Public Support for Comparable Worth in Georgia

Public Support for Comparable Worth in GeorgiaAuthor(s): James E. Campbell and Gregory B. LewisSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 46, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1986), pp. 432-437Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975782 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 13:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:52:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/975782?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


432

Public Support for Comparable Worth in Georgia James E. Campbell, University of Georgia Gregory B. Lewis, University of Georgia

Women's groups and some labor unions are increas- ingly pressing public personnel systems to pay women as much as men not only for "equal work" but for "work of comparable worth."' The State of Washington per- formed the first important comparable worth study in 1974. The study estimated that male-dominated occupations paid 20 percent more than female-dominated occupations requiring similar knowledge and skills, mental demands, accountability, and working conditions.2 Since 1982, at least 35 state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have considered or conducted comparable worth-related studies of their own personnel systems.3 Those states that have completed studies have uniformly found pay gaps between male- and female- dominated occupations of seemingly comparable worth -gaps ranging from 5 or 6 percent in North Carolina to 28 percent in New Jersey.4 Correcting these gaps could be very expensive. A recently overturned court decision, based on the Washington State study, could have cost that state up to $1 billion in raises, back pay, promo- tions, and pension increases.5 Estimates for the econ- omy as a whole have gone as high as $320 billion, although comparable worth plans actually implemented have been much less costly.6

Comparable worth advocates claim that women have been segregated into a limited number of occupations through the pressures of socialization and the decisions of employers,7 and that "work identified with women is always considered less valuable than that done by men, regardless of its difficulty or contribution."I They argue that public pay systems reflect this undervaluing of "women's work" by uncritically accepting wages set in a discriminatory market, by allowing societal biases against women to distort "whole job" evaluations, or by letting sexism creep into even the most quantitatively sophisticated point factor evaluation systems.9 Remick defines comparable worth as "the application of a single, bias-free point factor job evaluation system within a given establishment, across job families, both to rank-order jobs and to set salaries."'" Although this definition is far from universally accepted, the use of a quantitative job evaluation system rather than the market to set wages is central to any comparable worth solution.

Comparable worth opponents dispute the claim that female-dominated occupations are underpaid, arguing that women's occupations pay less because their workers are less productive or because they offer non-

* What does the public think of proposed policies of comparable worth for public employees? In a telephone survey we asked 558 Georgians their opinions on whether female-dominated occupations are underpaid because of discrimination and whether a comparable worth policy for public employees is feasible and desir- able. Two findings emerge from these survey responses. (1) Proponents of comparable worth outnumber opponents by a ratio of three to one. (2) Inconsistencies in responses suggest that most citizens do not have strong and stable opinions about the policy.

monetary advantages that compensate for their lower pay."I Opponents object most strongly to the idea that intrinsic worth can be defined outside the market. Instead, they claim, values are constantly in flux, depending on the demand for and supply of the good or service in question. Workers seek the occupations and employers that reward them most highly for their abili- ties. Employers seek the combination of workers of different skills and pay levels that will minimize the costs of production. According to economic theory, free exchange between workers and firms leads to the most productive allocation of labor and to wages that accurately reflect the productive value of different occupations.'2 Comparable worth opponents therefore feel that governments should follow the market's lead in setting salaries and argue that the best course of action for women is to train for higher paying occupations. They seriously doubt that any job evaluation system can accurately measure all the factors that should influence pay levels'3 and strongly suspect that decisions will be largely political, based on the strength of opposing fac- tions rather than the productive value of labor.

Opponents point to the city of San Jose as indicative of the kind of mischief comparable worth can create. A comparable worth study determined that librarians and electricians should earn the same salary. That raised librarians' pay $300 a month above the market wage but was too low to keep a stable force of electricians; thus, the city offered electricians extra compensation. As a result, the pay gap between supposedly comparable jobs was reestablished at the taxpayers' expense.' In short, opponents of comparable worth regard the policy not as a means of achieving justice, but as a misguided piece of

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1986



PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR COMPARABLE WORTH 433

social engineering that allocates scarce governmental resources in a grossly inefficient and nearly arbitrary manner. 1 5

What does the public make of these arguments? Does it see a comparable worth problem? Is it willing to pay higher taxes to implement a solution? Despite the legis- lative activity and the potentially great ramifications of comparable worth policies, only one study of public opinion about comparable worth has been reported. In a telephone survey, Emmert16 asked 961 Illinois residents the following question:

Studies have found that nurses have more job skills and responsibilities than do electricians. In Illinois, nurses make about $700 less a month than electricians. Most nurses are women and most electricians are men. Do you agree or disagree that in situations like this, employers should be required by law to increase the pay of women to match their job skills and responsibilities?

