The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) today (23 November 2006) released its Study on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value (EPEV), a long term project undertaken by the Commission to advance the principle of EPEV in Hong Kong. Based on work conducted in a Feasibility Study and a Consultancy Study, the Commission will adopt the following for the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value in Hong Kong : 

• Develop best-practice guide on gender-neutral pay determination system
• Improve existing Code of Practice (CoP) on Employment under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO) to explain and facilitate public understanding of this complex subject
• Encourage employers to introduce family-friendly employment policies and practices to address the issue of job segregation
• Encourage and work with stakeholders to conduct public surveys on public understanding of EPEV
• Strengthen public education and training programme
• Investigate EPEV complaints under the existing complaint channel, as the concept and principle of EPEV is enshrined in the SDO

"This is a complex subject, and we must consider the best way forward. We have examined closely views expressed by stakeholders, and we are aware that different countries have taken different routes on this particular subject. We need to ensure that the direction we are taking is appropriate to advance equal pay for work of equal value in Hong Kong," Mr. Raymond TANG Chairperson of the EOC said. "While our international obligations do not mandate specific legislation on the subject of Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value, the Commission supports the principle of EPEV, and our initiatives so far have helped us to better understand and consider the most effective and comprehensive approach to foster EPEV."

The Study on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value released today comprises :

1. A Paper on the subject of Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value prepared by the Equal Opportunities Commission
2. Feasibility Study on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value (1997-1998)
3. Consultant's Report - Consultancy Study on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value in the Public Sector (2004)
4. Comments from EPEV Task Force members

Initially a Feasibility Study was completed in 1999, followed by 2 conferences in 2000 and 2001. The Feasibility Study had recommended a persuasive approach for adopting EPEV, as many respondents including employers and trade unions spoke against mandatory implementation of EPEV. At the first conference on the same subject, more than 300 participants, representing government, employers, women's organizations, trade unions, human resource practitioners and academia discussed ways for a comprehensive approach to address EPEV. The Commission also announced the establishment of a Task Force to look into how best to progressively implement the principle of EPEV. Overseas speakers attended the second conference and exchanged experiences in adopting EPEV in their respective countries.
 
A further initiative, a Consultancy Study on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value in the Public Sector was commissioned to find out whether pay inequity in the context of EPEV existed in the Civil Service and the Hospital Authority; to gain experience and skills internally; to raise public awareness and to develop ways of implementing of EPEV. 49 gender dominated jobs out of 392 male or female-dominated jobs identified with the civil service and 27 out of 156 gender-dominated jobs identified in the Hospital Authority were selected for review and evaluation in this pilot study. The Study adopted a Canadian job evaluation model that used four job-related factors to determine the value of the jobs: skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
 
The Study's findings based on the Canadian model showed that in the civil service jobs, female-dominated jobs in junior ranks were generally paid higher than male dominated jobs. However, the reverse was found in the middle and senior ranks. Similar results were found in the case of the Hospital Authority. The results showed that in both organizations there were some male dominated jobs (male jobs) that were paying more than female dominated jobs (female jobs), and this varied according to the seniority of the positions and whether one looked at the pay minimum, the mid-point of the scale or the pay maximum. There was found to be quite substantial differences in individual jobs in both directions (i.e. both men earning more than women and women earning more than men). This mixed result clearly reveals that there is no systemic discrimination against female employees in either organization.
 
The Consultant's Report on the study recommended that the Civil Service and the Hospital Authority should base their pay determination on a broader range of criteria or "job factors". It was the Consultant's view that the EOC should strengthen public education and training for human resources professionals on the concept of EPEV. It was proposed that the EOC should work towards the development of guidelines on the implementation of EPEV to supplement the existing Code of Practice on Employment under the SDO. The Consultant also recommended that the Government either reconsider its position on not to introduce specific EPEV legislation or to amend the SDO in order to provide clarity to employers and employees in the implementation of EPEV.

Equal pay for equal work (EPEW) is a concept which addresses the situation where women are paid less than men for doing the same job, or vice versa. EPEV, on the other hand, is a concept which deals with the issue that arises when women and men are segregated into different jobs, but the jobs done mainly by men have higher rewards than those done by women, or vice versa, even though they may be of comparable (equal) worth to the organization. In other words, EPEV argues for equal pay for jobs that are not the same but are comparable in terms of education, skills, working conditions and other factors, i.e jobs that are considered to be of equal value.
 
For media enquiries, please contact Ms. Mariana Law at 2106-2226.

---

Notes for Media

What is EPEV?  Is it a concept similar to "equal pay for equal work" (EPEW)?

EPEV is a concept similar to but not the same as EPEW. 

EPEW is a concept to deal with the issue that women are paid less than men for doing the same job, or vice versa.  EPEV, on the other hand, is a concept which deals with the issue that women and men are segregated into different jobs, but the jobs done mainly by men have a higher reward than those done by women, or vice versa, even though they may require similar credentials and similar work experience and may not be affected by market forces at play.  In other words, EPEV argues for equal pay for jobs that are not the same but have the same value.

How can we measure "value" of jobs of different nature?

In countries that have introduced specific legislation on EPEV (e.g. Australia, Canada, UK, USA), "job evaluation" is a common tool adopted to assess "value" of a job.  These countries assess "value" of a job from the point of view of work contents (e.g. skill, responsibility, effort, working conditions, etc.).  The current study used the job evaluation approach adopted in Canada and assessed the "value" of the jobs studied from the point of view of work content only.

How would one be able to tell if any discrimination existed in an organization?

