Policy Studies Review, May 1986, Vol. 5, No. 4

Keon 5 . Chi

COMPARABLE WORTH IN STATE GOVERNMENT: TRENDS AND lSSUES

Comparable worth--the doctr ine o f equal pay for work o f comparable value--continues to be a controversial issue bo th in the pr ivate and public sector, but part icularly in state government. In the past four years, comparable worth o r pay equity has been considered by many states and adopted by a few as a new approach to reduce the wage gap between male- and female-dominated job classes. Comparable worth proponents hold that sex-based wage dif ferentials can be closed if an employer pays women according to the value o f their work to the employer. The value o f work i s assessed by objectlve cri teria, using such factors as required knowledge, demands o r problem-solving, accountability, and working conditions.

Proponents and opponents of fer contrasting views on almost every issue raised: Can dissimilar jobs be compared objectively? Should government set pay rates Irrespective o f market forces? Would comparable worth be a remedy for occupational sex segregation, which is regarded as being the main cause o f wage disparities?

This art icle attempts to of fer a b r i e f overview o f state comparable worth activities, focusing on trends and issues. The art icle presents some pre- liminary f indings of three surveys conducted by the author for The Council o f State Governments, using questionnaires, documents, and personal and telephone interviews. The f i r s t survey was taken between June and Sep- tember 1984; the second, in March 1985, and the third survey in July 1985.

The survey f indings are summarized in this article, following the usual four stages o f the policy process: development, adoption, implementation, and evaluation (Gray, Jacobs, 6 Vines, 1983). There are some broad questions addressed in each o f these stages: Who are the leading actors in developing comparable worth as a policy issue? What factors have con- t r ibuted to the legislative init iat ion o f a comparable worth pol icy? How i s the comparable worth policy implemented? And, what Issues should policy- makers consider in evaluating the results o f a comparable worth pol icy?

DEVELOPMENT

The controversy over comparable worth dates from 1974 when a consult- ant did a salary study for the Washington state government. The now famous Willis study, based on a sample of job classes, showed that employ- ees working in female-dominated job classes were paid 20 percent less than male-dominated job classes for work o f comparable value. Since then, the state has continued to update i t s compensation studies, but policymakers in other states did not consider the internal equity approach as a policy issue. Instead, more states began adopting the external comparability principle, comparing their pay plans with prevai l ing rates in the labor market. It was not un t i l 1981 that comparable worth legislation was introduced in Wash- ington state and elsewhere to reduce the wage gap between male and female employees in state governments.

As might be expected, governors and legislators have been key actors in setting comparable worth agendas In the states. Between 1981 and 1983, 13 states considered comparable worth-related laws, paving the way for others

800

801

to follow. Minnesota began implementing comparable wor th tha t year. In 1984, two other state legislatures--Iowa a n d Washington--approved pay equi ty plans fol lowing extensive job evaluations, and comparable wor th b i l l s were in t roduced in 24 state legislatures. O f those, seven states defeated bi l ls, and one state tabled a bil l fo r f u r t h e r s tudy. Dur ing the 1985 legis- lat ive sessions, more than 20 comparable w o r t h b i l l s were in t roduced in 17 states, in some states fo r the second o r third time. In all, in the past four years. 38 state legislatures have considered comparable wor th a t some level t o decide i f they wanted t o set up task forces o r adv isory com- missions, formally In i t ia te comparable w o r t h studies, adopt comparable wor th as a pub l i c pol icy, o r set aside a sum o f money t o Implement comparable wor th (see Table 1 ) . In addit ion, 10 other states have begun broad classi- f ication and compensation studies wi thout legislat ive direct ives.

Chi : Canparable North i n Sta te C o v e r w n t

Table 1

Sta te Leg ls la tu res Were Canparable Nor th B i l l s Were Introduced (as of Ju l y 1985)

Year Canparable North B i l l s Introduced

1985 - 198C - State 1983 or Before

Alabama Alaska Arizona * Arkansas Ca l i f o rn ia Col orado * Connecticut * Delaware * * F1 or ida Georgia Hasai i Idaho I 1 1 i n o i s * Indiana * I ma Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Ma i no * Maryland Massachusetts * Michigan Minnesota * Miss iss ipp i Missour i Ckntana * Nebraska * Nevada * New Hampshire New Jersey * Nsrr c(exic0 * New York * North Carol ina North Dakota Ohio

802 Policy Studies R e v l a . Hey 1986, 5:4

Table 1 , continued Year Comparable Worth B i l l s Introduced

1985 - 1904 - State 1983 or Before

O k l ahma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhods Island

* *

South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas * Utah Vermont Virginia t Washington * West Vi rg in ia * Wisconsin * Wyai ng *

Source: The Council of State Governments.

