Equal Pay For Equal Work: The Moment For Women Is Now

If Joe the Plumber had his moment of fame allegedly representing the average working guy, Lily Ledbetter is going to go down in the history books as the woman who changed the lives of working women.

The U.S. House passed two related bills on Jan 9, 2009. The Lily Ledbetter Pay Restoration act would reverse a five to four 2007 Supreme Court decision against Ledbetter's charge of pay discrimination. Ledbetter had worked as a supervisor at a Goodyear plant for 20 years. One day she received a letter in the mail that told her she was being paid significantly less than the men who did the same job. She sued and won. Goodyear appealed to the Supreme Court, which turned her down because she had not filed her case within 180 days of experiencing discrimination.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg read the minority opinion from the court because she felt so strongly that this was a miscarriage of justice. She explained that it is unrealistic to expect women who are discriminated against to file cases immediately. In the real world, few people know their co-workers salaries, and "Small initial discrepancies may not be seen as meet for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves..." Ginsberg said.

The first bill would give employees more time to file lawsuits in cases of job discrimination. The legislation is critical not only for female workers, but for all others who file discrimination suits because this court decision has been used to turn down hundreds of discrimination cases based on race, age and disability.

The vote in the House was 247 to 171, at first glance a healthy majority. But a closer look reveals that only three Republicans voted for the bill, a sobering reminder that the battle for pay equity is far from over. The National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill because it would "open the floodgates to unwarranted litigation against employers at a time when businesses are struggling to retain and create jobs."

Haven't we heard that before? When, gentlemen, is the right time for equal pay for women? A good argument can be made that now is precisely the right time to enact equal pay for equal work for women when more women are the sole wage earners for their families.

A second bill, The Paycheck Fairness Act, would close loopholes that enable employers to circumvent liability when they pay women less than men for the same work. For example, under a 1963 law, an employer can discriminate if he can show the disparity is based on education or experience. He or she can also cite "market forces."

When, after all these years, women still earn only 77 cents on the dollar of what men earn, it is time for these two bills to become law. President Bush had threatened to veto them. President-elect Obama strongly supports Lily Ledbetter's cause--she was one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

But its acceptance is not a done deal. The Senate defeated the Ledbetter bill in 2008. The lack of bi-partisan support in the House may be reflected in the Senate vote. It is time for all groups who have experienced discrimination to fight for these two bills so that the most basic principle of equality can become a reality for all Americans: equal pay for equal work.

This was originally posted at Chelsea Green.

Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing.

Comments

[Usama]

I agree: equal pay for equal work. And I also say: women are no longer a minority.

The up and coming generations reveal that girls graduate high school and college at greater rates then boys. And all girls graduate at much higher rates than minority boys: latino and blacks in particular.

While most all traditionally male professions have been greatly integrated with women, i.e law enforcement, military, fire fighting, science and engineering, traditional female professions do not share an equal integration by males: namely secondary and primary education and nursing.

The minority male is the last true 'minority' in need of government intervention. When black males graduate high school at 48% and latino males even less, this the real injustice.

[SethBLiNK]

There has to be a better way. Yes, in situations where a job comes with a set salary and it's a take it or leave it situation, salaries should be equal. And if the pay of a job is mitigated by the level of experience, education or some other quantifiable factor, those should be applied equally. But, if they are applied equally and women are still paid less, that shouldn't be an automatic law suit. And if a job's pay is negotiable, it's negotiable. That's that.

Other than that, the onus should be on the complaintant to prove a pattern of descrimination. The assumption of sexism should not be codified into law.

[Danigirl65]

I disagree with you on your sentence "but, if they are applied equally" (factors such as experience, education, etc.) "and women are still paid less, that shouldn't be an automatic lawsuit." Actually, yes it should - IT PROVES DISCRIMINATION. That is the point of Ledbetter's lawsuit - the factors were applied and she was getting paid considerably less.

Since there is anti-race discrimination legislation on the books, women should be protected as well.

[kissmygrits]

Lily Ledbetter is my hero...

