded
were
the
through
set
In response to management's
process.
refusal
to address their concerns,
staged
a
some eighty union
Finally,
one day "sick-out."
women
Local
the AFSCME
prevailed upon the city council to order a second study.
A
labor-management effort.
city and the union,
Hay
categories.
The
225
job
study excluded the police officers'
and
Hay Associates found that
firefighters' bargaining units.
after
jobs
on average
15-20. below
women
wages for
evaluating all jobs,
consistently
were
point
Using their own
reclassified city jobs into
Hay
method,
independent
an
Associates,
of the city's compensation system.
factor
between
By agreement
was hired to do a comparable worth study
firm,
consulting
Jose
the comparable worth process in San
the start,
was a joint
the
Jose
of San
Department employees and AFSCME representatives.
Personnel
From
consisting
task force was established,
comparable
for
wages
male-dominated occupations.
The
they
were
city and the union agreed with the findings,
negotiating
Court
Supreme
over
how
to
the
implement
sides
two
While the
study's
the Gunther decision was handed down by the U.S.
findings,
decision,
file
the solutions.
disagreed over
but
a
Commission
(see
Chapter
2).
and with talks at an impasse,
suit
with
(EEOC)
the
Equal
alleging
48
wake
In the
this
AFSCME decided to
Employment
intentional
of
Opportunity
discrimination.
WitH
1Ls
aA
;a
and
t=lemate,
public unions from striking,
prohibiting
state
despite
laws
AFSCME Local 101
United
finally went out on strike--the first strike in the
States over the issue of comparable worth.
days later the strike ended with the signing
Nine
the
increases,
When
classes.
renegotiated
occupations
equity"
the contract provided
in
1983,
city
San Jose employees
1982;
contract
in
was
undervalued
"pay
bringing most underpaid jobs up to
par
on
average,
with jobs of comparable worth.
McGuire,
employees
undervalued
5%
received,
increase,
the
of
"pay equity" wage
of between 5% and 15% for some 62
adjustments
cost
In addition to across the board
the EEOC.
living
job
The union also agreed to drop its suit
new contract.
with
of
(AFSCME, 1984; Bunzel,
1983;
Koziara,
Strausbaugh, 1983).
49
an additonal
Farnquist,
1982;
Armstrong,
COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
CONTRA COSTI
Contra
1984,
August
In
Costa
became
comparable
worth wage increases.
The 3%
to
agree
to
the state's first county
California
northern
in
County
which
increase,
was the result of
came on top of general wage adjustments,
a fourteen month bargaining struggle between the County and
a
the
(SEIU) Local 535,
Union
International
and
including
coalition
union
the California Nurses Association
workforce.
The
than
more
represent
together
half
Employees
Service
locals,
two AFSCME
of
which
local,
(CNA)
County's
the
hard won wage increase benefited not
coalition
union
dominated
classes
members but also workers in
in
the
county,
female-
all
including
only
non-union
management positions.
fight for comparable worth was a constant
The
uphill
battle achieved through the persistant efforts of the union
When the union coalition formed in the fall
coalition.
1982,
there
Board of
was one sympathetic politician on the
of
County
Supervisors, who helped pass a resolution that the
Board would include achievement of comparable worth as part
of the county's affirmative action goals.
The Board charged the Personnnel Department to prepare
a report on the issue.
Unlike the other case studies,
union members worked on the study.
high
This contributed to the
level of dissatisfaction with the Department's study.
According to Lee Finney,
535,
no
the
examine
union
chief shop steward for SEIU Local
coalition expected that the
comparable worth studies done in other
study
would
localities
an
do
and
analysis
-f
these
other
"piggybacking"
methods to
similar
using
studies
by
structure
wage
County's
the
In the
assess wage discrimination in Contra Costa County.
survey of
market
internal
question of
the unions a
There
wages.
their
were set
Wages
dissatisfied
through
individual
and
jobs.
factors
classification
system.
the
for
regard
Using aggregate figures on the number
of
relative
pay
discovered a 30% wage gap between
female-
and
job grade
classification
the
She explained:
results were dramatic.
Eexplicit]
County.
want us
a
process,
bargaining
collective
and male-dominated job categories.
"My
and
were no data on compensable
women within each
Finney
levels,
were
employed
by which average wages are set without
proces
data
whatever
men and women
County had a general
the
because
men
the numbers of
on
between
gap
Finney undertook her own study
County's pay structure using
available
and
1% comparable worth adjustment.
the management study,
the
of
wage
studies
other
a larger wage gap existed and
Believing
with
male-female
As a result of the study, the County
male and female jobs.
offered
reviewed
a
did
It
little.
a market survey showing the general
contained
at
According to Finney,
of
existence
a
were
wages but it did not look
study
the
Rather,
gap."
contained
it
women's jobs
showed that
wage equity.
dramatize the
to
nothing
goal;
this
was "very fat and said very
report
the
wages which
based on prevailng
underpaid
the
of
far short
study fell
the
end,
system
There really
in
Contra
is
no
Costa
didn't
Supervisors
why the Board of
That's
Ethe unions3 poking around. They made it clear
from the beginning that they weren't going to do a job
They were advised that the decision
evaluation study.
The Washington
to study was a decision to implement.
sued."
of
being
fear
a
big
created
case
State
When the County contracts expired in June 1983,
the four
unit coalition took a two-pronged approach to negotiations.
bargaining unit agreed to negotiate
Each
general terms of
the
its contract,
would
be bargained jointly.
study
the
while comparable worth
The County was reluctant
to
costs
of
worth issue fearing
comparable
over
separately
the
fiscal
crisis.
The
negotiations for comparable worth adjustments
delayed
the
entire process,
implementing
Finney
says,
pay adjustments in a time of
dragging on for over a year,
"We had the power of
more than they (management) did,
was
very
coalition
powerful."
information.
because of
As the negotiations
women
It
continued,
the
stuck together despite management's
efforts
to
some
fourteen months
bargaining had solidified the group.
The
of
some
The coalition
break them up by offering large salary raises to only
of
knew
We
became more resolved in its effort to gain
of the units and particular union leaders;
as
my study.
adjustment towards rectifying the wage gap.
of
but
comparable worth increases were won during a time
crisis
for
the
therefore,
was
to
financial
strategy,
could from the County.
long run,
county.
The
coalition
get whatever increase
they
The coalition realized that in the
a job evaluation study would be needed to
fully
and completely understand the nature and extent of the wage
disparities.
Understanding that a study could take as long
52
as
to bargain some comparable worth
willingness
decided
coalition
County's
and recognizing the
three years to complete,
raise
to push for a reasonable initial
which would help close the gap.
the
raises,
The unions consider the 3'4
increase a downpayment with the expectation that additional
will
concessions
be
forthcoming
contract
future
in
remarkable
The Contra Costa County case is
negotiations.
the comparable worth adjustments were won based on
because
an union study.
It is interesting to note that during the
process,
negotiation
the management tried to get wage concessions from
all
unions and even threatened to cut hospital jobs due to
the
fiscal crisis.
unaffilitated
At one point members of Local
comparable
union not involved in the
(in which men hold all leadership
negotiations
1.,
an
worth
positions)
stood up and argued that the coalition women should give up
comparable
their
in order
demand
worth
sisters' jobs at the hospital.
to
save
their
No one ever called on union
brothers to give up any wage increases,
were
although men
earning considerably more.
At
bargaining table,
the
as part of
the
comparable
worth negotiations, the coalition also demanded and won the
establishment of a labor-management committee to do a study
of benchmark job classifications and to recommend which job
categories
should
negotiations.
and
A
be
addressed
the
next
round
task force was set up with equal
management representation.
Firefighters'
at
The Deputy Sheriffs'
unions did not oppose comparable worth,
53
of
union
and
yet
they have not been actively involved with the committee;
is
not yet clear whether or not nthey will be part of
it
the
proposed job evaluation study.
Negotiations
1985.
are
now scheduled to
reopen
in
April
It remains to be seen how much the County is willing
to bargain further pay equity adjustments.
54
VAA6ILLE2. CELIFORNIA
1982 school board elections
the November,
During
Local
SEIU
of
members
California,
Vacaville,
in
614
successfully lobbied candidates on the issue of support for
comparable worth.
As a result, several board members were
who actively supported
elected
including
two administrators from the
The Committee was responsible
business agent.
union
A
district.
wage inequities in the school
studying
District,
two
four SEIU Local 614 members and the
board members,
school
Subsequently,
a Comparable Worth Committee was set
through negotiations,
up,
idea.
the
and a half later when the union contract became
for
year
effective,
it included pay equity adjustments ranging between 2.5% and
top of across the board annual wage
increases.
did the union successfully accomplish this
comparable
on
22.5%,
How
of
president
vice
Dorty,
Carol
rural city?
worth victory in a rather conservative,
Local 614 and
member
of
the
Committee, believes that the steadfast efforts of the local
union members,
first in lobbying the school board and then
many long,
through
persisting
meetings,
were
this
comparable
Committee's first task was to review
comparable
responsible
largely
difficult
for the success
of
worth drive.
The
worth
studies done in other states and localities.
reviewing
some 18 studies done by
Committee
unanimously
format
developed
in
other
localities,
agreed to adopt the job
a
nearby
'5 5
school
After
the
evaluation
district.
This
complexity,
and
used
employees,
rankings to evaluate jobs on the basis of
skill,
the
by
developed
method,
School District and its union
Sacramento
point
evaluation
job
"homegrown"
knowledge,
and working conditions,
responsiblity,
and
it was specfically geared towards assessing tasks
school
of
skills
district
all
personnel
and teachers.
except
workers,
300 classified
included
study
Vacaville
The
jobs.
Rather than hire an outside consultant,
management
the Committee
conducted its own job evaluation study using this homegrown
were
descriptions
Job
method.
circulated
every
to
employee, asking them to review and update the descriptions
as
necessary.
do
the
The updated descriptions were then used to
evaluation
job
The
draft
study
point
descriptions,
each
position.
for
received
and
Several
were
comments
reviewed, resulting in only two changes in the final
that "We (the
reported
Dorty
if
that
members
on descriptions,
However,
would decide.
two
Committee
there was disagreement
upfront
between
and
study was then circulated to all employees
feedback.
further
a
recommended pay ranges for
and
draft
job
including
recommendations,
rankings,
and draw up
members)
among
we would vote and
the
study.
agreed
committee
majority
if the committee could not agree
point scores for a job,
we would
adopt
the
higher figure."
The
between
accepted
final
study showed a wage gap of
as much as 22.5%
comparable male-and female-dominated jobs and
was
Previously,
the
by
the Board and
the
union.
descriptions to
job
slot
district
used
grades.