Our surveys o f state personnel a n d labor relat ions specialists have shown tha t women's organizations w i th in the state governments have been the key in i t ia tors o r inst igators in the pol icy development stage. Almost wi thout exception, these agencies, w i t h v a r y i n g names--Council o n the Status o f Women, Legislat ive Counci l o n Economic Status o f Women, a n d the Commission on Sex Discrimination in the Statutes--have been instrumental in in i t ia t ing pre l iminary studies fo r developing the pay equ i ty issue f o r the governors and legislators. Not surpr is ing ly , state employee organizations o f Predominantly female workers, notably in heal th care a n d clerical jobs, also have been actively invo lved In the process as have the American Fed- erat ion o f State, County a n d Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employee International Union. In contrast, however, state personnel and labor relat ions executives have tended t o take a cautious posit ion a n d remained uncommitted. Nonetheless, a survey conducted in Ju ly 1984 by the National Association o f State Personnel Executives ranked comparable wor th as the number one issue in personnel management (National Asso- ciation o f State Personnel Executives, 1984).

Lawsuits and cour t decisions invo lv ing Washington state have inf luenced the development stage o f pay equ i ty policies. In AFSCME v . State of Washington (1983). Judge Jack E. Tanner, U.S. D is t r i c t Cour t for the Western D is t r i c t o f Washington, ru led in December 1983 tha t the state had discriminated against employees o n the basis o f sex. The judge ordered the state to award back pay t o 15,500 employees in predominantly female job classes and to accelerate implementation o f the state comparable wor th plan. In September 1985, however, the U.S. Cour t o f Appeals fo r the N i n t h Ci rcu i t reversed the Tanner decision, s ta t ing tha t the 1964 C iv i l R igh ts Ac t does not requ i re Washington state t o eliminate a pay gap. Judge Anthony Kennedy ru led tha t "The state did n o t create the market d ispar i ty and has not been shown t o have been motivated by impermissible sex-based consid- erat ions in sett ing salaries .... Neither law nor logic deems the free market a suspect enterprise.' ' In Ju ly 1984, the same c i r c u i t c o u r t r u l e d in Spaulding v . University of Washington (1984) t h a t the state was n o t guilty o f the sex-discrimination charge b r o u g h t by the n u r s i n g facul ty members.

Chf: Comparable Worth I n S t a t e Coverrment 803

In the past f ou r years, sex-based discrimination complaints have been f i led against seven other states (Delaware, Hawaii, I l l inois, Michigan, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin), and lawsuits a re pending in two other states (Cal i forn ia and Connecticut). In November 1984 , t he Cali fornia State Employees Association (CSEA) f i led a sex-based wage discrimination lawsuit (No. 84-7275) in the federal c o u r t on behal f o f 38,000 workers in jobs held predominantly by women. CSEA. l i ke in the Washington AFSCME case, i s seeking back pay and sa lary adjustments. In September 1985, Judge Mar i l yn H. Patel rejected the state's argument to th row ou t t he case, Californio Stote Employees Association v . State of California ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The judge also said tha t t he ruling by the N i n t h U.S. C i r c u i t Cour t o f Appeals in the Washington state case did n o t foreclose t h e applications o f T i t l e V I I t o wage d ispar i t ies between job classif icat ions held p r imar i l y by women and those held p r imar i l y by men where a d iscr iminatory a t t i t ude i s shown, even though the pay scale may have been t h e r e s u l t of market forces.

Other factors also have con t r i bu ted to the development o f comparable wor th as a state issue. Such factors inc lude in i t ia t ives taken by local governments, p r i v a t e sector act iv i t ies , and debates tak ing place a t the national level. In 1984 , pay equ i t y was an issue in the two major pol i t ical part ies' national conventions. The Democratic p a r t y adopted comparable wor th in i t s platform, p ledg ing " to take eve ry step to close the wage gap," whereas the Republican p a r t y p la t form rejected the comparable wor th con- cept, s ta t ing tha t " the f ree market system can determine the value o f jobs be t te r t han any government au tho r i t y . " In 1984 , nine pay equi ty b i l l s were in t roduced in Congress. In 1985 , f i v e more b i l l s were introduced. I I I A p r i l 1985 , however, t he U.S. C i v i l R igh ts Commission voted to adopt a repo r t urging Congress and federal agencies to re ject t h e comparable wor th theory. In June 1985, t he Equal Employment Oppor tun i t y Commission (EEOC) voted unanimously to re ject a comparable wor th claim. More than 250 pay equ i t y complaints had been lodged w i t h the EEOC.

