Suppose dynascan, makers of led-based digital signage, found that women could assemble more signage parts than men during a shift. therefore, women would be paid a higher weekly salary than men. this would be legal because there is a difference in gender of the workers. there is a difference in performance. telephone assembly falls into a protected category under the federal communications act of 1933. the women are paid more than the men rather than the other way around. none of the above; this is illegal under the equal pay act.

Question

Reynolds

Business

30 March, 02:05

Suppose dynascan, makers of led-based digital signage, found that women could assemble more signage parts than men during a shift. therefore, women would be paid a higher weekly salary than men. this would be legal because there is a difference in gender of the workers. there is a difference in performance. telephone assembly falls into a protected category under the federal communications act of 1933. the women are paid more than the men rather than the other way around. none of the above; this is illegal under the equal pay act.

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Scarlett Terry · Answer 1

The correct answer is the second option (there is a difference in performance). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was passed to ensure that employers would not discriminate based on gender. This means that employers cannot pay men more than women, just for being men (and vice versa). Essentially, the law ensures equal pay for equal work. However, it also notes that equal pay does not apply if the payment system correlates to the quantity of work. Since the women in this example are producing more output, then it is legal for them to be paid more for their larger quantity (and not simply because they are women).