It’s no surprise a pay equity bill got voted down today. Women wanting equal pay is now seen as just an obsession, like needing a new pair of stilettos.
A Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday bashed the Paycheck Fairness Act that could not overcome a Republic filibuster today, calling the drive to ensure equal pay for equal work an “obsession” and not grounded in reality. Women don’t make less because of discrimination, the author contends. It’s all about the choices we gals make – you know, asking for flexible hours or taking time off to birth babies. The author didn’t mention the fact that more than 60 percent of women in the workplace are not even parents.
Clearly, quite a few senators, including two prominent female politicians, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), also thought the movement for pay equity is just the latest female fetish and shouldn’t be taken seriously, voting against the bill 58-41. The bill had already passed in the House.
The Act, which was introduced in January 2009 by then Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963, would have given enforcement teeth to existing laws that have done little to shrink the pay gap between men and women, which the Department of Labor says is 23 cents on the dollar.
One key part of the legislation, which would have made it easier for employees to sue their employers for pay bias and lifted damages’ caps, was prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquired about pay inequities or who disclosed their wages in order to figure out if their paychecks were thinner.
The gender pay gap shouldn’t just be seen as merely a female fixation, especially in this economy. Since men have been hardest hit in this recession as far as job loss, the fact that their wives or girlfriends make 77 cents on the dollar to men suddenly hits the guys too.
“Today’s vote will cost America’s women fair wages, and cost its families the economic security they urgently need,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families in an emailed statement.
Indeed, the anemic economy may explain why complaints about gender-based wage discrimination have jumped 30 percent in the last three years, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Even without the act, the willingness by women to file charges; grass-root equal pay efforts; and an Obama labor department that has awakened after a long slumber under President Bush has spooked businesses. Already, HR managers are running scared, auditing the pay structures at their companies; and one told me last week she was surprised at the disparities she found.
And it sounds like there are no plans to turn down the enforcement heat because of today’s vote. In a statement President Obama said: “my Administration will continue to fight for a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work.”
Obsession or not, women need to be paid fairly. If it’s not enough to ensure such equity on moral grounds, then think about it as shoe money.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
The vote was strictly along party lines. While senators earn the same salary regardless of gender, one wonders if the vote might have been different if the women who voted it earned $.77 for every $1.00 their male colleagues earned.
November 18th, 2010 at 10:11 am
I agree that the reasoning used against the changes is faulty, especially since the largest segment of women in the workplace do not have the concerns associated with their own children. At the same time, however, recent studies have shown that women are seeing significant gains in many areas–like the completion of college programs–that may be just the edge of the wave. Those studies note that more women are enrolling in and completing college degree programs than men, especially among minority groups and in urban areas (I believe that Atlanta was one of the areas examined in one of the studies).
That said, it is possible that the wage disparity remains as significant as it is because more men are willing to demand higher wages? I don’t want to get into nature-versus-nurture or physiology-versus-culture arguments here, but am simply wondering if that may be part of the issue. I know that I, a male in the workforce, have often earned less than my peers because I’ve never been one to be forceful about getting a better wage. I’ve only negotiated for a better starting wage once (my last job change), and I was (honestly) afraid to make my offer because I was concerned that they might give the job to someone else. So, I do believe personality traits do come to play in wage discussions.
I’ve encountered some women who are extremely bold and confident in their negotiations, but see far more men who come across that way. I see far more women who are happy to be working and pulling in a modest wage, and I find myself among the apparent minority of men who see things that way as well.
Extending from personality, I believe much of that boldness comes down to confidence. Over the years, I’ve learned that most people share the same insecurities about themselves, though to varying degrees. Some find it easier to set those insecurities aside, to step up, and to ask for big things. For others of us, those insecurities tend to hold us back. [Perhaps that’s why I’m still sitting at the same desk after completing my master’s degree earlier this year…]
November 18th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Not being paid what you are worth is degrading, independent of your gender.
Susan Pinker in her book “The Sexual Paradox” looks at the gender gap, especially in the work force with some hard hitting scientific evidence. One of the surprising findings was women actually make more per hour working than men do. The overall pay is less because of part time work, having flexible work hours (mostly to take care of children) and sticking close to 40 hours of work. Men tend to work longer hours and more days for the same salary reducing their effective hourly rate. You don’t see that reflected in the simple numbers reported by the Department of Labor.
Another misleading number cruncher has to do with what jobs on average men and women pick. Despite successful programs (Chapter 2) to ease the barrier of entry into higher paying jobs (science, C level positions,technology, medicine) women choose not to enter them and instead opt more for positions requiring more empathy (teaching, social work, psychology). It is unfortunate the types of jobs that directly help everybody function better as a society are some of the lowest paid positions.
