Pictures from Equal Pay Day actions in Leuven. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
While there have been considerable improvements in the gender gap, women still lag behind men in regards to pay even in Western countries such as the United States. In the United States, the median income for women workers is 80% of that of the median for men. This is an improvement from the 75% figure of 1989, but is still a matter of concern. At the CEO level the disparity, oddly enough, increases: women CEOs make about 72% of what their male colleagues earn.
While there have been repeated failed efforts to get an equal rights amendment, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has provided women with legal grounds in regards to addressing the matter of unequal pay.
On the face of it, it would seem that women are morally entitled to the same pay as men, provided that the relevant factors are the same. This is, of course, based on the principle of relevant difference: a difference in treatment is only morally justified when it is grounded by a relevant difference. For example, if Mike is paid more than Sally because Mike is a full professor and Sally is an assistant professor, then that difference would be relevant and the pay disparity could be thus justified. However, if Mike and Sally were both full professors and Sally was paid less solely because she was a woman, then that would certainly not be a relevant difference and hence would be unfair.
This view can, of course, be countered. One option is to argue that a person’s biological sex is a relevant difference such that even if all other factors were identical, a woman could be justly paid less solely because she is a woman. This seems rather difficult to justify. To use an analogy, it would be somewhat like saying that if a man and a woman raced and they ran identical times (that is, crossed the finish line at the same moment), then the woman would lose because she was a woman, even though everything else was the same. This seems rather absurd as does the idea that a woman would justly deserve less just because she is a woman.
Another option is to argue that women have properties as women that actually are relevant to being paid less. Roughly put, the idea is that women will generally perform at a level that is inferior to men because of the qualities they have because they are women. To go with another sports analogy, on average men are considerably faster than women in running. For example, the world record for men in the marathon is 2:03 and for women 2:15 (my best is 2:45). This is not due to any injustice but to the physical differences between the sexes.
This line of reasoning does have considerable appeal. After all, if the work performance of women is inferior to that of men, then they would justly be paid less and this disparity would show up in the overall statistics. If it is countered that some women are superior to some men, the obvious reply is that this is still consistent with the general disparity. After all, Paula Radcliffe’s best marathon time crushes mine by 30 minutes, but she is still about 12 minutes behind Patrick Makau Musyoki and the average women’s time in the marathon is slower than that of the men. Likewise, while Sally might be superior to Sam, male workers might be superior to female workers, thus justifying the disparity.
This line of reasoning can, of course, be countered by showing that the actual performance of women is at least comparable to that of men and thus the pay disparity is unjust. Also, if it can be shown that individual men and women have comparable performances, then individual salary disparities that are gender based would be unjust. That is, if Sally and Sam have the same work performance and so on, then they should have roughly the same pay.
As might be imagined, I think that men and women do have comparable job performances and that a person’s biological sex does not warrant pay disparities. That is, being a woman does not entail that the person is an inferior worker. This is, of course, an empirical matter and subject to proper investigation. Naturally, if an objective and adequate assessment shows that one sex is inferior to another in relevant ways, then the disparity would be warranted.
Another approach, argued for by Representative Todd Akin (the same person who claimed that the female reproductive system has defense mechanisms against being impregnated by legitimate rape) is that employers should have the right to pay women less than men. Akin said, “I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom. If somebody wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.”
On the one hand, this does have some appeal. After all, for the state to impose salary rules on employers would certainly seem to interfere with their freedom to create employment contracts specifying pay. People do, of course, argue that in a free market people can always decide to not accept a salary and go elsewhere to earn a more desirable salary. As such, if an employer wants to pay women less than men, then women can go work for an employer that pays women better. A woman could even start her own business and pay women as well as (or better than) men. Naturally, the same freedom would seem to apply broadly so that an employer should not be forced to pay a minimum wage or provide any benefits that could be considered part of the compensation.
