Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Equal pay for comparable worth
Message-ID: <135@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 10-Feb-85 04:52:36 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.135
Posted: Sun Feb 10 04:52:36 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:22:30 EST
References: <239@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 77

> 
> What do you usenetters think of the concept of "equal pay for comparable
> work"? As I understand it, this is to reduce the difference between
> pay scales in "male dominated" (e.g. truck drivers) vs "female dominated"
> (e.g. nurses, secretaries) occupations. There would presumably have to
> be an equivalency chart or something.
> 
> This raises a lot of questions: who draws up the chart? how about
> occupations that arise after the chart is drawn up (for example, if we had
> had such a chart 3 years ago, would it have contained the "toxic waste
> cleaner-upper", or something like that)? does this not constitute
> the establishment of national pay scales (e.g. socialism)? etc, etc.
> 
> Any ideas or comments?
> 
> Marcel Simon

I heard a lawyer talking about this issue on a radio talk show not too long ago.
According to him (I don't remember his name), the issue is that specific jobs
which are held mostly by women pay less than comparable jobs which are held
mostly by men.  For example, the state of California pays barbers more than it
pays hairdressers, even though the latter job takes more skill.  In cases like
this a lot of progress can be made without having to make standard pay scales,
because the discrimination takes place within a single organization.  All that
has to be shown is that the organization pays differently for jobs which require
essentially the same skills and level of responsibility, and the courts will
rule that the employer discriminates.

In cases where there are no comparable jobs within the organization (what is
comparable to nursing?), the approach is to try to show that the organization
pays more to employees with less skill and training.  For example, if the state
of California paid more to truck drivers than it did to nurses, one could claim
discrimination because nursing requires more training and carries more
responsibility.  To decide what nurses employed by the state of California
*should* be paid, the court would have to determine which state of California
jobs not dominated by women required similar skills and responsibilities.
Failing this, the court would try to find where in the progression of skill and
responsibility nursing fits, and extrapolate the correct pay from this.  The
lawyer said that most large organizations (including government agencies and
companies) have formulas that they use internally to determine pay based on
education, experience, and responsibility.

Note that neither of these cases requires establishment of a national pay scale.
The object is to make each employer pay men and women with similar
skills and responsibilites equally.  If this happens, then equal pay for
comparable work should follow, even between organizations. This is because
employers have to compete with each other for employees; if you're being paid
badly because your employer doesn't have comparable male-dominated jobs to pull
up your pay, then you can look for a job with an employer which *has* been
forced to pay its women well.  The poor-paying employer will be faced with the
choice of either paying better or getting employees who can't land the good-
paying jobs.  No regulation should be necessary; if each employer is forced
to pay fairly within the organization then the job market should balance itself
out.

As a side note, one of the reasons that "women's" jobs have always paid poorly
is that other job markets haven't been open to women.  This forced the supply
of prospective employees for these jobs to exceed the demand; thus the low price
of labor in these jobs.  Now that women are "allowed" to be executives,
engineers, police, etc., the most intelligent and best educated women won't be
as likely to seek the low-paying "women's" jobs any more.  But many of these
jobs (teacher, nurse, secretary) are very important.  Unless these jobs start
paying better, we will be in trouble as a society.  Of course, if my theories
about comparable pay and job markets are correct, then this will take care of
itself.  Please don't flame me on this; I'm not trying to say that fairness will
have bad effects and therefore we shouldn't be fair.  Rather, I am saying that
people in traditional "women's" jobs should be paid what they were always worth.

Also, please understand that I don't really believe that everything will work
as smoothly as I outlined above.  There are many forces besides supply and
demand that can effect a market.  I don't believe in absolute capitalism.
I do believe that if employers are forced to treat women equally within their
own organizations, then the situation will be greatly improved without having to
resort to government regulated pay scales.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak