Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!holstege@polya.stanford.EDU
From: holstege@polya.stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Comparable Worth
Summary: Some historical context
Message-ID: <18352@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 21 Jun 89 01:00:38 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Mary Holstege <holstege@polya.stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 42
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu


This got bounced; let's try again:

In article <17682@paris.ics.uci.edu> Steve Fischer <steve%revolver@gatech.EDU>
writes about comparable worth.

I think there are a few important points that need making here.
First, comparable worth schemes do not measure the skills and
abilities of individuals, as implied by Steve's janitor-with-a-PhD
example, but only the skills and abilities required for particular
jobs.  This is quite a different matter.  It may still sound absurd,
but this gets us to point two: governments and large corporations do
it *themselves* of their own accord.  In fact, comparable worth cases
that have had any measure of success came about because those systems
carefully laid out skills and points and then paid less for the
`female' jobs or jimmied the numbers so that the unskilled `male' jobs
came out paying more.  Saying "if you are going to classify jobs by
skills and qualifications needed to perform them then you should do it
fairly" is, I hope, uncontroversial.  This is comparable worth mark I.

OK, so now people look at this and say: "Hey! wait a minute.  What
about those who don't have an elaborate point scheme -- shouldn't they
have one?  Aren't their pay scales just as unfair even though they
haven't a gerrymandered grading system lying around as the smoking
gun?  Let's make 'em implement a classification scheme and pay
accordingly."  This is comparable worth mark II.

Then there is comparable worth mark III, which, so far as I can tell,
is not seriously advocated by anyone, but which is often mentioned by
those opposed to the whole idea of I or II.  This is the notion that
every employer throughout the land should use the *same* ratings and
the *same* pay scales.

Let's just be clear on which variant we're talking about or we'll just
talk past each other.

                              -- Mary
                                 Holstege@polya.stanford.edu

ARPA:                            holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu
BITNET:                          holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET
UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege