Workshop Outline

• Defining Pay Equity: What It Is and What It Isn’t
• Pay Equity Myths
• Equal Pay Legislation
• Federal Legislation
• Pay Equity Success Stories: The Distinct Provincial Legislation Stories
• Unions, Collective Bargaining and Pay Equity
• Moving Forward: What Can We Do Next? What Is Our Action Plan?

Workshop Instructor’s Notes

General introductions.

Explain the reasoning for holding the workshop:

• to act as a "basics" in pay equity;
• to dispel some of the pay equity myths;
• to review the current legislation regarding pay equity;
• to give some basic contract language for collective bargaining;
• to strategize the next steps for action.

Ask the participants what expectations they have for the workshop (i.e. what are they hoping to take away from the workshop). Record responses on a flipchart.

Go over the responses. Go over what expectations you are going to be able to meet and those in which you are not going to be able to in the session.

Have two (2) flipcharts.

Ask participants to define what pay equity is. Record responses on one flipchart. On the other flipchart, have the definition of pay equity. One person should be leading this discussion and the other recording participant responses.

Pay Equity: equal pay for work of equal value.

• Compensating female-dominated jobs the same as male-dominated jobs of equal or comparable value.
• Often used synonymously with terms "comparable worth" (especially in the United states)
• Compels the employer to recognize the value of the work itself, not the gender, race or special need of the individual.
• Pay equity is about "wage compression," that is, reducing the differentials between low and higher paid workers.
• Sometimes pay equity is used to refer to the broader goal of compensating female-dominated jobs the same as male-dominated jobs of equal value, with pay for work of equal value legislation, involving job procedures, being one means of achieving that goal. Sometimes these concepts are used in reverse, with equal value being the broader goal and pay equity being the narrower means to achieve that goal.

Review the definition with participants. Allow a brief amount of time for questions and clarification.

Compare pay equity to employment equity. Ask participants to define what employment equity is. Record responses on one flipchart. On the other flipchart, have the definition of employment equity. One person should be leading this discussion and the other recording participant responses.

Employment Equity:

• Policies requiring employers to have a representation in there internal workforce that is comparable to that which exists in the externally available labour market.
• Deals with fairness in the various dimensions of the employment relationship, such as recruiting, hiring, training, promotion and dismissals, whereas pay equity focuses on compensation.
• Generally applied to 4 target groups – women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities.

Ask participants the following question: What arguments are used against pay equity?

Record responses on flip chart. One person should be leading this discussion and the other recording participant responses.

Review the 9 pay equity myths. These should either be prepared on flipcharts or on overhead slides.

Pay Equity Myths

This argument arises from those saying women work for "pin money" --- that their income is used for luxury items and doesn’t go towards providing the basic necessities a family needs to survive (e.g. food, clothing, housing).

This argument holds no merit.

• When looking at Statistics Canada figures, it approximates that 48% of two income families would fall below the poverty line if either parent quit working.
• There are more than 1.1 million single parent families in Canada. 83% of which are headed by women.
• Saying that women’s incomes are "not necessary" implies that all income levels should be determined by financial need.

This myth argues that women drop out of the workforce and stay out once they have children. Or if they return to the workforce, it is to work in part-time jobs for short periods of time.

This argument is flawed.

• The majority of child-bearing women do not drop out of the workforce. Up to 70% of all mothers tended to continue working. Of these women, up to 70% are in full-time employment.
• With the changes to maternity leave benefits this argument is further weakened. The % of pay earned over the allowable leave under the federal legislation does not go long way to make ends meet.

This argument rests on the notion that women should get paid less because their work is "soft." The notion of "women’s work" is used to back up this argument. Women’s work is viewed as "easy," compared to those occupations dominated by male workers.

This argument has no teeth.

• There are many jobs, dominated by women that expose workers to the dangers of chemical, biological, physical and psychological harm.
• Take for instance, in office work (clerical workers) women are exposed to toxic chemicals from the prolonged use of computers. There are concerns regarding workplace stress. Back injuries dominate in workplace without ergonomic workstations.
• Women who work in women’s shelters face the risk of assault or attack, exposure to hypodermic needles, and the risks associated with working alone at night.
• Healthcare workers are continually exposed to transmitted diseases, patient assaults, etc.

This argument implies that jobs of fundamental value to society such as childcare, nursing and teaching aren’t worth pursuing and aren’t worth assigning a living wage. These jobs have been undervalued as "women’s work," in that woman are better at performing these types of jobs. It also implies that employers never discriminate when hiring, and that when given the "choice" between a low-paying and a higher paying job, women will always opt for the lower paid position. The argument would say that women would rather choose to be a nurse over bring a doctor, because nursing falls under the realm of "women’s work," and therefore will take the lower pay applied to this job.

This argument is flawed, and based on a socialized notion of what is "women’s work."

• This socialization begins early by families and in schools. Females are taught to think that there are certain occupations that they "should" enter.
• There is a lack of training programs for women wanting to enter non-traditional occupations and generally fewer job opportunities for women in these non-traditional fields.

This is based upon the neo-classical economics notion that competitive markets and individual initiative, along with government policies that allow leaves the market alone as being sufficient to level the playing field.

The reality of a market being "free" from government and business intervention and manipulation is almost impossible. There are limits placed on the market, which do not allow for this neo-classical vision to be fully met.

The view that political economists take (along with Karl Marx) is that the market is continually being caught in a web of oppressive class, race and gender relations. As Marx said, "capitalism serves the interests of the few at the expense of the many." It was his view that an end of capitalism was required to end discrimination.

Another argument that has been made is based on supply and demand, with respect to jobs and wages. In looking at this, the only relevant factor in determining wage levels was gender, and not the number of workers (supply).

This argument rests on the notion that the creation of "special interest" groups puts the interests of the few above the interest of the many. This argument smells a little like the Canadian Alliance platform, no? It is argued that by equalizing pay for equity-seeking groups, one would be limiting the freedom of employers.

Democracy is being skewed in this argument. Democracy should by synonymous with equality of the person. All persons are thus, equal within liberal democratic nations.

Many democratic nations have implemented pay equity legislation --- Germany, Australia, Belgium, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and several American states. In Canada, all provinces for the exception of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories have pay equity laws.

This argument claims that by instituting pay equity will cost employers so much money that profits will suffer, and in turn, the economy will take a downtown.

In fact, by paying fair wages, the economy will only benefit. Those benefiting from pay equity will be able to become full participants in the economy. With over 50% of a population made up of women, pay equity would allow for a larger number of consumers to purchase goods and services, therefore maintaining profits and a thriving economy. Pay equity would also see lower turnover rates and higher productivity.

Those nations with pay equity legislation have debunked this myth by maintaining competitive economies, with growing workforces.

This myth is based on the argument that employers will seek some sort or revenge for being "forced" to pay fair wages. This revenge will be enacted with employers reducing employment opportunities for members of equity-seeking group by hiring more men as a means to avoid compliance with pay equity law. Resistance would also be felt by denying members of equity-seeking groups promotions.

This argument is based on fear mongering.

• Employers will not be able to evade pay equity laws, because these laws are based on jobs, not gender.
• Pay equity legislation in Australia resulted in an increase in female employment. Female unemployment as a proportion of male unemployment fell. Women’s relative earnings rose by 30%.

This argument is used to deter women from pursuing pay equity, for fear that they may suffer the consequences of an employer backlash.

This myth relies on the ‘divide and conquer’ tactic. Here, pay equity is said to be won at the expense of male workers. It says that wage increases won by workers through pay equity laws will be paid for by making men forego their own increases or giving them smaller increases. This argument tries to enlist men as pay equity opponents and attempts to make women hesitate to enter pay equity demands because they might hurt men.

This tactic is flawed.

• Where pay equity laws exist, all adjustments are made outside of regularly negotiated wage increases.
• It ignores the fact that unions and women’s groups have repeatedly stated that pay equity adjustments will only be agreed to if other workers won’t suffer financially.
• Men will also benefit from pay equity legislation. As long as wages for equity-seeking groups are kept law, so too, will those wages paid to all workers, including men.
• Pay equity will open up new, non-traditional job opportunities for men, since wages will be based on value, rather than gender.

Ask participants to define "equal pay" legislation. Facilitators may wish to record responses on flip charts. Have equal pay legislation defined on flipcharts or slides.

Equal Pay Legislation basically guarantees the following: equal pay for equal work.

• Requirement to pay for jobs that involve equal work (interpreted as substantially similar work) within an organization.
• Narrower concept than equal pay for work of equal value (pay equity) because it does not allow comparisons across different jobs even if the different jobs are of equal value to an organization.
• Sometimes termed "conventional equal pay legislation" to distinguish from the broader concept of equal value.
• Exists in all Canadian jurisdictions.

Guarantees only equal pay for equal work. Does not take into account values of work. See above definition for Equal Pay legislation, and its limits.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 11, sets out the federal pay equity law. This section is supplemented, clarified, and expanded upon through the Equal Wages Guidelines. The federal legislation makes it unlawful to pay men and women different wages for work of equal value. This, however is a complaint-based model, and has created many problems. It is therefore, considered to be "reactive legislation."

Complaints are made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Although individuals can file a complaint, most successful cases have been initiated by unions. Settlement can include back pay and damages.

Example: Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC)

• Filed a complaint in 1985 alleging that clerical and secretarial jobs were under-paid.
• Joint job evaluation was begun, called the Joint Management Initiative
• Study was completed in 1990, even though PSAC withdrew from the process prior to completion.
• In 1990, the federal government announced what figures it proposed as back pay and compensation for years of pay inequities.
• The union challenged this amount and the process of classification used.
• Case went to a Human Rights Tribunal, which after years, ruled in favor of the union in 1998.

Instructor reviews the following with participants in a lecture format.

Manitoba: Manitoba Pay Equity Act (1985)

Bill 53, passed in 1985, saw the setting up of a Pay Equity Bureau to oversee implementation of the Act.

By 1987, pay equity had to be achieved in Manitoba public service. By 1988, broader public sector organizations and crown entities had to comply --- 20 crown entities, 23 hospitals and 4 universities.

A gender-neutral comparison system is required for pay equity evaluations.

Manitoba’s Bill 53 defines pay equity as "a compensation practice which is based primarily on the relative value of the work performed, regardless of gender." Here, "value" is to be "assessed using a criterion of the composite of the skill, effort and responsibility normally required in the performance of the work conditions under which the work is performed."

3 features: 1. Pro-active approach

• Utilization of collective-bargaining process
• Establishment of a Pay Equity Bureau with a broad mandate.

Ontario: Ontario Pay Equity Act (1987)

This legislation covers all public and private sector and broader public sector organizations. The broader public sector is very inclusive. Only those private sector employers with at least 10 employees are covered under Ontario’s Act.

*** Interesting note for Ontario: Employers must spend 1% of their previous year’s payroll to correct pay inequities. 1% is needed for as many years as needed to achieve pay equity with the exception of the public sector which had to achieve pay equity by January 1, 1995 even if more than 1% of payroll per year is required.

Similarities in the Various Legislation

The various legislation tends to be most similar in the following ways:

• Coverage of the public, but not the private, sector;
• Defining gender predominance as either 60 or 70 percent;
• The requirement that the composite skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions be used as the criterion to assess equal value;
• Allowing merit, seniority, and skill shortage as allowable differences; and
• Assuming that approximately 4% of payroll will be required to achieve pay equity.

Instructor reviews the following with participants in a lecture format.

Good pay equity legislation should include the following:

• The law must apply to all employers, in both the public and private sectors. This is necessary to avoid downsizing and "contracting out."
• The law should specify that employers are responsible for pay equity. Employees should not bear the brunt fixing wage inequities.
• Like Ontario, there should be a percentage dedicated to achieve pay equity adjustments.
• There should be a clear job classification process --- one which is objective, where the value of work is used to determine wage sets.
• The law should establish a pay equity commission to administer the legislation.
• The law should establish a set of enforcement mechanisms for implementation.
• The law should set out penalties for non-compliance --- "tough" enough to ensure implementation by all employers.
• The law should set out a clear complaint procedure, along with a set of appeal mechanisms.
• A pay equity ombudsperson should be mandated under this law to advise on pay equity complaints.
• The law, before brought to the legislature, should undergo a public consultation process. The labour movement (i.e. AFL and affiliates) must be part of this process.

Those in the trade union community are important stakeholders with an interest in the process and outcomes of pay equity. This is especially the case since pay equity legislation takes precedence over anything negotiated by a collective agreement.

In Alberta, however, the collective bargaining process can be an important way for pay equity schemes to be developed given the absence of any effective legislation in the area.