On the other hand, there are some serious points of concern. First, the typical employee operates from a position of weakness relative to the employer, thus the market is not free but operating in favor of the employer. This fact can be used to argue that employees can justly turn to unions or the state to help ensure that the wage market is actually free and that one side does not have an unjust advantage. Part of ensuring the free market could thus involve minimum wage and equal pay for equal work laws. History show quite clearly what happens when employers are able to set their pay with complete freedom. Second, the idea that women workers can always go elsewhere and receive better pay or start their own business is rather unrealistic. After all, if most employers pay women less than men, this would leave women with few options. Also, the odds of a new business succeeding tend to be rather low so this option is hardly one that most women can use. Third, there is also the matter of ethics. While some might hold that employers should have the freedom (or right) to pay workers as they please without the interference of the state, this same logic would seem to grant individuals the freedom to steal from employers (or anyone). After all, if an employer should have the freedom to pay workers less than the value of their work, then they are stealing for the workers. If this theft is morally acceptable, then so too would be theft from the employers. After all, if the employer has the freedom to engage in unjust acts, then it would seem to follow that the same freedom could be claimed by everyone, thus allowing people the freedom to rob employers.
It might be countered that the workers agree to the pay and hence they are not being robbed. This would be true if the workers freely entered into the agreement and there were no elements of coercion. However, if the workers are coerced into these agreements (as can occur when there is a disparity in power) then this is theft. After all, if a person “agrees” to hand me some of his property because he knows I have a gun, then I am still stealing. Likewise, if people have to work to survive and face a coercive economic system, then they can be robbed even when they “agree” to accept what they are offered.
Interestingly, an analogy can also be drawn to rape. If a woman “agrees” to have sex with a man because he has the power to push her into that “agreement”, then it might not be “forcible rape” but it would certainly seem to be rape. To argue that the man should have the freedom to use his superior power in this manner would certainly be morally horrific.
In light of the above discussion it seems reasonable to conclude that employers should not have the “freedom” to pay women less for equal work.
“After all, if an employer should have the freedom to pay workers less than the value of their work, then they are stealing for the workers”
What the heck are you talking about Mike? Workers (almost) always work for less than the value of their work otherwise there is no incentive for an employer to hire them. Not to mention the issue with working an individual’s work’s worth in situations of multiple inputs, increasing and decreasing economies of scale, and fluctuating prices for the product.
Your case also misses out the point (I have no idea how legitimate it is, but it is widely repeated) that women are more likely to leave to have children, take more time off (if they have children), have more medical issues, cost more in pensions etc. etc.
I agree with Keddaw’s point about stealing. Incentive is part of the basic principle of supply/demand economics. To survive in a competitive market, a business has to pay the worker less than their full value for the same reason a business has to sell the product for less than the full value. History shows that price and wage fixing results in business decay and large unemployment (unless it is government business based on tax revenue).
Keddaw,
Simply because something happens frequently, and has done for a great length of time, surely doesn’t entail that it should be excused does it? That seems a bit like saying ‘because slavery has occurred in the world for thousands of years, we don’t need to do anything to prevent it because that’s the way it has been.’ Correct me if I’m oversimplifying your point there.
In terms of paying employees less than their worth being the only incentive to hire them, that also seems a bit off. Getting cheaper labor is certainly an incentive but I hardly think it’s the only one. You may want to hire someone because you think they are the best candidate for the position, even though you could pay another candidate less.
Think about any major sport, you rarely see a team signing a star Pitcher, or Quarterback, or Striker just because they could pay him/her less than someone else. Not a successful team anyway.
I do agree that we see this lower paying trend often, though. Specifically when large companies outsource their jobs because they can pay workers in Malaysia less than they can in the U.S. But I still don’t believe that that’s the only reason someone would be hired.
Dennis,
Retail companies specifically, sell their items for more than their value. Mark-ups can be anywhere from 10% to to over a 100% depending on the product and the company. Very rarely do they sell an item actually at cost or less.
Also, the minimum wage, which is wage fixing unless you had something else in mind, clearly hasn’t resulted in the collapse of our economy. Certainly not more than any other factor.
@Ben Myers-Petro,
Thank you for correcting the phrase “wage fixing” which should have said, “wage capping”. Full value means the maximum value that a purchaser might pay for in a supply/demand economy, and not the cost value. I am not sure if this is the accepted meaning of Full Value in economics. It is a bugbear of philosophy that writers create unique meanings for terms. As a curiosity I googled and found:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/full-value.asp#ixzz28uHo0F1j
Minimum wages standards are important. Mike LaBossiere mentions this.
