Literature Review of Essay

Literature Review: Equal Pay for Equal Work

Lea, R. (2013, January 7). Women make different choices. That’s not bias; Britain doesn’t need ‘golden skirts’. They are bad for business and bad for equality. The London Times , p. 18.

Passant, J. (2013, January 10). Women Must Spoil for a Fight to Win Equal Pay. The Canberra Times, p. A019.

Coleman, K. (2012, October 24). Equal Pay For Equal Work: Not Even College Helps Women. Retrieved March 2013, from NPR: http://www.npr.org

                Korva Coleman claims that regarding men and women who get the same education and pick the same job after college get paid less, 18% less than men are making.  There are several reasons Coleman relates to support her claim, the first is the study called Graduating to a Pay Gap.  The study followed men and women who had similar lives, career choices and education in search of finding evidence either supporting the pay gap or not.  A main statistic the study provided in the conclusion and used by Coleman to support the claim was that overall women college graduates in the business field earn 18 percent less in comparison to men.  Another supporting reason is that women file more complaints in the work place than men, making employers more hesitant to hire more women especially in a male dominant career.  The last reason Coleman uses in support of the claim is that women either don’t want to or aren’t able to negotiate salaries with their employer. Coleman places blame on employers who don’t exercise a gender balanced practice and men who don’t believe women are equal, and deserve equal treatment. The cause is the enablement the government has provided by not being adamant and strict about gender equality both at home and the workplace.  The solution Coleman has provided is “Congress should adopt new laws beefing up federal equal pay laws” (Coleman, 2012).  Another proposed solution from Coleman is encouraging women to think long term as far as majors and professions and the implications of choosing a generally lower income career/major.

Bowels, Hannah and Linda Babcock. “How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilhemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer.” Research Article. 2012.

                Bowles and Babcock claimed that “women are penalized socially more than men when negotiating for higher pay” (Bowels and Babcock), therefore Bowels and Babcock performed two studies, each testing to see if women’s negotiations were more effective.  The first study tested “how communicating concern and offering a legitimate account for compensation” (Bowels and Babcock), the second tested two strategies by “explaining why a compensation request is legitimate in relational terms” (Bowels and Babcock).  The first study showed no improvement, however the second study using the relational strategy can improve negotiation outcomes.    Bowles and Babcock state that, “research on salary negotiations suggest that gender differences in starting salaries are a significant contributor to long-term earning differentials between men and women” (Bowels and Babcock).  Babcock and Bowels blame discrimination for the constant wage gap in the workplace between genders; men are expected to get paid more, where women are not.  The cause of this is not necessarily cut and dry but more of a habit in the culture; women are thought of as “not as important/valuable” as men.  The suggestion of women negotiating for higher wages is a good one except for the social consequence made evident by Bowels and Babcock, “women have good reason to be more reticent than men about negotiating for higher compensation because women pay a higher social cost than men for doing so” (Bowels and Babcock).  The solution proposed by Bowels and Babcock were the potential outcomes of the two studies conducted by the two authors.  The second study produced an outcome that has the potential to make a difference in the negotiation process by using a relational method to employers, finding a loop hole in the social consequences of negotiations.

June Ellenoff O’Neill, “Comparable Worth.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 1993. Library of Economics and Liberty. 21 April 2013. <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/ComparableWorth.html&gt;.

                O’Neill claims that even though there is a wage gap in the workplace, comparable-worth adjustments just aren’t worth the repercussions, and there are other ways to bring fair pay to the workplace.  Comparable-worth is the analysis of the mental, physical, and all around demands for a job, which is then used to determine the appropriate wage for that desired job.  This would cut out entirely the factor of gender, race or any other discriminatory influences.  O’Neill quickly puts a stop to this idea because of the consequences, “when a regulation, such as comparable worth, imposes wages above the wage that balances supply and demand, these incentives are distorted; too many workers will be encouraged to seek jobs in fields where demand will actually be shrinking” (O’Neill).  O’Neill places blame as well as cause of unfair wages on the market economy.  Supply and demand of jobs, and the balance of wages is the root of unfair worth in the job market.  Solutions proposed by O’Neill include, improving “pay systems of state, local or federal governments” (O’Neill).  Another is “insuring that discriminatory barriers do not impede women’s access to occupations is an appropriate policy, compatible with a market economy” (O’Neill).  Using these solutions O’Neill believes women will be treated more fairly in the workplace.