Although 84 percent of the respondents agreed, people may feel less sympathetic to comparable worth when it is their tax dollars rather than anonymous employers who pay the higher salaries. They may also feel more strongly about the underpayment of "kind-hearted nurses"~ relative to "gouging electricians" than they do about the pay of men's and women's occupations generally. Probably the greatest weakness of the study is that Emmert could ask only one question and was unable to deal with the complexity of people's opinions.

This study addresses more of the issues that public personnel systems face. Specifically, it asks Georgians whether they (1) agree that female-dominated occupations pay less than male-dominated occupations with similar skill and responsibility levels; (2) believe that skill and responsibility levels provide a more appropri- ate basis for setting pay levels than do market forces of supply and demand; (3) have confidence that government can accurately measure skill and responsibility levels in different occupations; and (4) would accept higher taxes to raise salaries for employees in female- dominated occupations. Solid support for comparable worth seems to require a positive response on all four issues.

Data

Public opinion data were obtained by telephone interviews of Georgia residents in April 1985. The fact that Georgians are typically a bit more conservative than the average American should be kept in mind in assessing responses. I7 The four questions outlined above and presented in Table 1 were asked of each respondent. A total of 760 interviews were attempted; 558 were completed, a completion rate of 73 percent. Phone numbers were generated by a random-digit dialing technique. The Troldahl-Carter method was used to ensure proper diversity in the age and sex of respondents. '8 The sample still slightly underrepresents males, Georgians between age 18 and 25, those with less than a high school education, and those with incomes below $15,000 a year. A variety of weightings correcting for these differences


between the sample and population were examined; none altered the findings. Nevertheless, the cases are weighted so that percentages of males and females in the weighted sample are equal to the percentages of males and females in the state, as reported by the 1980 U.S. Census. This adjustment was made since gender is the one variable most commonly thought to influence attitudes about comparable worth.

Findings

General Opinion

Georgians appear favorably disposed toward comparable worth. As shown in Table 1, 70 percent respond that women's work is underpaid relative to its skill and effort (question 1). Three-fourths of the women and nearly two-thirds of the men agree with this assessment. Somewhat fewer, but still a majority, respond that wages should fit a job's skills and responsibilities rather than be set by market conditions (question 2). Finally, as measured by question 4, the sample divides better than three to one in favor of a policy of comparable worth for state government, even if it means a rise in taxes or lower salaries in male-dominated occupations. That three-to-one ratio applies whether all those favor- ing the policy are compared to all those opposing it or whether only those with strong convictions on either side are considered.

Public opinion on comparable worth is not entirely positive, however. Nearly two out of three respondents (63 percent) have little or no confidence in the government's ability to decide fair salaries for different occupations, an opinion which is common to both men and women. However, this widespread skepticism does not hold many back from a bottom-line endorsement of comparable worth policy.

Variations by Group

Although groups do not differ greatly in their support for comparable worth, some differences are evident, as seen in Table 1 and Table 2. Women favor comparable worth more strongly than do men, though the difference is not especially large. The strongest proponents are currently unmarried women with some college education, who are working full-time. Presumably, these women would be the prime beneficiaries of a comparable worth policy. Comparable worth is also more popular among the young and middle-aged than among older respondents of either gender. Democrats and Republicans per- ceive similar amounts of occupational discrimination, but Democrats are a bit more supportive of comparable worth policy. Partisan differences are more pronounced among male respondents; only 11 percent of Republican males strongly favor the policy as presented in question 4, as opposed to 20 percent of Democratic males. Minorities do not appear to be much more sympathetic to comparable worth than whites. In fact, although minority males see more of a problem and are less skep-



434 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

TABLE 1 Distribution of Attitudes Toward Comparable Worth

Ql. Do you think that work usually done by women pays much less than work usually done by men, even when both occupations require the same amount of skill, responsibility, and effort?

