Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
NOW News Bay Area Chapter, Vol. 14, No. 2, February 1985
Page 12
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
NOW News Bay Area Chapter, Vol. 14, No. 2, February 1985 - Page 12. February 1985. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. May 6, 2021. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/6234/show/6229.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(February 1985). NOW News Bay Area Chapter, Vol. 14, No. 2, February 1985 - Page 12. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/6234/show/6229

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

NOW News Bay Area Chapter, Vol. 14, No. 2, February 1985 - Page 12, February 1985, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed May 6, 2021, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/6234/show/6229.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title NOW News Bay Area Chapter, Vol. 14, No. 2, February 1985
Publisher National Organization for Women, Bay Area Chapter
Date February 1985
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women--Texas--Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
  • Periodicals
  • Newsletters
Subject.Name (LCNAF)
  • National Organization for Women
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
Original Item Location HQ1101 .N682
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b2332563~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 12
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_284k.jpg
Transcript by Phyllis Schlafly COMPARABLE WORTH" is one of the few new ideas that liberals have come up with in the last several years. But just because it is a new idea doesn't mean it has merit. Comparable worth is based on the notion that wages should not be fixed by the marketplace, but by a point system based on: 1) a subjective evaluation of job worth; 2) a comparison of different kinds of jobs held mostly by women with jobs held mostly by men; and 3) using litigation or legislation to mandate the system. Since it is unlikely that people will agree on allocations of specific numerical points for such imprecise factors as "accountability" and "mental demands/' the bottom line is that wages would be fixed by judges and bureaucrats. It's hard to conceive of a more radical attack on the private enterprise ► system. Comparable-worth bills were introduced into Congress and some two dozen state legislatures during 1983 and 1984. Some bills sought to impose the comparable-worth concept on private industry; others limited their effect to public employees, but their advocates readily admitted that this was only the first step toward regulating the entire wage system. The essential component of all these bills was to order a study of salaries and wages, which sounds harmless because ordering a study is a traditional technique by which legislators dispose of controversial items. Then a blockbuster hit business, legal and political circles on December 14, 1983. U.S. District Judge Jack E. Tanner in Tacoma, Wash., handed down a 42-page decision endorsing a "comparable-worth compensation system." Judge Tanner decided for the Arner- This 'equalizer' is a radical attack on free enterprise Mrs. Schlafly is president of the Eagle Forum, this article is adapted from the winter issue of Policy Review, a quarterly published by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington- based think tank. ican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and against the state of Washington based on a job evaluation study which had assigned points to all Washington state employees. The study concluded that (female) laundry workers should be paid equally with (male) truck drivers because they were assigned the same number of points and that based on points (female) librarians should be paid about twice as much as (male) carpenters and chemists. The cost to Washington state taxpayers to implement the study's recommendations under the court's decision is estimated at $1 billion. The lesson of the Washington state case is mind-boggling: It is that the conclusions of the evaluators are binding on the employer. Judge Tanner bluntly declared: By ordering the study, the state "knew its employees would be entitled to pay commensurate with their evaluated worth. Any other conclusion defies reason." The lesson of the AFSCME vs. the state of Washington decision was not lost on cost-conscious legislators and governors in other states. The most effective argument to defeat comparable-worth bills became, "If you commission a study, you are buying a lawsuit." This threat helped to defeat a bill for a $400,000 study of wage equity in the Illinois Legislature; Missouri legislators defeated a bill that would have required the state to make a three- year job evaluation and then equalize salaries for "comparable" jobs. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad used his line- item veto to mitigate the impact of the bill by keeping authority to handle all complaints in the executive branch; and California Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed a $76-million allocation for comparable-worth adjustments to equalize salaries of women and men. Later he vetoed a bill to establish a commission to make a study on pay equity. In Congress, a comparable-worth bill for federal employees was defeated in the Senate in October 1984 though it had breezed through the House by a large majority. The chief argument which derailed the comparable-worth express train is that it would adversely affect blue- collar workers. Comparable worth rests on the theory that women have been channeled into certain occupa- -12-