Came across this article. I've worked for several large companies (UPS, AAA, Farmers, Nationwide, US Government, State Government...) and I've never seen any pay inequities- although I'm sure it exists. However, this plaintiff bar bill will open yet another floodgate of lawsuites without merit (and some with) to squeeze more legal extortion. Is the Paycheck Fairness Act Around the Corner? Stuart Ishimaru, acting Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in favor of the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act. He cites persistent gender-based wage discrimination and the need for new and more aggressive regulations to help enforce equal pay laws. “EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru Testifies before Senate in Support of Paycheck Fairness Act,” www1.eeoc.gov (Mar. 11, 2010). Commentary The proposed Paycheck Fairness Act provides rules and regulations for the Equal Pay Act and other laws prohibiting pay discrimination enforced by the EEOC. The Act, which passed in the House last year, is now before the Senate. According to Chairman Ishimaru, the gender-based wage gap persists because women earn $.77 for every dollar men earn. Ishimaru recognized that caregiver discrimination continues to drag down wages for women. In addition, the number of women working part time is double the number of men, which leads to lower benefits for women and bigger pay discrepancies. Ishimaru also noted that more families in the recession rely on women as primary bread-winners which exacerbates the problems associated with wage discrimination. The Chairman blamed identifying wage discrimination as the single biggest challenge to closing the gender-based wage gap. Out of a total 82,022 average discrimination claims each year, only 2,332 include wage discrimination. Furthermore, the EEOC is currently investigating only 14 wage discrimination cases. Ishimaru pointed to the secrecy that surrounds pay information as a major hindrance to EEOC investigations. Ishimaru contends that the Paycheck Fairness Act will enhance the EEOC’s data collection capabilities. In addition, new remedies will allow for compensatory and punitive damages similar to pay discrimination on other bases. According to the Chairman, class actions will be able to proceed under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) with the passage of the new Act. What does the new Act mean for employers? Should it pass the Senate, the Paycheck Fairness Act will make it easier for the EEOC to establish violations of the Equal Pay Act. Look for more to come on the Paycheck Fairness Act. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In addition to this, there is to be a new anti "mommy-tracking" piece of legislation soon. "Mommy-tracting" is where women take 6 mos off at a time to have children and sometimes due to their particular position with a company, cannot be guaranteed their exact same job when they return due to natural changes within the company while they are gone. One woman sued recently and won $750,000 as she claims that although she still remained a manager, at the same pay, her 4 six month FMLA maternity leaves stymied her attempts to move as high up the corporate ladder as she might have had she never taken any leave for having children. The problem I have with that is if a person misses 2 years of work over a 4 to 5 year span of time, it should be a bit more difficult to get promotions as you;re not there doing the work. Others are doing your work and being recognized for it appropriately.
Just read a book by William Poundstone called "Priceless," which addresses wage discrimination. He cited a study that found women proved to be worse price negotiators than men, both when negotiating with men and other women. They simply asked for less money at the initial stage of a negotiation, which anchored the final dollar amount lower. They did this more when dealing with men than with other women, but they did it with either gender. I think women are naturally just more wired to be consensus-builders, so they tend to compromise more during negotiations. (Not always, mind you. I'm certainly not going to accuse Margaret Thatcher or Nancy Pelosi of being pushovers.) I don't know that any government program can really fix that, or that it should.
VERY interesting. I know I had to negotiate my starting salaries at a few companies- and I fought hard. Maybe that's a main issue in pay inequities.
The book "Super Freakanomics" talked about this topic as well. They cited some studies that suggested that women weren't as "money-driven" as competitive as men. They talked about one study that gave a test to men and women. They then gave the same test to men and women but paid the test takers for every correct answer. They found that the scores for the men jumped drastically when they were paid for correct answers, but the womens' scores didn't noticeably change when they were paid for good scores. They also discussed the obvious reasoning that women may have a couple years less experience due to having children. I don't see how things like this should just be ignore, especially the loss of experience that can occur with having children.
Okay, I'll be the jackhole here. I believe in equal pay for equal work, but the reality of the situation is that women--as a whole--don't provide it. The reasons aren't as important as the result. Perhaps it's because women take more family days off than do men (due to their traditional role as being responsible for the home). Perhaps its because women leave the workplace when they become pregnant. Perhaps its because they're "consensus-builders" (as Mook theorized) and not willing to make the cutthroat sacrifices men are. Perhaps because many women are married and are adding a second income, rather than being the primary wageearner. Perhaps its because men are more comfortable transacting business with other men, which leads to higher male sales figures. Perhaps because health care costs are higher for female employees. Perhaps, in blue collar work, the average woman simply isn't as strong as the average man. Again, these are generalizations over the entire female workforce. I can cite specific examples of women better at their jobs than any man I've ever seen. It sounds cruel and unfair, so how can I prove it? Simple. If I, as a business owner, wanted to maximize my revenue by paying lower salaries, I'd hire only women. I could lower my payroll costs by almost a quarter. However, how many businesses are out there that employ a vast majority of females that aren't female-oriented businesses (e.g., Mary Kay)? Not many. It's a shitty condition of life, but perhaps the market has largely decided the worth of working women in regards to their male counterparts. Is there a market distortion due to sexism? Almost certainly. However, that number is certainly small and not fully encapsulated in that wide gulf.
