Gender-based systemic wage discrimination was endured by Canadian women long before being officially acknowledged as a significant issue by the government. If one studies the relatively short period between the end of the second world war to the present, it becomes clear that women have been undervalued and underpaid in comparison to their male counterparts (Cuneo,46). It was not until 1982 that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a schedule within the Constitution Act, established sections which dealt directly with incorporating pay equity into wage negotiations (Kelly,36). This relatively new program differs from its predecessors in that it results in an actual change in wage over a short period of years, rather than in the deliverance of a lump sum of money to an individual claimant (Kelly,43). It allows women, through unions, to dislodge patriarchal cultural views and to combat wage discrimination armed with the tools necessary to establishing equality in the workforce. In order to truly understand the impact that the implementation of pay equity has had on the Canadian labour market it is important to explore three avenues. Primarily, one must understand the circumstances that women face due to wage discrimination. Secondly, it is imperative that one understands the pay equity program itself, and how it has come to be implemented in Canada with the assistance of unions. Thirdly, it is important to explore both the arguments for and against the program in order to truly understand its significance. In studying these various aspects of the issue one can only come to a rather simple conclusion: due to the obvious success that the pay equity legislation has had, it is clear that it is a valuable tool in the fight against wage disparity and inequality within the Canadian labour market.
In order to fully appreciate the importance of pay equity, it is imperative that one understands the issue of gender-based wage discrimination. In the early twentieth century a woman’s wage reflected the popular patriarchal view that her rightful place was in the home tending to the family. A lower wage ensured that a woman would remain attached to and dependent upon her husband (Kessler-Harris,8). That same patriarchal view has held into this century, with the central fear being that raising women’s wages would mean the end of the patriarchal nuclear family (Cuneo,5). Due to this limiting view, Canadian women have been largely segregated into a small area of the workforce, in which their labour contributions are often undervalued. This segregation has caused a stereotype to develop towards fields of work dominated by women, which then limits the number of men willing to enter these fields. It also leads to crowding, a situation which occurs when a high percentage of women compete for the same narrow field of employment. According to the neo-classical view, overcrowding is the main cause of Canada’s wage disparity, and sees Canadian women earn 35-54% less than their male counterparts. (Kelly,15-17). This segregation of employment has other limiting effects on women. For example, the results of an extensive study done in 1985 showed that 70% of office workers in Canada were female; however, only 27% of them belonged to a union. Whereas 43% of the male minority were unionized. Traditionally, unionized workers tend to earn more as they can bargain as a collective unit. Therefore women’s bargaining powers, even in those fields which they dominate, are severely limited (Kelly,20).
There are other explanations, suggested by economists and sociologists, as to why such an incredible wage gap exists today. The first being that few women are employed in fields which entail some type of supervisory duties. Another is that women tend to be concentrated in jobs which require little physical effort. However, one could speculate that these two situations only occur because of a discrimination which exists prior to hiring (England,126). That is, a high percentage of male employers are unlikely to hire female employees, and even less likely to pay them equally, because females have a higher turnover rate due to pregnancy and child care (England,32). Extended leave, used to raise children, creates a noticeable difference in the level of experience acquired by men versus women, and leaves little hope for female promotions. A lack of experience, or seniority, is said to be the greatest contributing factor to the substantial wage gap, and this situation clearly limits a woman’s choice to either a successful career or to children, but not to both (England,121). Another, less popular, explanation states that women tend to have fewer years of education, or less years of experience, at entry level positions in comparison to men; however, this is not the case. A woman with the same qualifications as her male competitor is often hired for an entry level position simply because she is willing to accept a job for a lower rate of pay with less chance of promotion (England,72&120).
Before discussing how the pay equity legislation works to end wage discrimination, it is first necessary to explore its development through the help of unions. The fact that unions are an integral aspect in equal pay negotiations is clear from the successes they have achieved in Australia, Great Britain, and in parts of the United States (Michael,231). It was found in these countries, as well as in Canada, that unionized jobs were unlikely to be devalued despite being dominated by female employees. It was also discovered that union support made the occasionally difficult transition to a pay equity program go more smoothly by acting as a filter between the employer and the female employees (Michael,219). In addition to this, it became obvious that unions were able to break down barriers which impede female entry into male dominated fields (Michael,86).
