Equal Pay Enforcement Act On Verge Of Being Repealed By Wisconsin Republicans

WASHINGTON -- In 2009, the Wisconsin legislature made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court. That law is now on the verge of repeal.

The Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating by giving workers more avenues to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.

In November, the state Senate approved (SB 202) rolling back this provision. On Wednesday, the Assembly did the same. Both were party-line votes. The legislation is now in the hands of Gov. Scott Walker (R). His office did not return a request for comment on whether the governor would sign it.

"It really takes away the teeth and the enforcement aspect of equal pay in Wisconsin," said Sara Finger, director of the Wisconsin Alliance for Women's Health (WAWH).

Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men make. In Wisconsin, it's 75 cents, according to WAWH, which also estimates that families in the state "lose more than $4,000 per year due to unequal pay."

State Sen. Dave Hansen (D) was one of the authors of the 2009 law, and said he had no doubt that Walker would sign the repeal of his legislation.

"The whole [Republican] agenda in this state is about attacks on workers," he said. "It's an ongoing assault on workers' rights. But now it's also taking the assault to workers in the private sector. It's not just an assault on women. Older workers can be taken advantage of, and they're hurting in this bad economy. It didn't hurt business at all."

State Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who sponsored SB 202, also did not return a request for an interview.

Business associations lobbied in support of SB 202, according to the state's Government Accountability Board. Groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association all backed a repeal.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is now running for the state's open U.S. Senate seat, supported the federal Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and has worked on equal pay issues since graduating from college, including in the administration of former Wisconsin Gov. Anthony Earl.

"He made fighting our pay inequities based on gender a priority issue," she said. "I was working on that agenda. I can tell you, even back then, I was being fiercely opposed by the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce association, which didn't want us advocating for fair wages."

"It is much easier for somebody who's been unfairly compensated to gain access to a state court than a federal court," she said of the Wisconsin law. "It is something that if you want these laws to have meaning, they have to be enforceable. So I'm very disappointed with the Wisconsin state legislature. Yet another big step back for women. This is becoming a real pattern."

Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, former Gov. Tommy Thompson and former Rep. Mark Neumann are competing for the Republican nomination to challenge Baldwin in the general election for the U.S. Senate seat. Fitzgerald supported SB 202 and, as speaker, brought it to the Assembly floor for a vote. His campaign declined to further comment on the issue. Neither Thompson nor Neumann returned a request for comment.

"A lot of people weren't even aware this was up for a debate," said Finger. "Here we have this issue that's going to the governor's desk with very little time or understanding for the public to weigh in and express their disappointment. We're now one step away from having equal pay enforcement repealed in the state of Wisconsin."

Comments

[zooperman]

07:33 PM on 02/27/2012

Another nail in the Walker's and Repubs coffins when the recall elections come up this summer.

[LeftFoLyfe]

07:18 AM on 02/27/2012

Teaser Headline: "Wisconsin GOP Rolls Back Equal Pay Law"

Actual headline once you click: "Equal Pay Enforcement Act On Verge Of Being Repealed By Wisconsin Republicans"

Fool me four hundred times, shame on you. GG, HP.

[MissTake1989]

05:48 AM on 02/27/2012

Aside from relatively unskilled entry level jobs...

How many jobs actually have "equal work?"

[TraceyES]

02:45 PM on 03/20/2012

Not many, but I can sure bet they're not split down the middle by the gender of the person performing them.

[Eileen Virnig]

11:08 PM on 02/26/2012

Let's see, who is left for Walker to attack? Women, unions-including police, fire fighters, teachers, prison guards, nurses, children, schools, the elderly, students, the environment, minority voters, microbreweries, Who is left? Who's next? Seriously, who is left to support this bought and paid for bozo?

[tturner5]

05:42 PM on 02/26/2012

We can't get Walker and his coven of Bozo Republicans out of Wisconsin's legislature soon enough. Is he capable of shame? Maybe he will be when he has the governorship stripped from him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

01:57 PM on 02/26/2012

Walker's really on a roll, if he can repeal child labor laws and the 19th amendment he'll really be on track.

