Nearly fifty years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of gender, women still earn significantly less than men for doing the same work.
Today, Congress has a chance to do something about it -- when the Senate is scheduled to vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which strengthens the original Equal Pay law in several important ways.
While the pay gap has narrowed in recent decades, a report this past month from the Joint Economic Committee underscores just how far we still have to go to eliminate the gap. The report finds that women earn just 82 cents for every dollar earned by men; in Pennsylvania, it's 81 cents on the dollar.
This persistent pay gap is unacceptable and especially harmful to the families women support with their paychecks.
Closing the pay gap is a matter of basic fairness: women should be paid the same as men for doing the same job. But the existence of a wage gap also damages our economy, since women have fewer dollars in their paychecks to put back into their communities and the economy.
In recent years, families have become increasingly dependent on women's incomes. Nearly half of all mothers work full time and two in three working mothers are the sole breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their families. In Philadelphia County alone, there are almost 210,000 children who depend at least in part on mothers' earnings.
Mothers' earnings are especially important to lower-income families. While mothers' wages account for less than 40 percent of family income for the typical two-earner family in the United States, for families at the bottom of the income distribution, mothers' earnings account for nearly half of household income.
Skeptics of the pay gap claim the difference in pay between men and women is because male workers are more educated and more experienced. But even after adjusting for education and age and other factors, a pay gap remains.
The reality is that discrimination can be difficult to identify and harder to prove. Often, the discrimination is subtle and plays out over years in numerous hiring, compensation, promotion and other workplace decisions.
Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act is a simple step Congress can take right now to strengthen the original law addressing gender discrimination by:
• Prohibiting employers from punishing employees for sharing salary information with co-workers.
• Making discrimination costly to employers by making those who bring gender discrimination cases eligible for compensatory and punitive damages, as is the case with race and ethnicity discrimination cases.
• Developing new training programs for women and girls on how to negotiate compensation packages and recognizing employers who have eliminated pay disparities.
While the Paycheck Fairness Act focuses mostly on employers, we all have a role to play in combating discrimination. It's important to challenge gender stereotypes -- in our workplaces, in the media and in our communities.
The legislation isn't a panacea. But it will make it more difficult for employers to discriminate on the basis of gender and it will arm women with new negotiating tools.
As our economy continues to recover from the Great Recession, we need to do everything possible to sustain and support the recovery. Taking steps to close the pay gap is not only the right thing to do for women, it's the right thing to do for our economy.
The Levo League: The Paycheck Fairness Act Vote Happens Today: So What Is It?
Abigail Lofberg: Pay Equity: Calling Out Walmart's Two Wealthiest Women
Sarah Damaske: The Paycheck Fairness Act: A Step in the Right Direction
The Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act ...
Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Legal Dictionary - The Free Dictionary
Statement by the President on the Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act ...
We already have way to many lawyers..This will give them another reason to tie business up...hoping for a verdict. Most women I know are very competent and can take care of themselves.
Business generally recognizes talent and compensates for talent as it is in thier best interest. Neat how that works.
What you propose is a bad idea. More regulation, more room for lawsuits. There are already protections in place. Does everyone in this country need to have special status?
Take the ADA..a well meaning piece of legislation...often abused to the deteriment of companies and society.
The last thing we need is more regulation Bob...try fixing our current problems if you would...creating new ones is the last thing we need now.
That's the only way to get to the root of the "problem." :P
"This brings us to our larger point: Broad comparisons are inherently problematic. As the BLS points out: “Users should note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that may be significant in explaining earnings differences.”
Indeed, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed economic literature and concluded that “research suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers are compared with male workers who have similar characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap.” They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar. (UPDATE: Our colleagues at WonkBlog calculate that the gap narrows to 91 cents for every dollar “if you control for life choices.”)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-houses-use-of-data-on-the-gender-wage-gap/2012/06/04/gJQAYH6nEV_blog.html
But there is something very fishy about the data. If women (70 year olds, Asians) were being paid 82% of men (30 year olds, Latinos) for the same production, a company could hire all women (70 year olds, Asians) and have such a competitive advantage that they would drive their competitors out of business very easily. No new products, no invention...just a change in the workforce.
I think this is more about "cases eligible for compensatory and punitive damages"; a gift to trial lawyers (many in the 1%) and politics.
1. Performance Reviews.
2. Productivity.
3. Actual Hours worked.
4. Quality of work, defect rate.
5. Professionalism and attitude.
6. Training and Education.
7. Years of relevant experience.
Pay doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Lets look at this "issue" objectively. Women earn less than men on average, but they also work less. Take more time off. Work fewer nights and weekends. The classic example used by NOW for years was comparing truck drivers to secretaries and claiming that gender bias caused truck drivers to be paid more. Though if you think about it that claim is absurd. If both jobs were paid the same wouldn't most men and women choose to be a secretary? Beyond that lets think about the type of control people in government agencies need to have to regulate "fairness". Most employers just want to hire people to do a job so that their company can make more money. Everytime we make it more complicated we end up with fewer jobs. Also think about why any company would pay a man more than a woman? Aren't they looking at their bottomlines?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE
So, if I have a vagina I can sue the firm for discrimination. But since I have a penis I cannot. Anyone care to explain what this "Act" does for me?
F and F
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
Essentially They have a statistical problem with the way they gather the info. the actual difference is at best 4% to 6.8%. Women work more part time jobs, work jobs that give more flexibility for family times etc. When actual jobs are compared...apples to apples there is no difference. The current way they put the statistics together don't take time on the job for instance in to account. Don't believe me, read the study. This is a phony argument.......and more politics.
There is an economic phrase we all should meditate on.
Perfect Market Information.
This is one of the things required for free market theory and the invisible hand to work. People participating in the market need to have, if not perfect, at least good market information.
When you **don't know** what the other folks in the office are making you do NOT have good market information for the labor market you are participating in.
Your employer, meanwhile, has perfect market information as they know precisely what everyone makes.
Your employer is not trying to pay people fairly, they are trying to pay each person as little as they can get away with. So when they see discrepancies between performance and pay they won't rush to address them.
Giving better market information to the employees is necessary to allow the application of invisible hand theory to this problem. Anyone attempting to invoke the invisible hand when folks are missing this vital information doesn't understand the theory.
This Act is about giving you the power to help yourself. It is the essence of personal responsibility and free market economics. All it does is give you the information to make better choices.
Free markets (at least as defined by economists) still function quite well without "perfect information".
Cause I hear there are pay issues there for women also.
Democratic senators to vote for the Blunt Amendment restricting women's access to reproductive health services.
=I think Casey is another faker--just like our president--who calls himself a "Democrat" but acts like a Republican.