On April 20th, Americans will observe Equal Pay Day -- the date that marks the 110 extra days that women must work into 2010 in order to equal what men earned in 2009.
Nearly half a century after Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act, too many women in this country still do not get paid what men do for the exact same work. On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. The circumstances are even worse for Latinas and women of color.
This is wrong and unjust. But, even more, it threatens the economic security of our families. The fact is millions of Americans are dependent on a woman's pay-check just to get by, put food on the table, pay for child care, and deal with rising health care bills. Two-thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of their family's earnings. In many families, the woman is the sole breadwinner.
On average, women lose an estimated $700,000 over their lifetimes due to unequal pay practices, and this inequality means real hardships for their families.
And, while many factors influence a worker's earnings -- including educational attainment, work experience, and family status -- even when controlling for many of these variables, a substantial portion of the wage gap cannot be explained by anything but discrimination.
One of us experienced this discrimination personally. Over nearly two decades of work, Lilly received performance awards and outstanding reviews. Yet, late in her career, she learned that she had been paid significantly less than men in the company doing the exact same job. When she sued, a jury reviewed the evidence and concluded that she was paid less because of her sex.
Outrageously, the Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict. They held that even though companies that discriminate do so covertly and do not reveal what male workers earn, Lilly somehow should have known that she had been discriminated against within 180 days of when she was hired. Because workers like Lilly do not learn of pay inequities for years, the decision left no recourse for her, or other victims of wage discrimination.
Largely because of Lilly's determination, the first legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Very simply, this law reversed the Court's decision.
We celebrate enactment of this important law, but we must recognize that it was only a first step. We need to do much more.
First, there are too many loopholes and too many barriers to effective enforcement of existing laws. That is why we strongly support the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill -- which is sponsored by Senator Dodd, Senator Mikulski, and Representative Rose DeLauro -- would strengthen penalties for discrimination and give women the tools they need to identify and confront unfair treatment.
In January, the House of Representatives passed the bill overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. And, last month, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Senator Harkin, held a hearing on this long-overdue bill. We hope that the Senate can pass the bill and send it to the President's desk this year.
In addition, we must recognize that the problem of unequal pay goes beyond insidious discrimination. As a nation, we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by women, even when they require comparable skills to jobs traditionally performed by men. Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader? To address this more subtle discrimination, Senator Harkin, along with Representative Norton, has introduced the Fair Pay Act to ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. We must act this year to pass this legislation, and eliminate the subtle and systematic issues that lead to unequal pay.
On this Equal Pay Day, let us recommit to eliminating discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. America's working women and the families that rely on them deserve fairness on the job. Our aim is simple: We pledge to fight pay discrimination until we have achieved true equality in the workplace and there is no need to commemorate equal pay day any more.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Lilly Ledbetter was the plaintiff in the American employment discrimination case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is named after her.
Ashley B. Carson: Equal Pay Day - The Impact Over a Lifetime
During past equal pay days I participated in bake sales where we sold cookies and brownies to men for $1.00 and to women for .75¢. To the irate men I would respond, "Yes, it is maddening -- if you feel this way about a cookie, think about how we feel over a lifetime."
Martha Burk: Dragging Our Feet on Equal Pay Day
Shortchanging women means shortchanging men and children as well. In the present climate of encouraging economic self-sufficiency and focusing on family well-being, righting the wrongs of unequal pay seems like a no-brainer.
There has been a fundamental change in pedagogy in our country that favors the learning style of girls rather than the competitive learning style of boys. Therefore, women not only significantly outnumber men in college attendance/graduation, but they generally outperform male students. As time goes on, this female "success" ought to be reflected in the workplace. If anything, before we squabble about a 5% pay gap, we should be adjusting our educational system so that it encourages both boys and girls to reach their full academic and professional potential. Why are we educationally hobbling boys? It doesn't seem like a fair means to an end in order to achieve equal pay between genders.
What an imaginative solution: do nothing because it’s harder than doing something.
I’m guessing you would be more concerned if men were the ones earning .77 on the women’s dollar?
