Challenges of Gender Disparities in Pay
Gender disparities are a widespread situation that profoundly contributes to various workplace violations of employees’ rights. Troiano (2018) explains gender disparities as the average variations in the remuneration of women and men in the workforce. Gender inequality issues have contributed to devastating situations in the workforce, especially in jobs that are stereotyped to a specific gender (Lee, 2018). A general example would be the case of a male nurse who, despite being subjected to longer shifts than the female ones, gets almost equal pay with their counterparts (Kohout & Singh, 2018). The prevalence of the issue of concern may be undermined, and therefore, there is a need to evaluate its scope and acquire a more informed insight over the matter (Lee, 2018). This context is thereby intertwined to examine the existing literature concerning challenges endorsed by gender disparities in payments and compensation.
Remarkably, women are more vulnerable to the challenges of gender inequalities in payments and compensations. Butkus et al. (2018) claim that physicians are not equally compensated due to the prevailing gender disparities in health care organizations. The article supports its contention through a survey conducted by the American College of Physicians which showed that female physicians on the average face more challenges concerning equality in compensations, payments and leadership roles than their male counterparts following that they are few and vulnerable in the profession (Butkus et al., 2018). They indicated that only 34% of the physician workforce was female, 46% of the physicians-in-practice and over half of all medical students are females (Butkus et al., 2018). They surveyed in the year 2017 showed that males earned an average of $345,000 while females earned $251,000, a gap of 16% for specialists and similar results were indicated for primary care physicians and academic medicine (Butkus et al., 2018). The article gives several study samples that showed almost identical results indicating that female physicians were less compensated for jobs they equally engaged with men.
Lee (2018) sought to evaluate whether women are paid less, or is it that men are paid more. His contention is entirely different from that of Butkus et al. (2018), following that he believes that the inequality issue on the gender pay gap is often measured or weighed wrongly. Lee (2018) claims that the main challenge is not the gender pay inequalities problem but rather the neutral framings that inform the decision-making processes (Lee, 2018). He undertakes two experiments whereby one aimed at evaluating whether it is the women that are paid less or are it that men are paid more. He uses random tests by asking various males and females from randomly selected workplaces to respond on the matter (Lee, 2018). However, the methodology he employs is not valuable, following that the data collections used are prone to bias. Also, the information can be distorted since he does not observe ethical considerations (Lee, 2018). The results from the study indicated that framing as a tool that fosters gender inequity profoundly contribute to people making more attributions concerning men as the reasons for the gap evident. The study outcomes are not grounded on an imperative survey, thereby questioning the information provided by Lee (2018).
Kohout and Singh (2018) purposed to evaluate the encounters of vulnerable women in attaining equal compensation for jobs of fair value. They employ their focus on a leading jurisdiction in Ontario, Canada following that it is universal legislation on equity in payments. Kohout and Singh (2018) undertake a qualitative research study whereby they conducted 23 interviews among women defined as marginalized. The data collected were analyzed using the thematic analysis approach. After the analysis, they found out that there are hidden social features besides organizational and structural hindrances limiting the capability of marginalized females to achieve equality in compensations (Kohout & Singh, 2018). The authors also extensively endorse the ideology of equal pay for equal work by negating gender discrimination and upholding pay equity. It is essential to acknowledge that women are less paid in various working settings. However, Kohout and Singh’s (2018) study contradicts Lee (2018) following that the former relates the challenge to the marginalization of women, whereas the latter base their argument on the framing tool. However, they all conclude at a similar point that females receive fewer compensations and payments when compared to men despite having completed a parallel task.