[earthandfire]

It is too simplistic to say equal pay between men and women. I prefer equal pay for every job. I know that idea will be taken as communism. But, where real value of life comes from? From labor? From skill? From experience? From keeping the family safe? Or, from the life itself, which is mostly unknown therefore for some it's scary, but therefor it should be really exciting? When do you really think can we end the suffocating friction of the society (argument on job and money)? It will end when we focus on deeper meaning of the life. Then, equal payment will only be reasonable. I mean for any full time job from the top of companies to so called non-skill entry job. Yes, it requires communist/socialist-like structure. But, it is time to rethink all possibilities including past failures by examining how that mistake could have been avoided if the basic idea was right. Equality on material level for everyone certainly a right idea. Communist's failure was due to focusing on material equality from the material dimension only without focusing on depth of our existence. Because human existence is not limited on material level alone, our difference (uniqueness) can be built up to that dimension infinitely more interesting manner than material competition which infinitely suffocates us. Needless to say, women could contribute for this discourse tremendously!

[Onotwen]

Would you pay someone who cuts your lawn as much as the doctor who treats a loved one with cancer?

The doctor had to spend a considerable amount of his life to be in a position to treat your loved one.

Would you pay the soldier that goes to war to protect you and your children the same as the paper delivery boy?

The soldier is taking considerably more risk to act in his job.

Is there a difference in the value provided by the persons in the above examples?

If you really understand and respect life, you wouldn't punish the man who has done more with his life than another who has done less.

Bottom line, we all choose to do different things with or lives. Some of us invest more time and effort than others to change ourselves into persons that can provide goods and services of greater value than others.

[jz56]

I sympathize with the employer who has to try and defend a raise given 20 years ago based on a poorly documented performance review written by a supervisor who is has retired from the company and may already be dead. I can already hear the HR reps telling supervisors to rate everyone as "superior" and give everyone the same raise because trying to reward merit creates too much legal liability.

In addition allowing a mechanism for employees to get compensation if discrimination occurs, Congress needs to make sure that the new law gives employers the ability to recognize and reward their top performing employees without becoming an easy target for trial lawyers. A well written law could accomplish both.

[overd0g1]

Huh? These are private contracts agreed to by adults. If you don't like the pay, don't take the job. The government has no role here, except enforcing the terms of the contract if necessary.

[truthskr]

Huh? These are contracts agreed to by the employee in good faith, that being that they expect (as they should be able to) that they are being paid the same as someone of relatively equal employment stature (seniority and job description). It's completely inappropriate to suggest that it's alright if someone is paid less than a comparable peer because their work is deemed less valuable because they are a women or other minority status, as long as they agree to it.

Also, I highly doubt anyone would hold this opinion were they to find out that their comparable peers in their job/career made more than they did for equal work, and I bet it would take a lot less that a 23% deficit, based upon a woman's $0.77/$1.00 compensation discrepancy, to make them extremely upset.

Another reason this has gone on is due to the fact women have been conditioned not to ask, to put up or shut up, whereas men will complain the second they're paid a single penny less than the guy next to them. Well, those days are over.

[EricWI]

Again, truthskr, you are misusing the statistic. The $0.77/$1.00 pay discrepancy, does not reference "equal work" in any way. The latest AAUW report acknowledges this. I know of no serious attempt to determine the actual gender based difference for "equal work." The AAUW report attempts to quantify and control for a few confounding variables, but their attempt is not comprehensive. Quantifying unequal pay for equal work has not been done except, perhaps, in the court of law in response to a very specific work situations (i.e. Walmart).

[drheelin]

Don't get me wrong here, I am all for equality between sexes, but i would like to see women fighting to have to register with selective service when they turn 18, just like men. Women are in the military too!
And that would be an easy one to do,

[meko]

Everyone should have to register. The more connected we all our to our military, the more seriously we will take going to war.

[EricWI]

Re: "women still earn only 77 cents on the dollar of what men earn"
Please note that this "77 cent" statistic is not comparable to the "equal pay for equal work" issue involved in the Lily Ledbetter Pay Restoration Act. The "77 cent" statistic is the gross difference in pay found across all jobs, not "equal jobs." When controlled for different jobs, hours worked, experience, etc. the pay difference on an equal work basis is close. In some professions/demographics women's pay exceeds men's. In others men's exceeds women's. And thus the need for the Act.

Re: The Paycheck Fairness Act would eliminate pay disparities "based on education, experience... [or] 'market forces.'"
My previous job had a union contract in which pay was based exclusively on education and experience, a common practice. It is difficult to imagine a workplace in which experience and education are not rewarded with pay. What will be the economic impact of this? How many pay structures and union contracts will no longer be valid? Wouldn't this basically mean that for one job title the pay is the same whether a person has worked 20 years in the position or 1 day? And concerning eliminating "market forces" as a criteria, how will businesses recruit if they can't pay more for employees with scarce skills? How does the market send a signal it needs more workers with that skill set if it can't pay more? Is this really what the Paycheck Fairness Act will do?

