COMPARABLE WORTH

COMPARABLE WORTH

The idea that men and women should receive equal pay when they perform work that involves comparable skills and responsibility or that is of comparable worth to the employer; also known as pay equity.
Many jobs are segregated by sex. For example, approximately 80 percent of all office secretaries are female, and approximately 99 percent of all construction workers are male. Both jobs demand valuable, if different, skills. However, the annual income of a secretary is only three-fifths that of a construction worker. Comparable
worth seeks to remedy this and other sex-based wage inequities by identifying and eliminating sex as an element in wage setting.
The term comparable worth describes the
notion that sex-segregated jobs should be rean-
alyzed to determine their worth to an employer.
In practice, comparable worth consists of raising
wages for traditionally female-dominated jobs
to the level of those for comparable male-domi-
nated jobs. Comparable worth should not be
confused with equal pay for equal work. Rather,
comparable worth policies promote equal pay for comparable work.
Proponents of comparable worth argue that
SEX DISCRIMINATION in wage setting has been
built into society and has tainted the law of supply
and demand.Women have endured centuries
of devaluation, and the devaluation is reflected
in the value attached to work traditionally performed
by females. According to supporters,
wages should be reset after comprehensive studies
are made and statistical analyses undertaken
to better reflect the true value produced by an
employee.
Some critics of comparable worth maintain
that wage fairness is achieved by allowing freemarket
forces to set the value of jobs. They argue
that employers, not the courts or legislatures,
should set wages and that sufficient legislation is
already in place to prevent discrimination based
on sex. They further argue that wage disparities
are largely a result of innocent forces, such as differences
in experience and education, the tendency
of women to make educational choices
that do not interfere with childbearing and child
rearing, and the tendency of women to leave and
reenter the job market more frequently than men.
Other critics of comparable worth, including
some WOMEN’S RIGHTS advocates, argue
that comparable worth efforts are well-intentioned
but misplaced. According to these opponents,
the best way for women to win wage
equality is to integrate fully into all sectors of the
economy. Comparable worth may work to the
immediate benefit of those in traditionally
“female” jobs, critics contend, but it fails to promote
long-term advancement for women.
Generally, employees in a wage system based
on comparable worth are paid according to job
evaluations that concentrate on the differences
between sex-segregated jobs. The job evaluations
are conducted by vocational experts who
examine the various characteristics of each job
in the system, including the skill, education, and
effort required; the level of independent decision
making required; the working conditions;
and accountability. The job evaluations yield a
point total for each job, which is used to determine
employee compensation.
In 1955, the U.S. CENSUS BUREAU published,
for the first time, the ratio of women’s to men’s
full-time, year-round, median annual earnings.
The figures revealed that women were earning
64 percent of what men were earning. This
imbalance persisted. In 1960, women aged 25 to
34 earned 65 percent of what men in the same
age group earned. In 1980, the same women,
now aged 45 to 54, were earning only 54 percent
as much as men in the same age group. Census
figures for 1980 also disclosed that full-time,
year-round female professionals were earning
less than semiskilled male blue-collar workers,
and female college graduates were earning less
than male high school graduates who had not
attended college.
Women’s pay became a national issue after
the enormous contribution of women to the
workforce in WORLD WAR II, and a simmering
controversy shortly after the 1955 census report.
The U.S. Congress took action by passing the
EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 (29 U.S.C.A. § 206(d))
(EPA). The EPA mandates the same pay for all
persons who do the same work, without regard
to sex. This means that an employer may not
discriminate between employees on the basis of
sex by paying lower wages to women who perform
the same work as men. In 1964, Congress
enacted title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)), which provides that
employers may not discriminate in employment
practices on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, or sex. Like the EPA, title VII
prohibits employers from discriminating against
women by paying them less than they pay males
who perform the same work.
Women’s rights advocates and LABOR UNION
leaders were inspired by these bold federal acts
and sought to extend them. In the fight against
sex-based wage discrimination, women began to
demand not only equal pay for equal work, but
also equal pay for comparable work. States,
cities, and towns began experimenting with the
idea of wage restructuring based on comparable
worth studies. In 1977, with the support of
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-D.C.), then chair
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(
EEOC), comparable worth came to
national attention. Women’s rights advocates
adopted the slogan Fifty-nine Cents, which represented,
according to Judy Goldsmith, past
president of the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
WOMEN (NOW), “the plain frightening fact that
most women are paid just over half as much as
men for the very same work.” The comparable
worth movement grew, but not without opposition.
In 1985, President RONALD REAGAN
described comparable worth as a “cockamamie
idea.”
The state of Washington was at the forefront
of the comparable worth movement. In 1974,
Washington began a study of sex-related differences
for a selected group of sex-segregated
positions in the state civil service. The study
revealed that female employees in job classes
requiring the same level of skill, effort, and
responsibility earned 25 to 35 percent less than
employees in comparable male-dominated positions.
Despite these figures, the state legislature
declined to implement comparable worth laws.
Two more studies were conducted, in 1976 and
1980, and both corroborated the findings of the
first study.
The Washington Legislature continued to
reject comparable worth. In 1981, the EEOC
refused to take action on charges filed with it
against the state ofWashington by the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) and the Washington Federation
of State Employees (WFSE). On July 20,
1982, AFSCME and WFSE filed a CLASS ACTION
suit against the state. The case was initiated by
eight women and one man on behalf of all the
male and female employees under the jurisdiction
of the Washington Department of Personnel
and the Washington Higher Education
Personnel Board, who had worked or were
working in positions that were 70 percent or
more female. The government employees
alleged that the state had discriminated against
employees in female-dominated jobs by paying
them lower wages than employees in comparable
male-dominated jobs. This, according to the
state employees, violated title VII of the CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT of 1964. The District Court for the
Western District of Washington agreed and
awarded $400 million in back pay to female state
employees.
The state of Washington appealed, and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
overturned the award (AFSCME, 770 F.2d 1401
[1985]). In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit court
declared that an employer may set wages according
to the prevailing market rate even if that
market discriminates against women. According
to the court, the value of a particular job is only
one of several elements that influence the wages
that the job commands. Another element, noted
the court, is job availability. The court further
recognized that the state in this case did not
itself create any economic disparity. Although
the state was free to institute a comparable
worth policy, it could not be obliged “to eliminate
an economic inequality that it did not create.”
Ultimately, the court held that, absent a
discriminatory motive, it would not interfere
with the state’s decision to base wages on prevailing
market standards.
After the appeals court decision, AFSCME,
WFSE, and the state of Washington negotiated a
comparable worth framework for state employees.
The framework was based on the state’s
plan, which called for a gradual move to restructure
its employees’ wages on the basis of comparable
worth. Washington now maintains a
comparable worth statute, Revised Code of
Washington, section 41.06.155, which mandates
the achievement of comparable worth for all
state government employees.
San Jose, California, was another early battleground
for comparable worth proponents. In
1979, city government workers went on strike to
protest wage disparities. After a nine-day strike,
the city agreed to provide pay EQUITY adjustments
and other salary adjustments to city
workers. In 1983 and 1990, additional comparable
worth adjustments were gained by the San
Jose chapter of AFSCME.
Comparable worth has been won in numerous
quarters through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
Montgomery County, Maryland, workers negotiated
pay equity increases in 1989, and in 1992,
Montgomery County school employees received
$484,000 in pay equity increases. In 1991, the Utility Workers of America negotiated a 15 percent
pay equity increase for clerical workers in
the Southern California Gas Company. In 1991
and 1992, clerical workers represented by the
United Auto Workers (UAW) went on strike at
Columbia University in New York. After a tenmonth
strike, an agreement was reached that
included pay equity increases for both male and
female workers.

