Comparable worth, as a standard applied to eliminate inequities in pay

You can also see in the first paragraph this section: "In the last decade, this approach has become a critical social policy issue, as large numbers of private-sector firms and industries as well as federal, state, and local governmental entities have adopted comparable worth policies or begun to consider doing so".

Comparable Worth is a new policy because it states that entities have adopted the comparable worth policies over the last decade. The adoption of these policies would represent a change in policy (from a different policy or no policy at all)...

KW

Thanks for the question,

We are looking for situations where applying the "other mandates" (ie mandates besides comparable worth "that can be applied to reduce or eliminate unjustified pay gaps between male and female workers"), would likely result in unsatisfactory outcomes for the female employees. What do we know about those "other mandates"? According to the second sentence of the third paragraph, those other mandates "have not remedied perceived pay inequities satisfactorily for the litigants in cases in which men and women hold different jobs". Thus, we are looking for situations where there is an "unjustified pay gap between male and female workers" and where the "men and women hold different jobs" because those are the situations where the other mandates are unlikely to result in an outcome satisfactory to the female employees:

Option I: Here we are comparing men and women "with comparable job experience employed in the same capacity." Because the men and women involved hold the same job, the situation does not fit our criteria; nothing in the passage tells us that applying the "other mandates" will result in unsatisfactory outcomes in situations where the men and women hold the same job.

Option II: Here we have men and women holding different jobs (the men are working outside in the cement factory and the women are working inside the office); we also have a pay gap between male and female workers ("the women are paid much less per hour"). This fits our criteria perfectly (different jobs, difference in pay between male and female workers), and it is thus unlikely that application of the "other mandates" will result in an outcome satisfactory to the female employees. (vs application of comparable worth, which would compare the values of the tasks performed in these dissimilar jobs)

Option III: Here we have men and women with the same job, same education, and same career backgrounds. As with Option I, nothing in the passage tells us that applying the "other mandates" will result in unsatisfactory outcomes in situations where the men and women hold the same job.

So only option II describes a situation where the application of the other mandates "would be unlikely to result in an outcome satisfactory to the female employees", so the answer is B.

I don't quite understand why in Option I they have the same job. It seems as they have similar jobs, but different. Dont quite get why this option is incorrect

I: males employed as long-distance truck drivers for a furniture company make $3.50 more per hour than do females with comparable job experience employed in the same capacity.

workout, u1983, GMATNinja, SajjadAhmad, GMATNinjaTwo, Gnpth
KyleWiddison
5. It can be inferred from the passage that application of "other mandates" (see highlighted text) would be unlikely to result in an outcome satisfactory to the female employees in which of the following situations?

I. Males employed as long-distance truck drivers for a furniture company make $3.50 more per hour than do females with comparable job experience employed in the same capacity.

II. Women working in the office of a cement company contend that their jobs are as demanding and valuable as those of the men working in the cement factory, but the women are paid much less per hour.

III. A law firm employs both male and female paralegals with the same educational and career backgrounds, but the starting salary for male paralegals is $5,000 more than for female paralegals.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(C) III only

(D) I and II only

(E) I and III only


Please explain.


And what does this mean?

"Neither compares tasks in dissimilar jobs (that is, jobs across occupational categories) in an effort to determine whether or not what is necessary to perform these tasks—know-how, problem-solving, and accountability—can be quantified in terms of its dollar value to the employer."

I got confused in q3 between C and E. Why is C wrong in Q3.

can someone please explain q5

5. According to the passage, comparable worth principles are different in which of the following ways from other mandates intended to reduce or eliminate pay inequities?

E. Comparable worth principles can be used to quantify the value of elements of dissimilar jobs

Hi, GMATNinja

In your explanation of this question,



I am still not convinced why B is correct. I understand how D (the option I chose) can be eliminated. I'd like you to take a look at my reasoning.



The policy refers to comparable worth. But where is "a change" in this policy mentioned?
Additionally, the second paragraph only describes a question: Are gains achieved through comparable worth long-lasting or temporary? Sure, this is a significance, but it is a significance of comparable worth itself, NOT of a change in comparable worth.

It would be helpful to get your response! Thanks in advance!

I believe i was going quite good with the attempts. And yes i am quite thorough with the strategies. I have found myself with this failed outcome whenever i tried to over-pace myself. Any solution to work out with that or is it sheer practice?

hey guys..could someone tell me as to y C cannot be selected for the 2nd qn....the passage clearly says" this approach has become a critical social policy issue"...so the policy
has come under criticism

Hi Everyone,

I have a quick question that I'm wondering someone can quickly help me with.

For the question

"According to the passage, which of the following is true of comparable worth as a policy", why is the correct answer B or:

"Comparable worth policies have been applied to both public sector and private sector employee pay schedules". I guess what I'm confused about is why we can definitively conclude that comparable worth has been applied both to public and private pay schedules.

The first paragraph says that public/private has adopted comparable worth policies, but does not necessarily indicate that public/private have applied comparable worth policies to pay schedules specifically?

I was thinking that it is possible policies could be applied to things other than pay schedules, and hence we can't guarantee from the passage that the policies were applied to both public/private pay schedules. It it possible that pay schedules were only evaluated in either public or private settings? The passage doesn't explicitly say whether the policies were applied to the pay schedules for public, private, or both, and therefore I felt selecting answer choice B would be incorrect.

Appreciate any help from the group as I still can't seem to get a handle on this question even after looking at everyone's responses.

Thanks.