The provision of equal pay for all works completed equally is a regime profoundly promoted under the Equal Pay Act in 1963, which was modelled to help in narrowing the gender pay gap in the United States (Nadler et al., 2016). Currently, the number of women acquiring higher learning is rapidly increasing and therefore, those seeking and already in most of the available jobs are often suffering from pay discriminations, among others forms of bias (Nadler et al., 2016). The percentage ratio of the earnings for men and women aged 45 to 54 have recorded a significant shoot from 57% in 1979 to 78% in 2013 (Nadler et al., 2016). Therefore, it is deductible that education has extensively helped in minimizing the existing pay gap following that most women and movements have forum their voice to fight for gender equality. Nadler et al. (2016) conducted meta-analysis research whereby they concluded that for the various cross-country researches undertaken to establish the scope of the gender pay gap and the contribution of education in remedying the situation (Nadler et al., 2016). The results indicated that most women are discriminated settings where most of them have acquired low-level education or none, making them vulnerable and subjective to their perpetrators.
Troiano (2018) furthers the literature on the subject by evaluating causes, consequences and policy mechanisms in facing the universal phenomenon of the gender pay gap. Complete equality has not been achieved despite women making substantial breakthroughs achieving similar educational levels to men (Troiano, 2018). The study incorporates qualitative and quantitative research methods to provide information on the scope of the subject and the possible consequences of the challenge. The unequal pay based on gender is not only affiliated to women but also the economy and society (Troiano, 2018). The conclusions establish a new phenomenon related to the one under dissertation, including glass ceiling, discrimination and carrier breaks, which are also considered essential features of consideration in furthering the existing knowledge concerning the topic (Troiano, 2018).
It is essential to consider the public’s perceptions concerning the matter following that the different perspectives might also play a significant role in influencing gender pay disparities in the workforce. Bishu and Alkadry (2017) conducted a systematic review, including ninety-eight peer-reviewed articles that evaluated the existence of a gender pay gap empirically alongside factors that influence it in an organizational setting. The study purposed at exploring trends in thematic points that frequently occurred, especially concerning gender bias and the identified ones and summarizing and comparing the gender compensation gap (Bishu & Alkadry, 2017). The results indicated that the public sector, similar to education presented by Nadler et al. 2016, can profoundly help mitigate the existing gender pay gap. The change can only be initiated when the public sector develops positive stereotypes and perspectives towards women or marginalized people in economic activities. Furthermore, the public must also entirely participate in upholding equality among populations (Bishu & Alkadry, 2017).
A gender reimbursement gap exists for healthcare workers, and many studies have quantified the difference between male and female workers. Desai et al. (2016) analyzed over three million of the Medicare reimbursement claims for 2012 and compared the totals against a worker’s productivity in the United States (Desai et al., 2016). A significant differential was found at a 95% confidence interval with huge figures US$ 18 677.23 existed between 11 of the specialists with only two showing an insignificant difference, but a difference all the same (Desai et al., 2016). Despite their years of experience or productivity, female healthcare workers are still reimbursed less than their male counterparts. It reflected a culture of equal work but unequal pay (Desai et al., 2016). However, the study did not use objective non-survey data to provide a more accurate understanding of the gender gap in reimbursement for healthcare providers (Desai et al., 2016).
Gender pay disparities do not only exist in the field of medicine but also across different organizations. A comprehensive study by Smith-Doer et al. (2019) used 16 million records from 2.8 million over 14 years to investigate organizational variations in the gender pay gap. Results showed that markets that were presumed to ensure a ‘merit-based’ competition for incomes, in reality, depict gender subjective outcomes (Smith-Doer et al., 2019). The data compared male and female federal workers in similar occupations and workplaces. Organizations were categorized into two, traditionally masculine such as physical sciences and engineering and non-gendered to include biological and interdisciplinary sciences (Smith-Doer et al., 2019). Human capital variances majorly influenced the pay gap in non-gendered agencies. In contrast, in the male-dominated fields, men received higher pay, a concept referred to as within-job discrimination. The pay gap in gender-neutral agencies was influenced by individual characterization in that race, and educational backgrounds were used to reinforce gender hierarchies (Smith-Doer et al., 2019). The organizational variations explained by what means pay practices matter in particular organizational contexts. Nevertheless, the focus of the study on the corporate level meant overlooking the individual level process.