Many courts are unwilling to order employers
to enact comparable worth pay standards in
the absence of legislation. Thus, comparable
worth advocates have turned to the legislative
process.Minnesota has been an enduring model
for achieving comparable worth through legislation.
In 1979, the Minnesota Department of
Finance completed a study that included an
evaluation of state and local government jobs. In
1981, the Council on the Economic Status of
Women established the Task Force on Pay
Equity to examine salary differences between
comparable male and female jobs in state government.
The task force report showed consistent
inequities between comparable male- and
female-dominated jobs, and the Minnesota state
legislature passed the State Government Pay
Equity Act in 1982 (1982 Minn. Laws c. 64, § 1 et
seq.). In 1983, the legislature provided the funds
for pay increases, and the Minnesota Department
of Employee Relations (DOER) negotiated
new contracts for state employees. These contracts
included pay equity increases for underpaid
female-dominated job classes and
cost-of-living increases for all job classes.
In 1984, the Minnesota state legislature
enacted the Local Government Pay Equity Act
(Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 471.991 et seq.), which
mandated a comparable worth program for
cities, counties, school districts, and other units
of local government. In 1987 and 1988, the legislature
passed laws that assessed fines for local
government units that did not report according
to provisions of the Local Government Pay
Equity Act. In 1996, a DOER report revealed
that 92 percent of local government units in
Minnesota had achieved pay equity. Those not
in compliance with reporting requirements were
subject to penalties of up to five percent of state
funding, or $100 a day.
Pay equity is a growing movement that
builds on progress made in the 1980s. During
that time, 20 states adjusted their payrolls to
ameliorate sex or race inequities; seven of these
states fully implemented broad-based comparable
worth laws for their state government
employees. States continue to lead in the area of
pay equity. For example, New Hampshire has
established reporting requirements and enforcement
procedures to ensure fair pay; Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wyoming have passed legislation
requiring studies in comparable worth; and
Maine’s DEPARTMENT OF LABOR assists in
enforcing existing pay equity laws in the state.
In the early twenty-first century, comparable
worth legislation was introduced in over half the
state legislatures. On the federal level, two newer
pieces of legislation were introduced in 2003: the
Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Representative
Holmes Norton and Senator Tom
Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced the Fair Pay Act in
the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate
respectively. The Fair Pay Act seeks to broaden
the Equal Pay Act’s protections against wage discrimination
to workers in equivalent jobs with
similar skills and responsibilities, even if the jobs
are not identical. Senator Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)
and representative from Connecticut Rosa
DeLauro (D-New Haven) introduced the Paycheck
Fairness Act in the Senate and House. The
Paycheck Fairness Act is an attempt to provide
better remedies to workers who are not being
paid equal wages for doing equal work. Passage
of the Paycheck Fairness Act would amend the
Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

FURTHER READINGS
Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics. 2002. Highlights
of Women’s Earnings in 2001. (Report 960) Available
online at (accessed
May 7, 2003)
National Committee on Pay Equity. Available online at
(accessed May
7, 2003).

CROSS-REFERENCES
Affirmative Action; Employment Law.