Contrast Distributive And Procedural Justice. What Implications Might They Have For Designing Pay Systems In Different Countries?


1 Answers

Divyaa k Profile
Divyaa k answered
Distributive justice id the perceived fairness of the amount
and allocation of rewards among individual. Distributive justice has a greater
impact on employee satisfaction than procedural justice. Distributive justice
concerns what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods in a
society. Thus, a community whose individual members are rendered their due
would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice.

Procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the process used to determine
the allocation of rewards. Procedural justice tends to effect the employee’s
organizational commitments, trust in his or her boss and intention to quit.
Procedural justice, who is concerned with just processes such as in the
administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on just outcomes and

This distinction between procedural and distributive justice is not simply
theoretical. For example, when managers are asked to describe instances of fair
or unfair performance evaluations, they naturally distinguish between issues
relating to the decision and those concerning the process used to reach it.
There are two complementary explanations. The first is ‘instrumental’ and
suggests that individuals see fair process as a guarantee that, over time, they
will receive their fair share of favorable outcomes. They are hence bypassing
short-term gain to maximize long-term gain. A more ‘psychological’ explanation
is that fair process carries symbolic value, signaling respect for the dignity
of the individual and confirming his or her status in the unit.

Statutory compensation in Australia was implemented very early in Australia as
a relatively influential labor movement in the late 19th and early 20th century
took place. Statutory compensation in Canada: Workers’ compensation was
Canada’s first social program to be introduced as it was favored by both
workers’ groups and employers hoping to avoid lawsuits. The system arose after
an inquiry by Ontario Chief Justice William Meredith who outlined a system that
workers should be compensated for workplace injuries, but that they must give
up their right to sue their employers. It was introduced in the various
provinces at different dates Ontario was first in 1915, Manitoba in 1916,
British Columbia in 1917. It remains a provincial responsibility and thus the
exact rules vary from province to province. In some provinces, such as
Ontario’s workplace safety. In British Columbia, the occupational health and
safety mandate is legislated. In most provinces it remains solely concern with
insurance. It is paid by employees based on the payroll, industry sector and
history of injuries (or lack thereof) in their workplace, sometimes known as
“Injury experience”.

Statuary compensation in the United States: Workers compensation laws were
enacted to make litigation less costly for both sides and to eliminate the need
for injured the workers to prove their injuries were the employers “fault”. The
first state law was passed in Maryland in 1902, and the first law covering
federal employees was passed in 1906. By 1949, all states had enacted some kind
of workers compensation regime.

This system was originally known as “workmen’s compensation”. Today, most
jurisdictions have adopted the term workers compensation as a gender neutral

Answer Question