EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Linda Hallman

Linda Hallman

Posted: September 5, 2010 03:38 PM

For the 128th time in our nation's history, we celebrate Labor Day -- with last visits to the neighborhood pool, picnics, and barbecues that signal the end of summer. Yet for women and their families, recognition of the American worker rings rather hollow in the face of pay inequity.

That's because women across the country work just as hard their male counterparts do, yet they continue to receive less pay -- just 77 cents on the dollar, on average. A day off is not the only compensation American women require or deserve; without equal pay, our Labor Day celebrations don't ring true for many.

The 23-cent average difference between men's and women's pay isn't simply about fairness. This long-standing pay disparity hurts our nation, too. With women increasingly assuming the role of sole breadwinner, equal pay is not just a matter of equity but the key to a family's ability to make ends meet in a struggling economy and a critical factor in our nation's efforts to work its way out of this recession. This serious problem needs immediate Senate action.

That Senate action is passing the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 182), a bill that will provide a sorely needed update to the 1963 Equal Pay Act and help create a climate where pay discrimination isn't tolerated. This critical bill, which passed the House in January 2009, will close loopholes and strengthen incentives to prevent pay discrimination, as well as bring the Equal Pay Act's practices in line with other civil rights laws.

Fortunately, support for the Paycheck Fairness Act is growing. So are the number of co-sponsors of the bill. In a recent poll by the Paycheck Fairness Act Coalition, 84 percent of American voters expressed support for this new law to create more avenues for women to receive fair wages. President Barack Obama is also on board, having co-sponsored the bill as a senator. He has promised to sign the bill into law, calling the Paycheck Fairness Act a "common-sense bill." In fact, passage of the bill is one of the key recommendations of his administration's Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, which he announced in his State of the Union address earlier this year.

We are closer than we have ever been to seeing this critical legislation enacted, which is why for the past three weeks AAUW members and coalition partners around the nation have been pushing hard to raise awareness about the pressing need for the Paycheck Fairness Act. We have hosted "Get It Done" (un)happy hours, sent letters to our senators, encouraged the men in our lives and families to speak up for fair pay (this is not a woman's issue--it's a family issue!), and used social media tools to get the message out.

Pay discrimination starts early -- "the minute college grads throw their caps in the air," as one economist observed. Research shows that over a 35-year career, the pay inequity shortfall in women's earnings is about $210,000. While September 2 headlines about young, educated, childless women making more than men show that we are making progress, such studies also underscore the ongoing reality of pay discrimination. While the average American woman still earns 23 percent less than her male counterpart does, the gap is biggest among older women and smallest among younger women. Further, much of the improvement in the gender pay gap has not been the result of women's pay increases but rather is due to men's decreasing or stagnating wages in traditional jobs that don't require a college degree, such as construction and manufacturing. That situation helps no one, least of all American families.

Earlier this year, AAUW and the National Partnership for Women and Families released some startling facts. In California, the nation's most populous state, we learned that without the pay gap, working women and their families in that state could afford

  • 54 more weeks of food bills (one year's worth!),
  • Three more months of mortgage and utilities payments,
  • Six more months of rent,
  • Two more years of family health insurance premiums, and
  • 2,000 additional gallons of gas.

It's now up to the U.S. Senate to do the right thing for American families. It's time for swift action on the Paycheck Fairness Act. If a vote on this bill is delayed until next year with a new Congress, we're back to square one. The recovery of the American middle class begins and ends with well-paying jobs, but that can't happen if women continue to earn less than they deserve for equal work.

As we honor our nation's workers this Labor Day, what better way to laud them than to pay workers equally, regardless of gender? Help us convince the Senate to bring this bill up for a vote and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this month.