Rather than change the pay ranges,
on
based
reslotted
system
classification
the
point
the
jobs were
the
making
rankings,
more explicit.
the five years of the current contract.
undervalued
female-dominated
instructional
aides,
and
jobs
pay
resulting
The
over
ranged from 2.5% to 22.5% to be instituted
increases
pay
into
jobs
Raises went to all
clericals,
with
getting
cafeteria workers
the
biggest raises.
One
the most
of
implementation
the responsibility
is
of
evaluation process and hearing any appeals.
the
on
regularly
Comparable
The Committee
job
classifications
to reclassification.
and
will
handle
to
work
The Committee has also
update the study.
assigned by the School
district,
The committee can
community representatives.
grievances
of
process
meets every two months and is composed of union,
and
Vacaville
They are in charge of reviewing the job
Committee.
Worth
the
program is that the ongoing
worth
comparable
important features of
been
Board to review any matters relating
Dorty says,
We're
"We will continue to meet every two months.
to
want
and
hard
worked
we
because
determined
do
to
not
others
tell
I
but
won;
we
what
maintain
unless they're
study)
(a comparable worth
it
of
lots
It takes lots of work,
willing to work.
got!"
lot of time...but look what we
homework, a
(Dorty,
Sources:
1985).
(Dorty,
1985;
Vacaville Unified School District,
1984)
57
YALE UNIVERSITY
Twenty
months after voting for union
University
Yale
overwhelmingly
1965.
For
ratified
the 2600
their first contract
the key issue in
the
This contract marks one of
major collective bargaining
first
January
34,
contract was comparable worth.
the
in
(mostly female) members of Local
of University Employees,
Federation
workers
technical
and
clerical
representation,
the
in
contracts
private sector and the first at a university to incorporate
the concept of comparable worth.
Ending
two
year campaign,
the majority
Yale
of
and technical workers voted to join the union
clerical
While many thought the bulk of their work
1963.
May
a
in
was
behind them, the contract negotiations would turn out to be
difficult struggle as well;
a long,
a
ten-week
negotiating
From
strike.
beginning,
the
effort was a grassroots campaign in which
predominantly
workers,
the
one which culminated in
women,
played an important
union
the
role.
The Local's demands were worked out by a 35 member rank and
file negotiating committee.
only
$13,400,
With an average unit salary of
the membership's--82% women and 13% black--
main concern was raising salary levels.
fold.
At the bargaining table the union's demands were
two-
were demanding across the board
wage
First,
increases.
Haven
they
A union survey of employers in the greater New
area found that Yale salaries were among the lowest.
The union also charged that the bargaining unit as a
was
underpaid
due
to its
primarily
58
female
whole
membership.
Second, the union was able to document that both inter- and
intra-unit wage disparities existed.
Findings showed that
within the Local 34 bargaining unit,
blacks and women were
being paid less than whites and men doing comparable work-even
blacks and women
though
had,
on
average,
greater
seniority. Similar wage disparities were also found through
a
comparison of jobs between Local 34
selective
other major bargaining unit at the university,
male,
predominantly
discrepancy
blue-collar unit.
and
the
Local 35--a
Part of the wage
was attributed to the earlier unionization
blue collar jobs,
of
but the union claimed that the continued
wage disparity was linked to sex-based wage discrimination.
While
the
administration recognized the
problem
of
underpayment of women workers, they reFused to bargain over
the issue.
William Brainard,
Provost for the University,
typified the administration's feelings, admitting that
like
know that one can't live the way one would
"I
or the way one would like one's family to live,
to,
a
That's
on a Yale clerical and technical salary.
to
expected
be
can't
Yale
which
problem,
national
(Local 34, 1984, p. 1).
solve."
An
additional concern to the union was the
jobs, or establishment of job grades.
'slotting' of
It appeared from the
review of salaries that women at Yale were not being
compensated for their seniority.
unsystematic, arbitrary manner.
fairly
Promotion was done in an
As one secretary put it,
started work with the man I still work for,
"I
He
Secretary C.
I started as a
ago.
years
18
tenured
He's now a full
started as an instructor.
In
and I have gone up one labor grade.
professor,
typing,
not for my
latest book he thanked me,
his
my wisdom and maturity in helping develop
for
but
39
but I
He deserves his professorship,
the program.
deserve better too." (Local 34, 1984).
After more than 60
Negotiations began in October 1983.
in
sight,
workers threatened to strike in the spring of 1984.
Then,
sessions,
negotiating
in
1984
March
with no
agreement
including
non-
on
the two sides reached agreement
issues,
economic
and
and
health
job security and
safety issues, and a strike was postponed.
At the time, Yale management argued that their studies
that
indicated
wage discrepancies between men
women
and
clerical
and technical workers disappeared when wages were
analyzed
by salary grade and years.
this
The
disputed
union
contention charging that discrimination occurred both
Acting
within and across job grades and bargaining utnis.
independently, Raymond Fair, a Yale professor of economics,
While
not
clerical
and
conducted a regression analysis on Yale wages.
the
addressing
differentials
within
the
techincal unit he determined that there was a statistically
significant difference in the wages of men and women across
job grades.
In
campus
May
1984,
chaplain
as negotiations
continued,
proposed that an impartial
Yale
the
three
member
job
committee be set up to look at the charges of wage and
discrimination.
The union readily agreed to the plan;
university opposed it.
strike.
proposed
to
As
As the summer months passed, little
The union began to reconsider going out
progress was made.
on
the
an
alternative to a
strike,
the Yale administration that
the
the
union
unresolved
refused
administration
just as students were returning to school,
34
out
went
In
strike.
on
members of Local 35,
workers,
stayed off
the
union
On September 22,
in favor of the strike.
overwhelmingly
third
The workers voted
a strike vote in early September.
held
impartial
Left with no alternatives,
negotiator.
party
an
to submit to
addition,
members of
eleven
"business
students
campus
as
picket
line.
Some 400 classes were held off
and the absence
of lab technicians delayed many experiments.
supported
actively
About half the
was widespread.
union
strike,
the
many
were
halls
of the student dining
libraries were understaffed,
closed down,
the
cross
and professors refused to
Several
the
in
the strike caused serious disruptions
running of the university.
spring
hundred
the job.
usual,"
the
Local
honored the picket line and
Although the university claimed to be doing
as
the
Again
arbitration.
submitted to binding
be
issues
.Support
body
student
withholding
their
tuition to protest the administration's refusal
picket line.
to
resented the inconvenience but honored the
others
settle;
for
A vocal anti-union group of students crossed
picket lines, but their numbers were relatively small.
the
As
Shortly
worth.
surprised
work;
in
stubborn
remained
an
university
dragged
negotiations
before
its refusal
Christmas
on,
to
the
discuss
vacation,
the administration by threatening to
unusual
would
The union realized
tactic.
only be too glad to have the
61
university
comparable
the
union
return
to
that
the
union
out
over
around.
the long winter break when few students were
Interestingly enough, the threat to go back to work brought
the
first,
offer of
miniscule,
albeit
a
increase.
pay
Following through on its threat, and to the dismay of many,
the
they
19,
union went back to work on December 5,
January
would walk out again when classes resumed on
if a settlement had not been reached.
that
claiming
January 19 was
which was
also the expiration date on Local 35's contract,
being bargained concurrently.
Faced with a choice of reaching a settlement or facing
the administration finally
another semester of disruption,
offered the union a serious proposal.
union ratified its first contract.
Its provisions went way
some
the union's initial expectations and included
beyond
comparable worth provisions.
the
On January 22,
First, the contract provided
present employees across the board increases averaging more
than
20% over three and a half years.
were
combined
raises
a new
with
classification
wage
alleviating
the
structure
the
disproportionetely to women within
went
raises
Because the
female
and
discrepancies between male
unit
jobs within the unit.
Second, the centerpiece of the new contract is the new
classification
job
system."
progression
structure
One
factor
Yale was that the technical
at
occupations
had no explicit progression of
length
not
of
wage
a
creating
discrepancy
"step
a
incorporating
clerical
and
jobs;
neither
time at Yale nor in a particular position
rewarded
in any systematic way.
The new
system
were
is
based on accrual of years with each of the seventeen
In addition,
representing approximately one year at Yale.
salary grade will be eliminated as of July
lowest
the
steps
1,
The workers in this grade are exclusively female and
1985.
new system will
the
increases,
across-the-board
Together with the
black.
predominantly
on
provide,
35%
average
increases for employees, bringing the unit's average salary
up
This will
from $13,500 to $18,500.
close about 50% of
the wage gap between the male and female-dominated unions.
Finally, the contract establishes a Joint Committee to
review all
review Yale job classifications,
in
light
or
amending
addition,
changing
classification
the
Committee
the
will
handle
suggestions
In
system.
appeals
on
any
from
classification.
Committee consists of four management
representatives
and four union members, as well
faculty member.
Yale
essential
biggest
task
The work of this committee will
new
As one union member put
is in the next three years and the
committee."
The
as one mutually agreed upon
(Chernoff,
"Our
it,
work
of
1985)
union contract at Yale does
resolve the comparable worth issue,
start.
be
in the effort to bring pay equity to the clerical
and technical workers.
this
and offer
dissatisfied with her or his job
employee
The
of comparable worth,
relevant facts
not
completely
but it is an important
Comparable worth has been raised as an issue at the
bargaining table.
(Local 34,
Consuelo O'Brien, 1985; Findlay,
6.
1984;
1985)
1985; Chernoff,
1985;
SUMMARY
The cases
around the country involveing comparable worth.
groundwork
important
laying
by
in
helping
to
educate
workers about comparable worth and in
helping
to
legitimize the concept.
is important
However, these cases also indicate
instrument
policy
application as a
its
concept
and
correct
alleged
opposes
comparable worth becuase of the additional
In
wage
discrimination.
Contra Costa County,
San Jose,
Yet,
implementation.
action
costs.
Washington,
and Yale,
for
resisting
around
wage
sex-based
can help challenge the widely held
discrimination
to
often
Management
was one of management's major reasons
cost
the
about
controvery
still considerable
is
there
that
and study of comparable
officials
local
and
state
comparable
of
worth
promotion
The
worth.
area
in the
are
governments
local
that state and
fact
the
reflect
cases
many
the
examples drawn from
six
are
These
opinion
that women's work is less valuable and as such is not being
compensated.
unfairly
private sector cases have been won
some
Though
accomplishments
have occured in the public sector
well-organized union efforts.
advocates
to reach all
and public sector,
in
through
It is the goal of pay equity
women workers both in
the
unionized and non-unionized.
the foreseeable future,
most
private
However,
the battle will continue to be
fought primarily by unions for their members.
