Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118567848
label
JGR/Comparable Worth (3 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118567848
contentType
document
title
JGR/Comparable Worth (3 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118567848
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6eb385869788d7c0
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Comparable Worth (3)
Box: 11
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name ROBERTS, JOHN G.: FILES
Withdrawer
CAS
8/25/2005
File Folder
JGR/COMPARABLE WORTH (3 OF 3)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
40LOJ
Doc
Doc Type
Document Description
No of
Doc Date Restrictions
No
Pages
1
LIST
OF "NOT ASKED YET" ITEMS (PARTIAL)
1 2/24/1984 B6
1127
2 LIST
OF "NEED FOLLOW-UP" (THIS
1 2/24/1984 B6
1128
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RELEASED IN
WHOLE)
3
LIST
DRAFT OF POSSIBLE SUBJECTS OF
2 2/16/1984 B6
1129
QUESTIONS IN MEESE CONFIRMATION
HEARINGS (P.1 RELEASE, P. 2 PARTIAL)
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
24 February 1984
Not asked yet:
1.
FDIA(b) (6)
2. Heritage letter
3. Army Reserve promotion
4. Ursula Meese's job
5. Duffy
6.
holdings and conflict while at White House
Bb
JGR 7. Wick taping
8. Funding: transition team reports
9. Citizens for the Republic, Pacific Legal Foundation
10. Transition contact re: Donovan between Webster and EM
11. Selective Prosecution
12. Quote re: James Rector: deserved to die"
Comparable Worth Decision
On December 14, 1983, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Tanner, J.) issued
an opinion embracing the concept of "equal pay for work of
comparable worth,' ruling in favor of female employees who
had filed a suit against the State of Washington. The State
is appealing to the Ninth Circuit; the Department of Justice,
which was not involved below, is considering whether to
intervene.
The concept of "Equal pay for work of comparable worth"
goes beyond "equal pay for equal work. The Administration
clearly supports "equal pay for equal work." The comparable
worth theory, however, contends that discrimination exists
because workers in jobs held primarily by women are paid
less than workers in jobs held primarily by men, even though
- supporters of the theory argue -- the jobs are somehow
"worth" the same. "Equal pay for equal work" requires that
female truck drivers be paid the same as male truck drivers.
The comparable worth theory, however, would require that
laundry workers -- mostly female -- be paid the same as
truck drivers -- mostly male -- because their jobs are
"worth" about the same.
Supporters of the theory note that women in the work-
force still only earn about $0.60 for every dollar earned by
men, and contend that this is the result of systematic
depression of wages in jobs held primarily by women.
Opponents respond that the disparity in gross wage
rates is not caused by discrimination but is due to the fact
that women frequently leave the workforce for extended
periods of time (primarily to have and raise children), and
the fact that seniority favors men simply because they have
been in the workforce longer than most women. Opponents
also contend that it is impossible to assess the "worth" of
disparate jobs, and that for judges to attempt to do so --
and to dictate wage rates based on their evaluation -- would
constitute a radical departure from the open market system
of setting wage rates in a free economy. Further, those
opposed to the comparable worth theory note that Congress
considered and rejected the theory in the course of passing
both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
The question of whether the United States should
intervene in the case is currently being considered within
the Justice Department. It would, accordingly, be inappro-
priate for the President to express any views at this time.
Grove City College Decision
On February 28, 1984, the United States Supreme Court
issued its opinion in Grove City College V. Bell. The case
raised the question whether Federal grants to students
constituted "Federal financial assistance" to colleges
attended by those students, thereby triggering the coverage
of Title IX. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis
of gender in programs receiving "Federal financial assistance."
The Justice Department argued that Federal grants to
students did trigger the coverage of Title IX. The Supreme
Court agreed. The Supreme Court's acceptance of the Justice
Department's position thus represents a major victory in the
fight against sex discrimination, by establishing that Title
IX coverage is triggered by student grants.
