MGMT 4030 - Managing Employee Reward Systems

Pay DiscriminationThe Male/Female Pay Gap

- 1950s-1970s: 59%

- 1999: 74%

Possible Explanations for the Pay Gap

1. The “Crowding Hypothesis”

2. Institutional Barriers: (a) access discrimination;

(b) Glass ceilings

3. Work-Family Conflicts: (a) Inflexible work schedules; (b)unfriendly family employment practices.

4. Job stereotyping

MGMT 4030 - Managing Employee Reward Systems

Pay Discrimination and Comparable Worth

Relevant Laws: (a) EPA; (b) Title 7 CRA, disparate treatment (applies); disparate impact (rarely used)

Key Court Cases

1. Lemons vs. City & County of Denver (1980)

2. Gunther vs. City of Washington (1981)

3. AFSCME vs. State of Washington (1985)

Comparable Worth Laws• State laws in a few states (WA, MN, MI) covers

public employees.• Canada - Provincial laws for CW private ees

MGMT 4030 - Managing Employee Reward Systems

Comparable Worth

Provisions of a Comparable Worth law

1. One JE plan used for ALL jobs. Same JE factors applied to each job. Exception: Union contract

2. Each job classified by gender representation.

a. Male dominated jobs: Males > 70%

b. Female “ “ : Females > 60%

3. Match female & male jobs according to JE points.

4. Where pay gaps, females raised to male pay level.

5. Equalize pay scales over 3-5 year period.

6. About 1% pay budget used to reduce inequities.