| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
WOMEN
- - - ~ - - ~ - ~ -
·~e
Equal Pay forJobs of Equal Value
_ _
Donald J. Treiman and Heidi I. Hartmann
- Editors
Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis
Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1981
OCR for page R2
Nstio~l Academy Press 2101 Co~tudon Avenue, N.W. Washroom, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council. whose members are drawn from the councils
of the National Academy of Sciences. the National Academy of Engineering. and the
Institute of Mcdicinc. The members of the committee responsible for the report were
chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to pro-
cedurcs approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National
Academy of Sciences. the National Academy of Engineering. and the Institute of Mcd
Ic~nc.
jibe National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy s
purposcs of furthering Icsowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council
operates in sccordanec with general politics determined by the Academy under the au"
thority of its congressional charter of 1863. which establishes the Academy as a private.
nonprofit. self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the blational Academy
of Enginecnag in the conduct of their services to the government, the public. and the
scicatific and coginecnag communities. It is sdministcrcd join~ly,by both Academics and
the Institute of Medians. l~c National Academy of Enginecnag and the Institute of
Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively. under the charter of the National
Acedemy of Sciences.
This report was prepared under contract to the V.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. We report. Downer, does not necessarily represent the official opinion or
policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any other agency or official
of the federal government.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-82863
International Standard Book Number ~309-03177-X
Fint Prong, Augun 1981
Salt Peg, I:~ruuy 1982
Third Pig, Any 1984
]:~ Prong, October 1986
Ash Prig, Our 1987
Sixth Pig, Joy 1990
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION
AND ANALYSIS
ANN R. MILLER (Chair) Population Studies Center, University of
Pennsyl; ania
DAV] D P. CA ~ PB E ~ ~ . Vice President of Research and Programs,
Center for Creative Leadership
MARY C. DC'N'bAP. Attorney at Law, San Francisco
G . FR A ~ K E ~ ~ E D ~ A R D S . Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Howard University
RICHARD C. EDU'ARDS. Department of Economics, University of
Massachusetts
LEON' FESTINGER. Department of Psychology, New School for
Social Research
GARY D. GOTTEREDSON. Center for Social Organization of
Schools, The Johns Hopkins University
JOHN A . HA RT] G A ~ . Department of Statistics, Yale University
DORIS P. HAY~OOD. Vice President, Human Resources,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
WESLEY R. LlEBTAG. Director of Personnel Programs,
International Business Machines Corporation
ROBERT E. B. LUCAS Department of Economics, Boston
University
KAREN OPPENHElM MASON. Department of Sociology and
Population Studies Center, University of Michigan
ERNEST I. MCCORMICK, Professor Emeritus, Department of
Psychological Sciences. Purdue University
GUS TYLER. Assistant President, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union
· . .
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Contents
PREFA CE
I INTROD U CTI ON
Current Legal Context, 3
The Issues, 7
Plan of the Report. 11
2 EVIDENCE REGARDING WAGE
DIFFERENTIALS
The Existence of usage Differentials, 13
The Effect of Worker Characteristics on Differences in
Earnings. 17
The Effect of Job Charactenstics on Differences in Earn-
ings. 24
Conclusion, 41
Technical Note, 42
3 WAGE DIFFERENTIALS AND INSTITUTIONAL
FEATURES OF LABOR MARKETS
Labor Markets, 44
Comparable Worth and Internal Labor Markets, 4S
Segmentation of the Labor Market, 47
Job Segregation, 52
Choice, 53
v
ax
1
13
44
-
OCR for page R6
Vl
Exclusion, S5
Underpayment of Moments Work, 56
Discnmination in Labor Markets, 62
Conclusion, 65
4 WAGE-ADJUSTMENT APPROACHES TO
OVERCOMING DISCRIMINATION
Introduction, 69
Conventions Job Evaluation Approaches to Assessing Pay
Rates, 71
Methods of Job Evaluation, 71
Factors and Factor Weights, 74
The Role of Judgment, 77
Multiple Job Evaluation Plans in a Single Firm, 78
Modeling and Measurement, 80
Summary, 81
Statistical Approaches to Assessing Pay Rates, 82
Including 'iPercent Female" in the Estimation of Pay
Rates, 83
Jobs Held by White Men as a Standard, 86
Using Statistical Procedures to Correct Discriminatory Pay
Rates, 87
Conclusion, 89
CONCLUSIONS
The Extent and the Sources of Pay Differentials, 92
Identifying and Eliminating Pay Discrimination, 94
Job Evaluation Plans, 95
REFERENCES
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT
Gus Tyler
MINORITY REPORT
Ernest I. McCormick
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF
Contents
69
91
97
107
115
131
OCR for page R7
Tables
and
~-
rlgures
Tables
Mean Earnings of Year-Round Full-Tune Civilian Workers
18 Years Old and Over, 1978
Mean Annual Earnings of Year-Round Full-Time Workers
by Education, Race, and Sex, 1978
Median Income of Year-Round FuIl-Time Workers by Sex
and Race, l9S~1978
4 Summary' of Studies Accounting for Sex Differences in
Earnings on the Basis of Worker Characteristics Only
5 Decomposition of else wage Differential Between Em-
ployed 'White Men and White Women
6 Occupational Distribution Over Major Occupational
Groups by Race and Sex, 1979
7 Occupational Segregation Indices, 194~1970
Annualized Median Earnings by Sex for Census Major Oc-
cupation Groups, 1970
9 Decomposition of Earnings Differentials Between Men and
Women into Within-Occupation and Between-Occupation
Components. for Successively More Detailed Occupational
Classifications (1980 Census Data)
10 Summary of Studies Accounting for Sex Differences in
Earnings on the Basis of Worker Characteristics and Job
Characteristics
11 Percent Female by Occupational Grade (GS Le~cI) In the
. .
V11
14
15
16
20
23
26
27
32
34
36
OCR for page R8
· . .
VUI
Tables
Federal Civil Service for Full-Time, White-Collar Employ-
ces of Federal Government Agencies, 1977
12 Distribution of Earnings in Selected Occupations in the
Newark Metropolitan Area, January 1980
13 Decomposition of Earnings Differentials of Men and
Women Among Managenal Personnel in a Large Public
Utility Company
14 Wage Rates at a Westinghouse Plant, 1943
15 Hourly Wage Rates Before and After the 1972 General
Electric Settlement, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Tables and Figures
Figures
Relationship Between Percent Female and Annualized Me-
dian Earnings of Incumbents for 499 1970 Census Occupa-
tional Categories
2 Scatterplot of Monthly Salaries by lob Worth Points, for 59
Jobs Held Mainly by Men and 62 Jobs Held Mainly by
Women in the Washington State Public Service
41
49
56
58
60
29
61
OCR for page R9
Preface
The Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis was es-
tablished by the National Research Council in response to requests for
assistance from two agencies of the federal government: the Department
of Labor asked for an external assessment of its work in the area of
occupational classification, in particular as that work is related to the
development of the Dictionary of Occupational Tales; and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asked for an exami-
nation of the issues involved in a "comparable worth" concept of job
compensation. Our earlier report (Miller et al., 1980) presented the
restarts of our review for the Department of Labor; this report deals
with the issues raised by the EEOC.
The issue of "comparable worth" has joined the ranks of those social
controversies about equity that have come to the forefront of public
discussion in recent decades. As do many of those controversies, it
Involves questions about the operation of economic institutions, and
advocates of `'comparable worth" have called for interlocution to redress
the inequity they perceive to be embedded in the present situation. In
essence, the point made is that, within a given organization, jobs that
arc equal in their value to the organization ought to be equally oom-
pensated, whether or not the work content of Pose jobs is similar. The
impetus for the formulation of the "comparable worth" concept has
come pnmanly from the substantial differences in the ties of jobs held
by men and by women and from the belief that those traditionally held
by women receive lower compensation because they arc hcId by women.
Fix
OCR for page R10
x
Preface
The committee took as its first task a review of what might be called
"the state of the question." Early meetings were largely occupied with
discussions of whether we were addressing a legitimate question and of
how we might establish whether we were. We recognized that we were
dealing with topics that have a long history among the concerns of social
theorists and that continue to present unresolved problem~that is, the
allocation of labor and the allocation of rewards for that labor. But the
particular context within which these issues are being raised now is new,
and the committee consequently spent considerable time establishing
the approach to take. We decided that we had to examine the earnings
differentials between men and women and then the operation of the
labor market. During this period the staff prepared a number of informal
memoranda on topics ranging from international approaches to equal
pay for work of equal value to guidelines for improving job evaluation
procedures. As we proceeded, it became clear that we needed a thor-
ough review of the features of job evaluation plans in order to assess
their relevance to discussions of comparable worth. That review was the
substance of our interim report (Treiman, 1979~. Very gradually a con-
sensus on what other evidence was pertinent and required review also
emerged.