[gemcando06]

When I got my job, a piece of computer print-out had crossed out my salary and, in pen, a lower salary was written in. The computer didn't know I was a woman.

[M1]

This is a huge step in women's rights. After this maybe we can start prioritizing DNA processing of rape kits and increasing rape penalties to life in prison.

[overd0g1]

It's a huge step backward for human rights. The human right to freely negotiate employment contracts. It is distilled evil.

[Naithom]

Tell me, Overdog, how can someone freely negotiate if they are refused the right to know what the pay levels are in the company? There's not a company out there that doesn't demand that you not discuss how much you make.

Hiring two people at the same time and paying one less because of their sex is discrimination. In the old days employers claimed that this was because men were the bread winners. But in this day and age just as many, if not more women are the heads of their households.

When individuals have the same amount of experience and the same amount of education, they should come into a job making the same amount of pay. Pure and simple. Raises should be based on merit.

In this economic situation, what makes you think, Overdog that hiring negotiations would be freely negotiated. There aren't enough jobs and people are becoming homeless. They are at the mercy of the employers in order to feed their families. It is entirely appropriate that laws be put in place to make sure that those employers don't misuse and abuse already desperate workers.

[kissmygrits]

I guess you probably think the Civil Rights Act was unfair... Wake up. People do not have equal bargaining power in this society, and discrimination based on gender and race exists. In a just society with a Constitution containing the 14th Amendment, that should not occur. It's ok to read. Try is sometime.

[PATina]

This should become law as quickly as possible !!

When I started working at this law firm as a temp... we all made the same money. One by one the firm began hiring us full time as clerks. A year later... a male colleague was upset by the raise he received... in his anger he let out how much he had been hired at... $800 more than I was. I asked my immediate supervisor if she thought I should take my complaint to the paralegal supervisor... and she told me not to since as part of our employment we agreed not to discuss our salaries... and that I could be fired. This is what we women (not to mention AA women who sometimes get paid less than white women) have to put up with... and it's not right. This guy had no greater qualifications that I did... and he didn't work as hard (he got in trouble several times for putting on his time sheets work that temps were doing as if he did it himself). But to seek a redress could have cost me my job.

[SethBLiNK]

It seemed like he was the one who was in danger of being fired. He discussed his salary. You merely overheard it. You should have told him that you were going to turn him in for in unless he gave you $400 a week cash.

You want to play with the big boys. Do like the big boys do.

[Onotwen]

Did you quit your job and tell the dishonest managers that you have not interest in working for a corrupt organization? I would have zero motivation working for those idiots. I wouldn't bother asking for a raise. Why would I want to work for them at that point.

If we stop taking this kind of abuse and tell the abusers that we won't put up with it any more, the abuse will stop.

This will be vastly more effective than more corrupt legislation.

[jojojo]

equal pay for equal work--absolutely.

But how many of us have seen women do less work, and do it poorly, and when their boss tries to fire them, Human Resources says no way, you can't do it because then we'd have too few women in that department.

Lily Ledbetter clearly should be compensated, but women shouldn't be promoted or "carried" by their colleagues just because of their gender, any more than males should be.

[gayleg]

'But how many of us have seen women do less work, and do it poorly, and when their boss tries to fire them, Human Resources says no way, you can't do it because then we'd have too few women in that department.'

Speaking as a one time manager and current CEO: Never. I've never once seen this happen.

[M1]

Far and few...you can always find an exception to any rule. Equal pay for equal work is a simple concept.

[overd0g1]

Why should she be compensated? I don't get it.

[carrieanna]

In my 10 years of work experience, I haven't seen males work more than females. It's usually the other way...the females doing loads of research and laborious work whereas the males were more apt to just throw some stuff together at the last minute.

[hippynanainblingland]

Ah, but males are promoted over their female colleagues all the time! Young male whipper snappers are trained by females who've been on the job for years, decades, even, and then promoted over them, at a higher salary, to be their boss... this situation is well illustrated in Whoopi's "The Associate."

[SethBLiNK]

Good point. It happened in 9 to 5 too.

Would you happen to have any examples that aren't from a movie?

[kissmygrits]

I literally have no idea what you're talking about.