FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W202207479> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W202207479 startingPage "1403" @default.
• W202207479 abstract "Using job-evaluation schemes for women means we must begin by recognizing that most women do that is different from that of most men. Women's requires different kinds of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions within different kinds of organizational structures. Unlike most male jobs, much of women's involves switching from one level of task to another level and from person to person, often in ways that involve different methods of communication. It usually involves the provision of comfort, emotional support, and care. It frequently involves coordination and cooperation with others, under conditions where women have little formal authority. In many cases, precisely because it is women who do the work, the actual responsibility is very different from what is formally defined.... Existing schemes do not, and most cannot, capture these aspects of women's work.(1) INTRODUCTION In the 1970s, feminist and labor advocates won substantial victories around the world by obtaining legislation that guaranteed women the right to earn pay equal to that of their male counterparts.(2) During this initial phase of the pay equity movement, employers, prompted by the threat of lawsuits, sought to ensure that women and men performing essentially the same jobs or like work were receiving the same wages. By the mid 1980s, several factors, including the persistence of the gap between male and female earnings, created pressure to adopt a concept of pay equity known as comparable worth,(3) prompting litigation in several countries to broaden the scope of employer liability for gendered pay inequities. Although several years have passed, judicial and legislative involvement in the pay equity area shows no signs of abating, leaving employers' obligations under pay equity laws around the world in a state of considerable flux.(4) As a result, multinational corporations find themselves subject to widely divergent and occasionally incomprehensible sets of obligations that they must resolve to comply with the pay equity laws of the countries in which they operate. The purpose of this Note is to describe and analyze practical examples of the types of legal pay equity regimes currently in force. In particular, this Note has chosen to focus on the pay equity regimes of Ontario, Great Britain and the United States. Although employers in each of these regions are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of gender in the wages paid to their employees, the principle of pay equity varies greatly among the three legal systems, creating substantial compliance burdens for multinational corporations. Specifically, this Note focuses on the role of job evaluation in determining whether pay equity has been achieved under each of these regimes. From the perspective of the employer as well as the pay equity advocate, the role of job evaluation in a pay equity regime is extremely important for two reasons. First, job evaluation is the primary mechanism for comparing the values of jobs with different requirements. Therefore, to the extent that a legal system permits women to claim pay equity with men who are not performing identical jobs, job evaluation is the mechanism for comparing the relative worth of these jobs and whether they deserve equal compensation. Second, job evaluation has great potential for reducing the wage gap between women and men precisely because the inequity is so pervasive. Throughout Ontario, Great Britain, and the United States, job evaluation is one of the principle tools used by employers and unions to provide the raw data upon which wage determinations are based.(5) As a result, job evaluation has become a central issue in both the delineation of female employees' rights to pay equity as well as employer defenses to liability. Ontario's Pay Equity Act,(6) which requires substantive administrative and judicial review of mandatory job evaluation schemes for evidence of gender bias (i. …" @default.
• W202207479 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W202207479 creator A5053655247 @default.
• W202207479 date "1994-06-22" @default.
• W202207479 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W202207479 title "Visibility and Value: The Role of Job Evaluation in Assuring Equal Pay for Women" @default.
• W202207479 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W202207479 type Work @default.
• W202207479 sameAs 202207479 @default.
• W202207479 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W202207479 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W202207479 hasAuthorship W202207479A5053655247 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C145236788 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C199728807 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2777388388 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2780977596 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2781426361 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C2910599589 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W202207479 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C119857082 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C121955636 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C144133560 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C145236788 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C162324750 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C17744445 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C199539241 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C199728807 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2776291640 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2777351106 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2777388388 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2777834853 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2780977596 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2781426361 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C2910599589 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C39549134 @default.
• W202207479 hasConceptScore W202207479C41008148 @default.
• W202207479 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W202207479 hasLocation W2022074791 @default.
• W202207479 hasOpenAccess W202207479 @default.
• W202207479 hasPrimaryLocation W2022074791 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W1510484617 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W1527521582 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W1538165809 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W1602210574 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W1939472758 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2032089548 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2073107048 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W252889864 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2584963893 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2625068944 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2725692258 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2766858754 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2977101348 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W2992776172 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W3124906051 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W3125463918 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W613977072 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W640657121 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W6575720 @default.
• W202207479 hasRelatedWork W84419039 @default.
• W202207479 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W202207479 isParatext "false" @default.
• W202207479 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W202207479 magId "202207479" @default.
• W202207479 workType "article" @default.