Despite
the
use of different
evaluation
techniques
15%-
each job evaluation study identified an approximately
20%
This is relative to research showing that on
female jobs.
women
average
and
comparable male
gap between the salaries of
wage
earn
60% of wages that
the
in
earn
men
economy as a whole.
Identifying
the
gap is an important
increases
identified
the
gap.
completely
standard
standard
must be instituted and a new
maintained.
equity
In each case
workers and
of
close
remains to be seen whether the gap will
eliminated
equity
a
whether
and
maintained
in
comparable
these
of
management
a wage gap and some money was awarded to
It
in
Once a wage gap is identified
achieving comparable worth.
wage
step
first
be
worth
employers'
compensation systems.
Though some private sector comparable worth cases have
been
won,
most accomplishments have occured in the public
sector through well-organized union efforts. It is the goal
of
both
comparable worth advocates to reach all
in the private and public sectors,
unionized.
will
women
workers
unionized and non-
However, in the foreseeable future, the battle
continue to be fought primarily in the public
by unions on behalf of their members.
6
sector
Chapter 4:
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
a time when wage increases in the public sector
At
are
being curtailed by reduced budgets and concession bargaining
is
commonplace in the private sector,
illustrate
how
some
comparable
and
bargaining
female-dominated
collective
classes have won
undervalued,
in
employees
legislation,
to
implementation
through
Primarily
worth.
job
able
groups of workers have been
affect the terms of compensation through the
of
studies
case
these
"pay
wage
equity"
adjustments .
Although the mechanisms for instituting changes in wage
can vary,
structures
these cases show that in practice the
implementation of comparable worth tends to involve a number
of
similar steps, though they are not always achieved in the
same
chronological order:
wage
disparities
and
unions,
and
the
of sex-based
1) the recggnitig
promotion
women's
by
groups,
politicians of comparable worth as one way
to
2) the establishment of a task
address wage discrimination;
procedures
within
the
force
to
investigate wage setting
firm;
3)
the conducting and/or reviewing of igb evaluation
techniques;
the
4) the achievement of wage Adgustments;
establishment of a long term grggess to
evaluate
and 5)
jobs
over time, and make additional adjustments as needed.
In this chapter,
most
I discuss the two general
often used to implement comparable
worth:
approaches
collective
bargaining and legislation. In each case study, employer and
employees
reached agreement recognizing that sex-based wage
66
discrimination was a potential problem and accepting the use
of some type of job evalution as a technique to identify the
They then agreed to begin rectifying
discrimination.
sex-
bias in wages through the payment of adjustments independent
of other wage increases.
While both collective bargaining and legislation can be
avenues
effective
each
increases,
for
which
constraints
institutional
for
disadvantages
and
each
by
shaped
is
process
worth
pay
political
and
advantages
and
comparable
winning
produce
affect
implementation
how
proceeds.
I will use the cases to highlight the aspects of
collective
bargaining and legislation which seem
to
and
successful implementation,
achieving
important
explore
the
significant differences between the two approaches.
For the purpose of analysis,
two
into
legislative
those
comparable
been
or
primarily
negotiation.
through
Implementation
worth through the enactment of
carried
out
in the
government is the employer.
may
achieved
divided
procedures and those achieved primarily through
labor-management
direct
only
groups:
the cases can be
public
legislation
has
where
the
sector
This process of implementation
not involve unions or
may
of
collective
bargaining,
though unions can exert important political pressure through
lobbying and litigation efforts.
The collective bargaining approach implements comparable
worth
through a negotiated settlement between employer
employees and,
unions
in
therefore,
and
recognizes a particular role for
decision-making at each step of
the
way.
The
the
private
local government
or
state
it
sector
is
is
the
the
Washington
and
approach.
legislative
cases are examples of the
Minnesota
in
employer,
The
firm.
the
sector
In the public
within a legislative body.
activity
on
than
rather
relations
labor-management
on
is
focus
The San Jose, Contra Costa County, Vacaville, and Yale cases
are examples of the collective bargaining approach.
Legislation
depends
public
officials.
In
the governors responded
to
heavily upon the actions of elected
Minnesota and Washington,
both
by
groups
women's
and
unions
of
pressure
legislation
through
worth
comparable
Implementing
establishing
a special task force to oversee and monitor
comparable
worth
for appointing the task
responsibility
retained
governors
The
study.
force,
a
determining
the task force's role in the process, and hiring consultants
to do a job evaluation.
These task force played a major role in influencing the
of
implementation
responsible
supervising
structure,
for
the
comparable
worth
the
studying
because
issue,
were
they
evaluating
evaluation of the employer's current
or
wage
and making recommendations on how implementation
should proceed.
In order to secure a firm base of
support
for the results, the task forces included representatives of
management
and
labor.
Labor delegates are
usually
from
unions which represent employees in undervalued job classes.
Because
the
passage
of legislation
68
requires
broad-based
support
political
forces
task
these
than just labor and management and, therefore,
constituency
private sector
usually include legislative representatives,
as well as
women's groups representatives,
and
employers,
broader
a
have
state personnel officials and union officials.
studies
systematic
to
appears
that
detailed
must be done before legislation can
be
the
state
Hay Associates to do a job evaluation study in
order
system.
The
and appropriations made.
passed
hired
it
cases,
legislative
In
state
the
update
In Minnesota,
classification
job
Minnesota task force had no role in choosing the consultant,
but
charged with reviewing the consultant's
was
do
classes
job
with
study of non-management jobs
a
management
level
after
a
study
jobs showed that employees in certain
categories were being underpaid.
it
In
points.
equivalent
union and women's groups lobbied the government
Washington,
to
been
had
standards
to
applied in assigning wages to male and female-
consistently
dominated
worth
comparable
whether
identify
study
of
job
As in the Minnesota case,
was the governor who chose the consulting firm to do the
study.
When
the studies were completed,
the task
forces
made their recommendation to the respective legislatures and
disbanded.
Completing implementation then became primarily
a responsibility of the legislature and the governor.
Implementation of comparable worth through
faces
targets
significant
because
political
of
the
hazards
changing
legislation
fulfilling
its
constituencies
of
in
(Cook, 1984,
political parties within the legislative body.
p.
of
stages
for comparable worth is required for
Support
8).
support
within
two
to
Once a study is
have a task force set up and a study done.
political
push
Proponents must first
implementation.
completed,
between
power
of
shifting balance
the
and
legislatures
legislature
the
is
necessary to get legislation and appropriations passed.
may be relatively easy to accomplish
it
ongoing personal
takes
(e.g.
proces
Minnesota),
but
of
the
part
commitment on the
and elected legislature to promote and support the
governor
elected
if
However,
issue.
Washington,
In
continue.
process
the
office,
act
to
on it.
to
to
removed
are
may be difficult
start
or
although the governor supported
the results of the comparable worth study,
refused
opposed
are
officials
worth or if supportive politicians
comparable
from
this
sympathetic politicians are in office,
If
Later,
the
when Dixy Lee
legislature
became
Ray
she effectively blocked the implementation of the
governor,
from
worth study by deleting any appropriations
comparable
1984).
(Remick,
her state budget.
It was several years
before legislation was enacted by a new legislature.
any
In
seems
event,
over
sustained
a long period of
cannot be maintained,
claims
worth
time.
implemented
mobilized
require that political support be
to
Watkins,
getting comparable
If
this
implementation may not occur.
and
support
Bonnie
of the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations,
that
endorsement
without
of
bipartisan
support
and
the unions and Women's Council
70
the
strong
thoroughout
the
entire process,
it out of committee
made
worth
comparable
generate
lasting
contrast,
In
1985).
(Watkins,
unable
to
refused
to
proponents in Washington were
support
and the legislature
and
results;
study's
worth
comparable
the
approve
have
the legislation would never even
the
incoming governor vetoed the comparable worth appropriations
recommended by her predecessor.
institutionalized
The
on
a
legal,
comparable
worth.
provide
can
legislation
successful,
When
process for achieving
dependent
success of comparable worth laws seems to be
the
comparable
worth
but also specific guidelines
comparable worth appropriations.
for
estimating
appropriating
successful
cost
the
needed
of
First,
implementation.
recommendation to the legislature included a
implementing
comparable
identifying
comparable worth.
worth
as
sex-based
and
Second,
to
task
the
for
getting
force's
'price tag' for
the law
state policy included
a method
Minnesota's
to
key
making
for
implementation
the
lies
identifying
The inclusion of
funds seems to be crucial
Herein
adjustments.
for
method
including not only a
law
a
enacting
method
wage discrimination and the cost
for
of
eliminating it over time as well.
While
opposed
worth
the
election
of a legislature
to comparable worth and willing to veto
adjustments could halt or delay
governor
comparable
the
the method, and
timetable for implementation may reduce the
71
a
implementation,
inclusion in the legislation of the intent,
the
or
likelihood
that
in
and
studies.
evaluation
job
are currently conducting
these
included appropriations procedures in
their
legislation
worth
comparable
task force
the
contrast,
the
of
way
a
as
insuring
(Cook, 1984, p.272).
implementation.
presented
and
As a response to inaction in other states,
states have now
In
never
was
Several states, including New York
1984)).
Jersey,
New
them
Kentucky
(For example,
the legislation.
(Cook,
Illinois
conducted
have
implementation
pricing
for
method
a
included
states
worth studies and then failed to implement
comparable
because
Other
occur.
could
this
in
never
Washington
legislature with an estimate of
This
rectifying the wage gap between male and female jobs.
legislature's
is one of the reasons that contributed to the
passed
When legislation finally
on the study's results.
inaction
included a
it
1982,
in
of
the cost
method
implementing
for
increases over time and an initial appropriation of funds.
may
The methodology used in a comparable worth study
claims
generalizable,
eliminating
an
once
sex-bias
groups of workers),
presents
addition
experience
to
is
system
is
touted
over
benefitting women
as
other
getting it implemented may be difficult.
some
chaotic
previously
(1980)
experience
state's
evaluation
(i.e.,
1980, p. 418).
(Remick,
system
Washington
if
that
Remick
its ultimate success.
also have an affect on
general
benefit
(i.e.
compensation system more
correction
supports
Implementation may be easier if the
sex
of
this;
the
72
inequities.
legislature
making
explicit)
a
in
Minnesota's
accepted
the
study
worth
comparable
improve the state's civil service system.
a
job
modify
and
on
based
done originally as a way to
study
evaluation
it was
because
were
Only later
comparable worth standards applied to evaluate if inequities
between male-dominated and female-dominated jobs existed.
achievement
the
If
is
process
legislative
inadequate
wording
comparable
worth
of
legislation,
one
results are uncertain.
is
worth
courts, in general,
litigation.
