In reflecting on recent news and posts, I note the following.
The federal government has substantial initiatives underway to move to pay-for-performance approaches, similar to private sector compensation practices. The Pentagon alone, for example, is spending about $65 million on such an effort. In a similar vein, pay-for-performance is gaining attention and traction within public schools (see here, here, and here).
At the same time, the notion of comparable worth is returning to the spotlight, with Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Hilary Clinton (D-NY) both pushing forward separate bills on the subject. Along similar lines, here in Minnesota where virtually all government entities are required to use a state-mandated comparable worth system to determine compensation, there is an effort underway to extend the state's system out into the private sector. Essentially, these efforts (with the good intent of addressing gender inequities) would replace the more market-based pay approaches that dominate the private sector with a (government developed) methodology that ignores or supercedes market practices as necessary to ensure gender equity.
Does anyone else see a spot of irony here?
Comments