Comparable Worth Begins
The concept of comparable worth began in the fall and winter of 1973 in Washington State. Realizing that many state employees (primarily women) were paid less than other employees even though their jobs seem to be comparable in value, the Washington Federation of State Employees requested, by letter, that Governor Dan Evans take a leadership role in dealing with the problem (letter dated November 20, 1973).
Governor Evans responded by requesting that the heads of the two personnel systems, the Higher Education Personnel Board and the Department of Personnel, initiate a study to identify job classifications held predominately by women which had salaries that fall below classifications filled by men which appear to have a comparable level of skill requirement and job responsibility (letter dated November 28, 1973).
Preliminary Study Done
A preliminary study was completed in December of 1973 and submitted to Governor Evans in January of 1974. That study, which covered 12 classes filled predominantly by men and 12 classes filled predominately by women, confirmed the possibility of discrimination between men and women in state service. It was the contention of the people involved with the study that further investigation was needed.
Comparable Worth Study Initiated
The preliminary study led to the "Comparable Worth Study" which began in April of 1974 and was completed in September of 1974. Hired to lead the study was Norman D. Willis and Associates, a Seattle based consulting firm.
121 Job Classes Selected
The 121 job classes to be studied were selected by a five member panel which included Larry Goodman, WFSE's Director of Personnel Board Activities. The classifications were divided between classifications held predominately by 70% of either sex. Fifty nine male dominated classes, involving 4,497 employees, and 62 female dominated classes, involving 9,115 employees, were included in the study.
Work Begins
During the study, a ten member Advisory Committee, including a representative of WFSE, was set up to assist the consulting firm.
The study began with the use of a position questionnaire sent to 1,600 state employees chosen at random within the 121 classes. A task force of state employees was trained to interview people in the positions. Eight hundred of the 1,600 employees were interviewed by either task force members or by employees of the consulting firm.
Four Criteria Selected
The positions were to be rated on four components: (1) knowledge and skills (2) mental demands (3) accountability and (4) working conditions.
An evaluation committee of 13 people was set up to rate the positions. This committee included several WFSE members as well as Pat Sisco. At the time of the study, Pat was working for AFSCME Council 2, Washington State Council of County and City Employees. She later came to work for WFSE as an area representative and retired from WFSE in that job.
Results Conclusive
The study revealed that, overall, women received about 20% lower pay than men for comparable work. That equaled about $175.00 per month. Positions under the Higher Education Personnel Board showed greater disparity than those under the State Personnel Board but in neither system did salaries for "women's" job ever surpass salaries for "men's" jobs of comparable value.
An example of the disparity was the comparison between the job classes of clerk typist and warehouse worker l. Both jobs received 94 points. The clerk typist was paid a salary 10 ranges below that of the warehouse worker 1.
Another example was the comparison between the job class of supervisor, secretarial support center and the job class of parole and probation officer 1. Each of these job classes received 301 points in the evaluation. However, the supervisor of the secretarial support center was paid 4 ranges below the parole and probation officer.
No Action Taken
Despite the results of the survey, no action was taken during the 1975 legislative session. The union's priority during that session was lobbying to boost all state employees salaries. But the idea of comparable worth was not dead. It continued to be one of WFSE's goals.
1976 Union Action
On May 15, 1976, the WFSE executive board passed a resolution to work toward implementation of a plan to correct the inequities revealed by the comparable worth study. The first step WFSE took to implement the resolution was to send a letter to the directors of both personnel systems on June 2, 1976 requesting that the August 1976 salary survey incorporate the job worth concepts. WFSE also initiated a request for an updated comparable worth study. Phase 2 of the study was completed in December of 1976. It revealed that discrimination between job classes of comparable worth still existed. The clerk typist, in the 1976 study, was paid $385 a month less than the warehouse worker 1 and the clerical supervisor was paid $196.00 a month less than the probation officer.
1977 Action
Outgoing Governor Evans' budget request to the 1977 legislature included $7 million to begin a phase-in implementation of comparable worth. However, newly elected Governor Dixy Lee Ray deleted this amount, questioning the methods used and indicating that Willis ended up "comparing apples and pumpkins and a can of worms".
WFSE, meanwhile, helped draft an amendment to the 1977 salary survey bill, SB 2383, which would allow comparable worth to be a consideration in the salary setting process.