The case also raised the question of how broadly Title
IX applied, once it was established that the statute was
triggered by student grants. The Justice Department argued,
and the Supreme Court agreed, that student grants triggered
Title IX coverage of the student financial aid program, not
the institution as a whole. This conclusion was compelled
by the so-called "program specificity" requirement Congress
wrote into Title IX when it drafted that statute.
If asked about Grove City, the President can state that
he was pleased that the Supreme Court agreed with the
Justice Department that student grants triggered coverage of
Title IX. That was the main issue in the case. While some
women's groups are upset about the Court's decision limiting
coverage to the financial aid program, that limitation is
compelled by the program specificity requirement in the
statute.
If asked if he would support an effort to overturn the
program specificity requirement in Congress, the President
should be non-committal, saying he would have to wait and
see what Congress proposes before commenting.
Comparable Worth Decision
On December 14, 1983, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Tanner, J.) issued
an opinion embracing the concept of "equal pay for work of
comparable worth", ruling in favor of female employees who
had filed a suit against the State of Washington. The State
is appealing to the Ninth Circuit; the Department of Justice,
which was not involved below, is considering whether to
intervene.
The concept of "Equal pay for work of comparable worth"
goes beyond "equal pay for equal work.' The Administration
clearly supports "equal pay for equal work." The comparable
worth theory, however, contends that discrimination exists
because workers in jobs held primarily by women are paid
less than workers in jobs held primarily by men, even though
-- supporters of the theory argue -- the jobs are somehow
"worth" the same. "Equal pay for equal work" requires that
female truck drivers be paid the same as male truck drivers.
The comparable worth theory, however, would require that
laundry workers -- mostly female -- be paid the same as
truck drivers -- mostly male -- because their jobs are
"worth" about the same.
Supporters of the theory note that women in the work-
force still only earn about $0.60 for every dollar earned by
men, and contend that this is the result of systematic
depression of wages in jobs held primarily by women.
Opponents respond that the disparity in gross wage
rates is not caused by discrimination but is due to the fact
that women frequently leave the workforce for extended
periods of time (primarily to have and raise children), and
the fact that seniority favors men simply because they have
been in the workforce longer than most women. Opponents
also contend that it is impossible to assess the "worth" of
disparate jobs, and that for judges to attempt to do so --
and to dictate wage rates based on their evaluation -- would
constitute a radical departure from the open market system
of setting wage rates in a free economy. Further, those
opposed to the comparable worth theory note that Congress
considered and rejected the theory in the course of passing
both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
The question of whether the United States should
intervene in the case is currently being considered within
the Justice Department. It would, accordingly, be inappro-
priate for Mr. Meese to express any views on the matter, not
only because it is the subject of pending litigation but
also because any expression of views by Mr. Meese at this
stage could disrupt the careful consideration of the legal
issues by the Justice Department.
FCC Syndication and Financial Interest Rule Controversy
On September 28, 1983, FCC Chairman Mark Fowler met in
the Oval Office with the President and several other Adminis-
tration officials (including Mr. Meese) to discuss the
issues surrounding the FCC syndication and financial interest
rule. Some have alleged that the meeting was improper,
because the FCC, an independent regulatory agency, was
considering whether to repeal the rule.
The syndication and financial interest rule prohibits
the three television networks from financing production of
television programs or otherwise becoming involved in
program syndication. It was intended to prevent the three
networks from acquiring excessively dominant positions in
the production business, the theory being that networks
would only show programs in which they had a financial
interest. The issue generated a major debate between the
networks (favoring repeal) and the major production studios
and Hollywood establishment (opposing repeal). The FCC in
fact decided to repeal the rule, partly on the ground that
developments such as cable television eroded the potential
for network dominance.
The Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, and
the FTC supported repeal. After announcement of the FCC
decision, however, the Administration supported a legislative
moratorium on repeal to provide an opportunity for further
study of the issues.
