Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!csin!cjh From: cjh@csin.UUCP (Chip Hitchcock) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: 59 cents Message-ID: <331@csin.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-Sep-83 13:10:59 EDT Article-I.D.: csin.331 Posted: Wed Sep 21 13:10:59 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Sep-83 23:53:35 EDT Lines: 30 This figure has been around for a while, but the NATIONAL N.O.W. TIMES claims it is still accurate. In rebuttal to Charlie Kaufman's remarks I will note the following: 1. In large organizations (the study I was involved with looked at the Dept. of Defense) it is common for women to be slotted into career tracks. Jumping tracks is difficult and generally results in a drop of several grades. 2. It is a common complaint (frequently backed up with evidence that depends significantly on interpretation) that available work in many areas is divided into "men's work" and "women's work", and that comparison of jobs in these categories that require similar skills/effort/experience/responsibility shows the "women's work" being recompensed at a much lower level. Shifting between these categories is even harder than in (1). 3. There is still a tendency to pay women significantly less than men for work under the same title. Laws about this vary from strong (e.g. Mass. and Penna. ERA's) to nonexistent (more frequent). Why don't such companies shift entirely to female workers? Sheer inertia. (The free market became a nonsensical fiction many decades ago; one of the things that killed it was the increasing number of dinosauroid companies that couldn't move with anything like the quickness Adam Smith describes and so settled for stability instead.) Workforce turnover can cause all sorts of problems. To be fair, union contracts in many situations make such turnover difficult. So pay differentials reflect job distribution as well as simple unfairness. So? Are the job distributions fair? Generally not. . . . CHip (Chip Hitchcock) ARPA: CJH@CCA-UNIX usenet: ...{!decvax,!linus,!sri-unix}!cca!csin!cjh