(Un)equal Pay for Work of Equal Value

Abstract

The significant gap between men's and women's wages in Australia has been reinforced by sociological, economic and judicial factors. The implementation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has done little to remedy the inequity for the majority of women in the workforce, who are engaged in sex-segregated occupa tions, because they have not been considered to perform 'work of the same or a like nature'. Analysis of the Universities (Equal Pay) Case illustrates, however, that the introduction of the broader principle of 'equal pay for work of equal ualue' is under mined if applicants still endeavour to demonstrate that women are engaged in work identical in nature to a predominantly male classification. Such an approach is inappropriate in the case of women clerical workers since the number of men involved in keyboard and transcription work is minuscule. This work has become stigmatised as per se inferior and as justifying a low rate of pay regardless of other administrative duties performed.

An 'equal valtre' case should be able to be framed in such a way that the work of women in female-dominated occupations can be compared systematically with that of men employed in discrete, male-dominated occupations in the community in respect of education, training and expertise required.