an article by Mercedes Villanueva-Flores (Cadiz University, Spain) and Ramon Valle and Mar Bornay-Barrachina (Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain) published in Personnel Review Volume 46 Issue 3 (2017)
Abstract
Purpose
This study examines whether disabled workers perceive negative workplace experiences in terms of discrimination. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of perceived distributive injustice at work, regarding three dimensions – job assignment, compensation and career development opportunities – on perceived discrimination and explore the mediation role of perceived discrimination in the relationship between perceived distributive injustice and the job dissatisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach
Research hypotheses are tested with a questionnaire administered to 107 disabled employees working in public and private Spanish organisations.
Findings
The results indicate that physically disabled people perceive distributive injustice and discrimination at work regarding job assignment, compensation and career development opportunities in Andalusian organisations, and this perception of discrimination leads to feel dissatisfaction. This study confirms the triple dimensionality of two of the variables studied: perceived distributive injustice at work and perceived discrimination at work.
Originality/value
Few studies have focussed on disability-related issues from a human resource management viewpoint. This study focusses on job assignments, compensation and career development and shows that the perception of discrimination mediates the relation between the perception of distributive injustice at work, and job dissatisfaction. That is, perceived distributive injustice in the organisation leads physically disabled employees to compare their situation with that of their non-disabled peers and thus to perceive discrimination regarding job assignment, compensation and career development opportunities. As a result, they become dissatisfied with their jobs. The results obtained allow us to extend the organisational justice framework, achieving a more thorough understanding of the perception of both injustice and discrimination.
Showing posts with label compensation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compensation. Show all posts
Sunday, 20 August 2017
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Equality of Opportunity
an article by Marc Fleurbaey (University of Princeton) and Vito Peragine (University of Bari) published in Economica Volume 80 Issue 317 (January 2013)
Abstract
We study the difference between the ex post and ex ante perspectives in equality of opportunity.
We show that the well documented conflicts between compensation and reward are but an aspect of a broader conflict between ex ante and ex post perspectives.
The literature that takes the goal of providing equal opportunities as the guiding principle generally considers that this is implemented only when, ex post, all individuals with the same effort obtain equal success.
It is easy to believe that ex ante compensation is another natural embodiment of the same idea. We show that this is not true.
Full text (HTML)
Hazel’s comment:
Intellectual and statistical but I found those bits I understood very interesting.
Abstract
We study the difference between the ex post and ex ante perspectives in equality of opportunity.
We show that the well documented conflicts between compensation and reward are but an aspect of a broader conflict between ex ante and ex post perspectives.
The literature that takes the goal of providing equal opportunities as the guiding principle generally considers that this is implemented only when, ex post, all individuals with the same effort obtain equal success.
It is easy to believe that ex ante compensation is another natural embodiment of the same idea. We show that this is not true.
Full text (HTML)
Hazel’s comment:
Intellectual and statistical but I found those bits I understood very interesting.
Monday, 6 August 2012
Decoupling of Wage Growth and Productivity Growth? Myth and Reality
a research paper by João Paulo Pessoa (Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics) and John Van Reenen (Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, NBER and CEPR) published by the Resolution Foundation
Abstract
It is widely believed that in the US wage growth has fallen massively behind productivity growth. Recently, it has also been suggested that the UK is starting to follow the same path.
Analysts point to the much faster growth of GDP per hour than median wages. We distinguish between “net decoupling” – the difference in growth of GDP per hour deflated by the GDP deflator and average compensation deflated by the same index – and “gross decoupling” – the difference in growth of GDP per hour deflated by the GDP deflator and median wages deflated by a measure of consumer price inflation (CPI).
We would expect that over the long‐run real compensation growth deflated by the producer price (the labour costs that employers face) should track real labour productivity growth (value added per hour), so net decoupling should only occur if labour’s share falls as a proportion of gross GDP, something that rarely happens over sustained periods.
We show that over the past 40 years there is almost no net decoupling in the UK, although there is evidence of substantial gross decoupling in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the UK. This difference between gross and net decoupling can be accounted for essentially by three factors (i) wage inequality (which means the average wage is growing faster than the median wage), (ii) the wedge between compensation (which includes employer‐provided benefits like pensions and health insurance) and wages which do not and (iii) differences in the GDP deflator and the consumer price deflator (i.e. producer wages and consumption wages).
These three factors explain basically ALL of the gross decoupling leaving only a small amount of “net decoupling”. The first two factors are important in both countries, whereas the difference in price deflators is only important in the US.
