PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

PAY EQUITY, OR EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK OF EQUAL VALUE, IS A LEGAL REMEDY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF WOMEN’S UNEQUAL POSITION IN THE LABOUR FORCE, NAMELY, THE UNDERVALUING OF WOMEN’S WORK IN PREDOMINATELY FEMALE JOBS. PAY EQUITY AIMS TO ENSURE THAT NEITHER MEN NOR WOMEN ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE AMOUNT THEY ARE PAID FOR DOING TRADITIONAL WOMEN’S WORK.

THE CONCEPT OF “COMPARABLE WORTH”” PAY EQUITY MEANS EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE. IT IS BASED ON TWO PRINCIPLES. THE FIRST IS EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS MUST BE PAID THE SAME WAGE RATE FOR DOING IDENTICAL WORK. THE SECOND IS EQUAL PAY FOR SIMILAR OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR WORK (EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF COMPARABLE WORTH). THIS MEANS THAT MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS MUST BE PAID THE SAME WAGE RATE FOR JOBS OF A SIMILAR NATURE THAT MAY HAVE DIFFERENT TITLES (E.G., “NURSE’S AID” AND “ORDERLY”).

 

THE PAY EQUITY ACT

THE PAY EQUITY ACT APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYEES, WHETHER FULL TIME, PART TIME OR SEASONAL. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL EMPLOYERS. THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO EMPLOYERS WITH FEWER THAN TEN EMPLOYEES. IF THE EMPLOYER HAS 10 OR MORE EMPLOYEES BUT FEWER THAN 100, THEN THE EMPLOYER MUST INSTITUTE PAY EQUITY, BUT NEED NOT MAKE OR PUBLISH A PAY EQUITY PLAN. IF THE EMPLOYER HAS 100 EMPLOYEES OR GREATER, THEN THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO CREATE AND THEN PUBLISH A PAY EQUITY PLAN.

THERE ARE THREE DISCRIMINATORY PAY PRACTICES THAT THE LAW SEEKS TO REMEDY. FIRST, WOMEN MAY GET PAID LESS FOR DOING THE SAME JOB AS MEN. IN ONTARIO, THIS RIGHT TO “EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK” IS PROTECTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000, S. 42:

42(1) NO EMPLOYER SHALL PAY AN EMPLOYEE ONE SEX AT A RATE OF PAY LESS THAN RATE PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OTHER SEX WHEN,

(A)     THEY PERFORM SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME KIND OF WORK IN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT:

(B)     THEIR PERFORMANCE REQUIRES SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME SKILL, EFFORT AND RESPONSIBILITY; AND

(C)     THEIR WORK IS PERFORMED UNDER SIMILAR WORKING CONDITIONS.

 

{SOME} CONTINGENCIES:

·         WOMEN MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCRIMINATORY, JOB PLACEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. THESE COULD INCLUDE “MEN ONLY” JOB POSITIONS, OR POSITIONS THAT REQUIRE QUALIFICATIONS THAT, WHILE NEUTRAL ON THEIR FACE, COULD ONLY BE FILLED BY MEN. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY HEIGHT OR STRENGTH CONDITIONS FOR JOBS ARE DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE MOST WOMEN COULD NOT MEET THEM. {THIS TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION IS FORBIDDEN BY THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE. (SYSTEMIC)}.

·         BECAUSE THE ACT IS COMPLAINT BASED, IT MEANT THAT ONLY THOSE WITH ADEQUATE RESOURCES COULD AFFORD TO CHALLENGE UNDER ITS JURISDICTION. AS A RESULT, UNIONS, GIVEN THEIR ACCESS TO SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES, HAVE PLAYED THE PRIMARY ROLE IN PURSUING COMPLAINTS.

·         UNIONS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY MALE-ORIENTED STRUCTURES AND IN THE CASE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE UNIONS, THEIR POLICIES WERE CONSTRUCTED TO REFLECT GROUPS OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC SERVICE (BENCHMARK)

·         UNIONS THEMSELVES WERE RE-ENFORCING PRACTICES THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN, EVEN WHILE THEY FOUGHT TO INCREASE WOMEN’S WAGES.