We format of the report renects this consensus. A major portion of
our early discussion focused on whether, in fact, the existing wage rate
is a good approximation of the worth of a job. Our ultimate view, as
descnbed in Chapter 3 and summarized in Chapter 5' is that the sub-
stantial influence of institutional and traditional arrangements makes it
impossible to view current wage rates as set solely by the free play of
neutral forces operating in an entirely open market, no matter how
attractive such a theoretical formulation may be. Our examination of
the outcomes- that is, the earnings differentials, reviewed in Chapter
2 and the processe~the arrangements by which workers are allocated
and wages are set, covered in Chapter bled us to that judgment.
Moreover, the widespread use of job evaluation plans as aids in deter-
m~ning wage rates appears to us implicitly to confirm our judgment.
Both of the committeets assignments~he review for the Department
Of Labor and that for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sio~are relevant to issues that continually arise in the operating de-
cisions of persons charged tenth making the arrangements by which the
conditions of employment are set. Both also are relevant to the theo-
retical and empirical analyses conducted within the frameworks of sev-
eral somal science disciplines. Lee members of the committee were
selected for the diversity of their experience in facing both aspects of
these issues. Several have had extensive expenence in formulating and
OCR for page R11
Preface
Xl
administenng personnel policies. in negotiating the structure of union-
management agreements. and in other closely related activities. Both
their operational expertise and their comprehension of the relationship
between operational and theoretical aspects were extraordinarily help-
ful. Our academic members brought the diverse emphases of their dis-
c~plines as ~ ell as their technical backgrounds in the analysis of data to
bear on our discussions in a way that illuminated key factors.
One member. Ernest McCormick, has prepared a minority report
presenting his disagreement with the committee report on two issues.
One relates to the committee s conclusions that institutional and tra-
ditional arrangements often play a major role in setting current wage
rates. The second point of dissent relates to the material covered in
Chapter 4. The details of the procedures described by McCormick were
presented to the committee on several occasions. It was the committee's
decision that no detailed exposition of any job evaluation plan belonged
in the final report. W?e are presenting onIs the essential principles gov-
erning those systems that have been used by American fins, and we
refer the reader to our interim report for further details and for refer-
ences to a number of specific proprietary procedures.
This volume also includes a supplementary statement prepared by
one member. Gus T`ler, and endorsed by a second, Mary C. DunIap.
Although both members support the committee's report, they believe
that the issue with which the report deals the comparable worth of
jobs within an individual firm is too narrowly focused to have a major
impact on the root causes of pay differentials' which, in their view,
involute much broader issues. They recognize, however, that it would
not be proper for the report itself to raise these issues.
This has not been an easy report to prepare. ~ am extremely grateful
to the staff. particularly the two editors of the report, Donald ]. Treiman
and Heidi I. Hartmann. for the quality of their work and for their
patience in responding to the diverse requests dunng the long prelim-
inary period in which the committee was developing the structure of the
report. Patricia A. Roos was particularly helpful in seeing to the myriad
details involved in the last stages of completing the report. Four other
members of the committee staff. Benita A. Anderson, Pamela S. Cain,
June Price, and Charles F. Turner' whose work was primarily on our
report to the Department of Labor, also contributed in many ways to
the creation of this report. And Rose S. Kaufman earned the gratitude
of all of us for the skill with which she arranged our meetings and the
processing of our innumerable drafts.
~ should also like to express my appreciation to the remewers of earlier
ctrafts of this report. The questions they raised and the points they found
OCR for page R12
· .
Xtl
Preface
troubling helped to reveal where the report had failed to state the com-
mitteets intent clearly and enabled us to make necessary revisions. My
thanks go, too, to Eugenia Grohman and Christine L. McShane, editors
on the staff of the Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, for their
major contributions in cianfying the text.
Finally, ~ come to my fallow committee members. The commitment,
perseverance, and patience they devoted to the preparation of this report
cannot be adequately acknowledged in a few short words. Their support
was unfailing, and it was a great pleasure to me to work with them all.
Ann R. Miller, Chair
Committee on Occupational
Classification and Analysis