Because the legal
still
in
dispute,
the
end,
In the
interpretation of
federal
the
and
seem to be unsympathtic if not
hostile,
on litigation may turn out to be an ineffective way
relying
to achieve comparable worth.
of
for
alternative
advocates is to proceed with
for the defendant and for the plaintiff.
City
vs.
or
however, be a long, expensive process--both
Litigation can,
comparable
changes
political
stymied by
the
through
adjustments
of wage
Iowa,
agd
gouty g_
(Steinberg,
_enver,
1978;
1980;
See Lemons
Christensen vs. State
1977 in Blumrosen, 1979).
In Washington, where public unions are prohibited by law
from
striking,
when
the
the union chose to proceed with
state refused to implement the
litigation
worth
comparable
AFSCME charged the state with intentional
adjustments.
in
discrimination
compensation.
At the
same
time,
sex
the
unions and womens' groups continued to exert pressure on the
to
legislature
attempts,
worth
bill
the
implement
legislature
adjustments.
finally approved
After
a
several
comparable
implementing adjustments over a ten year period.
'gender gap' became
(Some claim the law passed only when the
an
the
issue of such great concern that
bill
in
order to attract
politicains
women
voters.)
supported
Later,
federal district judge ruled that these appropriations
a
were
too little, too late, constituting an inequity in itself and
ordered
the
state
to
make
large
back-pay
awards.
The
decision is currently being appealed, and the state has been
granted a stay in implementing the awards.
In
Minnesota
approved,
the
and
state
Washington,
once
made initial
legislation
was
appropriations and
put
responsibility for overseeing implementation in the hands of
the
state personnel office.
This makes
implementation
a
more top-down approach than that achieved through collective
bargaining.
Despite
the fact that the personnel office is
supposed to seek employee input, and that there is usually a
grievance
procedure,
main decision-making for the
relies on the inclinations of the political
power
because
Washington,
in most state's,
the
process
personalities in
as in both
Minnesota
and
is
an
process
is
commissioner of employee relations
appointed position.
Labor's
formal
role
in
the
legislative
usually limited to its work on the task force,
cases
and in these
the task force was a temporary group which
disbanded
after completing the study.
The inclusion of employees
the
because
process
is
important
comparable worth,
are
the
and it
ultimately
affected
employees'
unions who raised the issue in the first
few
states
have
by
they
acted on comparable worth
74
without
in
ones
is
the
place;
being
limited
have
power
the task force tends to
In addition,
pressured to do so.
participate
not
does
in that it
in
An
choosing the consultant to do the job evaluation study.
outside consultant hired by the state may be beholden to the
of
interests
which may
outcome,
the
affect
in
these
comparable
worth
does not seem to be the situation
this
although
state,
the
case studies.
Collective Bargainin
legislation,
with
As
implementing
through direct labor-managment negotiation,
with
begins
often
sector,
public
politicians to address the issue.
is
implementation
initiating
less
process,
the
management efforts.
least in the
lobbying
unions
the
Unions can also raise the
dependent
on
method
This
at the bargaining table.
directly
issue
at
of
officials
public
and more focused on joint
labor-
In the public sector, elected officials
must approve the final contract, but what distinguishes this
process
from
the legislative approach is
the
process
of
decision-making.
relationship
The
how
implementation
negotiations
each
between management and labor
of
the
participate in deciding
how
By the nature
is carried out.
process,
unions
step of implementation will
through collective bargaining,
shapes
proceed.
When
achieved
implementation of comparable
worth usually occurs where there are union locals with large
female
membership
positions.
and where women are in
For example,
Carol
'75
Dorty,
union
leadership
Vice President of SEIU
Local 614 in Vacaville,
advocates of comparable worth.
outspoken
union
female
County,
Costa
In Contra
ardent
most
shop stewards were the
was
the issue
At Yale,
of comparable worth.
proponents
and
the the most active
was one of
by the clerical and technical union which represents
raised
an overwhelmingly female labor force.
Employees tend to have a more direct role in determining
the make-up and the responsibility of
in collective bargaining are composed exclusively of
forces
Contra Costa County,
San Jose,
equal
with
forces
outcome.
be directly affected by the
would
constituencies
whose
management,
and
labor
of
representatives
task
Task
ones.
situations than in the legislative
bargaining
the
the task force in
Vacaville, and Yale all
labor-management
representation,
Yale had a faculty member on the committee to
although
had
act
as a tie-breaker.
the collective bargaining process,
In
greater role than they do
a
on
take
certain
In
process.
task
in
task forces
legislative
the
notably
San
Jose
force was responsible
for
not
situations,
Vacaville,
the
conducting
a job evaluation study but for choosing
or
not an outside consultant would be hired.
force
does
not
have any labor
endanger the acceptability of
County,
where
Department
to
the
governing body assigned
do the study without first
force or consulting with the unions,
76
and
only
whether
If the
representation,
its findings.
may
task
could
it
In Contra Costa
the
forming
Personnel
a
task
the Department's study
was
contained
it
up through collective bargaining,
se t
was
When a task force
decided to conduct their own study.
later
the unions
In this case,
not accepted by the unions.
lab or and management representation.
equal
Whil e
to
evaluation studies seem to be essential
job
implement legislation, they do not seem to be as critical in
initiatin g
collectiv
worth
comparable
studies
Since job evaluation
bargaining.
e
through
increases
wage
are
often cos tly and time consuming, management can sometimes be
without
through the use of union studies.
can
it
initial
'downpayments' i . e.
worth
comparabl e
the union is strong enough,
if
them;
inequities
wage
rectifying sex-based
begin
to
pressured
win
corrections
Enough data now exists to
give unions and management a good idea of where underpayment
may
before a detailed study is completed.
be present, even
(Remick, 1984c, p.101).
are
studies
detailed
wage
implementing
studies
of
exposed
the
In
County
necessary
always
not
increases.
the
extent of undervaluation
other cases,
systematically
were
preliminary
union
structure
which
compensation
employers'
begin
to
payments
Initial
of
how
show
cases
and Yale
and won on the basis
for
bargained
jobs.
Costa
Contra
The
of
female-dominated
point ranking methods were used to
expose the wage gap.
However,
it
appears
that the size of the wage adjustments will be larger when
thorough
study
workers
got
has been completed.
smaller
substantially
workers in the other cases
Contra
wage
Costa
increases
a
County
than
(only a 3% raise to start closing
77
a 30% gap).
County,
both Yale and Contra Costa
At
that
conceded
detailed
job evaluation
members
union
would
studies
be
needed in the long run in order to identify wage disparities
on
a
job-by-job
basis,
especially since
previously used rather arbitrary i.e.,
explicit)
methods
assigning
employers
implicit rather than
wages.
At
Yale,
the
administration paid clerical and technical
university
by
for
both
"seat
the pants" comparisons
of
(Chernoff,
1985).
The
Contra
with
Costa
market
County
jobs
surveys
system
was
similar.
Realizing that setting up and instituting a bias-
free
evaluation and compensation
job
these unions chose a pragmatic,
whatever
raises
could
willing
to
unions'
preliminary
union
contracts
provisions
to
negotiate
takes
time,
short term approach:
to get
be won given
system
that
management
some increase on the
basis
job evaluation research.
to establish a joint labor-management
were
additional
to
serve
as
a
basis
end,
included
committee
study.
for
the
discussion
These
of
wage adjustments in future contract negotiations.
Should
during
In the
County
at Yale and Contra Costa
conduct a more thorough comparable worth
studies
of
was
disputes between labor and
mediation,
arise
three alternatives exist for
collective bargaining,
resolving them:
management
arbitration and
strikes.
In
attempting to implement comparable worth, these same avenues
for
resolving
management
disputes
opposition
to
are
available
implementation.
79
for
overcoming
While
these
can
offer no guarantees that management opposition
tactics
be overcome, they seem to have been very effective.
over
negotiate
would
parties
was agreed at the outset that the
it
Yale,
and at
Contra Costa County,
Vacaville,
San Jose,
In
the
what actions to take on the results of
When
comparable worth study.
management refused to bargain
over wage changes or if the raises were not satisfactory
the
the
union,
unions
their
settle
to
refused
(when not prohibited by law) went out on strike.
contract or
In
either
unions
to
employee
despite laws prohibiting public
San Jose,
workers staged a one day strike when
from striking,
management refused to address the comparable worth issue and
later went out on a nine-day strike when the city refused to
In
offer an adequate sum of money to close the wage gap.
Contra Costa County,
at
an
when negotiations with the County were
impasse the unions staged a
female
(with
"late-in"
workers reporting two hours late for work to demonstrate the
amount
time
of
female-dominated
negotiations
adjustments
they provide free
unions
the
until
initial
At Yale,
comparable
where negotiations dragged
the union offered to submit the dispute
on for over a year,
arbitration.
equity
wage
and guaranteed discussion of future
worth pay increases.
to
County made
contract
settle
to
then refused
The
County).
the
to
When
refused,
the managment
union
the
decided to go out on strike.
When
pressure
contracts
comparable worth adjustments are
tactics
of
striking
and
of
bargained,
refusing
seem to have a better chance of actually
79
to
the
sign
getting
adjustments
initial
In Washington, it took
than litigation.
comparable worth
over eight years from the time the original
study was done to get initial payments.
However, collective
bargaining tactics require a great deal
of union solidarity,
may
Costa
County,
lasted
they
Yale
negotiations lasted fourteen
and at
months,
instances,
many
In
months.
twenty
Contra
In
time.
be difficult to sustain over
which
management tried in vain to break union solidarity, but were
They may
surprised by the resiliency of the union members.
County,
Costa
Contra
In
together.
stick
determination of the
the
underestimated
have
workers
to
management
attempted to buy off particular union leaders with large pay
(Finney,1985),
increases
and at Yale the university refused
to submit the negotiations to arbitration
By
worth
management attempts to stop comparable
resisting
affect
unions discovered they actually could
the
efforts,
1984).
