Markets do not shrink pay gaps
Economic consultant Jim Rose demonstrates a real lack of understanding of pay equity in his article Pay equity unfair to fair bosses (Oct 2). However, he is not alone in his struggle to understand the concept, so this is a great opportunity to provide some more insight.
To begin with, the idea that the ‘‘market’’ generates massive wealth, widely distributed and ‘‘favours no individual’’ is simply without evidential basis. Research consistently tells us that markets, no matter how strong, have not narrowed the gender or ethnic pay gap within the same job, or even for those with the same level of education, let alone made any difference to those in femaledominated occupations.
Nor have they delivered wide and equitable distribution of wealth. Markets will pay and do what they can get away with, which is why we have labour laws and regulations to try to control and steer the market. If the market was indeed any kind of solution to gender and wage inequality, we would not have the systemic problems we have now.
Having said that, it is certainly true there are not many employers I know of sitting around plotting to employ more women as a way to save on wages. The disparity exists in a far less blunt fashion in most cases.
To put it simply, the skills, expertise, professionalism, risks and responsibilities of jobs held primarily by women are undervalued by employers, by communities and frequently even by those undertaking the work. Pay equity is centred on challenging our wider societal assumptions and norms, which employers consciously or unconsciously are perpetuating.
Women have been pushed and encouraged both subtly and not so subtly towards certain jobs throughout history – frequently in occupations with some of the most punishing schedules and hours of work.
I am sure we can all remember portrayals when we were young of the nurse as a kind young woman and the doctor as a serious, calm young man. These images go beyond giving us the message about who should be in these roles, but also speak to how skilled they are perceived to be.
Roles women heavily occupy are seen to be fulfilled by women’s ‘‘natural abilities’’, such as caring, empathy and kindness, at the expense of accounting for the professional skills being applied. This is where pay equity comes in. It is not about randomly grasping a female-dominated occupation and any old male-dominated one and saying, ‘‘Yep, we will have that pay rate, thanks’’. It’s a rigorous, robust and analytical process. It’s about ensuring a deep, nuanced understanding of the work undertaken by a female-dominated group and then moving to identify potential maledominated comparators, for whom you undertake the same process to acutely understand their work.
The point of this is not to assess whether the work is the same, but whether the work has comparable levels of skill, knowledge, responsibility, expertise and effort. Doing this requires strong methodology, validation and a commitment to follow the evidence.
This process was demonstrated successfully by the recent Oranga Tamariki/PSA social work case. It can take time, but is a process with integrity that can withstand scrutiny.
Women (and men in female-dominated occupations) have subsidised employers for far too long by having their skills essentially either written off or undervalued. Pay equity not only corrects this but values essential professions and what skills are needed to do them well.
It is disingenuous to link fair pay with the inability to get more staff, particularly in social work and mental health. All of the occupations that have settled pay equity are actively recruiting staff – they need to grow and now can attract people more easily. It’s a ‘‘win-win’’.