There was nothing improper about Fowler's meeting with
the President. Fowler requested the meeting to brief the
President on the issues; the meeting was not requested by
the President and was not used to pressure the FCC in any
way. The question of repeal of the rule raised broad policy
issues beyond any pending matter before the FCC, and it is
not inappropriate for the President to meet with independent
regulators on such issues.
No fair observer can say the meeting affected the FCC
decision. At the time of the meeting the FCC had already
announced a tentative decision in favor of repeal, and that
was its final decision.
Wick Taping
Early this year, it became known that Charles Z. Wick,
head of the United States Information Agency, taped telephone
conversations without advising the other party to the
conversation.
Wick explained that he recorded conservations solely to
facilitate appropriate follow-up and ensure accuracy, and
that the recording was an outgrowth of his practice of using
a dictaphone to record his own thoughts and directives to
subordinates. He has ceased the practice and apologized to
all concerned.
Recordingly telephone conversations without the consent
of the other party is not illegal under Federal law, nor
under the law of the District of Columbia. It is illegal in
a minority of States. Such recording on government telephones
is, however, a violation of GSA regulations, except in
certain limited circumstances. USIA and GSA are now working
on means of securing effective implementation of the GSA
regulations.
Mr. Meese can state, if asked, that he does not approve
of the practice of recording conversations without the
consent of all parties, and that he neither has engaged nor
would engage in the practice. The Administration has
announced that it does not condone such recording. This
policy, of course, does not apply to legitimate law enforcement
or national security activities (such as wiretaps) conducted
within the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment and other
applicable guidelines.
White Collar Crime
The Administration remains firmly committed to the
investigation and prosecution of so-called "white collar
crime. " The effort to expand the Justice Department's role
in the fight against violent crime in no way signals a
lessened commitment to fighting white collar crime.
The focus on organized crime cases, and following the
"money trail" in high-level drug cases, are examples of
successful initiatives in the white collar crime area. So
is the criminal prosecution of contractors for bid-rigging,
an effort that has resulted in many convictions with jail
time.
o
The Department is also very active in the area of
public corruption cases.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
Roberts, John
LOJ 8/9/2005
File Folder
FOIA
JGR/COMPARABLE WORTH (3 OF 3)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
40LOJ
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO
Document Description
pages
tions
1
LIST
1 2/24/1984 B6
1127
OF "NOT ASKED YET" ITEMS
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
Roberts, John
LOJ 8/9/2005
File Folder
FOIA
JGR/COMPARABLE WORTH (3 OF 3)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
40LOJ
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
2 LIST
1
2/24/1984 B6
1128
OF "NEED FOLLOW-UP"
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
Roberts, John
LOJ 8/9/2005
File Folder
FOIA
JGR/COMPARABLE WORTH (3 OF 3)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
40LOJ
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO
Document Description
pages
tions
3 LIST
2 2/16/1984 B6
1129
DRAFT OF POSSIBLE SUBJECTS OF QUESTIONS
IN MEESE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
24 February 1984
Need Follow-up:
1. Executive Privilege
JGR 2. Comparable worth equal pay - and month
SMC 3. Voting Rights Act
PJR 4. Women's Issues
5. Bob Jones Scenario
6. Civil Rights (standard for finding discrimination
JGR 7. White Collar Crime ( organil crime, public comption, thanker
of high tech
HLG 8. Recusal of AG (DOJ regulations)
PJR
9. Peace Corps: abortions
POR 10. Hunger/grate people
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 26, 1984
Dear Ms. Carpenter:
Thank you for your letter to the President concerning the
Washington State comparable worth case. That letter has
been referred to this office by Lee L. Verstandig, Assistant
to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. In that
letter you urged that the Administration intervene in the
case in support of the decision below.
I trust you will understand that, as a matter of policy, the
White House refrains from commenting upon pending litigation.
