Comparable Worth Principle Case Study

American 'comparable worth' principle states that males and females carrying out tasks and responsibilities of identical value to their firm ought to be compensated similarly. This principle holds that positions in a company possess corporate value which is comparable across posts of highly diverse content. I personally hold, and assert, that females employed in roles that are of comparable value to the roles male employees assume in a company ought to enjoy remuneration equal to that enjoyed by males, except the inequalities that are permissible by law (e.g., merit plans, seniority plans, diverse locations, or production-based compensation plans).

The motivation for the comparable worth dogma has arisen from the persistent male-female wage gap, not only in America but all over the world. A survey conducted in 63 nations by the International Trade Union Confederation in the year 2008 revealed an appreciable gender-based compensation disparity roughly amounting to 16%. In other words, female workers received 84%, averagely, of the earnings of their male counterparts. On the whole, globally, gender-based compensation gap spans between 13% and 23%. The Women's Policy Research Institute has utilized information gleaned from the Labor Statistics Bureau and reported that the gender-based compensation gap is only under 20% in America.

Supporters of the comparable worth policy indicate the existence of other societal expenses attributable to the existing pay system's remuneration inequalities. They contend that innumerable female workers who are unsuccessful in supporting not only themselves but also their family members on the existing wage scales have to resort to accepting public assistance. They are of the opinion that just like the menace of environmental pollution, the issue of inequitable wages costs several million dollars to society and is largely funded by lofty taxes.

For ensuring more just treatment of women employees, lowering the existing system's social costs, and better managing corporate human resources, I support the comparable worth dogma and assert that underpaid female positions must earn as much as males in similar posts; salaries must be fixed on the basis of impartial measures of job value and requisite skills for the post (Andre & Velasquez, 2014).

Question 2

An analysis of the Twin Oaks Hospital case study clearly reveals the presence of numerous means to achieve comparable worth within a firm's pay system. The chief means are legislation and collective bargaining. The above approaches are typically combined with other approaches for surmounting organizational and political barriers. Choice of approach is reliant on political, legal, and organizational factors. Washington D.C. and other states do not authorize collective bargaining for salaries between state governmental organizations and their workforce. Hence, legal action or states are perhaps the sole avenue by which equal pay can be achieved. In case of private sector and local companies, the chief approach adopted is collective bargaining.

The given case studies draw attention to the way concepts get transformed during their translation…