Collective Bargaining and Compensation

¶ … American 'comparable worth' principle states that males and females carrying out tasks and responsibilities of identical value to their firm ought to be compensated similarly. This principle holds that positions in a company possess corporate value which is comparable across posts of highly diverse content.

I personally hold, and assert, that females employed in roles that are of comparable value to the roles male employees assume in a company ought to enjoy remuneration equal to that enjoyed by males, except the inequalities that are permissible by law (e.g., merit plans, seniority plans, diverse locations, or production-based compensation plans). The motivation for the comparable worth dogma has arisen from the persistent male-female wage gap, not only in America but all over the world.

A survey conducted in 63 nations by the International Trade Union Confederation in the year 2008 revealed an appreciable gender-based compensation disparity roughly amounting to 16%. In other words, female workers received 84%, averagely, of the earnings of their male counterparts. On the whole, globally, gender-based compensation gap spans between 13% and 23%. The Women's Policy Research Institute has utilized information gleaned from the Labor Statistics Bureau and reported that the gender-based compensation gap is only under 20% in America.

Supporters of the comparable worth policy indicate the existence of other societal expenses attributable to the existing pay system's remuneration inequalities. They contend that innumerable female workers who are unsuccessful in supporting not only themselves but also their family members on the existing wage scales have to resort to accepting public assistance. They are of the opinion that just like the menace of environmental pollution, the issue of inequitable wages costs several million dollars to society and is largely funded by lofty taxes.

For ensuring more just treatment of women employees, lowering the existing system's social costs, and better managing corporate human resources, I support the comparable worth dogma and assert that underpaid female positions must earn as much as males in similar posts; salaries must be fixed on the basis of impartial measures of job value and requisite skills for the post (Andre & Velasquez, 2014). Question 2 An analysis of the Twin Oaks Hospital case study clearly reveals the presence of numerous means to achieve comparable worth within a firm's pay system.

The chief means are legislation and collective bargaining. The above approaches are typically combined with other approaches for surmounting organizational and political barriers. Choice of approach is reliant on political, legal, and organizational factors. Washington D.C. and other states do not authorize collective bargaining for salaries between state governmental organizations and their workforce. Hence, legal action or states are perhaps the sole avenue by which equal pay can be achieved. In case of private sector and local companies, the chief approach adopted is collective bargaining.

The given case studies draw attention to the way concepts get transformed during their translation into policies. The fundamental idea behind the comparable worth policy is identical compensation for posts of identical value on the basis of competency, know-how, work conditions and accountability. However, its translation into real-world wage-setting changes differs appreciably as illustrated by the given cases. Comparable worth, in a few cases, entailed complete reassessment of the firm's pay and job structure, whereas in other cases, pay hikes were established.

However, one cannot say how the remuneration system of the company will change with time. Comparable worth has the following objectives: achieving pay hikes for posts held largely by females; and reassessing equality standards. Although in all instances, comparable worth supporters attempt at realizing both the above objectives, this isn't always possible in the short-term. Nevertheless, it is imperative to firstly recognize comparable worth as a reasonable concern in compensation-fixing procedures. After accomplishing this, a job assessment study must follow.

While a comprehensive job assessment isn't necessary for initiating pay rise, companies that do so display larger wage adjustments (Fields, 1985). Question 3 The main argument posed by those who oppose comparable worth concentrates on the neoclassical aspects of market demand and supply. Compulsory comparable worth has the potential to disturb market efficiency and can have resultant, major economic consequences. Compensation ought to be governed by demand and supply. Further, labor markets will only be able to equalize demand-supply forces if wages stay flexible.

Once again, in relation to demand and supply, mandatory job assessments would be innately biased. Moreover, a sole reliable job worth indicator exists. Following the above idea, if directives result in wage hikes, more females will start entering these positions thereby making wages revert back to how they initially were. The comparable worth principle's legal position is unclear as it is faced with sound convictions regarding its flaws, insignificance and validity. Equal wage legislation cannot account for comparisons between unlike occupations.

The comparable worth idea is unable to explain market forces having the.