I can advise you, however, that the question of possible
involvement by the United States in the comparable worth
case is being reviewed within the Department of Justice.
Any decision reached by that Department will of course be
based on the merits of the case without regard to political
considerations.
We appreciate having the benefit of your views on this
question.
Sincerely,
Johnsbobart
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
The Honorable Dorothy Carpenter
Member of the House of Representatives
of the State of Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 26, 1984
Dear Ms. Hoffman-Bright:
Thank you for your letter to the President concerning the
Washington State comparable worth case. That letter has
been referred to this office by Lee L. Verstandig, Assistant
to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. In that
letter you urged that the Administration intervene in the
case in support of the decision below.
I trust you will understand that, as a matter of policy, the
White House refrains from commenting upon pending litigation.
I can advise you, however, that the question of possible
involvement by the United States in the comparable worth
case is being reviewed within the Department of Justice.
Any decision reached by that Department will of course be
based on the merits of the case without regard to political
considerations.
We appreciate having the benefit of your views on this
question.
Sincerely,
Johnsoldert
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
The Honorable Betty Hoffman-Bright
Member of the House of Representatives
of the State of Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 26, 1984
Dear Ms. Clark:
Thank you for your letter to the President concerning the
Washington State comparable worth case. That letter has
been referred to this office by Lee L. Verstandig, Assistant
to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. In that
letter you urged that the Administration intervene in the
case in support of the decision below.
I trust you will understand that, as a matter of policy, the
White House refrains from commenting upon pending litigation.
I can advise you, however, that the question of possible
involvement by the United States in the comparable worth
case is being reviewed within the Department of Justice.
Any decision reached by that Department will of course be
based on the merits of the case without regard to political
considerations.
We appreciate having the benefit of your views on this
question.
Sincerely,
Johnsobert
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
The Honorable Betty J. Clark
Member of the House of Representatives
of the State of Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 26, 1984
Dear Ms. Mullins:
Thank you for your letter to the President concerning the
Washington State comparable worth case. That letter has
been referred to this office by Lee L. Verstandig, Assistant
to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. In that
letter you urged that the Administration intervene in the
case in support of the decision below.
I trust you will understand that, as a matter of policy, the
White House refrains from commenting upon pending litigation.
I can advise you, however, that the question of possible
involvement by the United States in the comparable worth
case is being reviewed within the Department of Justice.
Any decision reached by that Department will of course be
based on the merits of the case without regard to political
considerations.
We appreciate having the benefit of your views on this
question.
Sincerely,
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
The Honorable Sue Mullins
Member of the House of Representatives
of the State of Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
DH offers "D
white House Counsel
ID# 196474
Not: Please send
THE WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
each signer
a letter. - 4 u ters.
INCOMING
DATE RECEIVED: FEBRUARY 09, 1984
NAME OF CORRESPONDENT: THE HONORABLE BETTY J. CLARK
SUBJECT URGES INTERVENTION IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGE'S
RULING IN THE WASHINGTON STATE COMPARABLE
WORTH CASE
ACTION
DISPOSITION
ROUTE TO:
ACT
DATE
TYPE C COMPLETED
OFFICE/AGENCY
(STAFF NAME)
CODE YY/MM/DD RESP D YY/MM/DD
ROBERT GLEASON
ORG 84/02/09 LV
REFERRAL NOTE:
FIEL
A 84102121
/ /
WAT18
REFERRAL NOTE:
R 84/03/22
584104103
REFERRAL NOTE:
/ /
/ /
REFERRAL NOTE:
/ /
/ /
REFERRAL NOTE:
COMMENTS: adenon Pedspment sent tsall segness
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENTS:
MEDIA:L INDIVIDUAL CODES: 2200
IA MAIL
USER CODES: (A)
(B)
(C)
*ACTION CODES:
*DISPOSITION CODES:
*OUTGOING
*
*
*
* CORRESPONDENCE
*
*A-APPROPRIATE ACTION
*A-ANSWERED
*TYPE RESP=INITIALS
*
*C-COMMENT/RECOM
*B-NON-SPEC-REFERRAL
*
OF SIGNER
*
*D-DRAFT RESPONSE
*C-COMPLETED
*
CODE = A
*
*F-FURNISH FACT SHEET
*S-SUSPENDED
*COMPLETED = DATE OF
*
*I-INFO COPY/NO ACT NEC*
*
OUTGOING
*
*R-DIRECT REPLY W/COPY *
*
*
*S-FOR-SIGNATURE
*
*
*X-INTERIM REPLY
*
*
REFER QUESTIONS AND ROUTING UPDATES TO CENTRAL REFERENCE
(ROOM 75, OEOB) EXT. 2590
KEEP THIS WORKSHEET ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL INCOMING
LETTER AT ALL TIMES AND SEND COMPLETED RECORD TO RECORDS
MANAGEMENT.