ADOPTION

Policymakers in most states usual ly keep abreast o f act iv i t ies in other states t h r o u g h personal in teract ions and publications by such national organizations o f s ta te of f ic ia ls as t h e National Governors' Association (NGA), the National Conference o f State Legislatures (NCSL), and The Counci l o f State Governments (CSG). T h e pay equ i t y case i s no exception. In Augus t 1984, NGA endorsed the p r inc ip le o f pay equ i t y fo r pub l i c em- ployees and encouraged the states t o consider the pol icy issue. The Gov- e r n i n g Board o f CSG, during i t s annual meeting in December 1984, decided t o remain neutra l .

Why have some states considered comparable w o r t h a pol icy issue by in t roduc ing legislat ion and o the rs have no t? What factors can best explain t h e d i f ference between states on t h i s issue? Four variables--region, union- izat ion and col lect ive bargain ing, p a r t y dominance, and rat i f icat ion o f the federal Equal R igh ts Amendment (ERA)--appear t o b e usefu l in iden t i f y i ng t rends. The pre l iminary f i nd ings presented here a re based o n whether comparable w o r t h b i l l s o r resolut ions have been In t roduced in the state legislatures.

Region

A clear regional t r e n d can b e noticed in Table 1. Most Eastern and Midwestern state legislatures considered comparable wor th , whereas two

804 Po l i cy Studies Review, May 1986, 5:4

Western states a n d a majori ty o f Southern States have y e t t o in t roduce such a bill.

Union and Collective Bargaining

Unionization and collective bargain ing are other variables tha t might explain why state legislatures have or have no t entertained comparable wor th bi l ls. In 1985, col lect ive bargain ing was allowed in near ly a l l o f the Eastern and Midwestern states while government employee unions have no t been active ,in some Western states. As shown in Table 2, a l l o f the states that have no t considered legislation t o in i t ia te a formal pay equity s tudy are norrunion states w i t h no collective bargain ing laws for state government workers.

Table 2

and Employee Un ion iza t ion (as of Ju ly 1985) States Where Canparable Worth B i l l s Were Introduced

Sta te C.W. B i l l s Introduced Unionized Not Unionized

Alabdrna Alaska A r i zond

X

X

X

X

X

Arkansas X

Ca1 i f o r n i a X X

Col orado X X

Connecticut X X

Dslaware X X

F lo r I da X X

Georgia X

Hawai 1 X X

Idaho X

I 1 1 i n o i s X X

I ndi ana X

Kansas X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X

Maine X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X a M i nnesota X X

Missouri X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X

New Harnpshlre X X

Ne-w Jersey X X

New Mexico X (a) New Vork X X

North Carol ina X X

North Dakota X X

I octd X X

ni ss i ss i ppi X

Okl shone X

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Is land X X

South Carol ina X

Chl: Comparable Worth i n S ta te C o v e r m n t 805

Table 2. continued

Sta te C.W. B i l l s Introduced Unlonired Not Unlonired

South Dakota ( a ) Tennessee X

Texas X ( a ) lltdh X

Vermont X X

V i r g l n i a X

West V i rg ln la X X

Wisconsin X X

Wyoming X X

WdShingtOn X X

Key: (a ) Some unlonired.

Source: The Council of State Coverrments

Party Dominance

Democratic p a r t y dominance in the state legislatures is associated w i th the i n t roduc t i on o f comparable w o r t h b i l l s but n o t necessarily w i t h passage o f b i l l s . In addit ion, t he p a r t y a f f i l ia t ion o f t h e governors in these states appears to b e a factor. In 1984 and 1985, states w i t h Republican governors were more l i ke l y t o defeat o r table comparable w o r t h bi l ls. Table 3 shows p a r t y l ine-ups o f t he state legislatures and governors ' p a r t y aff i l iat ions a t t he time o f bill consideration.