Roles for Unions in Pay Equity

Legislation Lobbying

• Unions can be important in influencing the legislative arena, and hence in the passing and design of pay equity legislation.
• Unions have argued that basic employment rights should be a matter of legislation rather than that, which should be covered under collective agreements. Basic rights should not have to be bargained. There is a fear that if these rights have to bargained for, things such as pay equity would be given up in the bargaining process.
• Legislation is required in these areas to guarantee protection for non-unionized as well as unionized workers.
• This reduces the likelihood that there will be competition over labour costs.

Collective Bargaining

• When there is no pay equity legislation in place, unions can negotiate pay equity provisions into the collective agreement.
• When pay equity legislation exists, unions can incorporate the legislation into the collective agreement. It may seem redundant, but this serves 3 purposes:

• Serves as a signal of union priority to both the rank-and-file and management;
• Enable pay equity issues to be subject to the grievance procedure.
• Gives pay equity a degree of permanence that may be important if the legislation is revoked or not effectively implemented.

Grievance Procedure

• Grievance procedure is the mechanism whereby disputes over interpretation of the collective agreement are settles. It may ultimately require s decision by third party, neutral arbitrator.
• Where pay equity provisions are not met, unions may grieve against management.

Education and Communication

• Unions play an important role in educating their membership about pay equity.
• Pay equity can seem scary and complicated, so education is the key to alleviate any reservations members may have in incorporating pay equity within collective agreements.
• Many unions have undertaken this process of education, including the Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE).

The Strike

• Strikes are a union’s ultimate weapon.
• While, generally strikes, occur at the time of contract renewal, and are over general wages, not over specific adjustments for particular groups.
• Many unions have taken job action (i.e. strikes) over the issue of pay equity.
• In 1980, there was a 6-month strike involving the Canadian Association of Industrial Metal and Allied Workers and Canadian Kenworth. It was over pay equity between predominately female data processors and predominately male assembly line workers.
• In 1981, strike for up to 15 weeks ensured between CUPE and a variety of civic, library and school board employees in British Columbia, in part over the issue of pay equity between female dominated clerical jobs and male dominated manual jobs.
• In 1985, CUPE also struck both the Peel Board of Education and the Bruce County Board of Education, in part over the issue of pay equity between female dominate jobs secretarial jobs and male dominated caretaker jobs.

Distribution of Union Wage Gains

• Unions can make it easier to achieve pay equity objectives through the manner through which union wage gains are distributed.
• For wage gains to be achieved, female dominated jobs need to become unionized.
• Higher offices for women in unions also need to become priorities.
• There are several policies unions can use to ensure wage gains address the issue of pay equity.

• Bargaining for wage increases in dollar amounts rather than percentages would disproportionately benefit low wage jobs, which tend to be female-dominated.
• Bargaining for entry-level base wages in female dominated and male dominated jobs, and for similar subsequent increases, would help to eliminate wage gap.
• Bargaining for separate pay equity funds would facilitate wage adjustments.

Joint Committees

• Joint union-management committees have become an important component of the union-management interaction in the Canadian labour movement.
• The rationale for joint committees is to deal with workplace issues on a more permanent, on-going basis, outside the adversarial climate that is involved in bargaining.
• Pay equity issues are logical candidates for such cooperative efforts. These are issues that are often complicated and require considerable technical knowledge. They also require constant communication and dialogue between unions and management.
• Dealing with pay equity issues in joint committees, separate from bargaining, may also highlight that pay equity adjustments are separate and distinct from wage adjustments that occur through collective bargaining.
• This may also reduce the likelihood that pay equity adjustments may lead to lower wage increases elsewhere.

Now that participants have a sense what pay equity is, the legislation and the role that unions can play, it is time to strategize where working women can go from here.

Ask participants to strategize ways women in Alberta can address the issue of pay equity. Record responses on a flipchart.

Note for participants that a legal challenge to the provincial government is a possibility. Akin to that which was undertaken by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. There would be substantial costs associated with this type of legal challenge. Issues, of who will pay, and how long it may take.

Thank you to participants. Hope they will be able to take some of things they heard today back to their workplaces, and their government representatives.

Have material pertaining to pay equity available for their perusal. Contact names and numbers for pay equity representative at the CLC and AFL may also be provided.