·         UNIONS HAVE LONG ADHERED TO THE GOAL OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL. UNION SOLIDARITY MEANS RECOGNIZING A COMMON GOAL THAT BENEFITS ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY – PAY EQUITY ISSUES, HOWEVER, SEEM TO VIOLATE THIS COMMON GOAL BECAUSE THEY SUGGEST SPECIAL TREATMENT AND THUS THEY ARE FEARED AS DIVISIVE.

·         THE GOVERNMENT AS A CARRIER OF CONTRADICTION – “ON THE ONE HAND THE GOVERNMENT HAD ESTABLISHED PAY EQUITY AS A HUMAN RIGHT AND APPOINTS THE TRIBUNAL THAT DETERMINES PAY EQUITY ISSUES; ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GOVERNMENT IS AN EMPLOYER WHO RESISTS PAY EQUITY AND WHO HIRES THE SAME LAWYERS AS OTHER EMPLOYERS TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION.”

{SOME} RESULTS AND CONTRADITIONS:

PAY EQUITY IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FEMINIST ACTIVISTS AND OTHERS HAVE USED THE LAW TO TRANSFORM SOCIAL RELATIONS. IT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED WAGES FOR MANY WOMEN IN A WAY NO OTHER APPROACH HAS ACHIEVED. BUT THE TRANSFOMATIVE PROCESS AND THE RESULTS ARE CONTRADICTORY.

TRANSFORMATIVE RESULTS:

1.     IT HAS ENCOURAGED MANY WOMEN TO REASSESS THEIR WORK, TO EXAMINE THE KINDS OF SKILL, EFFORY, RESPONSIILITIES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS INVOLVED IN THEIR JOBS, AND TO DEMAND RECOGNITION.

2.     IT HAS REFLECTED AND PROMOTED SOME POWER SHIFTS WITHIN UNIONS AND WORKPLACES AND WITHIN SOCITY AS A WHOLE AS WOMEN’S WORK WAS REGARDED IN A NEW AND MORE VALUED WAY.

3.     IT CHALLENGED SOME OLD HIERARCHIES IN WORKPLACES AND UNIONS.

RESISTANCE:

1.     DIFFERENCES IN WAGES AMONG WOMEN HAVE INCREASED (ARMSTONG AND CORNISH, 1997).

2.     EMPLOYERS HAVE BECOME MUCH MORE SKILLED AT USING THE LAW TO RESIST.

3.     MORE AND MORE THE “LIMITED” SUCCESSES OF SOME GROUPS IN WORKING TOWARDS PAY EQUITY IS DEFINED AS A PROBLEM SOLVED – AND THERE ARE DEMANDS TO MOVE ON TO “OTHER ISSUES.”

4.     WOMEN’S VICTORIES ARE UNDERMINED BY NEW STATEGIES SUCH AS CONTRACTING-OUT AND A REFUSAL TO FUND.

5.     {IN SOME CASES} THE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND OR PROMOTE PAT EQUITY HAS LED TO A REINFORCEMENT OF OLD HIERARCHIES AND TO TOO MUCH FOCUS ON “LEGAL PROCESSES, RATHER THAN STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE.”

CONCLUSIONS:

COMBINDED WITH A NEW {NEO-LIBERALISM} EMPHASIS ON MARKET FORCES AND DEREGULATION, PAY EQUITY WAS DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT IN THE FACE OF MOUNTING RESISTANCE ==è AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, SUCH LEGISLATION IS NOW OFTEN THE ONLY PROTECTION WOMEN HAVE AGAINST THE PRESSURES OF EFFICENCY, WHICH ARE DEFINED SOLELY IN TERMS OF PROFITS AND MARKETS ==è ESPECIALLY IN SUCH TIME, ANY HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION HAS TO BE DEFENDED AND EXTENDED AS A COUNTER TO MARKET FORCES.