Table 3

Where Canparable Worth B l l l s Were Introduced I n 1984-198s Governors' Party A f f f l l d t fOnS and Par ty Line-ups I n the Sta te Leg ls la tu rer

S ta te Leg is la tu res

c.w. a i l i s House of

S ta te Governors Representatlves Senate Passed Not Passed'* Alaska D D R Arizona D D R Cal if orn l a R D D Colorado D R R Connecticut D R R De 1 and r e R D D F lo r i da D D D * Hawa 1 i D D D I 1 1 i n o l s R D D * I ndi and R R R I OUd R D D KdnSdS D R R

Maryland D D D MdSSdChUSettS D D D Michigan D D R * Minnesota R D D * M l ssourl R D D * Nebraska D (non p a r t l r a n ) N e w Jersey R D D

806 Pol i c y

S ta te Leg is la tu res

House of

Table 3, continued

State Covernors Representatives - North Carol i na D / R ( ~ ) D D North Dakota D R R Ohio D D D Oregon R R R

Studies Review, Hay 1986. 5:4

C.W. B i l l s

Passed Not Passed'a'

t * (c ) * (c )

Pennsylvania R D R t

Rhode Is land R D D * Texas D D D t

Vermont R R R * V i rg in ia D D D * Washington R D D * West V i rg in ia D D D t

W i sconsl n D D D Wyoming D R R

Key: ( a ) Some of these b i l l s were no t voted on as of Ju ly 1985.

( b ) An appropr ia t ion b i l l approved i n 1984 dur ing the Democratic Admin is t ra t ion was re - pealed by the 1985 l e g i s l a t u r e dur ing the Republican Administrat ion.

Source: The Council o f State Governments.

ERA Ratification

The ERA was ra t i f i ed by 35 states as o f June 1982, t h e deadline set by Congress. Th ree more states were needed for t he amendment t o become p a r t of the U.S. Consti tut ion. Given the na tu re o f ERA debates, it was hypothesized tha t states' comparable w o r t h act iv i t ies might b e associated by the states' vo t i ng records: f o r o r against t he amendment (see Table 4) .

Table 5 ERA R a t i f i c a t i o n and Comparable Worth B i l l

ERA Canparable Worth ~

R a t i f i e d Defeated Introduced Not Introduced --- State

Alabama X X

Alaska X X X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X

Ca l i f o rn ia X X

Colorado X x Connecticut X X

Delaware X X

F1 o r i da X X

Georgia X X

Hawai i X X

I daho x(R) X

I 1 1 i n o i s X X

Indiana X X

I m a X X

C h i : Comparable Worth i n Sta te Coverrment

Table 4 , continued ERA Comparable Worth

R a t i f i e d Defeated Introduced Not Introduced --- state

Kansas X X

Kentucky x(RV) X

Loui s i and X x

Maine X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X

M i nnesota X

M i ss i ss ipp i X

X

X

M i ssour i X X

b n t a n a X X

Nebraska x ( R ) X

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X

Ncn Jersey X X

New Mexico X X

New York X X

North Carol ina X X

North Dakota X X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Is land X X

South Carol ina X X

South Dakota x(R) X

Tennessee x ( R ) X

Texas Utah

X

X

Vermont X X

Vi rg in ia X X

Washington X X

West V i r g i n i a X X

Wisconsin X X

Wyoming X X

X

X

~ ~~ ~

Key: (R) - Rescinded; (RV) - The vote t o rescind was vetoed.

Source: Compiled by the author based on survey data. Informat ion on the ERA r a t i f i c a t i o n i s ava i l ab le i n The Book o f the States, 1982-83, p. 64.

Nearly a l l o f the states tha t ra t i f ied ERA have in t roduced comparable wor th b i l ls , while most o f the states where comparable wor th b i l l s have no t been in t roduced are those that defeated ERA. The only exceptions are Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota, a n d Tennessee. Yet three o f these states (Ken- tucky , South Dakota, and Tennessee) rescinded the i r earl ier decisions from yes t o no. ( I n Kentucky, the vote t o rescind was vetoed.)

The above variables may no t be used t o expla in why some states have no t gone beyond the agenda-setting stage, however. For example, Indiana is among several states tha t have decided no t to conduct a more extensive comparable w o r t h s tudy. A f t e r a fact-f inding s tudy , the state's compensation task force decided that comparable w o r t h was not an

A word o f caution.

