Women's equal pay law

[issac the dragon]

ACLU Welcomes Pay Equity Legislation in the House of Representatives (6/22/2007)
Washington, DC - The American Civil Liberties Union applauded today’s introduction in the House of Representatives of the “Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007,” legislation aimed at clarifying the law regarding wage discrimination. On May 29, the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. Goodyear that workers cannot sue for wage discrimination that occurred years earlier. According to the 5-4 decision, the majority held that the plaintiff had no claim because she had not filed a complaint within 180 days of the initial discrimination.


This is much needed legislation. I hope everyone who is interested will let their congressmen/women know you support it. I have worked besides a man making 25% more per hour than I was. It is infuriating.

[Deadshot]

Having two daughters I'm all for it. :thumbsup

[Zanoog]

Good news - but isn't it amazing that in the year 2007, that this is still an issue! :rp

[The Q]

Excellent use of that smilie, Z. :lol

ADQ

[cassandra]

Insane. Sorry but this is ridiculous legislation in my book. There are already minimum wage laws. All people make different amounts. Get over it and move on.

This is socialism in the making. :kickcan

[Zanoog]

:newmom

[sparks]

:newmom

That is the cutest little smiley! :newmom

[Partyless]

Insane. Sorry but this is ridiculous legislation in my book. There are already minimum wage laws. All people make different amounts. Get over it and move on.

This is socialism in the making. :kickcan

One would HOPE common sense would prevail at companies but sadly this is not always true.

Years ago I worked for a HUGE company here. I had a male co-worker doing a job so identical there was no way anyone could distinguish that there would be a pay difference:

I ran the incentive plan for the internal distribution centers; he ran the incentive plan for our external distributor; we had identical budgets and used the same agencies for both plans; I have a liberal arts degree from an Ag and Engineering university - he had a liberal arts degree from another Ag and Engineering university; He was 7 months older than me and we had the same time in the work force. One day after I TRAINED him on a program, he lashed out in frustration thinking he was venting to a peer of similar pay grade that it wasn't worth $"X" per year to have to put up with some of the crap.

His "$X" per year was TWENTY THOUSAND more than I was making. $20K??! I went to our boss and asked how this could be - the answer - that my co-worker was getting married soon and would have a wife to support. HUH? This was in 1992 not 1952.

I had to take my case to HR and I still only got bumped up $5K because they said they've never given a $20K raise before. Pure corporate bullshit!

I ended up leaving three months later.

So unfortunately, yeah, this law is necessary.

HOWEVER - I will say that typically men negotiate for higher salaries more so than women do so the ACLU needs to take that into account, too.

[Zanoog]

One would HOPE common sense would prevail at companies but sadly this is not always true.

Years ago I worked for a HUGE company here. I had a male co-worker doing a job so identical there was no way anyone could distinguish that there would be a pay difference:

I ran the incentive plan for the internal distribution centers; he ran the incentive plan for our external distributor; we had identical budgets and used the same agencies for both plans; I have a liberal arts degree from an Ag and Engineering university - he had a liberal arts degree from another Ag and Engineering university; He was 7 months older than me and we had the same time in the work force. One day after I TRAINED him on a program, he lashed out in frustration thinking he was venting to a peer of similar pay grade that it wasn't worth $"X" per year to have to put up with some of the crap.

His "$X" per year was TWENTY THOUSAND more than I was making. $20K??! I went to our boss and asked how this could be - the answer - that my co-worker was getting married soon and would have a wife to support. HUH? This was in 1992 not 1952.

I had to take my case to HR and I still only got bumped up $5K because they said they've never given a $20K raise before. Pure corporate bullshit!

I ended up leaving three months later.

So unfortunately, yeah, this law is necessary.

HOWEVER - I will say that typically men negotiate for higher salaries more so than women do so the ACLU needs to take that into account, too.

:clap :clap2 :clap :clap2 :clap

[cassandra]

One would HOPE common sense would prevail at companies but sadly this is not always true.

