Premium
SOME NEGLECTED POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF COMPARABLE WORTH
Author(s) -
Gleason Sandra E.,
Moser Collette
Publication year - 1985
Publication title -
review of policy research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.832
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1541-1338
pISSN - 1541-132X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00307.x
Subject(s) - taxpayer , agency (philosophy) , poverty , work (physics) , value (mathematics) , economics , labour economics , business , actuarial science , public economics , economic growth , sociology , mechanical engineering , social science , machine learning , computer science , engineering , macroeconomics
Comparable worth, the lkivil rights issue of the eighties, is based on the notion that women in traditional female occupations such as nursing make, on average, wages 20 percent lower than men In traditionally male occupations such as truck drivers despite the fact that both jobs are of equal value to the employer. The question is who will bear the cost; employers who implement comparable worth will bear the cost, but if pay inequities continue, women will. The cost can be mitigated if comparable worth is implemented incrementally. The problem cannot be solved by women shifting to male dominated occupations, for that would cost more than comparable worth. Comparable worth would help the women who work full time but are still below poverty and, while it would cost employers, taxpayers would realize a savings of $186 million. If the employer is a public agency, the taxpayer burden remains constant.