808 Policy Studies Revlen, Hay 1986, 5:4

immediate problem and avai lable resources would b e b e t t e r expended in p u r s u i t o f more competit ive wages. A r e p o r t p repared by the task force concludes:

Given the newness of t he comparable w o r t h theory, t he absence of a def in i t ive r u l i n g b y the Supreme Cour t , lack o f consensus as to p roper methodology, and the amount of money involved, t he value of f u r t h e r comparable w o r t h studies at t h i s time are ou t - weighed by t h e i r potent ia l f o r needlessly causing massive rea l ign- merit of 'statest resources. ( Ind iana Compensation Task Force, 1984, p. 108)

The N o r t h Carolina leg is la ture during i t s 1985 session voted fo r a bil l t o terminate a state comparable wor th s tudy it author ized in 1984, s ta t i ng in p a r t t ha t " the v e r y conceptual basis o f t he comparable w o r t h method is flawed, inva l id , and contrad ic tory to sound economic pr inc ip les, as econo- mists, commentators, and business people on a l l sides o f t he pol i t ica l spec- t r u m have pointed out" ( N o r t h Carol ina House B i l l 2 3 6 ) . The adv iso ry committee had h i r e d consultants to do a comparable w o r t h s tudy fo r a fee o f $650,000.

On the other hand, i t should b e noted, in 1983, t he New Mexico Legisla- t u r e raised the salary ranges o f 23 low-paid, female-dominated jobs a n d appropr ia tcd funds ($3 .2 mil l ion) wi thout conduct ing a job evaluation. Comparable w o r t h legislat ion was in t roduced in 1985 t o create a pay equ i t y commission. The bill was tabled.

IMPLEMENTATION

Once a state has decided t o adopt a comparable w o r t h plan, it must rev ise statutes and change pay pract ices f o r implementation. The state also has to decide which g roups a re t o receive comparable w o r t h raises f i r s t . All o f the states' comparable w o r t h p lans a r e designed t o beg in in the executive b ranch t o b e followed by the h i g h e r education system a n d the legislat ive and jud i c ia ry branches. T h e th ree pe r t i nen t quest ions con- sidered in the implementation stage a re job evaluation, cost o f comparable wor th pay increases, and implementation methods.

Job Evaluation Studies

Conducting a job evaluation fo r comparable w o r t h invo lves a mu l t i t ude o f problems. Policymakers mus t decide what steps should b e taken, who should do what, and how t h e comparable w o r t h p lan should b e put i n t o effect.

Most states have used o r a re consider ing a quan t i t a t i ve j ob content evaluation approach. The approach i s designed t o evaluate job classes, n o t necessarily ind iv idual workers. A job evaluation system usual ly invo lves four steps: completing job descript ions; select ing factors, subfactors and levels; weight ing factors and assigning numerical values; and determin ing pay grades according to to ta l scores.

Consultants p lay a major ro le in t h e job evaluation process (see Table 5). The role o f a consul tant var ies depending on h i s o r h e r re la t ionship w i th the sponsoring agency o r t h e comparable w o r t h task force. A consul- tant, for example, can conduct a job evaluation independent ly w i t h minimum input from state personnel and labor relat ions specialists o r ( s )he can c a r r y out cont ractual assignments u n d e r close superv is ion o f t he task force made

Chi: Comparable Worth i n Sta te Government 809

up o f representatives from the pr iva te sector, academic community, advocacy groups arid cit izens groups as well as state off icials.

Table 5 Comparable Worth Studies8 Consultants, Budgets,

and Study Years f n Selected States

s ta te

Connectl c u t

I m a

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Jersey

New York

N m York

North Carolina")

Ohio

Oregon

Vermont

West V l r g l n l a

W i sconsl n

Consultant

W f l l i s

Arthur Young

Boor-A1 1 en, Hami 1 ton

Center fo r Women i n Cover m e n t

Hubbard, Givens 6 Revo-Cohen

Arthur Young

The Center f o r Women i n Government

P.S. I.

Hubbard, Givens 6 Revo-Cohen

Hay

W i l l l s

Hal lcrest-Craver

Hal lcrest-Craver

Budget ($1 Year

240.000 1981-84

120,800 1983-84

301,000 1984-85

13,000 1984-85

300,000 1985-86

1,000,000 1984-85

500,000 1983-85

650,000 1984-85

102.000 1984-85

355,000 1983-85

250,000 1984-85

468,000 1984-86

300,000 1984-85

Key: "' Terminated I n 1985 by l e g i s l a t i v e act ion.

Source: The Council o f S ta te Goverrments.