On track to turn Wisconsin into a 19th century Dickensian nightmare, that is.

[rdgreifer]

09:20 PM on 02/25/2012

All this has occurred because many Democrats turned their backs on their own party after Obama's first two years in office. They did not have enough confidence it what he was trying to do so they voted Republicans in to shift things back toward the middle.

[1Curious1]

12:45 PM on 02/26/2012

That's in part because some states felt more comfortable electing blue dogs instead of true Dems.

[4 EYES]

01:19 PM on 02/26/2012

The WI voter turnout in 2010 was less than 50%...that ALWAYS favors lia(R)s to get into office....8-)

[shivabeach]

08:21 PM on 02/25/2012

Well ladies you have made it to the top of Walkers pooplist. Be sure and vote republican in 2012 to see if the next bill will be to chain you to the bedpost

[turtom]

07:09 PM on 02/25/2012

Too Handsome says: Yes, if Walker is NOT recalled, it will be game over for the predatory public sector unions and a big win for the tax paying workers of the state.

TS—You must mean those Labor Unions whose membership created what we call the middle class in this nation. The middle class that used to have to wherewithal to purchase goods and services that served to maintain the highest standard of living for the most people of any nation on the planet. Are those the labor unions you are throwing under the bus.

The middle class that, thanks to Republican policies is now on a ventilator. The middle class that, if it becomes extinct, will take this economy (and the world economy) with it.

Too Handsome, you must be one of those really smart people who have stocked up on bullets and butter for the apocalypse that will surely occur if Scott Walker and his minions, confederates, and billionaire backers win their war on working people.

Whether trying to destroy unions or trying to encourage wage injustice, or trying to legalize the rape of women who seek abortions, conservatism in the new millennium has gone so far off the rails they will never again find the train depot.

[4 EYES]

01:22 PM on 02/26/2012

Well said...fanned....8-)

[turtom]

06:57 PM on 02/25/2012

For Too Handsome:

There are some people who appear to witless to understand the basics of this. With all due respect, you appear to be one of them.

The discrimination IS paying them lower wages. The profit is made by getting some workers (women) to do the same jobs as men (same title, responsibility, etc) but for less money. Less money for labor (a business expense) means higher profit margin. This is business 101. Read up. Educate yourself. Stop annoying people who are smarter than you.

There are endless websites offering information, abstracts from studies, the specifics of the Lilly Ledbetter case. This information is available.

Your little tag line says conservatives work, liberals are the entertainment. Not, apparently, in your case. Do your homework. Stop being so lazy and uninformed.

[James Hannen]

06:52 PM on 02/25/2012

You're going the wrong way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7N81H8KF9c

[maggiee]

06:25 PM on 02/25/2012

Wow. Republicans certainly act like they hate women.

[EitherOrlok]

08:44 PM on 02/25/2012

Act like?

[mommy dearest]

11:01 PM on 02/25/2012

They don't love us they just want F **** us

[4 EYES]

01:44 PM on 02/26/2012

The only thing lia(R)s love is money..F **** everything else....8-)

[LawTalkingGuy]

01:58 PM on 02/26/2012

...but they don't like prostitution, so afterwards THEY take YOUR money!

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

05:53 PM on 02/25/2012

There is no objective definition to "equal work", ask anyone who has ever done a performance review. Managers have to rate their employees work. It's as subjective as grading a college essay. Tests show little correlation when the same paper is graded by multiple profs, performance reviews are about the same.

Mandating "equal pay for equal work" is just like having a union, a collective that discourages initiative.  Regardless of how hard you work, you will never be rewarded or paid more than others. The company will be sued if they can't prove your work is far better than everybody else doing the same job, so they'll just pay everybody the same and avoid litigation. Your fellow employees would find out and sue. Just like unions do, make sure no "scabs" are working hard, showing up everybody. Only under-achievers like unions, or like this law.

