Equal pay for equal work
||This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (July 2009)|
||This article is written in the style of a debate rather than an encyclopedic summary. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. (September 2010)|
Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals doing the same work should receive the same remuneration. Among international human rights law, the Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Article 15 of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights ensure the "equal pay for equal work". The Constitution of the International Labour Organization also proclaims "the principles of equal remuneration for equal value". In America, for example, the law states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."
It is most commonly used in a context of sexual discrimination, as equal pay for women. Equal pay does not simply relate to basic salary but also to the full range of benefits, non salary payments, bonuses and allowances that are paid.
Support for equal pay for equal work 
The U.S. Democratic Party has historically supported legislating equal pay for equal work. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law in January 2009. The policy of Basic income guarantee guarantees every Free market supporters believe that any legislation supporting equal pay for equal work does in fact harm the very groups the legislation aims to protect. It is believed that free market forces discriminative employers to pay for their prejudice whereas an equal pay for equal work legislation would simply allow those same employers to have no consequence for their prejudice. An employer who holds an unfair prejudice against women will always hire the man, given the requirement to pay both equally. However, if the woman offers to be compensated slightly less than the man despite having equal talents, the employer will have to pay for the prejudice by still hiring the man. In this case, a competitor now has access to an employee who is both equally skilled and willing to work for less, which will thus put the discriminating employer at a competitive disadvantage.
Free market supporters believe that government actions to correct gender pay disparity serve to interfere with the system of voluntary exchange. They argue the fundamental issue is that the employer is the owner of the job, not the government or the employee. The employer negotiates the job and pays according to performance, not according to job duties. A private business would not want to lose its best performers by compensating them less and can ill afford paying its lower performers higher because the overall productivity will decline.
There are also specific affirmative defenses to the criticism above that government is forcing employers to pay less qualified workers the same as superior workers. The EEOC's four affirmative defenses allows unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) ... any other factor other than sex." If an employer can prove that a pay differential exists because of one of these factors, there is no liability.
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 7
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 15
- ILO Constitution, Preamble
- U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Facts About Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination, accessed on August 26, 2011.
- Michael Tennant. The Justice of Pay Discrimination, LewRockwell.com, accessed on August 26, 2011.