Worth Debate: From a Human

¶ … Worth Debate: From a Human Resource manager perspective, what are the challenges of implementing comparable worth?

Although comparable worth may seem like a fair way to allocate pay, it presents many challenges to a HR professional. First of all, it goes against the free market system, in which employers attempt to pay workers as little as the market will allow. This is to keep the business' input costs in the form of wages down, while employees seek the highest pay the market will support. One business may instate comparable worth, but other businesses may not. This means that a business using comparable worth may pay certain employees more or less, based upon internal review, but skew the salaries of clerical workers abnormally high above the market equilibrium, cutting into its profits. This will occur for no other reason than the principle of implementing the comparable worth system. And the enterprise will have to pass these additional wage costs onto consumers.

Second, there is the issue of implementation and subjectivity -- performance reviews are already criticized for being too subjective so why add another subjective, potentially biased element into the mix? Employees may appeal the subjective determination of merit, and any internal review will generate more revenue loss because of the additional bureaucracy and paperwork costs of the appeal. There is also a question of costly salary increases in general, even if the comparable worth system is fairer. This fairness may cost the business extra in needless salary costs, when the employees would be unlikely to look for jobs elsewhere, given that they could not do so for more pay. A private company has a responsibility to make money for its shareholders, and a hospital has a responsibility to the sick to keep costs contained.