(Local 34,
new areas of compensation.
leaders of Local
male
roughly
point
unions
during
the
drop
their
because
actually proposed
negotiations that
comparable
comparable
The
it
In Contra Costa County,
worth
the
at
with
one
female-dominated
efforts
because
of
face
of
threats to reduce the workforce in the
constraints.
other
from
an unaffiliated union local
half female membership,
management
budget
1,
worth
comparable
their relative status.
threatens
and
oppose
might
who
workers
union solidarity can also come
to
Threats
female-dominated unions prevailed
worth adjustments were won in
addition
to
across the board
at Yale and
In contrast,
workforce.
members
were
efforts
and
any reductions in the
in San Jose, male union
actively supportive of the
went out on strike in
sisters.
union
increases and without
worth
with
their
solidarity
easy
always
is not
solidarity
Such
comparable
to
achieve.
worth
collective bargaining once initial comparable
In
is won, the task force is usually given responsibility
money
This is
for overseeing long term work on comparable worth.
in contrast to the legislative arena where the task force is
implementation
the
legislation
Under
short-lived.
usually
comparable worth standard is legally instituted and
collective
Through
approval.
subject to legislative
are
Wage increases
out by the state personnel office.
carried
of
bargaining the basis for future work--both restructuring the
employer's wage-setting procedure and gaining wage increases
is part of a contractual obligation.
renegotiation.
continual
unions
to
However,
as
maintain
It
constant
and thus it depends on
then incumbent
is
vigilance
and
upon
the
pressure.
long as women continue to be a significant force
within
unions,
unions
will
and
the wage gap persists,
is
likely
continue to fight for comparable worth.
(Bell,
it
1985).
The
the
strength of the collective bargaining
active
involvement
of union members
fought hard to win comparable worth,
determined
even
more
Carol
Dorty of
to see that
is
process
that
and
having
many union members are
the
process
continues.
Vacaville claims that the workers realize how
e1
difficult the process of implementing comparable worth
they put much time and effort
won,
are now willing to fight to keep it.
County,
and
into achieving it and,
the unions felt "very powerful"
were
very
victories.
determined
to
was;
having
In Contra Costa
during negotiations
safeguard
their
hard-won
Achieving comparable worth may require unions to
exert their collective power to win settlements and, in this
way, increase worker empowerment.
Summary
In analyzing these case studies, it is clear that there
are
several
employer's
ways
of
achieving
comparable
compensation structure.
worth
The primary
through collective bargaining and through
in
ways
an
are
legislation. Often
these tactics must be combined with others
(e.g. litigation)
to
obstacles.
The
choice of tactics depends on the legal,
institutional,
and
political
such as Washington,
overcome political and organizational
situation.
collective
In some states,
bargaining over wages is not sanctioned
the state and its employees.
between
Legislation or litigation may
be the only route available to achieve pay equity.
At
the
local level and in the private sector, collective bargaining
is the primary method of implementation.
These
the
cases studies highlight how a concept changes
process
concept
of being
behind
the
translated into policy.
policy
is
comparable value based on skill,
and
equal
pay
for
responsibility,
The
jobs
in
basic
of
knowledge
working conditions--but how that translates into actual
82
wage-setting varies
in
changes
as
greatly,
cases
these
demonstrate. In some instances comparable worth involved the
total
reevaluation of an employer's job and wage structure;
other
times
uncertain
increases
were
it
is
will
be
but
instituted
the employer's compensation system
how
altered over
to
wage
The two goals of comparable worth are
time.
and
increase wages for jobs done primarily by women
reevaluate the standards of equity.
to
While in each case the
proponents of comparable worth try to achieve both, they did
not always accomplish both in the short run.
comparable worth must first be accepted as
Regardless,
Once this
a legitimate concern in wage setting procedures.
achieved
was
Although
to
efforts
involved
a
job
study.
evaluation
a thorough job evaluation must be not be conducted
initiate
wage increases,
wage
the
where one was done
adjustments were larger.
achieving
In
collective
to be a more participatiory form of
appears
than
comparable worth
legislation.
Workers
were included on
bargaining
implementation
task
forces
which
actively reviewed compensation systems whereas
fewer
union
representatives
legislative
task
Furthermore,
forces.
participated
more
in
women workers were involved in
bargaining committees than is usually the case in collective
bargaining.
union
And
coalition
there was some evidence of
building
(e.g.
Yale
and
strong
interCosta
Contra
County).
Collective
bargaining
relies on the strength
of
the
in
persist
management
and
the issue on the negotiating agenda
put
to
union
pursuing
its
As
opposition.
in
implementation
long
of
spite
need
unions
as
to
to
organize new women workers and keep those they already have,
comparable
worth will probably stay a priority for
Legislation relies more on the efforts of
dominated locals.
interest
on
groups exerting pressure on elected officials
and
through.
As
the efforts of politicians to then follow
legislators need to court votes and seek to
long
as
the
high
costs
discrimination,
interest
female-
of
they
the
may
government
be
expected
in achieving comparable worth.
94
sued
for
maintain
some
being
to
avoid
(Remick, 1984b).
LIMITiTIONS OF COMPARABLE WORTH
Chapter 5:
IMPLEMENTiTION
outgrowth
worth is a policy designed as an
Comparable
of equal employment policy. Its aim is to achieve pay equity
for undervalued female-dominated jobs within
adjustments
work
organization by
this
thesis
I have examined how comparable worth had
implemented in five states and localities,
out
carried
been
private
and one
were
These comparable worth efforts
organization.
sector
through
mainly
and
legislation
In
equity.
redefining standards of
a
collective
bargaining.
used
gap
female
Despite the variety of methods, most studies revealed
jobs.
a
wage
yet comparable male and
between dissimlar.,
existed
a
employers and employees to show that
by
was
some type of job evaluation method
each case,
In
wage
gap
roughly 15-20%.
of
In
for this wage inequity,
correcting
an
effort
to
begin
employers allotted some
job
money to raise the salaries of workers in the underpaid
categories.
However,
adjustments
only
technical
Though
implementing
initial
closed
"pay
the
equity"
future
gap,
differential
the wage
involves
worth
comparable
questions of how to measure and assess sex-bias in
compensation,
comparable
partially
these
were expected to narrow
adjustments
further.
while
these
worth
is
cases
not
demonstrate
only a
that
technical
achieving
issue
but
a
political and economic one as well.
These
implementation efforts represent an early
85
stage
In
of implementation.
inequities
past
rectify
particular
set(s)
of jobs.
evaluation
system
to
No employer applied
each employers' compensation system,
explicit
guarantees
over
reevaluated
to
a
job
the
to
applied
no settlement included
that the evaluation methods
time
to
organization.
the
within
all jobs
comparable worth standards were
while
Second,
of
each
in
of comparable worth was limited
sogge
the
instance
First,
ways.
was circumscribed in three
equity
female-
of
compensation
in the
But the attempt to redefine standards
jobs.
dominated
every instance money was paid out to
incorporate
be
would
job
changing
Finally, where
requirements and changing values of worth.
job evaluation was used to identify wage discrimination, the
evaluation
job
to identify sex-bias in the description of
order
the
scheme was never significantly
choice
of compensable factors.
in
altered
and
jobs
It may take many
more
years experience to assess whether comparable worth mandated
in
law or in contract can expand to meet these
conditions.
below.
Each of these will be discussed in detail
qgge of Study
be
One of the ways in which the use of job evaluation
can
different
job
discriminatory
is when an employer uses
evaluation plans to assess different jobs classes within the
Since job categories covered by different plans tend
firm.
to
be
highly
discrimination
sex-segregated,
in
compare jobs among,
the
compensation
the ability to
requires
as well as within,
plans.
scope of comparable worth comparisons
(6
the
assess
ability
sex
to
Restricting
may lead to
the
underestimation
to
jobs
The
compared.
of
value
the
female-dominated
jobs,
highly-paid,
male-
are
if the excluded jobs
particularly
typed
of
could
which female jobs
of separate systems may only
use
be
theoretically
to
serve
reinforce historical sex-bias.
the
justified
have
employers
Many
separate
of
use
evaluation plans arguing that the vastly different nature of
requires
jobs
use of
the
different
schemes.
evaluation
Despite seemingly large differences in job requirements, one
For example,
the U.S.
Ogcggtional
Titles
assess
of Labor's Dictionary
of
uses one set of consistent factors
to
Department
over 35,000 jobs
Treiman and Hartmann,
for
basis
jobs.
plan can be used to evaluate a variety of
evaluation
and
(Beatty
p.79).
1981,
p.63;
1984,
Beatty,
This guide has been the
the development of single evaluation
plans
for
many large firms, and many state and local governments.
While the use of a single plan is technically possible,
it
Every
comparable
management
worth
positions.
except
study,
In
management positions were reviewed,
was
only
a preliminary one;
excluded
one,
where
County,
the job evaluation study
it remains to be seen whether
or not management positions will
as
Costa
Contra
cases.
worth
done in only one of these comparable
was
be included in the long run
the joint labor-management committee undertakes
a
more
thorough evaluation of the County's pay system.
While comparable worth studies have excluded management
jobs,
it
is unclear why they did so.
97
Management
is not
a
of
hierarchy
actually
or
administrative
assistant) on the basis of job content and requirements.
management and non-managements level
In
between
characteristic
the distinguishing
instances
most
may
non-management
level
secretary
executive
(e.g.
positions
higher
to
comparable
be
management positions
Lower level
jobs.
internal
own
category and usually has its
job
monolithic
jobs is the rate of pay
(both in terms of wages and benefits) and the way those
pay
scales are determined.
management
Getting
worth
comparable
be
may
studies
included
positions
level
difficult
in
the
given
reluctance of workers to give up their relatively privileged
In
position.
many
Minnesota,
level
lower
management
actually
employees now find that the workers they supervise
and sometimes more,
make as much,
their
expressed
decided how and if they will
cases reviewed,
not
yet
In the
by law, not be downgraded to
Still,
comparable
potential to alter the historical
management
management has
address these concerns.
salaries may,
inequities.
rectify
but
discontent,
They have
than they do.
has
worth
wage differential
the
between
and non-management workers from which the former
have, in part, derived their relatively higher status.
It may be easier politically,
scope
comparable
of
offer
process
worth to include
than to include
positions
however,
all
management.
to extend
the
non-management
Legislation
may
a particular advantage over the collective bargaining
in
its ability to extend the scope
worth standards.
of
comparable
If the governor or legislature agrees
B8
to
it may have
review the government's compensation procedure,
through civil service laws which supercede
the legal power,
1984),
collective bargaining laws (Dean,
to make the system
In Minnesota
allows for broad intra-unit comparison.