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

Total 16* 54 9 19 3 Men 11 52 11 24 3 Women 20 56 7 14 2

Q2. Which statement best represents your viewpoint? (1) Different occupations requiring the same levels of skill and responsibilities should pay about the same. (2) Occupations should pay whatever is necessary to attract qualified employees, even if it may mean that occupations requiring the same levels of skills and responsibilities will pay different amounts.

Statement #1: Statement #2: Equal Pay Neutral Market Pay

Total 57 7 36 Men 49 7 45 Women 65 7 28

Q3. Some people believe the government can objectively compare the skills and responsibilities of different occupations to decide if an occupation is overpaid or underpaid. Others believe that politics and the difficulties of measuring skills and responsibilities in different occupations will prevent fair comparison. How much confidence do you have in the government's ability to decide fair salaries for different occupations?

Great Some Little No Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence

Total 7 31 45 18 Men 7 28 43 21 Women 6 33 46 15

Q4. A study of the Washington state government claimed that public employees in occupations held mostly by women are paid much less than public employees in occupations held mostly by men even when both require about the same level of skills and responsibilities. If a study found a similar situation in Georgia's state government, would you favor raising salaries in women's occupations even if it meant that your taxes might be increased or that salaries in men's occupations might be lowered?

Strongly Strongly Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose

Total 18 53 7 16 5 Men 15 59 7 15 5 Women 21 48 8 17 6

*Entries are percentages. They may not total to exactly 100 percent because of rounding.

tical of government intervention to set salaries, they voice less support for comparable worth raises than do white males. Perhaps they are more likely to expect women's gains to come at their own expense.

The Reliability Question

Past research on public opinion has demonstrated that some responses to questions about political issues reflect true and stable attitudes, but others may reveal very little about the respondent's thinking.19 In fact, even though a person may answer a question, the response may have no real attitude behind it.20

How reliable are these data? Do they reflect real opinions or nonattitudes? The data do not permit sophisticated tests of reliability;' however, the internal

consistency of responses should provide a rough indica- tion. In general, one would expect that proponents of comparable worth (those who agree on question 4) would see occupational discrimination as more severe, would be less inclined to trust salaries to the market, and would feel more confident of the government's ability to set fair salaries. Opponents of comparable worth should hold contrasting views. There are a number of conceivable explanations for any apparent inconsistency, but extreme inconsistency would raise substantial doubts about the data's reliability.

Table 3 reveals substantial inconsistency between answers to the first three questions and the responses to the final question on support for comparable worth policy. Knowing that someone is pro-market (on question 2) or has great confidence in government's ability





TABLE 2 Pro-Comparable Worth Positions by Respondent Type

Percentage Giving Pro-Comparable Worth Responses* Problem Market Government Policy

Type Question (Q1) Question (Q2) Question (Q3) Question (Q4)

Educational level High school or less 13 61 38 14 At least some college 20 55 37 23

Party Democratic 18 62 44 22 Independent 14 50 30 18 Republican 18 54 26 16

Age 18-30 16 61 38 17 31-40 18 59 39 21 41-60 15 56 35 22 Over 60 12 50 40 11

Men White 10 44 30 16 Minority 16 57 57 9

Women All 20 65 39 21 Currently unmarried 24 65 44 25 At least some college 23 64 40 27 Work full time 30 68 32 28 All three 38 63 38 39

*The pro-comparable worth response to Qi was strongly agree, to Q2 was same pay, to Q3 was some or great confidence, and to Q4 was strongly favor. The exact question wordings are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 3 Consistency of Comparable Worth Responses

Response to Q4. Policy Question

Strongly Strongly Response to Q1, Q2, and Q3 Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose Total

Qi. Problem Question Strongly Agree 44.6* 40.6 2.4 9.9 2.6 100.0 Agree 14.2 57.8 5.2 17.8 5.0 100.0 Neutral 10.6 35.3 31.4 19.7 3.0 100.0 Disagree 10.4 63.2 7.8 11.8 6.9 100.0 Strongly Disagree 18.1 33.7 15.7 15.7 16.9 100.0