Moreover, being an engineer by trade, perhaps I see life from a different perspective. Let me explain. For well over a decade, there's been a concerted effort to work towards what many consider a "gender imbalance" in science and engineering. Yet, women currently in the engineering workforce make out very well. I do not have access to much raw data, but judging by anecdotes and offer letters I've seen, good candidates receive offers higher than many male counterparts. Nonetheless, women tend to not be as interested in these fields as men are. Why? Well, that's a whole other story, since no one wants to be accused of even thinking that men and women, on average, have different areas of interest. Speaking of gender imbalances, how many people seek to correct the gender imbalance among kindergarten teachers or nurses?
Finally, to be honest, if men made .77 on the women's dollar, I actually would not seek to correct it through legislation. I'd just work harder -- which is what I already have to do to be a sole breadwinner.
But my daughters do!
http://www.bowlingmembership.com/PDF/smart_colleges.pdf
1) More women then men in the workplace. Supply and demand. Since women out live men, they represent a majority and are subject to normal supply-and-demand pressures. Nothing personal.
2) Women often start their careers later then men. This can be due to child-raising or other reasoning.
3) Probably the single most overlooked reason is that women are naturally programmed to seek mates who have the largest incomes. This creates extra pressure on men to compete and perform and produce. As Ward Churchill might reflect: "blow-back". Women can't have it both ways. If they insist on their husbands buying them Lexi, they can't blame these same men for out competing them in the workplace environment.
As it now stands, women have the power to take everything over. They represent a majority of voters, yet, only a handful of our Congress is female. Maybe in the same set of new laws, we should mandate that a majority of our congress also be women? (Non compliance would require sexual re-orientation surgery by lottery).
All sorts of inequities exist in our capitalist system. Corporations have human rights but no human responsibilities. Dentists make twice as much as MDs. School superintendents in very minor towns can make over $250,000.00 per year + benis. Sadly but truly, if women were worth more then men that is what they would be paid. There would be no stopping it. Conversely, the lack of parity between men and women can not be blamed on some nationwide injustice. Can you please describe the mechanism which keeps women's salaries lower, other then free-market forces?
The wage gap referred to in the article is almost devoid of any real meaning when you consider number of hours worked, education level, years of relevant experience, type of occupation, and other factors. It's not so simple as comparing the median wage of full-time working women versus the median wage of the full-time working men - which the wage gap stupidly does. Then factor in the real fact that men tend to die sooner, and women get to enjoy the wealth, and we might have an argument to slam on the breaks for any womens' health care initiatives in favor of closing the death gap.
Parking meter is public power meter reader is corp same issue - corp will pay more
I don't know of any statistic that's been more thoroughly debunked than the 70% figure. There are so many reasons to consider the figure worthless to any analysis. Part-time and full time treated the same, increased absenteeism rate for women not considered, ignores seniority pay scales, family leave not considered (nothing like taking a sexually based benefit twisting it on its head and making it seem like you're being discriminated against because of it) and the completely subjective process of determining what is equal work, which in this case is determined by someone with an agenda.
I understand trying to equalize pay for relatively equivalent work, but when trying to show actual prejudice you need to compare apples and apples in specific instances. Using a general average is meaningless. Show me that a women working for the same company at the same position with the same seniority is making less, then we'll all shout down that company for being sexist, otherwise this is a bunch of self-serving hypocrisy.
India passed a remarkable and historic bill recently—1/3 of all legislative seats need to be filled by women. The world’s largest democracy, it guarantees seats for women in the national legislature and state assemblies. The bill still needs to be passed in the lower parliament, but it is expected to pass.
Our congress has more women than ever before, but it pales in comparison. In the 111th United States Congress, there are 76 women out of 435 serving the U.S. House and 17 out of 100 in the U.S. Senate. To reach 1/3 the House would need to have 145 women, or 69 more. In the Senate there would need to be 50, or 33 more.
We do need more women in Congress, and women have a difficult road getting to this level of power in our country. Do you think our Congress would ever entertain this idea--my bet is most of the congress guys would not!
~Laura http://lauracarroll.com
An outrageous, discriminatory, affirmative-action quota system that is an affront to a lawful society of free people.
The constitution was written to establish justice, defined as "entitlement for actions" thus, when anyone preform a service in maintaining the nation they are entitled to as much as the president or CEO. Every business should belong to the nation, therefore WE THE PEOPLE, making the entitlement for anyone working to be equal among all workers. That is done by a magnetic strip on the Social Security Card doubling as the "time card" and purchasing power. Every need anyone has they are entitled to because they are serving the whole nation.