This
all non-management employees were
Washington,
and
on
to
prior
system
classification
general
same
units.
of all non-management jobs and bargaining
inclusive
the
the
Consequently, when the
implementation of comparable worth.
comparable worth study was done, it was possible to evaluate
and compare a large cross-section of dissimilar jobs.
bargaining
the
At
employers
table,
deal
may
with
bargaining uni ts on an individual basis, thus it may be more
to get all jobs within an organization
difficult
on
same
the
"cri tical"
fund
i.e.,
positions,
aside
money are set
systems exist because separate pools of
to
compensation
different
Sometimes,
basis.
evaluated
firefighters'
and
police' wages in San Jose and Contra Costa County.
these excluded units are often male-dominated
However,
and
worth
While often supportive of the comparable
higher paid.
efforts
of
female-dominated
units,
these
unionists may be uninterested in participating in
worth
studies
because
bargaining
strength.
management
separately
salaries;
of
fear
Many
and
of
losing
such
are
able
comparable
their
units
relative
bargain
to
male
secure
with
higher
participating in comparable worth could compromise
this
advantage.
will
downscale
they may
Further,
their
wages
89
in
fear that
order
to
management
correct
wage
cases
suggest that
inequities.
The
downscaling
of wages can be
adjustments
were
successful;
awarded on top of
against
prohibitions
worth
comparable
across-the-
standard,
Comparable worth may bring about
board
wage increases.
major
change in the relative salaries of
and
jobs,
these
a
similar to management workers, the male-dominated unions may
resist any attempt to challenge the status quo.
studies
When the unions excluded from comparable worth
are
either male-dominated or higher paid,
can
only
achieve limited success.
of
amount
male
between
awarded partially
money
Getting
relative
strength
of
the workers
the cultural
maybe
workers
wage
gap
problem of
in
female-
underpaid
system
Perhaps more difficult may
getting
particularly
workers,
jobs
quite dissimilar
jobs.
Women
see their jobs in relation to
other
female
comparable to other,
"Unfortunately,
workers...but
the
factors:
to understand that
jobs, and not in relation to higher paid male jobs.
1976).
a
their
female employees,
often
of
management
jobs and the nature of the classification
previously used by the employer.
underpaid
and
excluded units
in the process may depend upon two
be
the
the
closed
included
dominated
cases,
of equity was limited by the exclusion of
workers.
certain
these
female jobs but the establishment
and
standard
bias-free
In
comparable worth
also
since
women
are
participants in the culture
(Newman,
only
not
at
large,
they often share the undervaluation of women's work, whether
done by themselves or other women."
(9()
(Remick, 1984, p.91)
Relevant Evaluation Methods
comparable jobs are evaluated and wages realigned
Once
to
non-
guarantee
relative job value it does not
reflect
To do this a mechanism should be
discrimination over time.
set up to ensure that discriminatory wage differences do not
When a new job evalaution method is put in place
reappear.
it should
as part of an effort to achieve comparable worth,
be updated over time to reflect changes in job structure and
(1984) states,
changes in what an employer values. Remick
are
wages
evaluation systems and prevailing
"job
forever
are
on cultural value systems that
based
a perfect evluation system, good for all
changing,
is
impossible."
time
manufacturing
sector,
private
for
developd
systems were developed
job evaluation
Historically
jobs.
office
firms.
systems were
Later,
Designers
of
for
these
systems
however, to borrow factors from previously designed
tended,
systems,
so that the new systems reflected their industrial
origins.
Over time job content and skill requirements have
changed.
In
importance
plans,
of
Revised
relative
Many
existing
has
Today's workforce is concentrated in
service
evaluation
range of skills
changed.
may not correspond to the current nature
the labor market.
and
the societal view of the
certain jobs
therefore,
technical
full
of
addition,
jobs--jobs
held
by
many
women.
plans may be needed which consider
demanded and credit
them in
with their value to an organization's operations.
the
accordance
(Treiman
and Hartmann, 1981).
Evaluation systems must be continually updated in order
91
to
reflect
incorporate the changing content of jobs and to
what an employer values.
changes in
over time
For example,
the nature of what is important to an employer has
highly
in
Employers
product-oriented
changed.
may
organiztions
require and value manual tasks such as lifting and operating
more
to
being able
service-oriented and rely on employees
operate
well with the public.
particularly
is
This
defined in
sector jobs and whose jobs skills may not be well
manufacturing-based job evaluations.
service
in
many of whom are employed
for women,
relevant
to
calculators) and
light machinery (data processors;
interact
are
though,
Many of today's industries,
heavy machinery.
Job evaluation systems
need to reflect these changes.
legislation,
Through
the
responsibilty for
updating
comparable worth is with state personnel office and open
high
degree of political intervention.
the
bargaining
Through collective
task force may be charged with
because
require
task,
this
This may
allowing for a greater level of worker input.
important
it is workers who know what
be
jobs
their
may be able to best assess how job content
and
to
is
changing.
Sex-Bias
Job Evaluation
in
Steinberg
addresses
the
(1984) writes that comparable
worth
policy
of wage discrimination
which
exists
issue
"where there is an inconsistent application of values or
inappropriate
emphasis
of
assessment
comparable
of jobs"
worth
92
(p.22).
activity has
Thus
been
an
far
the
on
the
former.
in some cases minor alterations were made
Although
did
studies
in none of the case
job job evaluation techniques,
alter
employers and employees attempt to significantly
jobs
of
aspects
what
given
concerned with getting higher wages
more
by
weight
most
women.
for
worth
Reestablishing equity standards to reflect comparable
was
the tool used to obtain these wage
the
job
system as bias-free
evaluation
job
Rather, comparable worth proponents
evaluation techniques.
were
were
to
as
possible
was
part of a more long term
considered to be a separate goal,
Lee Finney, 1985;
1985;
Making
increases.
Chernoff,
project
(Bonnie Watkins,
1985).
Designing a new system takes time and may be costly.
comparable worth advocates in these cases realized that
The
current job evaluation methods may underestimate
while
the
extent of the gap, they can still help reduce discriminatory
differences
in
the pay of
jobs done primarily by
men
and
(Treiman and Hartmann, 1981,
those done primarily by women.
p. 81).
There
evaluation systems:
stereotypes
sources
of
sex-bias
and prejudice in describing work
reflective
chosen
factors
compensable
of cultural
inherently
bias.
a judgmental
evaluation
system
evaluation
systems
in
job evaluators may incorporate cultural
traditionally
by men and work traditionally done by women;
done
is
potential
two
are
does
not
to
evaluate
jobs
and
the
may
be
Because the evaluation process
one,
a totally
exist.
job
bias-free
However,
if
were more closely scrutinized for
these
sex-
they could
bias,
wage
possilby identify an even larger
gap
between male and female-dominated jobs and set new standards
for what is a fair and equitable wage.
For example, the nurturing and guidance skills required
of
occupations)
and teachers (both female-doinated
nurses
than
be considered intrinsic qualities of women rather
may
Ironically, while
they may go unnoticed by job evaluators.
may
men
often
talents
(i.e.,
lifting
heavy
women
objects),
recieve
little or no compensation
for their
(i.e.,
nurturing or counseling).
Even if
"natural"
evaluators
prevailing patriarchal
are sensitive to these biases,
do
to
be rewarded for the things they are assumed
"naturally"
better
Consequently
effectively.
skills required to perform jobs
views
which underlie the undervalution of women's work may be hard
to
For example,
detect.
many evaluation systems
Many women's
in fiscal terms.
responsibility
measure
occupations
carry a great deal of responsibility--but for people not for
(day-care workers,
money
social
nurses,
workers),
and thus
these responsibilities may be overlooked and undervalued.
Under
Washington,
legislative
the
choice of consultant
the factors of
in
process
the
Minnesota
and
(who in turns chooses
evaluation) was in the hands of the governor.
When the employer chooses the system they must be careful to
watch
biases
for bias becuase they can be held resonsible for
in
bargaining
making
their
compensation
procedures
the choice.
puts
system.
the task force
For example,
The
in
in Vacaville,
any
collective
charge
the
of
task
force carefully reviewed several
allowing the unions to help chose the system (whether
bias,
in
While not certain to eliminate sex-
met their needs.
best
studies to choose one which
process)
legislation or collective bargaining
the
may
insure a higher level of acceptability of the results.
way to get a less-biased system is to design a job
One
evaluation
system
evaluation
has
been
tasks)
related
and
what
(based
historically
to
standard
the
evaluate all jobs
on
male
on
that
York
state,
workers bargained for a the development of a new
where
evaluation methodology.
asks workers to describe their jobs.
job
The New York study
1984).
(Cook,
of
white
based
is what is being done in New
This
standard.
looks at
which
Realizing that workers
might describe what they think others consider valuable, the
of
designers
the study have developed a new rating
scheme
which includes
for workers to use in evaluating their jobs,
job factors that may have been undervalued or disregarded in
the past. As with other reforms, there are tradeoffs between
achieving
short run goals
and
run
long
women)
(obtaining more money for
goals (creating a
less-biased
standard
of
If short term goals are pursued, it may be at the
equity).
expense
of the long run goals--management may realize
paying
workers
based
on
a
consistent
that
application
standards is cheaper than developing and instituting a
of
more
bias-free system.
There
are
no
definitive
"fairness" in choosing factors.
tests
of
what
Treiman and Hartmann
conclude fairness in this context can only mean
95
constitute
(1981)
"achieving a
consensus
and
about factors and
employees."
legislation
their weights
among
employers
Whether through collective bargaining
employees should
be included because
the ones most affected by the job evaluations.
they
or
are
Chapter 6:
CONCLUSION
comparable worth--equal
of
policy
assertion
the
supports
by
which
one policy
as
large
portion
and
a great
Legislating
number
state
example
set
other employers.'
of
through
Legislation
legislation.
worth
the state.
policy
a
legal
As an employer of
a
large
makes
a diverse group
the
of
occupations,
the public
1?7-
sector,
to
the
The
influence
implementation
The spillover effect from
in
jobs.
of
the state has the potential
comparable worth
relies
power.
in
politicians
apply the policy to a broad set
by
of
worth
comparable
in
sector
in the public sector.
comparable
implement
extent on the support of
of
the
over
womens'
bargaining and
of workers
can
fairly for
I have reviewed the efforts of
unions to
responsibility
a
yet implementation
(Livernash, 1980),
this thesis
collective
to
comparable
private
worth and
comparable
supporting
done
is
alleviate
potentially
could
claim
advocates
simply because it
comparable worth has been widespread
groups
over the exact
however,
Economists continue to argue
employers oppose it
In
significantly
are
of the wage gap by rewarding women
work they do.
evidence
research
Feminists and unions have advocated
women.
worth
the
Recent
two
the
undervalued
is
work"
"women's
that
fact that
Comparable worth
the linkage.
of
nature
that
Disagreements exist,
correlated.
as is the
sex-segregated.
is highly
workforce
the
between
differential
widely recognized,
and women is now
equal
of
work
for
pay
The wage
value--has been implemented.
