HD3 - Status and Implications of Comparable Worth

  • Published: 1985
  • Author: Secretary of Administration and Finance
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 35 (Regular Session, 1984)

Executive Summary:
In 1983, the Virginia Commission on the Status of Women published a report at the request of the General Assembly which presented statistics showing inequities in wages paid to working women throughout the country. The Commission's report identified "pay equity" or "comparable worth" as the most expedient approach to eliminating the wage gap between men and women.

In 1984, the General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution 35, requesting that "the Secretaries of Administration and Finance study and recommend what changes and costs might be included in the Commonwealth's job evaluation and classification systems should the Commonwealth adopt the concept of comparable worth at some future date." This report was prepared in response to the resolution.

"Comparable worth" is defined as an approach to salary determination that requires that jobs of equivalent overall value to the employer be paid at the same rate, even if the jobs are dissimilar in nature, and even if they command different salaries in the general labor market. This approach is favored by advocates because it reduces gender-based wage disparities more rapidly than the promotion of affirmative action programs and the enforcement of equal opportunity laws.

The issue of comparable worth is controversial for several reasons. First, there is disagreement on the causes of the wage gap and the best way to close it. Second, parties do not agree on the extent to which prevailing labor market wages should influence women's salaries. Third, the legal status of comparable worth is unclear and unsettled. While most courts have rejected claims based on pure comparable worth arguments, a survey of case law indicates that numerous questions about comparable worth and other legal concepts related to sex discrimination in compensation are not yet resolved.

The comparable worth approach to raising women's wages varies across the country. According to national data, no two state governments are addressing the pay gap issue in the same way. No state appears to be implementing comparable worth as it is theoretically explained -- equal pay for work of comparable value regardless of wage rates in the general labor market. However, most states are undertaking reviews of their job evaluation systems to ensure that they are up-to-date, consistently applied, and are free of unlawful wage discrimination. In some of these states, the implementation of a comparable worth approach is viewed as a long-term goal.

As the experiences of other states show, comparable worth can take on different characteristics in each state. The primary determinant of the focus and pace of study efforts appears to be the degree to which legislators explicitly adopt a policy of raising women's wages through a comparable worth approach, and then support that policy with appropriations to rectify wage disparities.

If the Commonwealth adopted the policy of raising the wages of females, it could implement the policy in several ways. A short-term approach could be achieved without any changes in the current job evaluation and market pricing system. In this approach, a one-time pay increase could be given to employees in female-dominated classes at or below a specific pay grade. This approach, however, raises questions about compliance with the federal Equal Pay Act and other federal civil rights statutes applying to public employees.

The Commonwealth could take a long-term approach by accelerating the gradual migration of women from low paid female-dominated classes to male-dominated classes that command higher wages.

Virginia could also implement a variation of the comparable worth approach by evaluating all jobs in the classified workforce according to a common set of compensable factors and by basing the wages of female-dominated positions on their internal worth, and not on prevailing wages in the external market. In order to implement this approach, the following changes would have to be made in Virginia's classification and compensation system:

1. The Commonwealth would need to expand the existing policy of equal pay for equal work to include equal pay for dissimilar jobs of equal value. The new policy might need to be formalized through law or through executive order.

2. The Commonwealth would have to convert its present non quantitative job evaluation system to a quantitative one which is compatible with the comparable worth approach.

3. The Commonwealth would need to rescind or amend Section 2.1-114.6 of the Code of Virginia which establishes as a goal that employees be compensated at a rate comparable to prevailing rates in the private sector.

4. Additional personnel staff and increased training would be necessary to administer the new system.

States that have decided to adopt a comparable worth approach or otherwise overhaul their systems have found that there is a sizeable price tag associated with this commitment. Due to cost considerations, some states have made wage adjustments over a period of several years; others have targeted limited funds to the lowest paid classes, and postponed other increases. Therefore, the potential cost of adopting a comparable worth approach in Virginia is an important consideration for the Commonwealth's officials.

It is not possible, however, to present reliable cost estimates for Virginia at this time. The primary reason is because Virginia's job evaluation system is not designed to provide a single set of compensable factors with weights and scores for all jobs in the classified workforce. Additionally, the cost of comparable worth is predicated on other decisions that must be made prior to implementation of a study. These decisions include whether or not to decrease or freeze the pay of classes that appear to be overpaid based on the results of job evaluations, what pay values should be assigned to the minimum and maximum ranges of the system, how additional costs will be funded, and what is an appropriate time frame for implementation. It is imperative that these decisions be made, and that an explicit commitment be recorded to address any wage disparities that are identified by a job evaluation, before cost estimates can be made.

While the General Assembly further considers the information presented in this report and deliberates on the propriety of adopting a comparable worth standard at some future date, the following recommendations should be implemented immediately:

1. The Secretary of Administration should take appropriate steps to review and assure that Virginia's classification and compensation system is up-to-date, free of unlawful wage discrimination, and consistently applied.

2. The Secretary of Administration and the Director of the Department of Personnel and Training should review and improve existing training/educational programs and incentives for state employees, and propose new programs that encourage and enhance job mobility within the Commonwealth's workforce.

3. The Secretary of Administration should review existing guidelines and monitoring procedures pursuant to Governor's Executive Order No.1 (82) to ensure that all qualified applicants are extended equal access to training and promotional opportunities in state government.