Consolidated chicken products and manufacturing processes

Consolidated Chicken Products

There is indeed a reasonable basis for the belief that Consolidated Chicken Products managers are discriminating against their female workers. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, the ratio of women and men employed in certain job types, and secondly the wages being paid to women in comparison to men at the company as well as in comparison with the standards of wages for the type of job performed.

CCP for example employs only 30% of women in its production plant. These women receive only 60% of the wages for men doing precisely the same work. Furthermore, only women are employed in secretarial jobs -- demonstrating a preconceived notion of the appropriateness of certain jobs for women. Furthermore, the highest paid of these women receive salaries that are much lower than the official maximum wage for these jobs. It is therefore quite clear that there is significant discrimination against women at the company.

2.

There is reason to believe that women could file an equal pay lawsuit. On the grounds of Sam's findings, the women who are receiving significantly lower pay then their male counterparts have a strong legal footing in terms of the law. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Equal Pay Act requires men and women in "substantially similar" jobs to receive equal pay. At the CCP company, men and women who do exactly the same work receive substantially different wages.

3.

Additional information that might be helpful in determining whether the women at the company could file an equal pay lawsuit could be from other companies in the area. The wage practices in the geographic vicinity can then be compared with those of CCP to determine the relative fairness of the practices at the plant. Furthermore, a survey of job and wage satisfaction across various companies in the area could also be helpful, particularly in terms of liability issues for the company.

4.

Sam's first option was to let things continue as they were. The stated consequences of this would have been that "everyone was happy," except Sam himself. This would have however left Sam with a feeling of not having done his job properly. He would have had to live with the knowledge that, regardless of their satisfaction, the women at the plant were being discriminated against. Long-term consequences could be that someone else would blow the whistle, which could result in legal action not only against the company, but also against Sam himself. This could have further dire consequences for both Sam and his family.

Sam's second option, to try to convince the company to change its practices, is likely to have little effect. The reason is that both management and the female workers in question are happy with the status quo, particularly in the light of the job market and likely wages elsewhere. Were Sam to exert pressure upon his managers, the most likely consequence is that he would lose his own job; also not a very desirable consequence for either himself or his family.

The third option, to act as whistle blower, could also have negative consequences. Primarily, the company would be forced to implement equal pay practices. If it is to maintain its historical pricing practices, some workers will have to be fired to make up for the consequences of raising the payment for the workers in question. Both men and women would be likely to be fired, which could result in a severely negative workplace atmosphere for the remaining workers. Hostility could for example be levelled particularly at the workers who received pay raises, as they would be blamed for the loss of the workforce and the consequently increased workload.

5.

The main strategy that has affected the company's human resource policies is pricing. In order to provide the public with competitively priced products, the company has adopted a policy of minimal wages for female workers. This has enabled it to remain competitive in the market. A more equal pay scale for the women involved would either require laying off part of the workforce or giving up the company's competitive edge.

6.

Cultural norms should not at all affect compensation systems. The law does not permit discrimination on any grounds, whether these be cultural or otherwise. Indeed, the Equal Pay Act and other non-discrimination laws prohibit compensation adjustments to reflect differences such as race, color, religion, sex, nationality, age, or disability (EEOC). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also prohibits any discrimination in the workplace on these grounds.

Clearly, however, cultural norms do play a role in CCP's compensation practices. Firstly, women in the production plant receive less pay, apparently precisely and only because they are women, and secondly, certain jobs are assumed to be more appropriate for women than men, where women also do not receive the full benefit of the compensation that is theirs by law.