Comparable worth debate and policy implications

¶ … worth can be defined as a reform effort to "pay different job titles the same based on their value to their employer regardless of the gender predominance of those working in such titles." There are different pros and cons associated with the practice of comparative worth. At the heart of this concept is that gender bias is a systematic part of undervalued wages for women in the workplace. Therefore, such a practice is to ensure that jobs disproportionately held by women are not paid less than comparable jobs with the same level of skill and responsibilities held by males. There are several benefits to such a program, it ensures that there are no institutional gender biases because pay will be assessed by the level and quality of work and skills rather than by gender differences. Statistically it can be shown that there are many positions held by women which are undervalued in term of wages, these positions are not only restricted to entry level, but also applies to many executive positions as well. Through a statistical analysis it would appear that comparative worth is a fair standard for equalizing wages within the workplace. However, the problem is that the criteria for applying comparative worth is extremely hard to apply accurately. There are many factors for which an employee might make substantially more than others, that have no bearing upon gender. Even such metrics that has to do with gender specific issues are not wholly unreasonable. For instance, women with much more family responsibilities could under-perform at her position vs. males with no such obligations. Benefits are another factor to be considered, women have such benefits as maternity leave, day care services, and other metrics that are not calculated into wages, but nonetheless are part of the decision making calculus when it comes to income. Therefore, having a completely objective economic assessment of wage equality across genders is extremely difficult. I see comparative worth as a good starting point for understanding how to create gender equality in the work place, however I believe that there are so many different factors that goes into the wage decision calculus that relying upon comparative worth is flawed.

There are many difficulties from the HR perspective of implementing a comparative worth strategy within the corporate structure. Most organizations use job evaluation systems to establish their salary standards. Such standards are an attempt by HR to accurately reflect the skills, length of training and degree of responsibility that comes with employee positions. However, such evaluations suffer from the problem of underreporting, and as a result, are not always accurate in reflecting an employee's fundamental worth to organizations. In application to comparative worth, this means that even though males within certain positions may work much harder and have an essential role to the success of the organization, will appear on paper to have the same worth as a women in a similar position. However, the factors such as less dedication to work, outside commitments and other factor strongly impact the contribution of women in the same work environment. As a result, comparative worth is extremely hard to practically and equitably implement within organizations.

Current pay equity research utilizes the same mechanisms of job evaluations as the basis to compare traditionally male and female jobs relative to their skills and responsibilities. However, these systems also commit the fundamental omission of intangible factors such as dedication and work intensity that should be an important determinant within wage selection.

The opposite problem with comparative worth implementation is also true. Managers who perform job evaluations are often gender biased, as a result it may at times be hard to determine the true worth of women within the criteria of comparative worth. The reason that bias exists within employee evaluations is the result of several different factors, first and most importantly the impact of male dominated management. The majority of management positions within the United States are still painted as an exclusive "boy's club." As a result, an implicit gender bias exists in many instances within the workplace. Another influencing factor is with cost-efficiency for most organizations. With any comparative worth program, a significant salary increase will result for the majority of women within the organization, as a result, the company's human resource budget may be severely strained. Many organizations institute temporary freezes or "short-term" scaling back of wage increases. Since such wage increases affects all workers across the organization, there is strong resistance to such practice. From this organizational perspective, creating a balance between current employee benefits and provision of gender equal wages is often an impossible and tenuous line.