인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
The legal provision for equal pay for equal value work was stipulated in the former Equal Employment Opportunity And Work-family Balance Assistance Act in 1989. However, it is so hard to find cases of it that it can be said as non-performing and not valid. This study aims to establish legal theory of equal pay for equal value work in Korean labor law and to put forth major issues and improvement measures to establish specific criteria for equal pay for equal value work that can be utilized in the remedy procedures of wage discrimination.
Even if there is equal pay for equal value work, if salary cap is set up high for jobs where male workers dominate and low for jobs where female do, it can be construed that there is gender discrimination. But with regard to this, the excuse that “discriminatory practices of the past when women’s employment was made later than men’s and there were jobs mostly covered by male employees had a tendency of setting up a high cap” can be granted. Or, as in the Wilson case in the UK, where the seniority wage system is argued as discrimination against women when men and women perform same jobs, the practices of seniority-based salary failed to justify this.
Contrary to some claims that Korea"s seniority-based salary system and legal provisions for equal pay for value work are incompatible, the seniority-based salary system that is not contaminated with discrimination and thus well in place can work under the provisions for equal pay for equal value work and the anti-discrimination law. But citing the seniority-based wage practice as if it were a panacea can compromises the legislative purpose of equal pay for equal value work, we need a more nuanced approach than framing the. This is because in countries like the US where only the “genuine seniority-based wage structure” is provided, such justification can be accepted in most cases. The basic principle should be that the argument presented for seniority-based wages has to be able to break the presumption that there has been gender discrimination in wages (a violation of the provision for equal pay for equal value work). In cases where there is a wage difference between men and women in same jobs because of the seniority wage system working more favorably for men, the wage system should be strictly examined for justification. Only with justifiable reasons, the case that different seniority wage systems for equal value work can be granted and accepted. In particular, if evidence shows that different seniority standards for same value jobs are derived of gender discrimination, employers’ defense should be reviewed more strictly.
Even if there is equal pay for equal value work, if salary cap is set up high for jobs where male workers dominate and low for jobs where female do, it can be construed that there is gender discrimination. But with regard to this, the excuse that “discriminatory practices of the past when women’s employment was made later than men’s and there were jobs mostly covered by male employees had a tendency of setting up a high cap” can be granted. Or, as in the Wilson case in the UK, where the seniority wage system is argued as discrimination against women when men and women perform same jobs, the practices of seniority-based salary failed to justify this.
Contrary to some claims that Korea"s seniority-based salary system and legal provisions for equal pay for value work are incompatible, the seniority-based salary system that is not contaminated with discrimination and thus well in place can work under the provisions for equal pay for equal value work and the anti-discrimination law. But citing the seniority-based wage practice as if it were a panacea can compromises the legislative purpose of equal pay for equal value work, we need a more nuanced approach than framing the. This is because in countries like the US where only the “genuine seniority-based wage structure” is provided, such justification can be accepted in most cases. The basic principle should be that the argument presented for seniority-based wages has to be able to break the presumption that there has been gender discrimination in wages (a violation of the provision for equal pay for equal value work). In cases where there is a wage difference between men and women in same jobs because of the seniority wage system working more favorably for men, the wage system should be strictly examined for justification. Only with justifiable reasons, the case that different seniority wage systems for equal value work can be granted and accepted. In particular, if evidence shows that different seniority standards for same value jobs are derived of gender discrimination, employers’ defense should be reviewed more strictly.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2023-336-001343676
