Earlier today, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on S. 3772 -- the Paycheck Fairness Act -- by a margin of 58-41.
I am deeply disappointed that the Senate did not pass this important piece of legislation, but the issue of pay equity is far too important to give up. I remain committed to the fight for this commonsense reform, and my department will redouble its efforts to ensure America's women are not treated as second-class citizens by employers who refuse to compensate them in a fair and equitable manner.
While the Senate fell short of the mark today, it is important to note that the Paycheck Fairness Act was approved by the House of Representatives almost two years ago. The bill was specifically designed to address the persistent gap between men's and women's wages. It tackles that challenge by enhancing enforcement and by closing loopholes in the 47-year-old Equal Pay Act.
Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the issue of women's pay has grown even more serious. Today, women are the sole or co-wage earner in two-thirds of American households. And, for a growing number of families, equal pay for women is not just a matter of principle. It is a matter of survival.
Despite decades of efforts since 1963, the wage gap has narrowed from 59 cents for each dollar a man makes to a still unbelievably paltry 77 cents in 2010. It is equally shocking that the gap has closed only five cents in the past 20 years. At that pace, it will take almost 100 more years for women to achieve pay equity. The situation is even worse for women of color. In fact, today, African-American women make 69 cents for every dollar made by a man. Latinas make just 60 cents.
When women first start working, the wage gap is usually small, and some groups of women have earnings on par with men. However, the gap grows substantially as men and women progress in their careers. Men get larger raises and promotions. And, even when women keep pace with promotions, they still fall behind in pay. That has major long-term economic implications. By the age of 65, the typical full-time working woman has about $365,000 less in earnings relative to a full-time working man. This gap in earnings follows women into retirement, resulting in smaller pensions and lower Social Security.
As President Obama has said, "Equal pay is by no means just a women's issue -- it's a family issue... And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month's paychecks to simple discrimination."
As a nation, we must continue to pursue pay equity with passion and determination. We owe it to women in America -- those of years past, who worked so hard to build our country; those who carry that task on today; and, certainly, those who will shape our future in the workplace of tomorrow.
This post also appears on the Department of Labor Blog.
Follow Sec. Hilda Solis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HildaSolisDOL
I think we should demand as much, since two yeas from the three of them would have passed the paycheck fairness act. They don't believe in pay equity, let them take a pay cut. 23 percent.
Do women that work at McDonalds’, Wal-Mart, Macy’s, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, In and Out Burgers ect. in Southern California make the same amount in minimal wage as a man that works at McDonalds’ , Wal-Mart, Macy’s, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, In and Out Burgers in Central and Northern California having the same time in years working for the company. I believe that there pay is equal Perhaps there might be some difference in the amount received due to having a specialty such as having a language skill, overtime, hazard pay don’t you think? but this applies to both men and women. Could we apply this simple concept to California State Employees and Federal Employees? How about Congress and the Senate are you saying that you are making less than your predecessors that were men? I guess your argument of 59 cents for each dollar a man makes to a still unbelievably paltry 77 cents in 2010 don’t apply to these jobs.
Are you comparing wages what a woman makes in one state to men in different states, to assert your argument that 59 cents for each dollar a man makes to a still unbelievably paltry 77 cents in
that women make less than men. How about in the competitive business of being a lawyer, executive CEO that wages are based on performance an commission could an argument be made that women make more than men in these fields.
When one looks at the various studies, it's obvious that a pay gap exists. But it's hard to say why it exists. In some situations the pay gap is reversed. Young single women in urban areas now make more than young single men. As women now out number men in getting college degrees, the trend for future genger pay gap should narrow or reverse.
The pay gap issues is one that legislation won't fix. Corporations will always find ways to justify pay differences between employees. Honestly, would a woman, who was working a job for twenty years with raises based on experience and excelling in her task, be pleased that the newly hired man or woman, came on at the same rate of pay just because the new hire would be working the same task?
If a business owner were as truly greedy as what people here tend to believe, it wouldn't make sense to hire men. Women can be had for cheap! :. More Profits!
Yes women deserve equitable pay. Of course. But in this economy this issue is primarily a families issue. If 2/3rds of families now have a woman as the primary or co-breadwinner (http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6f7ade27-f692-4f04-85b5-2f0bcf7de9cb), accepting reduced pay for women de facto means accepting child hunger, mortgage and credit defaults, depressed consumer spending, and more.
Half of America seems to want a vibrant economy based on paying minimum wages to everybody (or less, if possible). Businesses might productively ask themselves, as Henry Ford once did, who will buy their goods and services when only 1% or 2% of the population can afford them.
Which of these business models offers the greater chance for longterm profitability?:
Selling your product to 2% of the populace, or selling your product to 75-80% of the populace?
And it really doesn't make sense, when you think about it. If I am a business owner and can hire women for less than men then I will hire more women and make more profit. Since this is not observed in the real world it should give one pause. Maybe the premise of the argument is wrong somehow.
Seriously? Read much? (Get out much?):
According to the National Economic Council’s “Jobs and Economic Security for America’s Women,’’ in 2008, 62 percent of married couples were dual-income households with the mother as the primary or co-breadwinner. Also, as of December 2009, 2.1 million women whose husbands were unemployed were working as the primary revenue earners for their families and 6.1 million single mothers are the sole providers for their households.
http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6f7ade27-f692-4f04-85b5-2f0bcf7de9cb
http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/ExecSummary_PayGap.pdf
Also from Callyson, a Newsweek article that discusses why women still need a Fair-Pay Act, and it cites a study "which found that female M.B.A.s who’ve made exactly the “right” life choices—no intention to have children, top-tier schools, high aspirations—still earn $4,600 less per year in their first jobs out of business school. Or U.S. Department of Education data, which separated pay by job sector to determine that whether women who go into teaching or business, social work or science—and before they’ve had the chance to cripple themselves by “life choices” (these are young, childless women we’re talking about)—they will still make roughly 20 percent less than the men they work with."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/22/why-women-need-the-paycheck-fairness-act.html
Yes, everyone knows numbers can be deceiving, but these numbers aren't. Women in the same job settings as men, with the same ambitions and the same productivity, are not paid nearly as much as their male counterparts. As a man, I love and respect the women in my life, and there's absolutely no reason why they should be denied equal pay for equal work. We still need to solve this issue, and not grow apathetic about the sexism that still remains.
Republicans also want to control your reproductive rights as well, having the government telling you that having an abortion under any circumstances under penalty of imprisonment.
As a result, the Ledbetter act was legislation passed to allow women to retroactively sue for pay that was held from them unfairly, and they have a much longer time frame to be able to sue from. But it wasn't establishing national guidelines for equal pay between men and women.
For the background info, Wikipedia ain't bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009
But the point is that equal pay for equal work is STILL an unsettled issue. This is not simply pushing for equal pay for women regardless of the work they do.
"Behind the Pay Gap examines the gender pay gap for college graduates. One year out of college, women working full time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn. Controlling
for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors normally associated with pay, college-educated women still earn less than their male peers earn."
http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/ExecSummary_PayGap.pdf
"In a careful empirical study, two sociologists, Paula England at Stanford University and Michelle Budig at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, found that interruptions from work, working part-time, and decreased experience can explain no more than about one-third of the gap in pay between women with and without children. And "mother-friendly" job characteristics explained far less."
http://www.slate.com/id/2268371/
Keep up the good fight, Hilda!
"...female M.B.A.s who’ve made exactly the “right” life choices—no intention to have children, top-tier schools, high aspirations—still earn $4,600 less per year in their first jobs out of business school. Or U.S. Department of Education data, which separated pay by job sector to determine that whether women who go into teaching or business, social work or science—and before they’ve had the chance to cripple themselves by “life choices” (these are young, childless women we’re talking about)—they will still make roughly 20 percent less than the men they work with."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/22/why-women-need-the-paycheck-fairness-act.html
"Could it be that women don't aspire to these jobs? Do their careers stall because they take time out to have babies?
The authors controlled for those factors and the findings didn't change. They compared the outcomes of only men and women who aspired to the CEO level and only men and women who do not have children.
"Even among high potentials without children, men's salary growth outpaced women's," the study found."
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/myth-pipeline-inequality-plagues-working-women-study-finds/story?id=9868961&page=2