The nation will retain a strong military for defense, inventions will continue, and every form of job will still be performed because everyone is entitled the services and goods the nation provides regardless of job. Because no two people desire to do the same thing, every position will be filled and the people healthy for it.
With productivity gains, more is produced and done with fewer workers.
How can that result in full employment?
Answer: absent government stimulus - wars, deficit spending - and other things that stimulate the economy, it doesn't.
It did not after 1929, until WWII ended massive unemployment. And now that the massive housing bubble caused by low interest rates and tax cuts for the rich and investors has popped, we don't have enough jobs again.
Sorry, your Ayn Rand Utopia does not exist.
Capitalism says that competition drives down prices, and that includes the price of labor.
And the price declines even more when supply exceeds demand.
Based on that, the obvious goal of capitalism is high unemployment, to increase the labor supply and reduce labor costs. In other words, just what we have.
There would not be capital and with everyone having the right to own what anyone else owns would increase demand. The cost of labor would be the right to own what one desires.
However, the statistics quoted in this article do not reflect the reality I've witnessed in the last 30 years, so I am highly skeptical of statistics that show such a disparity.
Here's why: To accurately compare a 1:1 pay comparison, you must know,
* Precisely detailed job description (you must compare like jobs)
* Educational level
* Years of service
* Merits
* Demerits
* Annual evaluation scores
* Attendance record
* Customer satisfaction evaluations
In reading these statistics over the years, the methods of comparison have always been faulty - even in the days when the claims were ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
You cannot compare housekeeper earnings with a lawyer's wages or even a construction laborer's wages.
If you are doing a study, you must have 10 male/female housekeepers with precisely the same experience/work history; 10 engineers with the same qualifications; 10 doctors; 10 lawyers; 10 babysitters; 10 gardeners and so on....
Lying with statistics is a game designed to dupe the idiots educated in the USA.
Assuming equal scheduling and quality, workers that produce the most are worth the most.
PERIOD!
On the average, someone six inches taller makes $5500 more a year.
On the average, men are about six inches taller.
Mystery solved.
"A 2004 study ... found that every inch of height amounts to a salary increase of about $789 per year. By this calculation, someone who is 6 feet tall earns $5,525 more annually than someone who is 5 feet, 6 inches."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/02/cb.tall.people/index.html
It says tall men earn more than shorter men.
And tall women earn more than shorter women.
It does not say whether men and women who are the same height make the same wages, but given the above figures it seems plausible.
As a culture we have a huge bias for height; for example, all Presidents are tall.
I'm 5'9". I'll bet anyone we'll have a women President, before a man my height.
and women are as guilty as men of height bias
but they dont like gender bias, of course.
On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes."
The combination of those two statements intentionally mislead the reader.
The first sentence says "exact same work".
But the second is for all jobs, not the same job and experience!
For the same job and experience, women earn 90-98% of what men earn.
Still not fair, but not 77%. See my below post.
Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face *** wage disparities of less than 10 percent ***, and many are within a couple of points.
*** Claims of unequal pay almost always involve comparing apples and oranges. ***"
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392
I think the United States should ratify the UN treaty on Women's Rights - known as CEDAW (see on-line for details).
Many countries have done so, but not us. Many US citizens assume that we have everything, because they want to believe it.
I was around when the ERA died because of time limits and shenanigans by Virginia politicians.
The Richmond Capitol police were rude to those of us who wore ERA buttons.
What do women want? Fairness. There are only nine states with community property rights. In many of the others the woman is totally dependant on the whims of husbands to qulify for any portion of his retirement. This is true for any non-working mother.
Read CEDAW, please. (CEDAW - UN for information).CEDAW is a much broader statement of women's needs and rights. Except for maternity, all we want is what men have. We do not want special favors. But if we give up careers for helping husbands creers by looking after children and entertaining his colleagues, we don't want to face old age with poverty.
Mort Zuckeran of the McLaughlin Group represents many American men and even women when he said that , despite published studies proving otherwise, women here are better off to live here
than anywhere else in the world. He seems to think facts are wrong - or just merely funny. It is not a laughing matter.