[February 16, 1984 Draft]
POSSIBLE SUBJECTS OF QUESTIONS
IN MEESE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Possible Involvement in Litigation Decisions
Bob Jones University case and related matters on tax
exemptions for racially discriminatory schools
Grove City College case and related matters on Title IX
Norris case and related matters on pension equity for
women
Government's position in recent abortion cases
School desegregation cases
Detroit police case and related quota/affirmative action
matters
Other Issues Generally Related to Justice, Civil Rights, etc.
Civil Rights Commission appointments, negotiations,
legislation, including claims that White House/Meese
"reneged" on commitments to appoint certain individuals
Voting Rights Act compromise, extension
Legal Services Corporation recess appointments, attempts
to abolish
National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") 84 on
leaks, including provisions on contacts with media, use
of polygraphs and pre-publication review
Selective Service matters, including claims of "selective"
prosecution, use of Social Security numbers and informa-
tion from other Government agencies for enforcement
Exclusionary rule proposals
Executive privilege controversies involving Interior
Secretary Watt, EPA Administrator Burford, EPA Assistant
Administration Lavelle
Participation in judicial selection decisions
-2-
Public Comments on Controversial Issues
PJR
ACLU as a "criminals lobby"
PJR
Hunger comments, and involvement with Task Force
Other Matters
Promotion to Colonel in Army Reserves, duties in
Selective Service area
(6)
San Diego Sheriff John F. Duffy and Organized Crime
Commission
Debate briefing book matter, campaign documents
Dealings with Stanford on Reagan Presidential Library
Involvement in telecommunications policy while owning
AT&T stock
JGR
Taped conversation (s) with USIA Director Wick
Great Plains Synfuels project
Transition Team reports, funding
FBI background investigation of Secretary Donovan,
meeting with Director Webster
568
FCC network syndication rule controversy
Fash legislate
Involvement with Citizens for the Republic; Citizens for
repoting
the Republic Foundation; Pacific Legal Foundation;
Institute for Contemporary Studies; Heritage Foundation
Appointment of Arthur F. Van Court as U.S. Marshal for
the Eastern District of California
fate. comparable worth
DATE: 1-27-1
The Washington Post
PAGE:
C/
Forcing Equal Pay for Different
Work Is a Bad Idea
By William French Smith
STAYSKAL
BULLETINS
8/CH/CAGO
TRIBUIE
C
OMPARABLE WORTH, or equal pay
for different work, is emerging as one
of the most controversial labor issues
of the 1980s. On Jan. 3, legislation was in-
WOMEN'S
troduced in Congress to authorize a study of
PAY ONLY
alleged pay disparities between civil service
60% OF
jobs held mainly by men and ones primarily
MEN'S
performed by women. A similar bill was
passed last year by the House.