Q2. Market Question Same Pay 19.0 55.2 7.7 14.0 4.0 100.0 Neutral 10.2 53.3 6.9 26.3 3.2 100.0 Whatever is Necessary 18.7 51.3 6.8 17.1 6.1 100.0

Q3. Government Question Great Confidence 17.4 48.9 3.2 13.7 16.9 100.0 Some Confidence 16.7 56.4 7.5 17.4 1.9 100.0 Little Confidence 18.6 54.4 7.5 15.4 4.1 100.0 No Confidence 22.8 43.0 8.5 17.1 8.6 100.0

*Entries are row percentages. They may not total to exactly 100 percent because of rounding.




436 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

to implement comparable worth fairly (question 3) provides no help in predicting his or her support for the policy (question 4). Taking a more systematic approach to the consistency question, we examined the correlations among responses to each of the four comparable worth questions. They are uniformly low. The average Pearson's correlation is only .06, and the strongest correlation in the correlation matrix is only .14 (between questions 1 and 4). Nonparametric correlations yield similar results.

This suggests that public attitudes about comparable worth are far from crystallized, at least in Georgia. Those who tell us that they have strong feelings on the issue probably have real attitudes, but they compose only about one-fifth of the public. Those who hedge their responses may be much closer to the neutral category than to the adjacent strong category. The public seems to be leaning in favor of comparable worth, but a large majority probably lacks firm opinions about the issue.

Implications

This study provides good news for both friends and foes of comparable worth. The good news for pro-

ponents is that, even in the generally conservative state of Georgia, favorable responses to comparable worth exceed unfavorable responses by a three-to-one margin. The good news for opponents is that much, perhaps most, of the public has not developed stable, consistent attitudes toward comparable worth. To the extent that Georgians are typical, it would appear that the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans on the matter of comparable worth is only in a very early stage.

James E. Campbell is an associate professor of political science at the University of Georgia. His research interests include American politics, elections, and public opinion. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Western Political Quar- terly, and other scholarly journals. Gregory B. Lewis is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Georgia. His research on public personnel issues and municipal finance has appeared in Public Administration Review, Administra- tion and Society, Publius, Review of Public Personnel Administration, and Social Science Quarterly.

Notes

The authors thank the Institute for Behavioral Research and the Survey Research Center of the University of Georgia for assistance in the collection of the data used in this study. 1. For a discussion of the political forces supporting and opposing

comparable worth, see Elaine Johansen, Comparable Worth: The Myth and the Movement (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984); and Mark A. Emmert and Gregory B. Lewis, "Pay Equity and Politics," Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 5 (Summer 1985), pp. 50-64.

2. Norman D. Willis, "State of Washington: Comparable Worth Study, September 1974," reprinted in U.S. House of Represen- tatives, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Pay Equity: Equal Pay for Work of Comparable Worth-Part II, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), pp. 1486-1524. For a good discussion of the study, see Helen Remick, "The Comparable Worth Controversy," Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 10 (Winter 1981), pp. 371-383.

3. Keon S. Chi, "Comparable Worth in State Government: Trends and Issues," presented at the American Society for Public Administration annual meeting, Indianapolis, April 1985; U.S. General Accounting Office, "Options for Conducting a Pay Equity Study of Federal Pay and Classification Systems," GAO/GGD-85-37 (March 1, 1985). See also Elaine Johansen, "Comparable Worth: The Character of a Controversy," Public Administration Review, vol. 45 (September/October 1985), pp. 631-635.

4. Chi, "Comparable Worth in State Government." 5. AFSCME v. State of Washington, 32 FEP Cases 1577. 6. Marilyn Marks, "State Legislatures, Judges and Now Congress

Examining 'Comparable Worth,' " National Journal, vol. 16

(September 1, 1984), p. 1666. For an estimate of the cost of comparable worth in the federal government, see Gregory B. Lewis and Mark A. Emmert, "The Sexual Division of Labor in Federal Employment," Social Science Quarterly, vol. 67 (March 1986), pp. 143-155. Actual costs for state governments are summarized in Helen Remick, "Technical Possibilities and Political Realities: Concluding Remarks," in Helen Remick (ed.), Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984), pp. 279-282.