November 18th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Christopher, I hear this argument over and over again, that women work part time or flexible hours so they should make more.
Alas, this argument is a bunch of bull. The comparisons of pay are made on people working similar hours. They don’t compare a part time workers salary to a full time workers salary. That would be utterly stupid to do.
Yes, some women ask for flex hours, yes, some work part time. But that is no reason not to pay a woman for the hours she puts in.
Women and men should not be paid less because they ask for flex time. If they do the job they do the job. And most working moms tend to do more than just the job.
The CEO of Reuters once told me there is no harder worker than a working mom, especially those who have flex hours at some point in their careers. He often had to tell these women to go home, or take a day off. He surmised they over compensated because they sometimes needed flexibility for their families.
Those women, and no women or men, should be penalized because they ask for flexibility.
Even men are now finding that they end up with a flex stigma when they try to take time off for family responsibilities.
We need to rethink how Corporate America is structured. It’s based on an old 1950s model of the Company Man.
We can have flexibility and still get the work done. That’s been proven. No one is asking to be paid when they’re not working. They want to be paid fairly when they are.
November 18th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I believe many workers with flexible schedules and/or telework arrangements work more (and sometimes harder) than their in-office peers because they don’t want to be viewed as less productive and risk losing such a valuable benefit. I know that was the case when I was in such a position.
November 19th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I agree with Amy 100%. Perhaps the results would be different if the everyday working woman (and man) were the ones placing the votes.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:04 am
>>
All I can really say is…Show Me The Money!!!
It is high;y discriminatory to pay an employee less money because of gender. In fact, in year’s past, I recall actually being part of a conversation to increase one gal’s pay because her husband became terminally ill and they had two children. The Boss maintained her pay as it was. The girl was given extra time with her regular pay very quietly while her husband’s condition eventually killed him. With in six months of his death the Boss increased her pay, based on her exemplary performance and her gratitude toward the realization of just how generous her employer was.
One point stands out in my mind, it was a long standing policy not to discuss your compensation with other employees. One employee challenged that saying it was not legal to do so. He then told the other employees what he made. He did not stay long upon the realization he made less than many. Of course he was as close to an absolute space taker as you can get without being inert!
In decade’s past, men went out and worked and woman stayed in the kitchen, the nursery and the laundromat. In decade’s past, a working woman did so because she was either alone, or she had the support of her spouse. With or without children, a working woman could take any job she wanted or any job she was qualified to do. The same is absolutely true today. It is still a personal choice to be employed. If you are single it is not a choice to be employed. If you are married, some one has to buy the bacon. If you have children and you are in love, one or the other or both should commit to employment or parenting at least 50% of the time. If you discover your employer pays you less than he would pay some one else who is either equally or less qualified, find and attorney. You have the right to file suit. This is a free country, Senorita, STILL!
I question any woman, or any man who is employed by any company who will pay you less because of gender,or perhaps more because of gender. The point is exactly where does this information come from? Is it hearsay? Could it be damaging? Could it effect this companies bottom line? Could it be so devastating that people are going to lose their jobs because our government made it easy for a person to file a suit against an employer who allegedly pays females, or males less? And YES, you have to include the other gender.
America is at WAR. We have brave men and woman in our Armed Forces serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no provision as far as male or female in the pay scale.
I belong to the SEIU. We have over 2 million members nationally. I like to find contracts for public employees that my union helped negotiate. I have looked at at least 1000. I have yet to see a female or a male pay scale.
Our economy, for so many reasons that include the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, is at a place that is making so many people very anxious about the future.
I know that there must be many legitimate cases that show a female is compensated less than their male counterparts. If it is a privately run business, perhaps it is none of our business. An old saying that applies is ‘The squeaky wheel gets the grease.’
Congress has far more pressing issues that truly effect us all. If you know of such an employer, get an attorney. Or better yet, buy some posters and sing paint. I’ll march with you because it is not fair. THAT is the American way. Listen to the words of Frederick Douglass, my Hero and fellow Republican. When asked how to change the point of view of society, he answered wit one good word: “Agitate’
November 20th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Carolyn Maloney, a congresswoman from New York wrote a book titled “Rumors of our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated” which focused on the issue of pay imbalance between men and women. There is a great point made on the changing roles of family (i.e. more men staying at home or taking paternity leave) and how despite this there has been no significant changes in pay disputes despite more workers using flexibility.