[turtom]

07:36 PM on 02/25/2012

This twisted thinking only works if there are men who are also being paid less for the same jobs that other men do. But, I know you will be shocked to find, that is not the case. It seems to eternally be women who just happen to be paid less. That is not meriticracy. That is blatant, bald discrimination.

Jeeze, who brought you guys up. I mean really, this is Constitutional ABC's.

[MissTake1989]

05:44 AM on 02/27/2012

"if there are men who are also being paid less for the same jobs that other men do. But, I know you will be shocked to find, that is not the case..."

You have no proof of that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

02:02 PM on 02/26/2012

Turtom's right, this is constitutional ABCs. It's also statistical ABCs.

There IS an objective definition to equal work, it's called job title and experience. When we survey data, we like having lots of data so it's statistically signfiicant. You're right if you compare one man and one woman you learn nothing because "managers have to rate their employees work"

But if we have THOUSANDS, then what we have is not a speculation but an absolute conclusion that managers are consistently rating women's work as less valuable financially, even if those women have the same title and experience and promotions and so on.

You say that it's a manager's choice as if that makes it ok. It's not ok if managers all across America choose to pay women 30% less. That's the whole point, and why the law forbids that and protects minorities from being abused by unscrupulous employers.

[turtom]

03:45 PM on 02/26/2012

Spot on, LTG. Fanned and faved.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

05:16 PM on 02/26/2012

I assume you have never been a manager, or even worked in the private sector. Do you believe everybody in a given law office with same title and years of experience produces equally, and should be compensated equally? That only works in manufacturing where humans are replaceable parts. It does not work for college-educated jobs, including teaching. Steve Jobs said schools would never be fixed in the US as long as teachers were union.

I had a boss who trained under Ross Perot. He said he once had an employee with 20 years experience - but it was the same year, over and over again. Seniority is bunk. Teacher unions enforce "first in first out" rules, layoff the youngest teachers regardless of productivity. Would you go into that profession? I've found, only under-achievers like that system, agree with your premise here, and like unions.

I was a software engineer, worked 30 years . High tech companies found that one great programmer (like me) produced more than 10 average. It's a science - you believe Einstein produces the same as all others with job title "physicist", or Steve Jobs as other "CEOs"? Or do you believe that merit pay is wrong and unnecessary? I was an inventor of a patent on digital video, got a job category for that?

HPQ which had the best management practices. They paid based on performance ranking (1 to 5 = best), years experience was irrelevant. They had job titles (numbers) with a salary range for each, that overlapped the next job level up. Each level was divided by performance ranking, and eventually employees had to be paid in that range. If you got a 5, you had to be paid at least the bottom of the 5 range, regardless of years experience.

But here's the problem, and the point of my post which you totally missed: the performance ranking was everything, and it's subjective. It's "equal pay for equal job title and performance ranking", that is how the world works. But how do you guarantee equal performance ranking for equal work? You can't.

HP did this, and it worked best: they used matrix management. You worked for a boss on a project, when it was over in a year or so you'd work for another boss, first level up. Each year - at the same time! - all first-level managers of a group got together and ranked the employees, first to last! I was in a group of 200 "60s" (individual contributors, not management). The results aren't public, but my managers told me I was ranked #1 each year. Managers would fight for "their" people, the top boss would arbitrate. A very fair way of evaluating work, but only HPQ does it. That was in the 90s, they may not do it any more.

[jsgaetano]

05:40 PM on 02/25/2012

The far right isn't even hiding their anti-American agenda anymore.

[4 EYES]

01:32 PM on 02/26/2012

..Their H1DD3N@G3ND@ is just being rolled out, one phase after another...this is just the latest. They realize the jig is up for them so they're trying to do as much damage as possible before they're swept away. What the lia(R)s are really failing to do is utilizing Frank.Luntz phraseology to convince us how good this is for us....8-)

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

05:39 PM on 02/25/2012

There is no Fed law guaranteeing equal pay for women. The ERA would have done that, barred gender discrimination, but it was not passed. Race, religion and national origin are protected - gender is not. Wisconsin had a law guaranteeing it, but that is not based on constitutional rights, it can be repealed.

