Women are paid less for equal work

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Causes of earning differences
Achievements in equal pay implementation
Conclusion
References

Executive Summary

Women have made remarkable strides to become breadwinners in most households in the USA. However, with the growing number of women leading households, studies indicate that for a single dollar earned by a man, a woman is paid approximately seventy-seven cents.

Most importantly, African-American and Latin women earn significantly less amounts of dollars. In addition, women with college degree qualifications undertaking same tasks are paid less hundreds of dollars compared to men in similar career courses. In essence, bridging of pay discrimination gaps between women and men is essential for the enhancement of fairness.

Currently, close to fifty percent of personnel in organizations are females. In addition, studies show that women hold over fifty percent of decision-making and specialized stations in administrations. Moreover, increased clamor for college and innovative gradations among women have enabled many females to land on many employment opportunities since various organizations rewards refined employees. As such, the women’s pay and economic strengths are expected to escalate in the future.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a permanent employed woman earned approximately eighty-two percent of the remunerations earned by full-time male worker representing an increase from the estimated seventy-seven percent experienced over the last decade. The paper will examine various aspects of women pay in relation to the wages offered to men particularly in similar occupation and profession.

Introduction

The passage of Equal Pay Act (EPA) in 1963 was meant to ensure equal pay for work between men and women in equivalent job positions in US. On the contrary, gender gaps in pay continue widening (Peterson & Morgan, 2005). In fact, in 2010, women involved in permanent employment earned approximately seventy-seven percent of the total earnings received by male colleagues. In addition, the Africa-American and Latina women workers earned sixty-five percent and fifty-five percent respectively for every dollar paid to a Caucasian man.

Closing the pay gap has been a major priority of the US government. Evidently, a number of bills pertaining to equal pay between women and men workers have been signed into law. For example, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (LLFPA) has created situations in which the sufferers of earning discernments pursue reparations on pay inequity (Stewart, 2007).

In addition, the creation of the National Equal Pay Task Force (NEPTF) has been instrumental in clamping down individuals and organizations infringing equivalent earning regulations. The task force has been on the forefront promoting compliance with pay discrimination laws as well as addressing the challenges concerning gender payment discrepancies.

Causes of earning differences

The central government and feminist groups assert that discrimination has been a major factor contributing to the wage gap. In addition, many women have developed feelings that the workplace is intrinsically sexist discouraging the females from grasping the available job prospects. Further, inadequate information on choices that women should make concerning the industries to enter, domains to track and the time dedicated to work diminish earning capacities (McNamee, 2009).

Moreover, politicians have also contributed to the notion of pay inequity through the spread of misleading “wage gap” statistic purporting to compare male and female workers. Generally, studies indicate the existence of pay gaps between men and women even after considering the kinds of careers and requirements needed for such jobs including education and knowledge (Reichman & Sterling, 2004).

Indeed, the pay gap arises due to percipience in payment leading to adverse effects on American women and individual households. For instance, studies project that a twenty-five year-old man permanently employed is paid over $2,500 compared to a female counterpart. Essentially, in forty years, the woman employee will have incurred a loss of over $100,000 over the period of employment. The increasing gap in earnings between women and men wanes the economy and the households.

According to the Department of Labor’s 2011 Time Use Survey, permanent male employees spent approximately five percent more time at work places compared to female counterparts. In other words, an average full-time male worker spends estimated 8.15 hours daily at the workplace compared to 7.80 hours spent by average full-time female working person daily.

Since time is an important factor in determining pay, a person working for more hours earns more remuneration. Moreover, numerous aspects influence earnings. Men often gravitate towards employment opportunities involving long working hours, overnight shifts as well as toiling in the sewer systems to get higher earnings (Peterson & Morgan, 2005). On the other hand, women normally pursue comfortable jobs that fulfill private interests leading to less pay.

Achievements in equal pay implementation

The US government, through different stakeholders including the NEPTF has achieved significant successes in the implementation of equivalent earnings between males and females. Indeed, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) participates in organizational implementation and legal processes to ensure that that the obligations of females in the workplaces including fair treatment and equal pay are not infringed.