Wiscorisiti appears t o have a carefu l ly designed model. Wisconsin's Compa- rab le Worth Task Force consists o f 14 members and four technical adv isory members. The members inc lude two state legislators, three professors, the state personnel d i rector , two employee union representatives, two women's counci l representatives, one af f i rmat ive action off icial, and two from the business community. Steps taken by the task force are as follows:

0 Ident i f y compensable factors. 0 Design questionnaires. 0 Establish job evaluation committees. 0 Select par t ic ipants fo r the p i lo t s tudy.

Policy Studies Review, Hay 1986. 5:b

Part icipants review questionnaires. Determine factor weight. Ad jus t scores o f the analyzed job in accordance w i th the new weights. Compare job scores t o compensation. In ter im r e p o r t t o the governor t o be used in the formulation o f the budget . Refine the survey ir istrument a n d process. A f inal repor t .

81 0

0

0

Cost of Comparable Worth

The cost o f implementing comparable w o r t h o f course i s a real concern to pollcymakers. No one formula ex is ts t o calculate the cost. In general, the cost depends on three factors: the number o f el igible employees fo r compa- rable wor th raises, the wage gap, a n d the method o f funding a n d implemen- tat ion o f time tables.

The wage d ispar i t ies repor ted by states' pre l iminary studies range from 13 percent in Ohio t o 28 percent in New Jersey. Indiana's wage gap was repor ted to b e 14.66 percent; Iowa's, 17 percent; Kentucky's, 15 percent; and Michigan's, 21 percent. A t the time o f a comparable w o r t h s tudy in 1982, Minnesota's wage gap was estimated a t approximately 20 percent, and the gap, a f te r implementing comparable w o r t h fo r about two years, dropped t o less than 10 percent. A 1984 job evaluation s tudy in N o r t h Carolina showed a surpr is ing ly small wage gap (5-6%) between male- and female-dom- lnated job classes.

Table 6 shows tha t the sex-based gap in state and local government i s smaller than other employment sectors.

Table 6 Average Wages o f Female Workers as a Percentage

of the Wages o f Male Workers - 1980

white Black Hispanic A l l Woman W m n Wanen Woman Employment Sector

Federal goverment 63.1 62.2 ( a ) 62.8

State and local g o v e r m n t 72.7 64.8 62.9 71.5

Pr ivate sector 56.8 50.2 47.9 56.0

A l l sectors 59.2 54.7 51.2 58.7

----

Key: (a) Information not available.

Sources: Current PoDulation ReDorts. Series P-60. No. 132. Table 58. U.S. Census b r e a u . 1980. .~ Adopted from Options for Conducting a Pay Equity Study of Federal Pay and Classif ica- t i o n Systems, Report by the Cunptroller General of the Untted States, CAO/M;D-85-37. March 1. 1985. p. 1.

The question here i s how t o measure wage dif ferentials. Three methods are used. Some states calculate a wage gap by comparing actual average wages o f a l l male and female workers in a l l job classes. Other states ident i fy a wage gap between men and women work ing in randomly selected job classes.

81 1

And a third method, which has been used widely, measures wage d i f feren- tials in selected job classes tha t are dominated by one sex. In th is case, the term "dominated" i s operationally defined as being 70 percent o r more. in some cases an 80 percent cut l ine has been used.

In estimating costs o f reducing wage gaps, several pioneering states of fer some ideas. Minnesota, the f i r s t state t o implement comparable wor th i s expected t o achieve pay equ i ty by 1987. In fiscal 1983-84, Minnesota prov ided 8,225 employees in 157 classes w i t h $21.8 mill ion o r a n average o f $1,600 for each employee. About 90 percent were women. Most were clerical o r health care workers. In 1985, the state legislature appropr ia ted $11.8 mill ion fo r pay equ i ty fo r f iscal 1986-87. Nearly 9,500 employees in 144 classes wi l l receive pay equ i ty raises t h r o u g h the collective bargain ing process. The to ta l cost o f full implementation o f pay equ i ty for state employees is expected t o be 3.7 percent o f the state's payro l l . Minnesota is the only state where a l l local u n i t s o f government are requ i red t o implement pay equ i ty fo r t h e i r employees.

