Critically evaluate the ways in which the Equal Pay Act 1970 seeks to achieve equal pay between men and women. How effective has the Act been in achieving its aims ?

Résumé du document

Because of the large number of women taking jobs in the war industries during World War II, the governments urged employers in 1942 to voluntarily make “adjustments which equalize wage or salary rates paid to females with the rates paid to males for comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations.”
Not only did employers fail to listen to this “voluntary” request, but also, at the end of the war, most women lost their new jobs to make room for returning veterans.
Until the early 1960s, newspapers published separate job listings for men and women. Jobs were categorised according to sex, with the higher level jobs listed almost exclusively under “Help Wanted—Male.” In some cases the ads ran identical jobs under male and female listings—but with separate pay scales. Separate, of course, meant unequal: between 1950 and 1960, women with full-time jobs earned on average between 59–64 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned in the same job.
It wasn't until the passage of the Equal Pay Act on June 10, 1963 (effective June 11, 1964) that it became illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of their sex. Demonstrable differences in seniority, merit, the quality or quantity of work, or other considerations might merit different pay, but gender could no longer be viewed as a disadvantage.
The act was gradually expanded over the next decade to include a larger segment of the workforce, and between June 1964 and Jan. 1971 back wages totalling more than $26 million were paid to 71,000 women. Two landmark court cases served to strengthen and further define the Equal Pay Act:
• Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Ruled that jobs need to be “substantially equal” but not “identical” to fall under the protection of the Equal Pay Act. An employer cannot, for example, change the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less than men.

• Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974), U.S. Supreme Court: Ruled that employers cannot justify paying women lower wages because that is what they traditionally received under the “going market rate.” A wage differential occurring “simply because men would not work at the low rates paid women” was unacceptable.
The obvious discrimination apparent in these court cases seems archaic today, as does the practice of sex-segregated job listings. The workplace has changed radically in the four decades since the passage of the Equal Pay Act.
But what has not changed substantially, however, is women's pay. The wage gap has narrowed, but it is still significant. Women earned 59% of the wages men earned in 1963; in 1997 they earned 74% of men's wages—an improvement of less than half a penny a year. Why is there still such a disparity?
I will study what is the Equal Pay Act 1970 in a first part, then I will have a look at an example where the Act is used and finally I will evaluate the Act.

Extraits

[...] In 1997, women under 25 years of age working full time earned 92.1 percent of men's weekly earnings as compared to 74.4 percent for women age to 25 to 54. Many economists have predicted that as women's education, experience and occupations come to match those of men. Their pay will follow. Conclusion Women have made enormous progress in the workforce since the Equal Pay Act, but the stubborn fact remains that, decades later the basic goal of the act has not been realized. There is still a gap between men and women earnings. [...]

[...] I will study what is the Equal Pay Act 1970 in a first part, then I will have a look at an example where the Act is used and finally I will evaluate the Act. 1-What is the Equal Pay Act 1970? 1 The main element of the Equal Pay Act 1970 The Equal Pay Act 1970 (as amended) is divided in 11 sections: Requirement of equal treatment for men and women in same employment Disputes as to, and enforcement of, requirement of equal treatment 2A- Procedure before tribunal in certain cases 3.4 - Repealed Agricultural wages orders Exclusion from ss 1 to 5 of pensions etc 1 7A- Service pay and conditions Repealed Commencement 10- Repealed 11- Short title, interpretation and extent But let's have a look more precisely to a part of the main section of the Act. [...]

[...] paying lower hourly rates to part-time workers than to comparable full-time workers, for example, can disadvantage women because the majority of part-timers are women. - An occupational pension scheme that excluded part-time workers would also be discriminatory unless the employer could justify such a practice. In fact this is now banned by the Part-time Workers Regulations that prohibit discrimination against part-time workers. Who is comparable? A member of staff does not have to compare him/herself to a member of the opposite sex doing exactly the same job for the same company (such as men and women serving meals in the same restaurant). [...]

[...] But this goal can't be achieved in so less time. It needs a change in a whole culture that persists for century. I personally think that the Equal Pay Act was a beginning and it had permitted to emphasize the problem. It gave us some bases to change slowly but surely the situation of women's wages. Since the Equal Pay Act, the situation has improved because, now, for the new generation, there is no difference between men and women. [...]

[...] The act was gradually expanded over the next decade to include a larger segment of the workforce, and between June 1964 and Jan back wages totalling more than $26 million were paid to 71,000 women. Two landmark court cases served to strengthen and further define the Equal Pay Act: Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Ruled that jobs need to be “substantially equal” but not “identical” to fall under the protection of the Equal Pay Act. An employer cannot, for example, change the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less than men. Corning Glass Works v. [...]