Comparable Worth: Is it a Moot Issue? Part III Controversy, Implications, and Measurement

Major Areas of Controversy Exhibit 1 summarizes the major areas of disagreement and points of view taken by supporters and opponents of comparable worth. In this article, the authors discuss three major areas: explanations for the gender earnings gap from comparable worth advocates and opponents, (2) economic implications of comparable worth on women and on society, and (3) measuring job value. Why A Gender Earnings Gap? There are many theories that explain the phenomenon of occupational segregation and the gender wage gap. The researchers methodologies have been case studies, which show that generally men are favored over women in identically defined situations (Aaron & Lougy, 1986), and statistical regression analysis (Barrett & Sansonetti, 1988). Statistical procedures attempt to explain the earnings differences by relating those differences to job or personal characteristics. Productivity and economic contribution to a company are difficult to measure and are done so indirectly and subjectively by measuring education, training, responsibility, job skills, and commitment. These personal variables accounted for only 44 percent of the wage gap in the Corcoran and Duncan studies. Job characteristics consider the fact that some jobs may be evaluated differently because of the sex-segregated labor force (Booker & Nuckolls, 1986). Barrett & Sansonetti (1988) reviewed 29 court cases where plaintiffs, defendants, or both used regression analysis. After observing various court reactions, they presented several recommendations to potential defendants regarding use of regression analysis. No statistical method has been able to explain more than half of the earnings gap. There are two possible reasons for this. One is errors in the analysis due to limited data, omission of unknown important variables, or imperfect techniques. The other is discrimination or voluntary behavior. There has been no statistical evidence to date that definitively proves the gap is caused by discrimination (Aaron & Lougy, 1986; Barrett & Sansonetti, 1988; Lorber et al., 1985). The National Research Council (NRC) reviewed various pre-1981 studies to determine how successful they were in explaining the wage gap. Explanatory variables included 17 worker characteristics and 12 position characteristics. The NRC found that only two studies explained 20% to 50% of the gap. Workers' experience and their relationship with their employer were the most significant explanatory variables (Lorber et al., 1985). Aaron & Lougy (1986) discuss the results of several other studies done in this area. There is statistical support to show that the gap widens with age, and that wage ratios are higher than income ratios because women work fewer hours than men. Gaps between single women and single men are smaller than between those who marry. The gap also increases with the inclusion of years of work experience in the analysis. From this, two counter arguments emerge: (1) women have less experience because they voluntarily leave jobs for family obligations; and (2) women leave the workforce because of denial of advancement opportunities and pay raises to them. As advancement in positions such as clerical work is not great and skills are easily transferable, women feel more comfortable entering and exiting the labor market "without paying too high a price in salary or promotions" (Booker & Nuckolls, 1986: 191). Discriminatory practices :relate to outmoded attitudes toward women "whose place is in the home," not in the work place. But changing lifestyles show that women are marrying later and postponing having children, family size is limited, and women stay out of the labor market for shorter periods of time. "The labor market has yet to incorporate these changing lifestyles into marketplace value" (Booker & Nuckolls, 1986: 192). [TABULAR DATA FOR EXHIBIT 1 OMITTED] In 1986, women composed 42 percent of the labor force, one-third of whom worked in clerical jobs making less than $10,000 per year, and only 16 percent were in the professional classification. …