Today, the world is struggling to provide the equal pay for men and women.
For decades women have been making less than men, reports BLS, (2015). In some industries the difference is enormous: In the legal sphere, women make less than 57 percent of what men make; In business and financial it is 75 percent of what men make; In management, however, it is about 78 percent of what men make. The highest level of parity is in construction, where women are able to make 91 percent of what men make. All of the information raises the question: How much of the pay gap is happening due to gender prejudice in the labour market, be it in inconclusive forms or clear gender discrimination? Early in 2016, two economists from Cornell University published an analysis of many years worth of data exploring the wage gap. Beyond employment rates and levels of higher education, the studies try to pin down how professions happen to attract women, such as teaching and nursing, and how their scholastic choices – they still study exact sciences, such as science and math, and technology not as hard as men – affects the wage gap.
Throughout the history of the world, discrimination has been an issue in all of it’s forms; no difference between appearance, gender, religion, beliefs, race or anything else that differs from person to person: it still affects every single life on this planet, though it might not be very obvious. One important discrimination problem we are trying hard to battle, is located in the work place. Women, who are as trained and educated as men are, and with the same background and work experience are not getting equal pay, mentions Coleman. This demonstration of inequality dates back for many years and derives from the common belief that since men provide for women and women take care of the home and children, act mostly as housewives and take the passive part throughout the history, men therefore are more efficient in the career of their choice. This is also known as systemic discrimination. But back to the present times, the idea that man and woman can produce the same results, work equally, acquire the same amount of education, and be able to accomplish the same overall tasks as men is becoming more and more common, especially as the prevailing thought of women as not as efficient and capable as men is constantly being proven to be incorrect.
The ongoing argument of the past has now become a demonstrable issue in our modern-day society. Women nowadays have opportunities that have not been even imagined in past decades but had to be overcame, or in most cases overlooked, the barrier of being punished in the long run for simply being a woman; “gender differences in starting salaries are a significant contributor to long-term earning differentials between men and women” (Bowels and Babcock). It is definite that in the workplace, a woman is a person just like a man is one, and if that person does what they were asked to do, he or she shall be paid for doing so, but if not, they face consequences like everyone else does. The way the gender affects this problem is quite interesting because of the actual reason that affects this difference in the first place.
Undertaking research on the “equal work equals equal pay topic” has aroused many questions and proposed solutions, but the lingering query is why employers are still enabling this workplace behavior and discrimination in the 21st century. An article titled, Equal Work for Equal Pay: Not Even College Helps Women, was written by Korva Coleman; who claims that women are worth less than men when entering the workforce after completing a college degree. Throughout the article, Coleman supports her claim using different studies’ results that “show when men and women attend the same kind of college, pick the same major and accept the same kind of job, on average, the woman will still earn 82 cents to every dollar that a man earns” (Coleman). Coleman also points out that women tend to pick lower salary jobs but regardless men are still paid more. Coleman relates some pretty inexplicable statistics, which were crucial in supporting her claim: “… found that in teaching, female college graduates earned 89 percent of what men did. In business, women earned 86 percent compared to men. In sales occupations, women earned 77 percent of what men took home.” Coleman proved her claim when arguing that women are paid less than men.
Doing further investigation, a research article titled, How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer, came up in the publication of The Society for the Psychology of Women. It posited an “easy solution” to the gender pay gap problem and actually tested it out. It is the process of negotiating salaries with employers. To many this would seem like the easiest way to go about solving the issue at hand, and one may ask why it hasn’t been done more, however, the authors Hanna Bowels and Linda Babcock claim that, “women are penalized socially more than men when negotiating for higher pay” (Bowels and Babcock). This means that by one woman trying to solve the problem maturely and merely having a conversation of negotiations with said employer, it will ultimately make the problem worse by elevating it from tangibly making less money to being socially looked down upon for wanting equal treatment as well as potentially still making less money. Bowels and Babcock took this a step further and performed multiple studies on negotiations to find the most efficient and less consequential outcomes possible. The results showed, “although adherence to the feminine stereotype is insufficient, using these ‘‘relational accounts’’ can improve women’s social and negotiation outcomes at the same time” (Bowels and Babcock). When women are fighting for higher pay the results are more positive when showing “womanly” qualities to the evaluator.
