Laserfiche WebLink
In contrast, only 14 percent of public -sector <br />employees in the IWPR study reported that pay <br />discussions were either discouraged or prohibited. <br />This higher degree of transparency in the public sector <br />may be related to the greater gender pay equity found <br />in the federal government. Federal workers can easily <br />see how their salaries compare with others at their <br />grade level and geographical location. The U.S. Office <br />of Personnel Management makes public the salary <br />and wage range for each level of federal worker and <br />additional locality pay for areas where the cost of <br />living is higher (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, <br />2016). Among white-collar federal workers, women <br />were paid 87 percent of what men were paid in 2012, <br />compared with 77 percent in the workforce as a whole <br />in 2012 (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2014). <br />In recognition of this problem, President Obama <br />signed an executive order in 2014 banning <br />retaliation for wage disclosure for federal <br />contracting employers, reaching approximately <br />26 million workers. Moreover, there are limited <br />protections under state laws and the federal <br />National Labor Relations Act, and the_EEOC recently <br />issued guidance describing when employers' <br />retaliation for employees' wage disclosure or <br />inquiries may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act <br />of 1964. However, these protections do not reach <br />all employees and circumstances. <br />Therefore, as we continue to fight for uniform <br />federal protections, as a best practice, AAUW <br />recommends that employers do not impose punitive <br />pay -secrecy policies in the workplace. They hurt <br />employees' ability to share information to facilitate <br />equal opportunities in the workplace and impede <br />effective enforcement of pay discrimination laws. A <br />more open approach can foster the perception that <br />compensation is handled fairly and can improve <br />employee morale (Payscale, 2017). <br />Banning the Use of Prior Salary History <br />The practice of using past salaries to set current <br />wages perpetuates the gender pay gap because it <br />assumes that prior salaries were fairly established <br />by previous employers. Relying on salary history <br />allows a new employer to continue underpaying a <br />woman who faced a pay gap and lost wages due to <br />bias or discrimination at a previous job. Salary history <br />questions can also introduce bias and discrimination <br />into the recruitment process of a company that may <br />be attempting to avoid it. <br />Employers should prohibit the use of salary history <br />and instead use market research to determine <br />what the position is worth to the organization. If a <br />woman starts her career with a pay gap tainted by <br />prior discrimination, it's likely to follow her from job <br />to job. As discussed below, there are also state and <br />federal efforts working to eliminate these practices, <br />but in the meantime, employers can take this <br />important action on their own. <br />LATINAS IN THE U.S. <br />FOR EVERY DOLLAR <br />PAID TO WHITE MEN. <br />AAU , <br />AAUW • www.aauw.org THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT THE GENDER PAY GAP 1 Fall 2018 Edition 49 <br />