In 1983, the Washington legislature passed b i l l s to implement comparable wor th by 1993 and appropr ia ted $1.5 mill ion to be used for f iscal 1984 to g ive pay raises fo r employees whose salaries were a t least e ight pay ranges below the comparable wor th l ine. Approximately 20,000 ou t o f 45,000 state workers received an e x t r a $8.33 a month ( o r $100 a year) . In 1985, the legislature appropr ia ted $3.9 mill ion fo r comparable w o r t h raises in fiscal 1985, and set aside $41.5 mill ion f o r d is t r ibu t ion beginning Ju ly 1987 con- t ingent upon a negotiated settlement o f the lawsuit b r o u g h t against the state by the AFSCME. Also, the legislature authorized to h i r e a consultant to conduct a review o f the c i v i l service system t o cor rec t gender pay gaps.

The 1985 Iowa legislature appropr ia ted $22.6 mill ion t o implement the state's comparable wor th p lan fo r the per iod f rom March 1985 t o June 1986. The p lan covers executive, judicial, and h igher education employees. Iowa's p lan t reats mer i t and nonmerit a n d union a n d nonunion employees alike. The agreement reached in August 1985 ended months o f negotiations and a statement tha t prevented spending an appropr ia t ion ($10 mill ion) by the 1984 session. The 1985 Wisconsin legislature appropr ia ted $9.1 mill ion in the 1986 budget . Payment Is expected to s t a r t in Ju ly 1986. The governor and legislature must f i r s t accept the recommendations o f Wiscon- sin's Task Force o n Comparable Worth.

In addi t ion t o the above four states, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, a n d Ohio also began implementing pay equ i ty t h r o u g h executive init iat ives, supplementing budgets, a n d col lect ive bargaining. In 1983, New Mexico elevated the salary ranges o f 23 low paid, female-dominated jobs and appropr ia ted $3.2 mill ion f o r pay equi ty . T h e state legislature did not appropr ia te addit ional pay equ i ty funds since then.

Chi: Comparable Worth I n S t a t e C o v e r m n t

EVALUATION

The pr imary goal o f a state comparable w o r t h po l icy i s t o eliminate sex lbased wage discrimination. What i s needed i s a "sex-neutral" job evaluation approach. Ideal ly, the approach must b e objective and used consistently throughout the state government. Therefore, policymakers need t o evaluate available options before and a f te r implementation o f a comparable wor th plan. There are some per t inent issues a n d questions: What i s the best method t o evaluate jobs? A r e there other alternatives available fo r state government? What factors should b e included in the job evaluation p lan? And, how should po in ts be spread among the factors and subfactors?

812 Pol icy Studies Reviar. Hay 1986. 5:4

Approaches

The job content evaluation approach used t o determine most states8 comparable wor th pr imar i ly considers characterist ics o f job classes us ing such factors as knowledge and ski l ls, demands, responsibi l i ty, and work ing conditions. T h i s approach, i t should b e noted, normally does no t take in to account ind iv idual workers characterist ics such as t ra in ing needed to ac- q u i r e a necessary license o r cert i f icate, work experience, senior i ty , a n d agency regylat ions. A n a l ternat ive method i s a n "economic" approach, which would consider these personal characterist ics.

A f t e r comparing b o t h the job evaluation approach a n d economic approach and a f te r reviewing states' comparable wor th job evaluation methods, a 1985 s tudy prepared by the U . S . General Accounting Of f ice recommended a more comprehensive method which would combine the advantages o f the two approache's in measuring wage d ispar i t ies by sex in the federal government. The repor t concludes:

Both the economic and job content approaches may prove usefu l in explaining wage d i f ferent ia ls by sex in the federa l government. However, in o u r view, ne i ther approach i s suf f ic ient by i tse l f to explain the wage gap.... What i s needed, then, i s an approach in which the advantages of b o t h the job content a n d economic ap- proaches complement each other . Use o f b o t h approaches can prov ide a clearer understanding of how federa l wages are set and would b e less susceptible t o charges tha t impor tant explanatory variables have been ignored. ( u . s. General Accounting Office, 1985a, p. 48)

Factors and Weights

For a state adopting the job evaluation approach, three models may be considered. The "a pr io r i l l method considers factors and weights before in i t ia t ing the job evaluation process, whereas the "pol icy-capturing" method determines factors a n d weights based o n the state's ex is t ing pay p lan as the c r i te r ion o f the value o f work. A third method b lends the two methods.