American families have waited long enough.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 184
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
Pearlswan
Born in Philly yet my heart's now in Frisco
05:25 PM on 09/08/2010
Lower pay also affects women in their elder years because they pay less into social security with their lower wages and that means when its time to collect their retirement or disability benefits they barely get enough to pay expenses. Benefits are a big part of compensati­on and women fall short in their benefit packages as well as their salaries but that loss is rarely calculated­. The worst paying job of all, motherhood­, comes with no pay and no benefits, just longterm poverty and bad health. Why don't we women at least get social security benefits for our job as mother? We should get some financial protection for giving birth to the next generation of taxpayers. After all, childbirth is called labor, isn't it? Our labor is a free gift to the world it seems and, more often than not, it doesn't even pay us any respect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Freedom
Post-Modern Adventurer
01:49 AM on 09/08/2010
Having taken a look at the actual bill in question and what it proposes, I can only this about this article: Worst. Pitch. Ever.
10:40 AM on 09/07/2010
Here's a better idea than trying to fix this through legislatio­n. Start a new company and hire only women. Being that they are traditiona­lly underpaid for their skills and abilities, you should be able to easily lure women away from their current jobs where they suffer. The culture you complain about will handcuff your competitor­s as they make no effort to raise the pay of women allowing you to pick the best and brightest for your company. Soon enough you'll have the highest quality staff making what they should be making and you'll get rich doing it.
photo
LynneE
A not-so-elite liberal.
09:34 PM on 09/07/2010
That seems like a good idea on paper, but it's illegal to discrimina­te on basis of gender, and that should go both ways.
03:00 PM on 09/08/2010
Not illegal to offer women a higher wage, and that's what we're talking about, not necessaril­y discrimina­tion. There you go, discrimina­tion problem solved and no need to use legislatio­n.
05:24 AM on 09/07/2010
Without the "pay gap" suddenly lots of wealth will appear! Where will it come from? Oh yeah, from men and from... families. We're not talking about wealth creation here, we're talking about wealth redistribu­tion.
photo
Pearlswan
Born in Philly yet my heart's now in Frisco
05:28 PM on 09/08/2010
One thing for sure, women sure are the main distributo­rs of wealth--th­ere wouldn't be any people without them!
12:31 AM on 09/07/2010
Since I have not worked as a manager or a boss, I have no idea of what the differenec­es are, but I do know that most company people have to have their job as their first priority, not the family. I have worked with women in an oil refinery and under a union contract, and there is no pay difference­. I think that is unfair in some respects since most of the women on the job did NOT pull their weight and the men had to take up the slack while being paid the same as the women. There are some jobs in industry which most women cannot do physically­, nor some small men for that matter.

I am now in a management postiion as a chief pilot, and I have to say that given our kind of aircraft, a SA-227, I will not hire any women because most simply are not strong enough to handle that plane. At 6' 5" and 250#, even I have a hard time with it in rough air. If I find a bodybuilde­r woman, I probably would hire her though. Most women cannot do that though.
photo
Pearlswan
Born in Philly yet my heart's now in Frisco
05:36 PM on 09/08/2010
Sure, discrimina­te against all women because most women can't live up to your expectatio­ns. I think most men can't pilot the SA-227. If a woman can meet the qualificat­ions for the job she should get the job and get the same pay as her male counterpar­ts. Those women in the oil refinery would have been fired if they couldn't pull their weight on the job. What business wastes money paying people who can't do the job? Seriously, sir.
09:04 PM on 09/06/2010
This is complete garbage. There are certain characteri­stics that an employee brings to the table that another just simply does not and their genital is not one of them. Since the beginning of time America has been capitalist and will continue to be that way. The Paycheck Fairness Act won't bring females up in the work force up, it'll bring the hard working males down. Women do work hard but there are some jobs that are simply better for men and vi versa. The pay of an employee is to be determined by the private corporatio­n and not the government­. Pay is based on the company's economic status and the value of the employee. The bathroom he or she walks into does not play a role.
10:18 PM on 09/06/2010
A cause for the "wage difference­" is that women are most likely to take off time for children related situations­. Men rarely take time off due to maturnity and other child related issues.
photo
Pearlswan
Born in Philly yet my heart's now in Frisco
05:40 PM on 09/08/2010
this has been debunked many times over...eve­r hear of paternity leave?
photo
Pearlswan
Born in Philly yet my heart's now in Frisco
05:39 PM on 09/08/2010
"Pay is based on the company's economic status and the value of the employee. The bathroom he or she walks into does not play a role."

Yeah, in a perfect world, maybe. This world ain't by no means perfect sir.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Freedom
Post-Modern Adventurer
05:20 PM on 09/06/2010
Sweden is the only country on this planet where there is no measurable wage gap between men and women. Sweden is also the only country where fathers have the same right to parental leave as mothers, and where parental leave is required to be split between both parents.

The primary cause of the wage gap is time taken off work to deal with children. Currently in America only women's right to take time off to deal with children is protected. Ensure that men have the same right, and that they exercise it (by mandating equal splitting of parental leave), and just like Sweden the wage gap will disappear.

Otherwise you'll be left living in a fantasy world where employers are somehow choosing to pay women less -- which is the exact same thing as saying employers are choosing to pay men more. Think about that. These are employers, and they are being accused of deliberate­ly and intentiona­lly paying men greater than market value for their labor. Which pretty much flies in the face of everything we know about employers. The reality is that if employers thought they could get away with paying women less, they would only hire women.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
06:11 PM on 09/06/2010
How do you incorporat­e this data into your theory?

http://blo­gs.hbr.org­/research/­2010/04/th­e-pay-gap-­and-delusi­ons-of-p.h­tml

------
The most surprising finding was that unequal pay starts with first jobs. Carter says, "we started looking at salary differenti­al and then we found this discrepanc­y in why men and women leave first jobs." Women, it turns out, were far more likely than men to leave their first job because of a bad manager. In fact, as many women were leaving because of their manager as were leaving because of other opportunit­ies. "That first job started to look much more important to us than we thought. Why are they getting bad bosses? We don't know. We just know why they left."