7. Sharon Toffey Shelpela and Ann T. Viviano, "Some Psycho- logical Factors Affecting Job Segregation and Wages," in Remick (ed.), Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination, pp. 47-58; Paula England, "Socioeconomic Explanations of Job Segregation," in ibid., pp. 28-46.

8. Ruth G. Blumrosen, "Wage Discrimination, Job Segregation, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 13 (Fall 1979), p. 416.

9. For pro-comparable worth critiques of job evaluation systems, see Donald J. Treiman and Heidi I. Hartmann, Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value (Washington: National Academy Press, 1981); Remick, "Comparable Worth Controversy"; Richard W. Beatty and James R. Beatty, "Some Problems with Contemporary Job Evaluation Systems," in Remick (ed.), Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination, pp. 59-78.

10. Helen Remick, "Major Issues in a priori Applications," in ibid., P. 99.

11. George T. Milkovich, "The Emerging Debate," in E. Robert Livernash (ed.), Comparable Worth: Issues and Alternatives (Washington: Equal Employment Advisory Council, 1980), pp.





23-47; Solomon William Polachek, "Occupational Self- Selection: A Human Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure," Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 63 (February 1981), pp. 60-69.

12. George Hildebrand, "The Market System," in Livernash (ed.), Comparable Worth, pp. 79-106.

13. Donald P. Schwab, "Job Evaluation and Pay Setting: Concepts and Practices," in Livernash (ed.), Comparable Worth, pp. 49-77.

14. Daniel Seligman, "Pay Equity is a Bad Idea," Fortune, vol. 109 (May 14, 1984), pp. 139-140.

15. For a nicely sarcastic view of comparable worth, see George F. Will, "A Doctrine of the High Priests," Newsweek, vol. 106 (September 30, 1985), p. 82.

16. Mark A. Emmert, "Public Opinion of Comparable Worth: Some Preliminary Findings," Review of Public Personnel Administration (forthcoming).

17. David Klingman and William W. Lammers, "The 'General Policy Liberalism' Factor in American State Politics," American Journal of Political Science, vol. 28 (August 1984), pp. 598-6 10,

rates Georgia as the eighth most conservative state of 48 examined. According to analysis of -state public opinion surveys, however, Georgia is only slightly more conservative than the median state. See Gerald C. Wright, Robert S. Erikson, and John P. McIver, "Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data," Journal of Politics, vol. 47 (May 1985), pp. 469-489.

18. Verling C. Troldahl and Roy E. Carter, "Random Selection of Respondents within Households in Telephone Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 1 (May 1964), pp. 71-76.

19. Christopher H. Achen, "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response," American Political Science Review, vol. 69 (Decem- ber 1975),. pp. 1218-1231.

20. Philip E. Converse, "Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continua- tion of a Dialogue," in Edward R. Tufte (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1970), pp. 168-189.

21. A brief review of reliability tests is presented in Edward G. Car- mines and Richard A. Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979).

"Will set the terms of discourse for the next decade of public opinion theory and research." -THEODORE J. LOWI, Cornell University

In this important new book, Benjamin Ginsberg argues that the transformation of public opinion into a political institution has not only furthered the interests of the citizenry, but has also promoted the interest of the state. As a result of this transformation, the modern democratic government can impose

~! - - - - l and collect unheard of tax revenues, mobilize huge armies, and win enthusiastic and instantaneous compliance for its edicts in a way that the most absolute monarchs of two hundred years ago could not have imagined. Exactly how this transformation in public opinion came about-and what it means for the future of democratic government-is the subject of Professor Ginsberg's brilliantly argued book. "A real contribution to understanding the troubled relationship between democracy and the growth of state power. It could not be more timely." -WALTER DEAN BURNIHAM, MIT $18.95

Basic Books, Inc. 10 East 53rd St., New York N.Y. 10022

Call toll free (800) 658-3030




Documents

Public Support for Comparable Worth in Georgia