Table 7 Job Evaluation Methods: A Conpariron of Factors and Weights

I O W A M I N N E S O T A W A S H I N G T O N

Factors Welghts Points Factors Weights Points Factors Weights Points

Ski 11 35% 350 Know-how 48.85 1000 Knowledge and 475 280 S k i l l s

E f f o r t 32 320 Problem-solvlng 24.4 500 Mental Demands 23 140

Responsibil i ty 23 230 Accountabil i ty 24.4 500 Accountdbil l ty 27 160

Working con- 10 100 Working con- 2.4 50 Working con- 3 20 di t lons d i t i o n s d l t lons

TOTAL 1005 1000 TOTAL 100.05 2050 TOTAL 1000 600

Sources: Compiled frm data provided by the personnel and employee re lat ions o f f i c e s of Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington state.

Chlr Canparable Worth i n State C o v e r m n t 813

In any case, there is a t r i c k y question: How should weights be de- termined in each factor o r subfactor? Our analysls o f the methods used In three selected states shows tha t a l though factors and subfactors are nearly identical, albeit us ing s l igh t ly d i f f e r e n t terms, the weights and points are no t the same. Table 7 i l lus t ra tes this. For example, Iowa's in i t ia l plan g ives 35 percent t o the knowledge and sk i l l factor, whereas bo th Minnesota and Washington allow near ly a 50 percent weight, No consensus ex is ts on how such factors should b e weighted.

CONCLUSION

The purpose o f t h i s ar t ic le was t o ident i f y c u r r e n t t rends and pol icy issues concerning comparable wor th tha t might b e o f concern to state pol- icymakers, personnel executives, and s tudents o f publ ic pol icy studies. This ar t ic le has shown tha t the ex ten t o f states' comparable w o r t h activ- it ies, when measured by the in t roduct ion o f comparable wor th b i l ls , tends to v a r y depending upon the states' geographical location, p a r t y l ine-ups in the legislatures, unionization o f employees, and the states' votes on the ERA.

Comparable w o r t h i s a re la t ive ly new concept a n d no consensus ex is ts as to the term's exact meaning. The ongoing controversy over the def in i t ion o f comparable w o r t h between the U.S. Commission on C iv i l Rights, which rejected comparable wor th in A p r i l 1985, and the U.S. General Accounting Office, which in June o f fe red negative comments on the def in i t ion of compa- rable w o r t h used by the Commission, i s a case in po in t (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1985b). Even proponents and advocates o f comparable wor th do no t agree among themselves, f o r instance, as to whether compara- b le w o r t h job evaluations should b e conducted independently o f the labor market. In Ohio, the term comparable w o r t h i s no t used because o f i t s "negative connotation." Pay equity is the term used there. In New Jersey and New York, the concept of pay equ i ty extends t o encompass jobs held disproport ionately by racial a n d ethnic minorit ies as well.

Comparable wor th Is the doct r ine o f equal pay fo r work o f comparable value in dissimilar jobs and is d i f fe ren t from the equal pay fo r equal work p r inc ip le as defined in the federal Equal Pay Ac t o f 1963. The big question here i s whether comparable w o r t h i s addressed o r legally applicable under the 1964 C i v i l R ights A c t o r not. U n t i l the high cour t settles the Wash- ington case o r any one of the pending cases, or unless the C i v i l R ights Ac t i s amended t o c la r i f y the comparable w o r t h issue, policymakers in many states are l ike ly t o take a wait-and-see att i tude.

Yet these pre l iminary f ind ings warrant f u r t h e r investigation.

REFERENCES

AFSCME v. State o f Washington, 578 F. Supp. 84,s (W.D. Washington 1983). Cali fornia State Employees Association v. State o f California. (No. C-84-

General Assembly o f N o r t h Carolina. Session 1985. House Bill 236 (Shor t

Gray, V., Jacob, H., & Vines, K.N. (Eds.). (1983). Politics in the

Indiana Compensation Task Force. (1984). Final report . State of Indiana. National Association o f State Personnel Executives. (1984). State person-

Spaulding v. Un ivers i ty o f Washington, 740 F. 2d 686 (9 th Cir. 1984) cert.

7275-MHP).

t i t le : Repeal comparable w o r t h s tudy) .

American states: A comparative analysis. Boston: Lit t le, Brown.

nel view, 7(2).

denied, 53 U.S.L.W. 3403 (U.S. Nov. 26, 1984) (No. 84-515).

81 4 Pollcy Studler R e v l a , Hay 1986, 5:4

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1985a. March). Options for conducting a pay equity study of federal pay and clossification systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U. S. General Accounting Office. (1 985b, June). Comments on report 01)

comparable worth by the United States Commission on Civi l Rights. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.