Legislatures in several states, including
Minnesota and lowa, have recently passed
measures seeking the adoption of compara-
FILING
ble worth in state pay practices. Legislatures
in a number of other states including Neva-
da, Rhode Island and Virginia have either au-
thorized or passed resolutions calling for
comparable worth studies of state employ-
ment. In California, Connecticut, Hawaii and
Illinois, public employes are in federal court,
STAYSKAL IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
charging their employers (in most cases, the
states) with violations of federal law that
"And just guess which one's salary we're getting 60 percent of?"
they believe already requires equal pay for
jobs of allegedly comparable value.
Meanwhile, in New Haven, Conn., the
They argue that the "female" jobs
vocates say, comparable worth is not the
are worth at least as much to em-
comparable worth movement has made its
same as equal pay for equal work. Equal pay
ployers or society as the "male"
most publicized stand in the private sector.
for equal work means that two printers, one
ones. The explanation for the differ-
Seeking more pay in contract negotiations
male and one female, who do the same work
ence in pay, they assert, must be
with Yale University, the school's clerical
for the same employer, should be paid the
sex-based discrimination. Ratcheting
same. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 affirms
salary schedules upwards so that the
William French Smith is attorney general of
this principle of basic fairness. No one ques-
famale jobs are paid a much as the
the United States.
tions its validity, and this administration
male ones is the remedy proposed
wholeheartedly supports it.
by advocates of comparable worth.
and technical workers, who are predomi-
Comparable worth incarnates a far differ-
Thus, in a case pending in the
mantly female, have publicly couched their
ent principle - that two jobs, one per-
U.S. District Court for the District
demands in terms of the equal pay for differ-
formed mostly by women, the other mostly
of Oregon, it has been alleged that
ent work debate. For example, it was said
by men, which are not identical but are al-
university teachers in the "female"
that Yale's administrative assistants, who
leged to be "comparable" in value to em-
fields of nursing, dental hygiene,
are mostly female and make on average
ployers or society, should pay the same
secretarial science, business educa-
$13,424, do work at least as valuable to the
wage.
tion and teacher education should be
university as its truck drivers, who are
In a case pending in a federal district court
paid as well as those in the "male"
mostly men and make on average $18,470.
in Michigan, for example, secretaries, almost
fields of medicine, dentistry, busi-
all of whom are female and are paid $12,882
ness administration and education
Comparable worth has gained a degree of
to $16,432 annually, are said to perform jobs
administration.
popularity in some circles. But in our view,
of as much worth as those held by mainte-
Congress has never passed a law
comparable worth cannot be justified on any
nance mechanics, who are all male and earn
ground legal, economic or policy. It-does
from $15,868 to $19,961 a year. Not equal
not merit adoption by the public sector, and
pay for equal work but equal pay for work of
one can be sure of this: It would enter the
allegedly comparable worth indeed, dif-
private sector only by government mandate.
ferent work - that is the idea involved.
What is comparable worth, and why is it
Comparable worth proponents note that
said that we need it? Contrary to what its ad-
jobs traditionally held by women nursing,
cant.
secretarial and other office jobs, for example
- have paid less than those traditionally
performed by men, such as plumbing, engi-
neering and maintenance.
3
mandating comparable worth in any
Interpretation of the law, for the mo-
No one can seriously consider
from or fashion, yet the federal ju-
ment, in the hands of the circuit
comparable worth without reflecting
diciary. as in the Michigan and Ore-
courts of appeals. To date, the six
on the practical problems it would
gon examples, is being invited to
courts of appeals to rule on com-
raise. A comparable worth bureauc-
read comparable worth into Title
parable worth claims have unani-
racy made up of governmnt offi-
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
mously rejected them.
cials, lawyers and judges - would
which states that it is unlawful for an
Not only is comparable not
determine which jobs are, in effect,
employer "to discriminate against
the law, it plainly shouldn't be. Com-
"male" and which "female." But is a
any individual with respect to his
parable worth would reverse the
"male" or "female" job one in which
compensation
because of such
long overdue trend toward more
70 percent of those performing the
individual's sex." A comparable
cost-efficient government and freer
job are men or women, as one com-
worth interpretation of Title VII,
labor markets. In the public sector,
parable worth proponent has said?
however, does not square with the
comparable worth would only fur-
Why not 80 percent, as another
intent of the law.
ther reduce, if not eliminate alto-
comparable worth study concludes?
