Category: Archive

I generally enjoy reading the articles on the Workforce site, even if I disagree with the conclusions or philosophy of the writer. I have even gotten used to the general anti-legislation, anti-union, pro-status quo tone of most articles. But Anita U. Hattiangadi’s current article on comparable worth is such an obvious step over the line, I must write to you in protest.

This article is not only shallow in its analysis (more on this in a moment), but is questionable in its purpose, giving rise to my conclusion that it was intended to both silence “uppity women” and to fuel the fires of the backlash made infamous by Susan Faludi. But why? Was Ms. Hattiangadi asked to write on this topic? Is this an area of special interest to her? Again, why? It doesn’t appear to me that comparable worth has made any great strides in recent years, so I see no real need to present “the other point of view” in this public forum.

As a feminist and a human resources professional, I am compelled to question statements and “myth de-bunkings” that are presented in such a cloud of mystery. Before I began this letter, I took a side trip to the web site of Ms. Hattiangadi’s employer, the Employment Policy Foundation, looking for a connection to ultra-conservative funding or some other explanation for the narrowness of the article. Although I did not find any specific information about which “130 major companies” sponsored the group, or background on the staff, I did find many more studies by economists on the staff, none of which had the same negative, severely-slanted tone as Ms. Hattiangadi’s.

Sure, they’re anti-legislation, anti-union and pro-status quo, but they don’t resort to the same types of freshman debate-like tactics embraced by Ms. Hattiangadi. So the mystery remains.

Now for a few words on the shallow analysis. While Ms. Hattiangadi uses the term “voodoo statistics” to describe claims of a gender pay gap, she offers few of her own statistics to explain her view of reality. The one citation of data she does share leads her to shrink the gap from 26 to 19 percent, and then directly to a quick conclusion of zero gap with a simple quip: “When all such differences are accounted for, the gap shrinks considerably, by some estimates to zero.” Where is the science in that statement?

Ms. Hattiangadi mentions other gaps that the reader will surely agree are acceptable, implying that age and talent are two of those other “such differences” leading to zero gap. This logic is not even logic; it is diversionary and misleading, and I’m again wondering why an economist would want to take the low road on this issue.

Ms. Hattiangadi does profess to believe that discrimination is wrong. However, by citing current law forbidding discrimination as proof that no other action or protection is necessary, she shows a notable lack of historical perspective in the realm of US employment law. It is no secret that the reason we have so many non-discrimination laws is that employers have found ways to get around the previously-passed laws, and that, despite a mind-boggling number of laws against it, discrimination remains.

We may disagree about how to eradicate it, and comparable worth programs may be misguided, but we must avoid discounting all claims of discrimination by way of such shoddy journalism as the article you feature this week. It is a disservice to women, certainly, and to all of us who are committed to promoting equal opportunity in the workplace.

It is obvious that your guest columnist has not been in the workplace any great length of time. Since I am in a position that views all salary ranges, I can tell you that she has bought into the male justification theory.

I can tell you that length of service, hours worked, grade level, make no difference in the manufacturing industry. Women at the same grade level as male counterparts, with more seniority, are paid less, period. I am truly disappointed that this article was posted.

I am a firm believer that many people think that adding statistical support to an emotional argument makes it a rational argument. All who deal with statistics know that they can confirm any notion.

Congratulations for having the courage to tackle this and other issues from the reasoned approach. I’m confident you will get many derogatory and emotional responses. Hold the course. I look forward to reading more of your articles. Good Luck.

Ms. Hattiangadi makes some important and perhaps even correct points in her essay regarding equal pay. I have two issues with her logic, however.

First, she complains that the “comparable worth” effort is too complicated and difficult to make a reality. So what? Shall we refuse to improve anything simply because it’s too hard to do? As a nation we already avoid doing the difficult things for expediency’s sake. Level of difficulty should not be the reason we don’t try to achieve something; we’re too happy with mediocrity as it is.

Second, she implies (or at least I infer) that, because equal treatment in the workplace is the law and has been since the passage of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, it must be the reality as well. If only (to borrow a phrase from today’s youth). The law prohibits sexual harassment–by her logic, therefore, it doesn’t happen. The law prohibits us from refusing to hire a minority simply because he is a minority–I guess, because it’s law, it never happens.

Civil rights laws prohibit us from killing people because of the color of their skin. Then I guess the truck-dragging in Texas never happened. The laws may be on the books, but individuals and corporations break those laws all the time. The mere existence of the laws in no way guarantees that the infractions occur. Ms. Hattiangadi also seems to forget, or at least to not want to admit, that in the not distant past. egregious inequalities occured, even after the laws were enacted.

Pay equity, whatever it means, is worth the effort. If it means that we have to study what’s going on out there and try to figure out if there is a fair way to pay nurses and construction workers, then we have to. The result is worth it. If the studies turn up to support Ms. Hattiangadi’s belief that pay is already equitable, great–but we need more information before we can come to that conclusion.