This is a topic that's interesting to think about, but given that such a small number of women actually frequent this board it's going to naturally be a pretty distorted thread. Not saying it's impossible to discuss, but this is definitely an area where an OT forum on a sports board is always going to be a little lacking.
Are they "wired" that way, or is that how society has groomed women, in general? And has society groomed men to be more assertive and aggressive? If that's the case, we're still dealing with sexism in the system, just further down. Even if it really were a question of wiring (and I'm dubious that it is), why shouldn't that be addressed by government? Do women deserve less pay because they're "wired" to ask for less? There have been studies showing that girls, in school, tend to raise their hands less to answer questions than their more aggressive male counterparts, which leads to them getting less attention in general from teachers. If we assumed that that was also due to wiring, is that something we shouldn't address and just continue to let girls get slightly inferior educational experiences?
I really don't fully understand. If this pay equity is more based on genuine differnces between our nature as men & women, why is it discriminatory.
It's a reasonable question. I guess I always go back to Jefferson's idea about how government should be used to help citizens pursue life, liberty and happiness (not life, liberty and property, as John Locke prescribed). If a woman is happy to ask for a slightly lower wage than a man, why is it the government's job to correct her for her "mistake"? Maybe part of her happiness is based around consensus, and knowing that her employer has been strong-armed by the government to pay her more may even be counter-productive to her sense of happiness. Maybe her willingness to take a slightly lower wage also makes her more employable. African American and hispanic women have lower unemployment rates than their male counterparts. If you force employers to pay exactly the same, it may accidentally disadvantage that hispanic or black woman. Anyway, the gender bias I read about wasn't exclusive to one culture. They were able to find the same results across a wide variety of different cultures. The test itself was really interesting. It's a variation of the psychology test "The Ultimatum Game". And here's a short abstract of the actual study.
But women don't seem happy about pay inequity. If they were, it wouldn't be an issue. That, I have no doubts about. I don't think there's unique sexism in American "character." I think the early evolved roles of women as child care and domestic duties and men as hunters and gatherers have created prejudices of the capacities of each sex. (And it goes both ways...there's an automatic assumption that men are worse with children, which I think wouldn't be the case if child care were an emphasized role for men throughout development.)
If a person (or a group) is unhappy about a circumstance for which he/she/they may be largely responsible for, why is it my (or the government's) job to fix their problem?
Complete aside, but my sons absolutely love Phineas and Ferb. Every time I see one of your posts part of me tries to read it in Perry the Platypus chatter.
Well, tough. Tell 'em to get back in the kitchen then. Seriously, though, a lot of them seem perfectly happy. I don't see countless editorials or marches over this, like I do with, say, gay rights or abortion rights. If women decide to get really pissed off about this, I'll probably change my mind. As it is, it seems like most women are reasonably happy with the current situation. Or at least aren't unhappy enough for it to register as high as so many other major issues.
If it is, in fact, a matter of "wiring" and thus a born-in trait, that they're less able to ask for more pay, then it's handicap that I think employers should be mandated not to take advantage of. If a woman does a job equally well, she should be compensated just as well. If it is not a matter of wiring, but rather how society grooms men and women to think, then it is government addressing a societal inequity.
If it's wiring: Is it really even possible to call something a handicap if half of an entire society has it? If it's society: Is it a social inequity that men waste so much more of their income paying for dates? Should the government require women to go dutch?
If it intrinsically limits them relative to another (massive) group, it seems like a handicap. This isn't like comparing us to athletes and judging that we're handicapped in comparison, for example. Athletes represent a tiny fraction of the population. "Men" don't. There are all sorts of social inequities. Generally the ones that systematically affect one's livelihood are considered more important to address. I think you raise a good point, though...it's far from cut and dry. Should government require anything? If the majority of employers simply don't want to let black people work for them, should government be involved? Obviously, there's no clear and authoritative line that we're all going to agree on. We all have our "I know it when I see it" line that demarcates where government should be involved.
So am I handicapped because I don't have the advantage of breasts? After all, when I say something really fucking stupid there's absolutely no chance it won't register because they're ogling my rack.
So if it is found that Caucasians, on average, have a lower fast twitch muscle fiber density than Black people, should Caucasians be given some concessions due to their "handicap"? Perhaps the government should mandate a headstart for Caucasians in all short-distance track events?