Gender discrimination has some benefits to women. For example, young women pay less for auto insurance than young men with perfect driving records. Treating individuals based on membership in a group is the essence of discrimination, and it is routinely applied to males. It was even worse when we had the draft, and I doubt women would want equal rights if we still had a draft, and a war like Vietnam that killed 20x as many US soldiers as Af. The ERA never came up until the draft was gone.

Gender discrimination is not right, but it is constitutional, and routinely applied against males. I'll bet even in WI, men are discriminated against when it comes to paying auto insurance. Women cost more for health care - should insurers be allowed to charge women more for health insurance? Same thing. Or is discrimination against white males impossible, by definition?

[turtom]

07:13 PM on 02/25/2012

Yes. The ERA, which would have guaranteed equal rights to what amounts to 52% of the American citizenry, was derailed by Republicans and conservative Democrats.

I know many of you are shocked to find that conservatives found equality and justice for women a cause not worth legislating for.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

08:01 PM on 02/25/2012

By extension, it would also have granted equal LGBT rights. It's odd that the young gay movement doesn't see that it's the same as gender equality. Most here argue that the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all groups, but it doesn't. You can't rely on an assumption of equal rights, the law has to be there.

[turtom]

07:32 PM on 02/25/2012

Lots of faulty information here.

First of all, auto insurance rates, like all insurance rates, are subject to tables of statistics that determine risk. Young men pay more for auto insurance because those tables identify young men as higher risks. (They drive faster and more recklessly, drink more, and by records collected state-by-state, have more accidents and kill more people.) So their group has to pay more for auto insurance. This is not rocket science.

As for women benefiting, it would at least help to get your history right. The original ERA was written by Alice Paul and introduced to Congress in 1923. It did not get far, as you can imagine. But nearly 50 years later, in 1972, the ERA was passed by both houses of Congress. Conscription (the draft) was repealed in 1976. So saying the ERA did not overlap is simply inaccurate. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that means, but the conclusion you drew from the assertions you made is indisputably incorrect.

More disturbing is the idea that enough states torpedoed the ERA that in a ten year period, it could not get passage. It needed 3/4 of state legislatures to pass an amendment to the Constitution. They could not get that and Big Labor, unfortunately, did not help because men ran those unions and thought their jobs were threatened by female equality. Sad but true.

[MissTake1989]

05:47 AM on 02/27/2012

"First of all, auto insurance rates, like all insurance rates, are subject to tables of statistics that determine risk. Young men pay more for auto insurance because those tables identify young men as higher risks."

So, you are ok with responsible young men being punished for the sins of other young men?

That is fine with you.

By that logic, it's ok to punish young women who MIGHT get pregnant on the job because many young women of the same age...DO.

Or...flip it around...women's health care costs more than men's....based not on risk, but on USE.

I assume you are ok with women paying more for their insurance than men?

That's what happens when people buy insurance privately, but in group insurance men SUBSIDIZE women's coverage....I assume you are against this and believe women should pay more for group coverage, right?

[MissTake1989]

04:25 AM on 02/28/2012

You are the waste of time.

Shall I retype my questions that you ignored again...or can you simply scroll back up and try again?

Women's individual policies (purchases seperately) cost MORE than men's individual policies....YET in group health insurance, they pay the same....THUS men are subsidizing the cost of women's insurance.

THIS is ENTIRELY seperate from the pooling of risk that defines insurance...you seem confused.

"Young men pay more for auto insurance because those tables identify young men as higher risks. (They drive faster and more recklessly, drink more, and by records collected state-by-state, have more accidents and kill more people.) So their group has to pay more for auto insurance. This is not rocket science."

Young women who are just hired out of college are FAR, FAR more likely to leave the workforce in a few years than young men...based on that risk, is it acceptable to give preference to the young men in hiring decisions....since the young women are "higher risk"? Yes or no?