In Information and technology (ICT), the gender wage gap is exacerbated by the glass ceiling effect, which refers to barriers that deter advancement in a profession, especially among minority groups. Vertical segregation and discrimination in the pay gap are evident in a study carried by Segovia‐Pérez et al. (2020) with different patterns between technicians and specialists, women being inferior. The empirical analysis of data from the Spanish Earning Structure Survey for 2014 with a sample of 6 176 ICT workers established that discrimination against technicians was higher than against specialists (Segovia‐Pérez et al., 2020). The glass ceiling in ICT was on a decline in ICT aided by its globalization. Moreover, the sample used in the study comprised a homogenous group in terms of qualifications and education.
A Fundamental global rethinking of women’s role in society and the promotion of gender equality to achieve sustainable development has since before the American Revolution with minimal success as today’s trends attest. Countries like the United Kingdom (UK) still reported a gender pay gap of 8.9% of full-time workers in 2019 despite the Equality Act 2010 (Frank, 2020). The research modelled a ‘professional banding’ system introduced in some UK universities hoping to eliminate gender-based discrimination (Frank, 2020). Using a sample of 117 professors from all ages and schools found that the expensive indirect approach of ‘professor banding’ was not successful because of the external market, briefer female occupancy in the position of professor, and ‘sticky floors’ for women (Frank, 2020). ‘Sticky floors’ is a metaphor that refers to conditions where women deter themselves from advancement. A direct method was successful at the University of Sussex that basically bridged the gap by paying all women an extra 4000 euro pounds and solved the challenge once and for all (Frank, 2020).
In conclusion, the current literature extensively exploits the scope of the gender pay gap, thereby informing my dissertation by pinpointing some of the areas that future studies should focus on. For instance, Troiano (2018) identifies the need to examine the most affected production sectors so that researchers can have the basis to suggest essential interventions to help remedy the situation (Smith-Doer et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is necessary to evaluate the various measures that have been implemented in the past to find a solution to the gender disparity challenge and how to fill the pay gap that has resulted from the parity issue (Frank, 2020). Therefore, the current literature is essential and equipped, following that it offers substantial information concerning the subject, which is also vital to the dissertation.
References
Bishu, S. G., & Alkadry, M. G. (2017). A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society, 49(1), 65-104. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0095399716636928
Butkus, R., Serchen, J., Moyer, D. V., Bornstein, S. S., & Hingle, S. T. (2018). Achieving gender equity in physician compensation and career advancement: a position paper of the American College of Physicians. Annals of internal medicine, 168(10), 721-723. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M17-3438
Desai, T., Ali, S., Fang, X., Thompson, W., Jawa, P., & Vachharajani, T. (2016). Equal work for unequal pay: the gender reimbursement gap for healthcare providers in the United States. Postgraduate medical journal, 92(1092), 571-575. https://pmj.bmj.com/content/92/1092/571.short
Frank, J. (2020). The Persistence of the Gender Pay Gap in British Universities. Fiscal Studies. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-5890.12219
Kohout, R., & Singh, P. (2018). Pay equity and marginalized women. Gender in Management: An International Journal. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GM-06-2017-0073/full/html
Lee, S. J. (2018). Women are paid less or men are paid more?: effect of inequity frames on how individuals address gender pay gap (Doctoral dissertation). https://repository.ust.hk/ir/Record/1783.1-96297
Nadler, J. T., Voyles, E. C., Cocke, H., & Lowery, M. R. (2016). Gender disparity in pay, work schedule autonomy and job satisfaction at higher education levels. North American Journal of Psychology, 18(3), 623.
Segovia‐Pérez, M., Castro Núñez, R. B., Santero Sánchez, R., & Laguna Sánchez, P. (2020). Being a woman in an ICT job: an analysis of the gender pay gap and discrimination in Spain. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(1), 20-39. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ntwe.12145
Smith-Doerr, L., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Alegria, S., Husbands Fealing, K., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2019). Gender pay gaps in US federal science agencies: An organizational approach. American Journal of Sociology, 125(2), 534-576. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/705514
Troiano, M. G. (2018). Gender pay gap: causes, consequences and policy mechanisms to face a worldwide phenomenon (Bachelor’s thesis, Università Ca’Foscari Venezia). http://157.138.7.91/handle/10579/12994