COMPARABLE WORTHExisting job-evaluation schemes have been criti-
cized for undervaluing, or not even considering,
the skills and abilities that are emphasized in some
female jobs (Beatty and Beatty 1984; Stienberg
1992). For example, at one time the coding in the
job-evaluation system used in the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles rated the primarily male occu-
pation ‘‘Dog Pound Attendant’’ as requiring a
higher level of complexity with regard to working
with data, people, and things than the primarily
female occupations of ‘‘Nursery School Teacher’’
and ‘‘Practical Nurse’’—which were rated as hav-
ing minimal or no relationship with data, people,
or things (Miller et al. 1980). Second, because job-
evaluation methods are used within a particular
firm or organization, they do not address wage
inequalities across firms or organizations. This par-
ticularly limits the scope of comparable worth
because, with the exception of governments (which
often employ individuals across a wide range of
occupational categories), most organizations are
staffed by individuals in a relatively narrow span of
occupations. For example, jobs in the textile and
poultry-processing industries, usually held by wom-
en, and jobs in the lumber industry, usually held by
men, could have the same overall scores in terms
of job characteristics. However, because these jobs
are usually not in the same organization, it is
unlikely that job-evaluation methods could be used
to equalize wages for these jobs.
Comparable-worth methods have been used
in a number of legal actions in attempts to increase
the equivalencies of wages for jobs held primarily
by women and those held primarily by men. The
outcomes of these cases have been mixed (see
Remick 1984; Heen 1984; Steinberg 1987; and
Figart and Kahn 1997 for reviews and discussions
of cases). In the United States, the right of ‘‘equal
pay for equal work’’ is provided by Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. An important legal action
based on the premise of comparable worth was the
Supreme Court ruling in the County of Washington
v Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981). This ruling re-
moved a major legal obstacle to comparable worth
as the basis of equalizing wages. Although it did
not endorse the comparable worth approach, it
did rule that a man and woman need not do ‘‘equal
work’’ in order to establish pay discrimination
under Title VII (Heen 1984). Subsequent lower
court rulings have not resulted in clear-cut deci-
sions regarding comparable worth, and at present
it seems unlikely that, in the United States, court
decisions will mandate the comparable-worth ap-
proach. Legal and legislative actions based on
comparable worth and pay equity also have emerged
in countries other than the United States. Canada
included a provision for equal pay for work of
equal value in the Canadian Human Rights Act of
1977 (see Cadieux 1984; and Ontario Pay Equity
Commission 1998). The implementation of this
legislation has resulted in significant decisions
regarding the need to increase wages in female-
dominated occupations—both in private industry
and in the government. However, the implementa-
tion of these decisions has not been without diffi-
culty. For example, the government and the gov-
ernment-workers union of the Northwest Territories
were, in early 1998, in disagreement with regard to
whether the evaluation system used by the govern-
ment to establish comparable worth was biased
(Government of the Northwest Territories 1998).Despite its limitations and difficulties in im-
plementation, the concept of comparable worth as
a basis for pay equity remains important in public
policy initiatives. The National Committee on Pay
Equity (1999), the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (1999), and
other organizations provide information and sup-
port for advocates of comparable worth. As one
approach to increasing pay equity, comparable-
worth applications have the potential for identify-
ing and correcting one of the most persistent bases
for the disparity between earnings for majority
men and earnings for women and minorities.REFERENCES
Beatty, R. W., and J. R. Beatty 1984 ‘‘Some Problems
with Contemporary Job Evaluation Systems.’’ In H.
Remick, ed., Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimina-
tion: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities. Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press.
Bielby, W. T., and J. N. Baron 1986 ‘‘Men and Women at
Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimina-
tion.’’ American Journal of Sociology 91:759–99.
Blau, F. D., and M. A. Ferber 1986 The Economics of
Women, Men and Work. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Cadieux, Rita 1984 ‘‘Canada’s Equal Pay for Work of
Equal Value Law.’’ In H. Remick, ed., Comparable
Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities
and Political Realities. Philadelphia: Temple Universi-
ty Press.