men
the
this thesis was to investigate how
purpose of
The
or
by one
large
be studied empirically.
has yet to
there is an
relatively low cost to the state,
resistance
increasing
institute changes in
the
On
As
process.
degree of
collective
a
direct
ways.
of
bargaining
begin
bargaining
employee input
result
significant
a job
evaluation study
implementation.
of
it
appears
to
in
the
wage
in
setting
a
through
always
of
legitimate
table comparable worth can
employee input in
entire
is not
Regardless
implementation, once raised as a
areas
is
that
is
Most
details of
bargaining
worth
interpreted
worth has been
to
the
to
labor-management
of
necessary
at
served
unions
their
comparable
when
collective
comparable
negotiations
variety
hand,
other
greater
a
and
their wage-setting procedures.
through
implemented
through
state
the
Minnesota
both
to
and
a lobbying force to get elected officials
as
primarily
workers,
the
Washington,
In
governorship.
and
legislature
had
environment
implementation within
to
the
exemplifies
case
political
changing
a
with
struggle
progressive
and women's groups
union
extreme--where
opposite
offer
Washington
The
issues.
political
historically
to
environment and a commitment
union
strong
and at a
easily
achieved relatively
has been
where
In Minnesota,
process.
sometimes fruitless,
implementation
to
scrutiny which can make implementation
significant political
long,
is subject
it
be effective,
legislation can
While
a
is something which
in an area, onto other employers
employer
expand
practices.
the
issue
the
The
oversight for ongoing
and
committeees,
negotiating
studies,
evaluations
job
in
involved
more
were
show how workers
Yale
and
Vacaville,
County,
Costa
Contra
Jose,
San
of
cases
bargaining
collective
than
implementation
when instituted through legislative procedures.
implementation of
further
of
issues
found power
new
this
been
were
able
to
can
be
concerns
their
have
will
management;
by
addressed
In the years to come it
addressed.
if
have
workers
women
demands
worth
comparable
important to
be
in
effective
such
as
see
achieving
comparable worth as well
concern to women workers,
their
until
strike or fought contract settlements
on
gone
worker
greater
strength, workers have
Using their collective
empowerment.
to
led
has
participation
worker
This
as other
childcare
or
part-time employment.
differences in approaches,
the
Despite
bargaining
and
legislation
higher wages for workers in
have been effective
simply
adjustments
raise
the pay of
lowest
the
went to all
undervalued
lowest paid jobs at the bottom of
at the bottom of
undervalued,
are
worth
winning
in
female-dominated job categories.
collapse an employer's wage structure.
the
collective
wage adjustments are different from wage realignments
These
that
both
likely
primarily filled
and
In these cases wage
job classes
not
the wage scale.
just
Jobs
by women, therefore, they
receive a larger percentage
adjustments.
between
jobs
the wage scale are often disproportionately
and
to
level
male- and
of
comparable
Thus, in closing the discriminatory gap
female-typed jobs,
en(.
comparable worth
may
also collapse the overall
theory,
In
wage structure.
worth requires that
comparable
fairness
(consistency) in the application
methods
for
jobs and setting
ranking
of
skills
case
of
proponents
In fact,
these
the
that
the
and promote
way possible,
While
the
recognize
approach
increases
in
further revaluation
of
wage
term,
the longer
job evaluation methods as part of
of
emphasis
former.
may
achieve fairness and win
to
been
whatever
both
achieving both goals, the pragmatic
desirability of
has
always accomplish
worth
comparable
as
women
In
worth activity has been on
comparable
also
incumbents.
job
the
indicate
clearly
studies
It
women's work through
or completely.
these goals simultaneously
evaluation
jobs performed by
comparable worth does not
practice,
of
the
from
distinct
the tasks of
of
recognition
job
salaries.
requires that there be a revaluation of
a
of
be
there
ongoing
process.
much remains to be done in defining
Still,
comparable worth.
the standard of
on
been
Expanding
methods
The
scope
and
identifying
based
the
jobs
to
the
fashion.
limited
a
to
include
the
ways
of
developing
and
in
sex-bias
lead
discrimination
in
Comparable worth has
comparable worth
eliminating
may eventually
full
job
elimination
evaluation
of
sex-
in wage setting practices.
begin
to
beliefs which undervalue women's work
and
implementation
challenge cultural
of
of
distribution
widest
implemented
and
interpreted
equity based
of
comparable
100j(
worth
can
economic practices which
In doing
employer's operation.
to
has
the
an
may not
so comparable worth
wage but also
women's
raise
only
a
them
by not paying
reflects their contribution
accurately
which
wage
exploit women
of
potential
initiating a more open discusion of the wage system within
Since wages are influenced by how one perceives work
firm.
and
comparable worth by raising
who does it,
policy alone will
It
able
to
of the wage gap comparable worth will
much
of
reduce
the discriminatory differences in the pay of
men's
Economic forecasts indicate that
during
occupations
will
few
is clear
1984;
even
sex-segregated
Consequently,
researchers
many
1984) believe that the wage
women is likely to
relatively
remain
Consistently applying job evaluation standards
unchanged.
to
and
employers
that when applied
Walker and Grune,
men and
between
begin
decades
grow rapidly.
continue to
(Blau,
be
it can
it
but
next
the
can
broader
on
and women's jobs.
gap
a
be part of
is too early to draw any definitive conclusions
eliminate,
some
must
worth
social
to overcome major
justice program.
social
how
not be enough
Comparable
inequities.
women's wages
women's work and change Yet,
value of
can raise the societal
one
a
further,
reduce that gap.
society values
but
Revaluating
what
it
gap
about work can close the
this struggle will
not
be
is
accomplished
very easily or very quickly.
The
living
economic
recent
rapid
increase in the number
in poverty only heightens the urgency
equity
for
women.
The
10 1
immediate
of
economic
of
women
achieving
interests
of
run;
part
never
for
accomplished
fully
the
wage
scales
worth as part of
comparable
handling
be
is
need
the
underscores
once,
at
all
short
worth
comparable
for
process
long term institutionalized
a
establishing
that
The fact
term goals.
long
restructure
to
struggle
the
that
and
of
in
dictate that wage increases be won
women
worth
any comparable
policy.
Comparable worth is one policy intervention which
also
Employers
growing.
can no
spread,
longer
will
it
collective
"As
both
require
to
in
If
workers
to
implement
it
legislation,
bargaining,
more
value
of
women's
widespread
is
the
private
and
public
the
can
lessen
and
Action
issue.
avoid the
employers
on
pressure
through
economy
the
the
perceptions of
dependence on men's wages.
economic
sector
to
contribution
women's
and
to alter cultural
begin
It
women.
significantly alter the wage earning power of
concept
to
organize
is
or
litigation.
to
exert
either voluntarily
firms adopt comparable
worth,
the
the
permeate
will
adjustments
salary
resultant
Through
markets.
labor
of local
wage structure
imitation,
innvovation,
of pressure,
process
the
done
work
wages paid for
the
adjustment,
and
the
with
up
catch
will
women
by
primarily
women represent a large, permanent,
that
reality
These
of employees.
set
highly productive
and
eventually
doubt,
no
will,
actions
concrete
controversial
and
highly charged
a
transform
and
routine
a
into
demand
political
employment
of equal
feature
institutionalized
(Remick and Steinberg, 1984, p. 301.)
policy."
1 02
could
or
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Pay EggUity, Manual. Washington, DC.
(AFSCME). 1980.
---------------.
Manual.
1984. Winning the Eight FoC PaY EggLity.
Washington, D.C.: AFSCME.
"Comparable Worth,
Amott, Teresa, and Matthaei, Julie. 1984.
21-27.
18:
America
Radical
Incomparable Pay."
"Some Problems
1984.
Beatty, Richard, and Beatty, James.
In
with Contemporary Job Evaluation Systems."
QQqgcari Worth and Wage Discrimination, pp. 59-78.
Temple
Philadelphia:
Edited by Helen Remick.
University Press.
"Unionized Women in State and Local
Bell, Deborah E. 1985.
A Century g
Women. Wrk. and Protest:
Government." In
U.S. Women's Labor History, pp. 276-296. Edited by Ruth
Routledge, Kegan, Paul.
Milkman. Boston and London:
Forthcoming.
Blau, Francine. 1977. Egggi Pay In The Office. Lexington,
Lexington Books.
MA:
1984.
"Occupational Segregation and Labor
--------------.
In Sex Segggation in the
Market Discrimination"
Edited by Barbara Reskin.
pp. 117-143.
Wgckglag.,
National Academy Press.
Washington, D.C.:
Bluestone, Barry and Sarah Kuhn. 1983. "The New Economic
U.S. Women and the Transformation of the
Dualism:
Global Economy." Unpublished.
Blumrosen, Ruth G. 1979. "Wage Discrimination, Job
Segregation, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
University gf Michigan Jgurnal of Law Reform 12:
1964."
397-502.
Bunzel, John. 1982. "To Each According to Her Worth?" Public
Interest. 67: 77-93.
Bureau of National Affairs. 1984. Pay EgUity and gmgarable
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Worth. BNA Special Report.
National Affairs.
Burris, Valerie and Wharton, Amy. 1982. "Sex Segregation in
the U.S. Labor Force." Review of Radical Political
Economy 14 (Fall): 56-88.
Charrington, David J.
William C. Brown.
1983. Personnel Management. New York:
Consuelo O'Brien, Maria. 1985. "Comparable Worth Strike Wins
103~
Big."
Labor Notes 12 (March):7.
Recent Developments
Cook, Alice H. 1983. "Comparable Worth:
in Selected States". Industrial Relations Research
Association Proceedings of Sging
Megting, March 16-18,
Madison WI. pp. 494-504.
1983, Honolulu, Hawaii.
--------------.
In Remick,
"Developments
1984(a).
ibid., pp. 267-284.
in
Selected States."
Problems,
"Implementation:
1984(b).
--------------.
Cornell Univerity, New York.
Approaches, Experiences."
Personal Communication.
"Report of
1982.
Council on the Economic Status of Women.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
the Task Force on Pay Equity".
Another Terrible
Cowley, Geoffrey. 1984. "Comparable Worth:
Idea", The Washingtgn Monthly. Vol.15, No. 10: 52-57.
Dean, Virginia; Roberts, Patti; and Boone, Carroll. 1984.
"Comparable Worth Under Various Federal and State Laws",
pp.238-266. In Remick, ibid.
Dollars and Sense. 1982. "Sex Segregation Doesn't Pay-Can
No. 76:14-16.
Comparable Worth Close the Wage Gap?"
"Comparable
Ehrenberg, Ronald 6., and Smith, Robert. 1984.