Unions specific to Canada have also played an integral role in the development and implementation of pay equity programs. Perhaps one of their greatest triumphs has been the introduction of an employee wage safety net, termed minimum wage. This basic employment standard is important because it has allowed the fight for pay equity to remain on a solid foundation (Kelly,110). Although the majority of pay equity triumphs have occurred only in the last two decades, it is important to realize that unions have been involved from the very beginning. Canadian trade unions first adopted equal pay for work of equal value, a program similar to pay equity, shortly after the second world war. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) adopted equal pay for work of equal value in 1975 (Cuneo,46-47). Now the pay equity legislation is supported by the largest unions across Canada, who constantly butt heads with the federal government to have the legislation implemented as a standard procedure (Cuneo,47). Although the struggle for nationwide implementation is not yet over, two clear cases of success provide hope for future breakthroughs. Both Manitoba and Ontario have successfully established effective programs through Pay Equity Acts in 1985 and 1988 respectively. Whereas other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, have successfully implemented pay equity programs into their human rights legislation (Kelly,39).
The pay equity program, as determined by various Canadian unions, follows set guidelines as to how to decrease the substantial wage gap. Firstly, an employer is required to determine whether or not a gender-bias does in fact exist within a company. If it is found to exist, the employer is then required to create a gender-bias-free job evaluation system based on job related compensation factors. A comparable worth ratio is then developed between the female and male employees, and if a wage disparity is found to exist the employer is required to fully implement the remainder of the equity program. This remainder is designed in such a way as to allow for compensation and a wage adjustment over a period of four consecutive years. This allows for two things; firstly, it allows the employer to meet the demands of the wage increase by not requiring a large lump payment. Secondly, it allows the employer to handle more than one case of wage disparity at a time. Pay equity is determined to have been achieved once this four year program has been successfully established and completed (Kelly,43-44).
As with any legislation, the pay equity program has its advocates and its opponents. It is therefore necessary to study the arguments for and against its implementation in order to truly understand its rate of effectiveness. One of the main arguments against the program comes from Canadian economists who suggest that implementation would lead to a raise in the national rate of unemployment. The idea being that the more the employer is forced to pay employees, the less employees that same employer is willing to hire (England,73). However, union involvement in pay equity legislation ensures that any effects on employment would be extremely limited. Unions have the ability to spread excess supply pressure, that is the higher wages, over the vast labour market. Therefore, a wage increase for women does not automatically lead to a loss of viable job opportunities for men (Michael,86).
The second argument against an implementation of pay equity stems from the fact that it challenges basic patriarchal assumptions towards women. From this comes the fear that pay equity would lead to a disruption within particular fields, and that it would cause a substantial decrease in general job satisfaction (Remeck,24). However, a series of studies done in the United States in 1985 showed that this was not the case. Both female and male employees from a number of companies across the country were asked to rate the effect of pay equity on their working environment. The study showed that nearly two-quarters of those asked responded that the program had little to no effect . It was also shown that the vast majority of both men and women saw the pay equity programs as being progressive and positive (Michael,200).
A third argument established against pay equity stems from the functionalist theory of stratification. This theory states that wages should be determined by the importance of the function or role that the job being performed has in regards to society. Therefore a doctor, whose role is seen as integral to the needs of society, is paid more than someone who is employed in a seemingly lesser profession. However, this theory presents two major problems. Firstly, due to the fact that males tend to dominate those fields with high levels of functional importance, they tend to be the majority to benefit from this type of thinking (England,100). Secondly, one must question exactly who determines the value of a field of work. That is, how does one decide if a farmer is more or less important than a home builder? Or if the teacher is more or less important than the lawyer?
A fourth, and less popular, argument is that pay equity was established by union organizations as a means to raise their own respective wages. However, union officials have responded by saying that the legislation is a purely social movement intended to benefit all of those within the workforce (Kelly,110). It is also hoped that the implementation of pay equity will remedy other problem areas within Canada’s workforce. That is, it is hoped that a wage increase will end segregation towards fields dominated by women, and will therefore entice men towards those same fields (Kelly,19).
It becomes obvious, after discussing the various successes of pay equity, that implementing the legislation across Canada would serve to benefit both women and men alike. It allows better access to fields of employment which women had previously not enjoyed. At the same time, it opens doors to female dominated fields and acts to minimize job segregation. As with any legislation, pay equity has its rough points to smooth over; however, it must be acknowledged that, up to this point, pay equity is the most effective policy in eliminating gender-based wage discrimination. More importantly, pay equity allows women a measure of independence which has been lacking in the workforce in the last half-century. As women are recognized to be equal contributors in the workforce new and deserved opportunities are presented, and a new sense of self worth is achieved.
Cuneo, Carl J. Pay Equity: The Labour-Feminist Challenge. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1990.
England, Paula. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1992.
Kelly, John G. Pay Equity Management 2nd Edition. Canada: CCH Canadian Ltd., 1994.
Kessler-Harris, Alice. A Woman’s Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1990.
Michael, Robert, Hartmann, Heidi, O’Farrell, Brigid, eds. Pay Equity: Empirical Inquiries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.
Remick, Helen. Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984.