The basic approach adopted in this study was based upon the approach adopted in Canada within the Canadian Civil service.  Jobs in the HK CS and HK HA that had more than 75% of men in it (male dominated jobs) were evaluated and so were jobs with more than 75% of females in them (female dominated jobs) and a graph plotted showing the evaluation score on one axis and the mid point of salary scale on the other . From all these separate plots was drawn a 'line of best fit' between the male jobs to create a male 'line of best fit' and the same for the female jobs. If there were no discrimination between female salaries and male salaries then one would expect these two lines to be quite close together.  Small differences would be caused by statistical errors and by the inherent subjectivity of the job scoring method. However, if the two lines were quite far apart this would indicate the possibility of some intentional or unintentional discrimination. In such case it would be necessary to investigate the matter more thoroughly.

In reality, the market forces of supply and demand for labour can cause differences in salaries between jobs that do not fairly reflect differences in job value so some 'scatter' would be expected between the salaries for jobs of similar value.  However if systematically the female jobs are paid lower than the male jobs as demonstrated by a large separation in the male and the female lines of best fit, then it could be assumed that there is systemic discrimination against the females in that organization. The difficulty of course, is in deciding what constitutes a large difference signifying discrimination rather than a small difference suggesting unfair market forces or simple errors in the methodology.

Is there any wage gap between male and female employees in Hong Kong?  How wide is that?

According to the General Household Survey conducted by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) in the fourth quarter of 2005, the median monthly employment earning was $10,000, and there was a difference of $2,000 between the earning of male ($11,000) and that of female ($9,000).

What factors attributed to the gender wage gap in Hong Kong?
The gender wage gap may be attributable to a number of factors, such as occupational segregation, socialization, under-valuation of so-called 'female jobs', market forces and discrimination. 

Is Hong Kong under any obligation to implement the concept of EPEV?

Yes.  The International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), now enshrined in Article 39 of the Basic Law, was extended to Hong Kong in 1976.  Article 7(a)(1) of ICESCR recognizes the right to 'Fair wages and equal remuneration of work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal value of work.' 

In 1996, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was extended to Hong Kong and its Article 11(1)(d) provides for the 'right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work'. 

The Government is also required to implement this principle under its obligations to the International Labour Organization (ILO) since its adoption of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in June 1998. 

Is Hong Kong under any obligation to introduce specific legislation on EPEV?

No.  The relevant Articles of the ICESCR, CEDAW and ILO Convention do not mandate ratifying States to introduce specific legislation on EPEV.

For example, the relevant ILO Convention provides that each ratifying State "shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote, and in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value".  Hence, the measures required by a government to meet its obligation are flexible and are dependent on the methods already in operation for determining wages or remuneration.

The relevant ILO Convention also provides that the principle of EPEV may be applied through various means, including:

• national laws or regulations;
• legally established or recognised machinery for wage fixing;
• collective agreements between employers and workers; or
• a combination of these various means.

Why EPEV is relevant to the work of the EOC?

Since the principle of EPEV is enshrined in the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO), the Home Affairs Bureau has asked the EOC to include the principle of EPEV in its portfolio.  Ever since EOC's establishment in 1996, it has worked steadily to advance the principle by first including it in the Code of Practice on Employment issued under the SDO, which states: "Where women undertake work as demanding as that of male colleagues [or vice versa].  Even though the work is different, women should receive the same benefits.  That is, jobs of equal value warrant equal pay. …… Employers should maintain the principle of equal pay for equal work and are encouraged to consider progressive implementation of equal pay for equal value."

When was the EOC's first attempt to study the subject of EPEV?

The EOC commissioned a feasibility study in 1997. 

What are the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study?

The feasibility study found that employers and trade unions were not very supportive of making EPEV mandatory through legislation.  It also found that few companies in Hong Kong had clearly defined jobs and few could afford a job evaluation, which is the most common tool adopted by countries that have already introduced specific legislation on EPEV to assess "job value".  It concluded that legislating for EPEV might be impractical for HK employers and recommended instead a persuasive approach towards EPEV.  It also recommended that the EOC should promote EPEV on a voluntary basis by large organizations and to change discriminatory policies and stereotypical socialization and attitudes through public education.

What is the aim/objective of the current study?

The current study is a research-oriented pilot study aimed at checking whether there is any evidence of systemic discrimination on the basis of gender in the context of EPEV.  It is not an investigation to compare individual jobs to find out whether there is any "pay discrimination" among the jobs selected for study.  It is the first phase of an originally planned three-phase study.  The first phase was an examination, from an EPEV perspective, of the situation in the public sector.  The second phase and third phase originally planned would have involved an examination of companies in the private sector with over 200 employees and smaller companies respectively but these two phases have now been replaced by a more comprehensive programme of training, education and guidance.

Which particular public sector employers were selected for the current study?

The Civil Service and the Hospital Authority were selected.  The Civil Service was selected because the government is the largest employer in the public sector, and the Hospital Authority was selected because it is one of the largest employers of women in the public sector when compared with government departments and other statutory bodies. 

Did the results of the pilot study reveal any systemic discrimination?

No. However, the results showed that in both organizations there were some male dominated jobs  (male jobs) that were paying more salary than female dominated jobs (female jobs) and vice versa, and this varied according to the seniority of the positions and whether one looked at the pay minimum, the mid point of the scale or the pay maximum. There was found to be quite substantial differences in individual jobs in both directions (i.e. both men earning more than women and women earning more than men).  This mixed result clearly reveals that there is no systemic discrimination against female employees in either organization.

Is the use of job evaluation the only way to check for discrimination?

It may not be the only way but is the method adopted in most other countries that have legislated for EPEV.  Different countries use slightly different methods of job evaluation in terms of the details but the principles are the same. In particular they may use different factors in the evaluation process.