Worth in the Public Sector." Paper presented at the
National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on
Public Sector Compensation, Williamsburg, VA, November
14.
"Socioeconomic Explanations of
England, Paula. 1984.
In Remick, ibid., pp. 28-46.
Segregation."
"Equal Pay Supported in Survey."
14, 1985, p. 25.
New York Times,
Job
February
Farnquist, Robert L; Armstrong, David R.; and Strausbaugh,
The San Jose
Russell P. 1983. "Pandora's Worth:
Personnnel Management 12 (Winter): 358Experience."
368.
Feldberg, Roslyn L. 1985. "Comparable Worth: Toward Theory
and Practice in the United States". Signs, Vol. 10, no.
2.
Findlay, Lucinda. 1985. "Work at Yale Wins Repsect."
Hartford (CT) Courant, January 27.
QgMgaCable Worth.
Gold, Michael Evan. 1983. A Dialoguegn
Industrial and Labor Relations Press.
Ithaca, N.Y.:
Gordon, David;
Edwards, Richard;
.10)4
and Reich, Michael.
1982.
The Historical
Sggmented Work1 . Divided Workers:
Transformation of Labor in the United States.
Cambridge: University Press.
"The Relevance
Gregory, Robert 6. and Duncan, Ronald. 1981.
Australian
The
Theorires:
Market
Labor
Segmented
of
Experience of Equal Pay for Women".
Grune, Joy Ann. 1984. "Pay Equity and Comparabale Worth."
A Women's Rights Agenda for the States. pp. 21-26.
Washington D.C.:
Edited by Linda Tarr Whelan.
Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.
Harris, Alice Kessler.
University Press.
1982.
Out to Work.
New York:
In
Oxford
Hartmann, Heidi; Roos, Patricia; and Treiman, Donald. 1985.
"An Agenda for Basic Research on Comparable Worth:
In Cgomatable Worth:
Report of A Seminar", pp.1-53.
Edited by Heidi
Directions for Future Reserach.
National Academy Press.
Hartmann. Washington, D.C.:
Forthcoming.
Jaussaud, Danielle P. 1984. "Can Job Evaluation Systems Help
Determine the Comparable Worth of Male and Female
Journal of Economic Issues 18(June):
Occupations?"
473-81.
"Pay Differences
Johnson, George, and Solon, Gary. 1984.
The Empirical
Between Women's and Men's Jobs:
Working
Foundations of Comparable Worth Legislation."
Paper no. 1472, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, MA.
Koziara, Karen; Pierson, David; and Johanneson, Russell.
1983. Industrial Relations Research Association,
Sgrinq Mgting, March 16- 18, 1983,
Proceedinqs g
Honolulu, Hawaii. Madison WI. pp. 504-509.
Lawrence, Anne. 1981. "San Jose City Workers Win Strike for
Comparable Worth". Labor Notes. 28 (July): 6.
Issues
Livernash,- E. Robert, ed. 1980. Qgm~gable Worth:
Equal Employment
Washington, D.C.:
and Alternatives.
Advisory Council.
Lloyd Cynthia and Beth Niemi. 1979. The Economics of Sex
Columbia University Press.
Differentials.
Local 34 Federation of University Employees. 1984. "A Report
Local 34. September.
New Haven, CN:
to the Community."
-
--.
1985. "Summary of Proposed Local 34
Contract with Yale." Media Advisory. New Haven, CN:
Local 34. January.
105
Madison, Avril J. 1983. "Testimony on behalf of Wider
Opportunities for Women, Inc. before the U.S. House
Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology."
June 15, 1983.
Malveaux, Julianne M. 1982. "Moving Forward, Standing Still:
Women in White Collar Jobs". In Women in the Wor klace.
Auburn Publishing
Boston:
Edited by Phyllis Wallace.
House.
McGuire, Mike. 1982. "A New Way to Equal Pay", Dollars and
Sense. April: 12-14.
"Organizing the Sexual Division of
Milkman, Ruth. 1980.
Historical Perspectives on 'Women's Work' and the
Labor:
Socialist Review 49 (JanauryAmerican Labor Movement."
February): 95-150.
Moore, Richard and Marsis, Elizabeth. 1983. "What's A
The Progessive. Vol. 47, No.
Woman's Work Worth?"
12:20-22.
National Committee on Pay Equity. 1983. "The Wage Gap:
and Facts". Pamphlet. Washington, D.C.
Myth
--------
and the National Institute for Women of Color.
1984. "Women of Color and Pay Equity." Pamphlet.
Washington, D.C.
--------
; Comparable Worth Project; and The National Women's
Poltical Causcus. 1984b. "Who's Working for Working
A Survey of State and Local Government
Women?
Initiatives to Achieve Pay Equity." Pamphlet.
Washington, D.C.
December 1984c. "Pay Equity News Notes."
--------.
Newsletter. Washington, DC.
Newman, Winn. 1982. "Pay Equity Emerges as Top Labor Issue
Review, 105:49-51.
in The 80's". Monthly Lgbrg
------------.
1976. "Presentation III",
pp. 265-272.
In
Women and the Work@lace. Edited by Martha Blaxall and
The University of Chicago
Barbara Reagan. Chicago:
Press.
Pennar, Karen, and Mervosh, Edward. 1985.
Business Week, January 28, pp. 80-5.
"Women at Work."
Portman, Lisa; Grune, Joy Ann; and Johnson, Eve. 1984.
Role of Labor", pp. 219-237. In Remick, ibid.
Comparable
Reichenberg, Neil, ed. 1983. "Special Issue:
Worth." Public Personnel Management 12: (Winter).
106
"The
Remick, Helen, ed. 1984(a). Comgaable Worth and Wage
Temple University Press.
Discrimination.
Philadelphia:
1984(b).
"Comparable Worth and Wages:
------------.
Industrial
Economic Equity for Women.: Manca, HI:
Relations Center.
1984(c).
------------.
Applications", p. 9
------------.
ibid.
1984(d).
7
"Major Issues in
- 1 17 , In Remick,
"Preface",
pp.
A-Priori
ibid.
ix-xv.
In
Remick,
1984
------------, and Steinberg, Ronnie, J.
1984. "Technical
Concluding
Realities:
and Political
Possibilities
Remarks," pp. 285-305. In Remick, 1984a, ibid.
Remick,
Helen.
1980.
Comparable Worth
"Beyond
Equal
Pay for Equal
in the State of
Washington".
Work:
In
Egual
mg2lgyment Pglicy fgC Women. Edited by Ronnie Steinberg
Ratner. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Seldon, Catherine, et al. 1982. Eggal Pay f2C Work of
Chicagot
An Annotated BibliogCaghy.
Egmgaable Worth:
American Library Association.
Silver, Hilary Freda. 1984.
Industrial Metropolis."
"Income Inequality in the Post
Ph.D. dissertation, Brown
University.
Smith, James, and Ward, Michael. 1984.
Women's Wages and
Rand
Work in the Twentieth Century. Santa Monica, CA:
Corporation.
A
1984. "Equal Pay for Comparable Worth:
Sorenson, Elaine.
Policy for Eliminating the Undervaluation of Women's
Work."
Journal of Economic Issues 18 (June): 465-471.
"Speakes Criticizes Pay Equity Plan."
October 20, p. 25.
Stanback,
Thomas Jr.,
Economy.. New Jersey:
Publishing,
et al.
1983.
Allanhold,
1984. New York Times,
Services:
Osmun
and
The New
Co.
Inc.
Steinberg, Ronnie J. 1984. "'A Want of Harmony':
Perspectives on Wage Discrimnation and Comparable
In Remick, ibid.
Worth", pp. 3-27.
Eggal gMnlgyment Policy for
Steinberg, Ronnie Ratner. 1980.
Women. (Philadelphia): Temple University Press.
Stevenson, Mary H. 1978. "Wage Differences Between Men and
In Women Working:
Women in Economic Theories".
10C7
Theories and Facts in Persggtive. Edited by Ann
Stromberg and Shirley Hawkins. Palo Alto:
MayField
Publishing Company.
Turner, Brian and Carole Wilson. 1984. "Testimony of the
National Committee on Pay Equity Before the Joint
Economic Committee.
Treiman, Donald and Heidi Hartmann. 1981. Women. Wgrk and
!gggM: Eggj
Pay fg
Jobs of Eggal Value. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Vacaville Unified School District. 1984.
Study."
Vacaville, CA.
"Comparable Worth
Verma, Anil, and Wallace, Phyllis. 1982.
"Comparability of
Dissimilar Jobs in Wage Discrimination Cases:
Vuyanich
v. Republic National Bank."
Working Paper 1374, MIT,
Sloan School of Management.
"Comparable
Volz, William and Breitenbeck, Joseph. 1984.
Worth and the Union's Duty to Fair Representation."
EmQgygegs Relations Law Journal 10 (Summer): 30-47.
Walker, Laura, and Grune, Joy Ann. 1984. "Pay Equity and New
Paper presented at CWA
Technology Jobs for the Future."
Second National Womens' Conference, St. Louis, MO, June 1.
Wallace, Phyllis. 1982. "Increased Labor Force Participation
of Women and Affirmative Action". In Women in the
Workglace. Edited by Phyllis Wallace. Boston: Auburn
Publishing House.
108
INTERVIEWS
Chernoff, Deborah. Member Local 34. Yale University, New
Haven, CT. Phone Interview, 7 March 1985.
Collette, Cathy. Coordinator, Women's Issues. AFSCME,
WashingtonD.C. Phone Interview, 22 March 1985.
Dorty, Carol. Vacaville High School Libararian and Vice
President SEIU Local 285, Vacaville, CA. Phone
Interview, 19 March 1985.
Finney, Lee. Chief Shop Steward, SEIU, Contra Costa County.
Phone Interview, 19 March 1985.
Gregory, Judith. Research Associate. Department of
Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. Interview, 18 February
1985.
Padia, Anna.
Women's Coordinator. Communications Workers of
Phone Interview, 19 March
America, Washington, D.C.
1985.
Rondeau, Kris. Organizer, Harvard-UAW. Interview, 26,
February 1985.
Thomas, Pat. Researcher. SEIU. Washington, D.C. Phone
Interview, 14 March 1985.
Walker, Laura. Director. CLUW Education and Research Center,
Washington, D.C. Phone Interview, 28 February 1985.
Watkins, Bonnie. Minnesota Department of Employee
Relations, St.Paul, Minnesota. Interview, 22 March and 1
May 1985.
Wayne, Claudia. Director. National Committee on Pay Equity.
Washington, D.C. Phone Interview, 18 March 1985.
109