Comparable Worth Debate

Elizabeth Jordan

HRM

Case Study #3

Comparable Worth Debate

David Hardy, the director at Twin Oaks Hospital, has been approached by the spokeswomen for the Nurses and Clerical employees of his hospital. The spokeswomen made three requests “an immediate 5 percent increase, the establishment of a job evaluation program based on the concept of comparable worth, and a pledge to base wage adjustments on the findings of the study” (Stewart, 2004).

Comparable Worth is a concept that is being used in job analysis. According to Ivancevich, comparable worth is defined as “the concept of equal pay for equal jobs should be expanded to the notion of equal pay for comparable jobs. If a job is comparable to other jobs as determined by job content analysis, that job’s pay should be comparable” (Ivancevich, 2010).

The group of 200 nurses and 40 clerical/secretarial employees is almost exclusively female. The recent administration decision to provide a 5 percent pay increase, establish a job evaluation off of comparable worth and base future wage adjustments off of the analysis at a competing hospital in Lexington(Lexington Memorial) has put significant pressure on Hardy to follow suit (Stewart, 2004).

Hardy has become aware of the questions about fairness and the current pay structure of the hospital. In his conversations with two advisors he got differing opinions on how to approach the issue. Janet Sawyer is strongly in favor of using the comparable worth job evaluation. Charles Cooper is opposed to using the comparable worth format. Both agree that a new job evaluation may need to be developed.

Both of the advisors have concerns about how to develop and approach the job evaluation. They both are also concerned about the potential cost to produce the study and about how to implement the findings of the study. Hardy’s concern over the potential increase in pay without a resulting increase in productivity indicates the concerns over job evaluation and the need for...