1981: WFSE Tries Another Way to Correct the Problem
In the face of lack of action by the Governor and the legislature, on September 16, 1981, WFSE filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeking an order to force the state to begin work on implementation of Comparable Worth. In the complaint, WFSE charged that the State of Washington violated the federal Civil Rights Act by having discriminatory wage practices.
1982 Court Action
WFSE waited the six months required by law for the EEOC to act on the complaint they had filed. The six months expired without a response so WFSE requested a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC.
On July 20, 1982 WFSE filed a law suit in the U. S. District Court charging the state with violations of the federal Civil Rights Act and the state's Equal Rights Act and asking for comparable worth pay adjustments.
1983 Court Action
In the fall and winter of 1983, the Comparable Worth Lawsuit was heard by Federal Judge Jack Tanner. He ruled in favor of the men and women who held traditionally female jobs. His order included immediate relief for those employees in job classification that were 70% or more female and back pay to September 1979. In order to determine the details of implementation, Judge Tanner appointed a special master to work with the union and the state. The state filed an appeal of Judge Tanner's decision with the District Appeals Court. The Appeals Court granted a stay of the implementation stage so the state was not obligated to start paying people until the appeal process was complete.
1983/84 Legislative Action
Spurred by WFSE's lawsuit, the legislature included some money for implementing comparable worth in the 83/85 biennial budget. State employees who were 8 ranges or more below their comparable worth level received $100 a year or $8.33 per month, beginning July 1, 1984.
The implementation was inadequate but even this gesture would not have occurred without WFSE's law suit. The legislature also adopted SSB 3248 during the 1983 session. This bill required that salary adjustments reflecting comparable worth be included in the salary survey package. It also required that adjustments to achieve comparable worth be made at least annually and that comparable worth for all state employees be achieved by June of 1993.
A joint select committee on comparable worth implementation was formed. The 16 member committee consisted of representatives from the Senate, the House, business and labor groups and women's organizations. The committee was established to review and formulate ways to implement comparable worth for state employees and to report its findings and recommendations to the legislature. The committee was continued during the 1984 session and submitted their findings to the legislature in January of 1985.
1985 Court Action
On April 4, 1985, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the State's appeal. On September 4, 1985, the three judge panel reversed Judge Tanner's decision.
WFSE requested a review of the decision by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and announced that they would appeal the case on to the U. S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
1985 Legislative Action
During the 1985 legislative session, more money was budgeted for comparable worth. An additional $6.25 per month was budgeted for those people in classes 8 ranges or more below their comparable worth value as of the 1984 comparable worth study. This increase was effective July 1, 1985 with another $6.25 per month funded effective July 1, 1986.
The most significant budget item for comparable worth was the
$42 million which was set aside. This money was tied to an out-of-court
settlement of WFSE's lawsuit.
Any settlement had to be approved by the Court and the Legislature
and, if an agreement was reached and approved by the Court and
the Legislature, the money would be available beginning January
1, 1987.
1985 Negotiations
On September 9, 1985, despite the Appeals Court decision, negotiations between the Union and the State began.
The state's negotiating team was headed by Susan Agid, a Seattle attorney.
The union's negotiating team consisted of George Masten, who was WFSE's Executive Director at the time; Diana Rock, AFSCME Director of Women's Rights; Larry Goodman, WFSE's Director of Personnel Board Activities; and Ed Younglove, one of WFSE's attorneys who had been on the legal team that represented WFSE in Federal Court. In November of 1985, after being hired to replace WFSE's Executive Director, George Masten who had retired, Gary Moore joined the negotiating team.
On December 31, 1985 a settlement was reached.
1986 Ratification and Court Approval
The agreement was ratified by the Legislature during the 1986 session and was sent to Federal Judge Jack Tanner for Court approval. Judge Tanner approved the agreement on April 11, 1986.
Summary of the Settlement
The settlement granted initial comparable worth increases effective April 1, 1986, with additional increases given from July 1, 1987 until the final implementation occurred on July 1, 1992. The amounts of the increases varied depending on the evaluated comparable worth points established for each classification. Approximately 35,000 state employees benefited from the union's work and received part of the 482 million dollar settlement.
Final Summary
The issue of pay equity and the resolution of the union's lawsuit has been achieved through the persistence of the men and women who are members of WFSE. From initial recognition of the problem in 1973 to the final implementation of the settlement in 1992, WFSE members have proven, that, when united and determined, employees can stop sex-based wage discrimination. The wage gap between men and women in state government has been narrowed because of the commitment of WFSE's members.