In the end of her research process June O’Neill in her article ‘Comparable-worth Adjustments?’ claimes that fairly, equal pay adjustments would be actually the right thing to do, but the economic consequences of the adjustment would subsequently be followed with the supply-demand component of the labour market economy, the United States embodies. The reasons behind this claim were that, “occupations dominated by female workers are paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs because of systematic discrimination against women” (O’Neill). This horrible, systematic discrimination O’Neill is talking about is clearly seen regularly in many industries, corporations and companies. Even though it is not fair, it is usually accepted that it is almost necessary in order for the economy to dominate without the interference of government action, demonstrated by the final results after realization of the comparable-worth salaries in the real workplace, “The largest relative declines in employment were in the occupations that received the largest comparable worth pay boosts”. Although it is fair, more jobs would simply get lost than the salaries increased.
In the article, Equal Work for Equal Pay: Not Even College Helps Women, Korva Coleman used the attractiveness of logotypes to utilize it to the fullest extent possible, when proving her claim about women getting paid less than men. Coleman presented results of multiple modern-day studies done on the scope at which women are paid less; brought to the attention the results in a very understandable and simple way using statistics and then the analysis to support her reasoning. This helps the reader comprehend the issue at hand and is able to see an example of the magnitude of the concern. Coleman uses argument from deduction; the audience forms a conclusion about the general topic from specific examples presented.
The two authors, Hannah Bowels and Linda Babcock, of the article How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer, used the appeal of pathos as the main support to their claim. Bowels and Babcock wanted women to have some guidance in getting around the gender wage gap by negotiating salaries. It took women’s natural tendencies: nurturing, concern, cooperation, etc. and used them to the advantage of the negotiator. Bowels and Babcock had value and motivational proofs, which are huge appeals to the audience, giving specific ways to get a particular result, and appealing to virtues at the same time. This presented a new form of plan-of-action to not necessarily solve the discrimination problem but a way to get around the issue, which can appeal to a wide variety of audiences emotionally.
The third appeal, ethos, was demonstrated and executed in the best sense in the article, Comparable-worth Adjustments? No., by author June O’Neill. O’Neill as a woman has a resume fit to be credible. Her background is a Professor of Economics, director for the Study of Business and Government, past director of Congressional Budget Office as well as Office of Policy and Research at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and as a senior economist with the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. (O’Neill). This makes O’Neill an expert on the subject of economics, which is fitting for the article written, and makes it almost impossible to question her claim and conclusions made regarding the comparable-worth scenario in the economy.
As a twenty year old woman studying at the College of Business at Colorado State University, the subject of Equal Work Equal Pay is especially interesting to me and my future. Entering the work force in approximately two years, it gives me hope for a possible breakthrough solution to this problem. As an educated woman, I wish to be treated equally on all fronts when I start my career. During my research, what I thought was going to come out as a cut and dried solution, actually resulted in a mere, there’s no right answer, yet. Obviously this form of discrimination is severely unjust and unacceptable, yet at this point in our modern-day society almost unavoidable. Hearing about this issue through the grape-vine, at school, at home, and on the news, it’s a dull buzz with no real solution being put to the test. There are amendments and laws supporting equal pay, yet results from my research show that the gender wage gap persists. (Coleman). The claim I make is more of a hope, a hope for us women to keep on proving the decade old stereotypes to be false; to accomplish just as much if not more than men. To continue striving for the best for ourselves, as well as stick to our feminine nature that makes us so special and unique to society. To raise men to appreciate the value of women; to expect nothing but intelligence, heart, compassion and hard work coming from the female gender. Time is the only answer right now and time will also show the results of hard work, to be equal one must demand equality. What I hope to find or interpret through experience and research are ways to make equality in the workplace abundant. Why must there be a barrier of gender when each company has a common goal, common objectives, and common reciprocating duties.