Ms. Hattiangadi’s essay reads a lot like the folks who say that the people in Malaysia (or pick any Third World country) are better off working for Nike ( or pick any US clothing manufacturer) at scrap wages and for 70 hours a week than they would be without the jobs. Heck, if we paid women more, they might actually decide not to leave the traditionally female jobs!

Sounds like “Heck, sure they are worked brutally hard for 25 cents a day, six days a week, but at least they have a job!” It’s very twisted logic that takes in absolutely no perspective of humanity.

Ms. Hattiangadi seems to believe that the world is an equal playing field. It isn’t. When black men can enter a store without immediately being suspected of being there to create trouble rather than buy something; when women can walk past a construction crew on lunch break without being verbally molested; and when poor school districts can still offer the same education quality and access to higher education–then, perhaps, she can claim an equal playing field. It isn’t yet, and we need to fix that before we throw in the towel because it’s too difficult and, after all, the laws’ mere existence must mean that we don’t have to do anything anyway.

Anita U. Hattiangadi’s article What’s My Line Worth? is the most reasoned and balanced article I have ever read on the subject of the difference between women’s and men’s pay.

In some organizations women are being paid less than men, but this article demolishes the conventional wisdom that all organizations pay women less. I applaud her research and the practical way she has applied the results of her research.

Too often in areas such as this the authors have an agenda (political, cultural, sociological or notoriety) which colors their rhetoric. However this should not lull us to sleep. Individuals should be paid a fair wage not necessarily on some arbitrary “comparable worth” scale.

I will add you to the list of voodoo women that have contributed to the suppression of other women since the beginning of time.

We can find an example of women who undeservedly whine about their lot in life everywhere we go. The next women will be the true statistic that works more than 40 hours, supporting the men that don’t pay her enough provide the American Dream for her family. They don’t whine as much because they don’t have time. Then you will find a self righteous, privileged, backstabber who will deny that we have a problem.

The good old boys have supported the good old boys that needed a break to support their dreams forever. Blacks try do give business to their African American community. Jews support each other every opportunity they get. Greeks support Greeks, Italians take care of each paisano. However, women will find an excuse to not support another women almost every time another women needs support. “Go Girl” is lip service for our fellow gender. Yes, sound the alarm, women are their own worst enemies.

Maybe you are too young to figure it out because you already bought into the story. Women have given up the rage, because it is politically incorrect to protest and they need to protect their own positions. Look where women were at the turn of the 20th century and then what happened when they sent the “Rose Riveters” home to have two baby boomers and gave “the boys” their jobs back. We took a mega step into the back seat and it has taken every minute since then to get a grip again.

Do we need laws against discrimination, and sexual harassment? You bet we do. We still don’t have an Equal Rights Amendment. It was defeated !!

Unemployment under Clinton is the lowest it has been since the war. Statistics look better because employers have to offer competitive wages to fill the jobs. What happens with the next step, job description, title, in the organization is up to the poll taker to measure. Who makes the decision, is it from HR, the CFO, the available gender pool, most qualified, good ol boy, a jealous woman?

Take the proceeds from your book and do some real analysis of how we got here, and why. Give the credit where it is deserved for the freedom of expression, compensation you enjoy and quit living in denial.

Dylan Thomas said “Rage, rage against the dying of the light and do not go gently into that goodnight.” We have a long way to go baby – please don’t surrender our rights to the battles most of us are still trying to win.

I read “What’s My Line Worth?” and was astonished that someone would even think about bucking the myth perpetuated by liberals, feminists and the unions. What’s more irritating is that it was all said by a YOUNG woman!

Someone needs to rein her in! What is this world coming to? How are the instigators of the “victim” culture going to stay in power unless the younger generation is indoctrinated? This article is not helping! I say BRAVO!

I just read the article on the purportedly mythical gender gap and it infuriated me. I found it to be incredibly one-sided, utterly lacking in facts and more of a forum to air the author’s views on comparable worth theory rather than the actual existence of the gender gap.

Ms. Hattiangadi offers no factual bases whatsoever for her opinions. The mere fact that she is an economist at the Employment Policy Foundation fails to lend credibility to her assertions, especially in light of her unabashed conservative viewpoint and thinly veiled agenda for attacking comparable worth theory.

Her analogy of women in the workplace being like 25 year olds and little league coaches versus men as 45 year olds and coaches of major league baseball teams is not only patently offensive but is also a faulty premise upon which she bases many of her opinions. Ms. Hattiangadi’s opinions are clear — if a woman is less experienced in a particular profession or works less hours than a man at the same job she should be paid less.

The issue of the propriety of employers’ failing to acknowledge or consider the overall benefit or societal necessity that a woman take time off or work reduced hours due to childbirth/child rearing when making decisions regarding hiring or pay is the problem that the comparable worth theory seeks to address.

This is an entirely separate issue from whether or not equally qualified women who work the same amount of hours are paid less than men are for doing the same job. This is the issue to which the gender gap speaks and is also the issue which Ms. Hattiangadi’s article fails to address. However, merely because the concept of comparative worth, as a method for addressing the gender gap, is problematic, does not mandate the conclusion that the gender gap itself does not exist.