And they're leaving those jobs averaging $4,600 lower pay. The next job they apply for, they'll be asked "How much did you make at your last job?" and the pay gap will widen.
-------
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Freedom
Post-Modern Adventurer
06:55 PM on 09/06/2010
Women put greater emphasis on interperso­nal relationsh­ips in the workplace, and so are more likely to leave a workplace based on interperso­nal relationsh­ip. It's not that women are getting bad bosses and men aren't, it's that men tolerate bad bosses.

Its also a cross-indu­stry survey, which means that the average of women's choices in where to work will affect the average of women's starting pay -- and other studies have shown that women tend to favor intangible­s like the social values of companies and prestige of companies when making decisions about where to apply. Since America is capitalist­, and capitalism tends to favor the ruthless, many high-perfo­rming companies have poor images and extremely competitiv­e corporate cultures, like Goldman-Sa­chs, will attract more male applicants than female, and thus hire more men, and create a disparity in averages. (Which isn't even taking into account that most MBAs are men to begin with, because this sort of decision making affects no only choice of company to work for, but choice of career field, choice of college major, etc.)

Notice that Carter did no surveys within companies, and could only given unsourced anecdotal evidence of internal (rather than industry wide) discrepanc­ies. Because, of course, if she had found evidence of internal discrepanc­ies then there would be grounds for lawsuits. Because, duh, that's illegal.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Mister Biggles
08:28 AM on 09/07/2010
So, the women who pack it in deserve to make as much as the men who tough it out?

And how does not liking your boss retroactiv­ely lower the pay you agreed to when you took the job?
10:23 AM on 09/07/2010
Bingo.

In this down economy, more women are remaining employed than are men.

Employers are retaining women over men precisely because they get more for their bucks. Women are paid less, generally, so they end up working for less. Women who demand equal pay end up unemployed­, or working for themselves­. (Where as contractor­s, they often are expected by male clients to...do the job for less!!!!)

But not to worry, menfolk. Soon as it picks up a bit, you'll all be back in the saddle, leaving us gals in the dust once again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Freedom
Post-Modern Adventurer
07:53 PM on 09/07/2010
It actually has more to do with the type of jobs that are disappeari­ng. Manufactur­ing and constructi­on jobs are disappeari­ng, while retail and service positions remain. Employers are not retaining women because they pay them less.

Seriously, people who think women are getting paid less in the same jobs AT THE SAME COMPANIES as men need to stop and recognize that what they are describing is ILLEGAL. Which means if they had any proof there would be grounds for lawsuits.
05:06 PM on 09/06/2010
There is another way working women lose out in the work place. If the woman earns lets say 75% of what her husband does (for whatever reason), she will come out at retirement age with around that percentage of social security he will get (depending of course on true earning levels). They get treated equally. But remember, If she had not worked at all she would still get half at the time of retirement­. Okay for her.
If he dies both the working and the never-work­ed widow bump up to what he previously had been awarded. The working woman does not receive any of the benefit of her own paid-in social security! This has happened to me: my husband died shortly after retirement­, and the amount I paid in just disappeare­d into the bucket! I am surprised more working married women, who will probably outlive their husbands, aren't disturbed by this!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Mister Biggles
08:30 AM on 09/07/2010
I'm surprised the husbands who will die from working so hard long before they get to collect most of that SS aren't disturbed by that.

The widows are patient enough to wait.

Do you honestly want to compare who collects more from SS, men or women? I promise men are not getting the better of the deal...
photo
Pearlswan
Born in Philly yet my heart's now in Frisco
05:51 PM on 09/08/2010
You promise? Where's your evidence? There are more elderly women living in poverty than men and I bet more women died in childbirth last year than men that failed to live long enough to get their SS benefits. Why not check it out at the bureau of labor and statistics and see for yourself before you make any promises you can't keep?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
05:02 PM on 09/06/2010
The republican­s will call it a job-killer­.
Then they will call it government overreach.
Then they will call it sexist, and reverse discrimina­tion.
Then they will call it socialism.
Then they will vote against it.
Then sfb conservati­ves will reward them, as they will pay tribute to the rich.
03:50 PM on 09/06/2010
"While September 2 headlines about young, educated, childless women making more than men show that we are making progress"

If the goal is equity, how is women outearning men progress? Wouldn't real progress lie in both earning the same?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
04:29 PM on 09/06/2010
Have you noticed all the folks below who cry out that when talking about wage gaps we need to compare apples to apples? They are correct about this. They are wrong wrong wrong in their assertion that once you do this the wage gap disappears­. But they are right that you should compare apples to apples.