Dennis,
Okay, that makes more sense. Would you agree that an item’s ‘full value’ is incredibly subjective? The slogan that keeps coming to my mind is the trash/treasure concept. A particular item may hold much more value to one person than to another. Which would consequently make accurate pricing very difficult.
One could even argue that some products are currently be over charged based on their full value. Some stores still sell cassette tapes for example.
I guess my point is, it would seem difficult to base an employee’s pay rate on their full value, because like the company’s value and the value of the products/services they provide, they are subject to fluctuation.
**The product is being over-priced, not over charged.**
@Ben Myers-Petro,
“Would you agree that an item’s ‘full value’ is incredibly subjective?”
According to the investopedia definition, Full Value includes both intrinsic and extrinsic features which are synonyms for subjective and objective values. Economics balances out as if an invisible hand is in control.
Ben, I fear that you are not oversimplifying my point but completely missing it.
Workers work for less than the value of what they produce. That is what they must do or whoever they work for goes bankrupt*.
Workers must add value, and must be paid less than that value. It’s simple.
But then you talk about a worker’s worth, that’s a whole different ball game and one I may have some sympathy with** but this isn’t the argument Mike made.
*Or “doesn’t make profit” in the one possible situation where the company perfectly breaks even.
**It is about the appropriate/equitable/fair distribution of the added value of workers in a situation where employers have the majority of the power in most situations, and why unions can be important.
Keddaw,
Fair enough, but what you don’t explain is why you believe that paying employees less than the value they provide is a must. Perhaps, if we take Dennis’ provided definitions of value, the full value provided by an employee is, in actuality, so great that a company simply could not afford to pay their employees the money they deserve.
From that perspective, I can see a reason to underpay an employee. And that isn’t even necessarily the problem, provided that they are at least paying their employee’s a living wage. But if you are going to underpay, underpay equally.
I think your point about women being more likely to, have children or take medical leave, is relevant, but I don’t think it provides a good enough reason to pay them less from the start. Not all women have children, some take little to no time off even if they do. Some men take the time off when their partners have children.
It seems dubious at best to base a salary for someone on something they might or might not do.
Keddaw,
True, workers do work for less than the value of their work and this is one avenue of profit. However, the fact that it is a common practice does not entail that it is a just one (after all, Marx and company had much to say about this) or not theft.
A business can also make profit by charging customers more than the cost of the service, thus ripping them off as well. Naturally, this can be countered by saying that as long as the customer and employees value what they get, then they are not being ripped off. After all, if I make a widget for a cost of $2 but you value it at $5, then it could be said that I am not ripping you off if you pay me $5 for it.
I should, perhaps, be faulted for being unclear. In the case of women, the idea is that they are paying women less than what they pay men for the same value of work. So, if a man generates X dollars per hour and is paid Y dollars per hour, then a woman who generates X dollars per hour should also get Y, otherwise she would seem to being robbed-even in the context in which both are underpaid.
While women are more likely to leave and live longer, it would hardly be fair to pay specific women less because of what some other specific women do. Now, if a woman made less because she took more leave, than that would be a relevant difference. If she was paid less because she is a woman, that would not be a relevant difference.
Dennis,
This would make the economic system essentially a criminal enterprise.
Mike,
It is not clear what “criminal” means. Criminality is not a word you define or use on a regular basis. If the meaning of criminal includes mens rea or proven intent, then the imprecise fluctuations of supply/demand economics could hardly be called criminal. On the other hand, you may be referring to the deliberate intent of an employer to pay someone less based on her gender or sexual preference. This might be an example of hermeneutical epistemic injustice. It may still only be a civil and not a criminal matter.
I was being rather general and relying on the common usage of the term. But to be specific, I’d say that the criminal here would be to engage in wrongdoing of a sort typically regarded as thievery and similar endeavors. Naturally, criminal activity of this sort could be perfectly legal.