Title VII can be understood only
gether, the influence of the market-
For that matter, why not 90? Why
in light of the Equal Pay Act of
place on determining the pay of civil
not 60? Or 69, or 71? And what hap-
1963. In passing that law, Congress
servants. Applied to the private sec-
thoroughly considered and specifi-
tor, comparable worth would
pens when, whatever percentage is
cally rejected proposals covering
dramatically increase government
chosen, it begins to slip? Is the job in
jobs of a "comparable" character.
influence upon the workings of the
quetion still a "male" or "female"
Instead. Congress drew a circle
marketplace by disrupting the cur-
job?
around the one area where discrimi-
natory treatment could reasonably
rent mixed system of supply and de-
Further, there is the problem of
mand (including the effects of
figuring out the "worth" of each job.
be presumed - men and women
competition from abroad), collective
How does one say which job is worth
doing the same work but receiving
more or less than another one? Obvi-
unequal pay and outlawed such
bargaining contracts and state and
ously, one person's criteria for job
differentials.
federal rules (such as the minimum-
"worthiness" may not be another's.
The Equal Pay Act was just that
- a guarantee that equal work
wage law) that determine private
And it is hardly clear how the cri-
would be equally compensated.
sector pay.
teria of any person who has the task
of determining the value of jobs
There is nothing in the record to
C
omparable worth is plainly a
should be evaluated. Not only the
suggest that this sense of Congress
very bureaucractic and most
criteria, but also the weight assigned
changed during the subsequent
expensive proposition. At the
to each criterion, are subjective mat-
months as it debated and passed into
federal level, no existing bureauc-
ters.
law Title VII.
racy has the time or manpower even
Most fundamentally, there is the
So far, only one federal court, in
to attempt an implementation of
question of who is to make all of
the Western District of Washington,
comparable worth. A new agency
these determinations. Who is to say
has gone beyond the intent of Title
would have to be created, and it
which jobs are "male" or "female,"
VII by adopting a comparable worth
would dictate "comparability" stand-
which jobs are "worth" more than
interpretation. Last year, in a much-
ards, order subsequent adjustments
others, how many points to assign to
discussed case brought by the
and oversee the implementation of
this job as opposed to that one and
American Federation of State,
every jot and tittle of its various
how then to evaluate the points as-
County and Municipal Employes
commands. The regulation compara-
signed? And why should anyone
against the State of Washington,
ble worth implies for the private
want to give these arbitrary tasks to
that court found the state liable for
sector would exceed the scope and
government bureaucracies? Who is
sex-biased pay discrimination
influence of any it currently experi-
government to say that administra-
against women under Title VII. The
ences.
tive assistants and truck drivers, or
court ordered the state to increase
In the public sector, comparable
nurses and mechanics, should be
the salaries of all employes, male
worth costs would be passed on to
paid the same? It is not clear that
and female, in jobs held mostly by
the already overburdened taxpayers;
government would determine pay
women, to levels commensurate
if the decision in the AFSCME case
scales in a more competent manner
with their rating in a state-spon-
is not reversed, the cost to the state
than now exists. Moreover, only the
sored comparable worth study con-
of Washington (read: Washington
naive could suppose that comparable
ducted in 1973.
taxpayers) is reliably estimated to
worth bureaucracies would be unaf-
The AFSCME case is now pend-
be $400 million in the first year of
fected by political considerations as
ing before the U.S. Court of Appeals
'implementation and $60 million ever
they assign points and evaluate jobs.
for the Ninth Circuit, which in 1984
year thereafter. In the private sec-
rejected a comparable worth claim
tor, comparable worth costs also
by the predominately female nursing
would be passed on to the taxpayers
faculty of the University of Washing-
in the form of higher prices.
