Study of Report on Comparable Worth Assailed

The conservative majority of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission lashed back Wednesday at a General Accounting Office audit critical of the commission’s draft report on the doctrine of comparable worth, calling the GAO study a “shoddy and biased product.”

The GAO had charged that inconsistencies and errors riddled the commission’s 232-page report, which urged Congress and federal agencies to reject the idea that men and women should be paid the same wage for different jobs that are similar in value.

In a formal response, five commissioners appointed by President Reagan and congressional Republicans condemned Congress’ request for the review as “deplorable” and undemocratic.

‘Out of Their Mind’

“I think the GAO is out of their mind,” commission Chairman Clarence M. Pendleton Jr. declared.

But at the same time, bitter infighting within the commission continued as the panel’s two Carter Administration holdovers sided with the GAO, issuing a dissent that contended the commission’s comparable worth report is “replete with distortions and misleading statements.”

Much of the dispute centers on whether the controversial doctrine--seen by both proponents and foes as a major civil rights issue--demands strict adherence to the idea of equal pay for equal work or whether other factors, including merit, seniority and the forces of the marketplace, can legitimately cause pay differentials.

The commission adopted the former definition, while the GAO, agreeing with many comparable worth advocates, used the latter.

Pendleton said Wednesday the civil rights panel’s report will be issued in final form unchanged, with neither acknowledgment nor refutation of the GAO’s criticism.

Meanwhile, a House committee approved a bill to study whether the federal government’s female employees are victims of wage discrimination.

The pay equity measure, criticized by business groups and the Administration as a step toward comparable worth for all jobs, was approved by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee on an 18-4 vote.