Abstract
It is widely believed that in the US wage growth has fallen massively behind productivity growth. Recently, it has also been suggested that the UK is starting to follow the same path.
Analysts point to the much faster growth of GDP per hour than median wages. We distinguish between “net decoupling” – the difference in growth of GDP per hour deflated by the GDP deflator and average compensation deflated by the same index – and “gross decoupling” – the difference in growth of GDP per hour deflated by the GDP deflator and median wages deflated by a measure of consumer price inflation (CPI).
We would expect that over the long‐run real compensation growth deflated by the producer price (the labour costs that employers face) should track real labour productivity growth (value added per hour), so net decoupling should only occur if labour’s share falls as a proportion of gross GDP, something that rarely happens over sustained periods.
We show that over the past 40 years there is almost no net decoupling in the UK, although there is evidence of substantial gross decoupling in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the UK. This difference between gross and net decoupling can be accounted for essentially by three factors (i) wage inequality (which means the average wage is growing faster than the median wage), (ii) the wedge between compensation (which includes employer‐provided benefits like pensions and health insurance) and wages which do not and (iii) differences in the GDP deflator and the consumer price deflator (i.e. producer wages and consumption wages).
These three factors explain basically ALL of the gross decoupling leaving only a small amount of “net decoupling”. The first two factors are important in both countries, whereas the difference in price deflators is only important in the US.
Monday, 21 May 2012
Are Public Employees Overpaid?
an article by Jeffrey Keefe (Rutgers University, NJ, USA) published in Labor Studies Journal Volume 37 Number 1 (March 2012)
Abstract
The research reported in this article shows that public employees, both state and local government employees, are not overpaid and may be slightly undercompensated. Comparisons with the private-sector employees that control for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, and disability indicate that the public-employment compensation (wages and benefits) penalty is relatively small.
On average there is a 3.7 percent penalty in total compensation for full-time state and local employees when compared to similar private-sector employees.
The data analysis also reveals substantially different approaches to staffing and compensation between the private and public sectors. On average, state and local public-sector workers are more highly educated than the private-sector workforce; 54 percent of full-time state and local public-sector workers hold at least a four-year college degree compared to 35 percent of full-time private sector workers.
For college-educated labor, state and local governments pay salaries on average over 25 percent less than private employers. The public sector appears to set a floor on compensation, particularly improving the compensation of workers with high-school educations, when compared to similarly educated workers in the private sector.
Benefits are allocated differently between private- and public-sector full-time workers. State and local government employees receive a higher portion of their compensation in the form of employer-provided benefits. Public employers provide better health insurance and pension benefits.
National polling data indicate that the public does not believe public employees are overpaid. They oppose pay and benefit cuts, but believe pay freezes and greater employee contributions to their health and pensions plans may be appropriate. Nevertheless, thirteen states revised their public-sector collective-bargaining laws, mainly weakening employee bargaining power or severely restricting or eliminating collective bargaining, while the majority of the public opposed those changes.
Abstract
The research reported in this article shows that public employees, both state and local government employees, are not overpaid and may be slightly undercompensated. Comparisons with the private-sector employees that control for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, and disability indicate that the public-employment compensation (wages and benefits) penalty is relatively small.
On average there is a 3.7 percent penalty in total compensation for full-time state and local employees when compared to similar private-sector employees.
The data analysis also reveals substantially different approaches to staffing and compensation between the private and public sectors. On average, state and local public-sector workers are more highly educated than the private-sector workforce; 54 percent of full-time state and local public-sector workers hold at least a four-year college degree compared to 35 percent of full-time private sector workers.
For college-educated labor, state and local governments pay salaries on average over 25 percent less than private employers. The public sector appears to set a floor on compensation, particularly improving the compensation of workers with high-school educations, when compared to similarly educated workers in the private sector.
Benefits are allocated differently between private- and public-sector full-time workers. State and local government employees receive a higher portion of their compensation in the form of employer-provided benefits. Public employers provide better health insurance and pension benefits.
National polling data indicate that the public does not believe public employees are overpaid. They oppose pay and benefit cuts, but believe pay freezes and greater employee contributions to their health and pensions plans may be appropriate. Nevertheless, thirteen states revised their public-sector collective-bargaining laws, mainly weakening employee bargaining power or severely restricting or eliminating collective bargaining, while the majority of the public opposed those changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