C
omparable worth is an idea
rich in irony. Advanced in the
ton. The Supreme Court decided not
name of women's equality, it
This might not be the only cost.
to review this decision, thus leaving
would require government's labeling
With the price of certain types of
some jobs as "male" and others as
labor increased by government fiat,
"female." Furthermore, those who
employers might well decide to buy
would benefit from comparable
less of that labor. Employment in
worth would be, as the Washington
areas affected by comparable worth
state case illustrates, not only the
decisions would then decline, as
females who fill "female" jobs, but
would total output. The darkness
also the males in those jobs. Com-
one sees at the end of the compara-
ble worth tunnel is economic de-
cline.
a4
coat.
parable worth, whatever else may
be said against it, is overinclusive in
terms of those who would benefit
relative to (the plaintiffs] are the re-
matic inroads into jobs traditionally
from it.
sult of special skill, hard work and
held by men. One reason for this
There is also the irony that com-
the nondiscriminatory forces of sup-
trend, no doubt, is the very willing-
parable worth, if implemented,
ply and demand."
ness of many women to "challenge
would reduce the incentives for
The group of women also states
stereotypes and perform jobs tradi-
women to move out of jobs tradition-
"a direct interest" in preserving the
tionally occupied by males."
ally held by their sex into those long
present system of compensation,
Surely there is no reason to
held by men.
which "rewards them for their spe-
change this trend by jettisoning cur-
The increased pay in traditionally
cial skills; their performance of
rent public policy in favor of com-
female jobs would encourage women
particularly difficult, dangerous or
parable worth. Aggressive enforce-
to stay in those jobs and could lead
unpleasant work, and their willing-
ment of Title VII to ensure women
to an oversupply of workers for cer-
ness to challenge stereotypes and
equal employment opportunties,
tain occupations.
perform jobs traditionally occupied
combined with vigorous enforce-
A case pending in federal court in
by males."
ment of the Equal Pay Act, remains
Illinois demonstrates the far-from-
These Illinois women represent
the best means of securing the great
unreasonable fear of some women
the healthy trend of the past two de-
goal of equal employment oppor-
that comparable worth could even
cades, during which the work force
tunity and equitable employer treat-
reduce the salaries paid to women
has become more and more inte-
ment for all Americans, regardless
who move into "male" occupations.
grated, with women making dra-
of sex.
In a complaint brought by the Amer-
ican Nurses Association and others
against the state of Illinois, it is al-
leged that the state uses "a sex-
biased system of pay and classifica-
tion which results in and perpetu-
ates discrimination in compensa-
tion" against those employed in oc-
cupations historically held mostly by
women, such as nursing, health
technician, switchboard operator
and clerk typist. The complaint cites
an official study commissioned by
the state concluding that "female"
jobs possess greater value than cer-
tain "male" jobs and are paid less.
For example, the study rated nurse
IV above electrician, but the nursing
job pays an average monthly salary
of $2,104 and the electrician job
paid $2,826.
It is obvious, however, that many
women in Illinois disagree with this
study and indeed with the whole idea
of comparable worth. Fifteen
women, all of whom hold jobs tradi-
tionally performed by men, have re-
cently asked the court for permis-
sion to join the state as defendants.
According to the state's comparable
worth study, the jobs these women
hold as correctional officers, a se-
curity officer, an accountant and an
office manager - should be, in ef-
fect, devalued. These women be-
lieve that if the decision in this case
requires the implementation of the
comparable worth study, their pay
checks will be smaller.
In their filing with the court these
15 women deny "that they are bene-
ficiaries of sex discrimination, or are
overpaid.
On the contrary, any
favorable salary positions they enjoy