Specifically, over the last two years, cases relating to gender-centered wage discrimination in workplaces contributed over $380 million in financial reprieve for the targets of gender percipience. The commission has also been on the lead in addressing pay discrimination grounded on religion, color, race, genetic formation and age as well as nationality (McNamee, 2009). Actually, approximately forty percent of over ten thousand wage discrimination cases reported over the last three years are grounded on gender.

EEOC has undertaken several managerial execution mechanisms to ensure parity in pay between females and males in the workplace. For example, in 2011, the commission was involved in a $550,000 mollification defrayal with Western Sugar Cooperative to settle the allegations of pay discrimination where women earned less compared male counterparts at the firm’s Fort Morgan offices. In addition, the company solved the allegations of coxswaining women to low-paying jobs as well as rebuffing females from training opportunities.

Through the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), major accomplishments have been achieved in ensuring that federal contractors remain dedicated to equal provision of job prospects and affirmative action to job seekers and employees regardless of gender, nationality, race and religious convictions.

In this regard, OFCCP has obtained twenty-five million dollars in financial respites to victims of pay discrimination. In addition, OFCCP has resolved gender-grounded pay discrimination through compliance appraisals.

Based on this, over fifty women subjected to low-paying jobs received pay adjustments through OFCCP’s financial settlements. Specifically, in 2011, OFCCP aided in the settlement of litigation against AstraZeneca Corporation alleged to be paying female sales associates less wages compared to male counterparts. The company agreed to analyze its remuneration practices to determine whether women are low-paid and make necessary salary modifications (Webber, 2005).

Over the past, women have been subjected to discriminatory hurdles excluding them from accessing job opportunities considered men’s. In fact, the conventional men’s jobs pay better than traditional women’s jobs. In this regard, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been in the lead in preventing and eliminating the sex discrimination issues in workplaces thereby encouraging women to take up jobs considered men’s including contractors, engineers and truck drivers that have high salaries.

The DOJ has been against gender segregation in workplaces. As such, the Department of Justice protects women from ghettoization through initiation of certain terms and conditions in employment. For instance, when a police department in Wisconsin after complaining of sex discernment, under the DOJ’s terms of settlement, the sacked a female police officer was reinstated and paid over $300000 in financial reprieve.

Further, the justice department protects the financial security of women in workplaces through filing lawsuits against companies violating rights of females in employment. For instance, when Hyundai Ideal Electric Company fired Tabitha Wagner after complaining that a male colleague earned more than her, the EEOC initiated a litigation process and Ms. Wagner was paid $188,000 in compensation.

Further, the corporation was mandated to train its entire employees irrespective of sexual orientation to aid in the elimination of imminent desecration of work discrimination laws (Peterson & Morgan, 2005).

Educating employers and the employees on their rights and responsibilities under the equal pay laws has been significant in reducing the pay gap since workers are made aware of the existence of pay discrimination grounded on gender orientations. In addition, the application of interagency methodology in addressing pay gaps between females and males has been vital in the reduction of pay discrimination gaps.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that pay gap exists between males and females due to gender-grounded discrimination (McNamee, 2009). In fact, studies indicate that due to sexist-oriented pay systems, over thirty percent of women live in poverty compared to men. Remarkable steps have been achieved in advancing the cause of equal pay for equal work. However, much work needs to be done.

References

McNamee, S. J. (2009). The meritocracy myth. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Peterson, T. & Morgan, L. (2005). Separate and unequal: occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 329–365.

Reichman, N. J. & Sterling, J. S. (2004). Sticky floors, broken steps, and concrete ceilings in legal careers. Journal of Women and Gender Studies, 27(7), (200-204).

Stewart, D. A. (2007). State initiatives in the federal system: the politics and policy of comparable worth. Publius, 15(3), 84-85.

Webber, K. (2005). Comparable worth—it’s present status and the problem of measurement. Hamline Journal of Public Law, 6(38), 37-39.

Click Here To Order Now!