Those Sept 2 headlines aren't comparing apples to apples.

http://www­.usatoday.­com/money/­workplace/­2010-09-01­-single-wo­men_N.htm
-------
The shift in earnings power started showing up in a few big cities a few years ago and has become widespread­. It isn't true for all women in their 20s working full time — overall, they earn 90% of what all men in their 20s make — just for those who don't marry or have kids.

Education is the key: "Young women are going to college in droves," Reach Advisors reports. "Nearly three-quar­ters of girls who graduate from high school head to college, vs. two-thirds of the boys. But they don't stop there. Women are now 1.5 times more likely than men to graduate from college or earn advanced degrees." Armed with degrees, young women command higher salaries.
-------

That 8% number comes from comparing the cream of the female crop ... the highest achievers ... with the entire male pool from burger slingers to brain surgeons.

It tiptoes gleefully around comparing them to male counterpar­ts in the same job with the same work experience­.
02:38 PM on 09/06/2010
This argument about pay inequity has been thoroughly debunked - See the work of Walter Block, among others.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
01:59 PM on 09/06/2010
Much of apparent gender discrimina­tion is actually height discrimina­tion.

Tall people are paid more. Men are generally taller, therefore paid more on the average.

http://www­.apa.org/m­onitor/jul­aug04/stan­ding.aspx

When it comes to height, every inch counts--in fact, in the workplace, each inch above average may be worth $789 more per year, according to a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 89, No. 3).

The findings suggest that someone who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than someone who is 5 feet 5 inches
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
pcrudy
01:58 PM on 09/06/2010
Are we still touting this nonsense?

Women marry later and then take time off in the 'make or break years' (30's) to have kids which is the prime (age) time for moving up the ladder and becoming partner in law firm, senior management etc. If you are not there and don't put in the time and effort and get the 'super' results, then you don't meet the requiremen­ts for those that do.

Men are still more likely to major in engineerin­g, science, math, economics, etc., which lead to high-payin­g positions. Until recently women usually chose education, social studies, communicat­ions, etc., which predictabl­y lead to lower-payi­ng ones. These soft skill-base­d positions seldom contribute directly to a company's bottom line, thus justifying lower salaries. This gap is closing.

Men take on physically strenuous, dangerous jobs etc. - they pay higher based on supply and demand for those positions, that most women simply cannot do.

Women are just entering into the big time paycheck jobs, e.g, '...today there are 39 occupation­s (and counting) – aerospace engineer, speech pathologis­t, financial analyst – where women earn at least 5 percent more than men...'

This is a non issue which will cease to exist over time as women enter into jobs that were formerly 'done' by men.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reading2009
04:41 PM on 09/06/2010
you're actually incorrect, google the Wal-Mart class action lawsuit. They lost over wage discrimina­tion, and other sexist policies.

The wage gap referred to in the article is when comparing men and women in the SAME job, negating your whole argument.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Freedom
Post-Modern Adventurer
05:12 PM on 09/06/2010
"The wage gap referred to in the article is when comparing men and women in the SAME job, negating your whole argument."

No, it doesn't. Try actually reading the report. It clearly states that the 77:100 ratio is caused primarily by the prevalence of women in low-paying jobs like child csare, cosmetolog­y, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
06:17 PM on 09/06/2010
Yep. The gap on average narrows quite a bit when you talk same job. We have made good progress.

Hopefully the compensati­on disclosure informatio­n in the act will get us the rest of the way by letting under-comp­ensated people know what they should be getting so they are empowered to demand it.

Which, btw, won't just help women. Protection­s for people seeking informatio­n about what the average compensati­on for their job actually is at their workplace will benefit *everyone*­.
photo
FTracy3
My micro-bio is as empty as the rest of my life.
01:43 PM on 09/06/2010
Discrimina­tion based on gender shouldn't happen, but some of the factors contributi­ng to the disparity have nothing to do with an employer saying "We're going to pay the men supervisor­s 25% more". The figures have to do with actual earnings, which can be impacted by a lot of factors, especially in a society where women still often assume the additional role of child care provider and managing the home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul108
01:16 PM on 09/06/2010
The $.23 is a penalty for neglecting the kids.
photo
LynneE
A not-so-elite liberal.
01:34 PM on 09/06/2010
Really, because they're just HER kids.