Years ago I worked for a HUGE company here. I had a male co-worker doing a job so identical there was no way anyone could distinguish that there would be a pay difference:

I ran the incentive plan for the internal distribution centers; he ran the incentive plan for our external distributor; we had identical budgets and used the same agencies for both plans; I have a liberal arts degree from an Ag and Engineering university - he had a liberal arts degree from another Ag and Engineering university; He was 7 months older than me and we had the same time in the work force. One day after I TRAINED him on a program, he lashed out in frustration thinking he was venting to a peer of similar pay grade that it wasn't worth $"X" per year to have to put up with some of the crap.

His "$X" per year was TWENTY THOUSAND more than I was making. $20K??! I went to our boss and asked how this could be - the answer - that my co-worker was getting married soon and would have a wife to support. HUH? This was in 1992 not 1952.

I had to take my case to HR and I still only got bumped up $5K because they said they've never given a $20K raise before. Pure corporate bullshit!

I ended up leaving three months later.

So unfortunately, yeah, this law is necessary.

HOWEVER - I will say that typically men negotiate for higher salaries more so than women do so the ACLU needs to take that into account, too.

I disagree. That could have easily been a woman making $20K more. There is no reason to believe that just because he was a man he was given more. If you want to talk about generalizations, most companies want to pay all their employees as little as they can!

Sorry but I cannot support socialism.

[AnnEsthesia]

Cassandra, you do know that women make a lot less than men. It is a fact. It is supported by research. How do you figure women make less if their equals are not making more?

[Partyless]

I disagree. That could have easily been a woman making $20K more. There is no reason to believe that just because he was a man he was given more. If you want to talk about generalizations, most companies want to pay all their employees as little as they can!

Sorry but I cannot support socialism.

But when it comes to equal pay for equal work - I'm a weeeee bit passionate about that. You'd be surprised how many companies discount female employees - especially managers. And if you're married with kids - forget it. You're automatically assumed that you'd rather be at the PTA meeting than at the board meeting.

I work full time. I work for ME not out of some sense of need or greed. I love what I do and I'm damn good at it. Working women and moms get the rawest end of the corporate deal - we are overlooked because companies ASSume we aren't serious about work and we get criticized by some of (operative word, gals, SOME OF not all of) the SAHM crowd who bought into Dr. Laura's bullshit back in the late 90's. Mothers can work and be moms - someone needs to clue in corporate America and my bitchy neighbor down the street running the PTA and holding meetings at 10am on Wednesdays so working parents can't attend.

oops - sorry for the rant there.

I don't view equal pay for equal work as a socialist thing at all.

Again, statistics show that women often settle or don't negotiate for the higher salaries when interviewing the same way men do so there's fault all around. If women truly want equal pay - we have to ask for it.

[cassandra]

Cassandra, you do know that women make a lot less than men. It is a fact. It is supported by research. How do you figure women make less if their equals are not making more?

The facts also include that women do different jobs than men.

[cassandra]

I don't view equal pay for equal work as a socialist thing at all.

Again, statistics show that women often settle or don't negotiate for the higher salaries when interviewing the same way men do so there's fault all around. If women truly want equal pay - we have to ask for it.

If the women are just asking for it it is not socialism. If the women are creating laws that force it that is. :)

[AnnEsthesia]

Um. Not really. Please show me how two people doing the exact same job but the woman making less is 'women doing different jobs'? You do understand that the research looks at people who do the SAME jobs, don't you?

If you want to feel that men and women have an equal playing field when it comes to work, no one can convince you otherwise. It is sad, but it is true that there are VERY few fields where men and women are competing on a level playing field. Research it and you will find it is true.

[cassandra]

Ann I could show you that but I would also have to show you women doing the same thing making more.

BTW in teaching, which is government jobs, all people make the same.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes Cassandra, there are a few professions where women are at an advantage. Of course, they are only a few and they are NOT the higher paying jobs. :) But even if they were high paying jobs, just because women have an advantage in fields that historically men had no interest in, does NOT mean that women are not disadvantaged in the workplace.

BTW, you realize that you prove the point when you point out that in a government controlled job, everyone makes the same at each pay grade, don't you?

[cassandra]

Yes, I realize that I don't agree with the government mandate for the job. I think that it is socialistic in nature and promotes no sort of competition or bettering of oneself. :(

[bbrown]

Please show me how two people doing the exact same job but the woman making less is 'women doing different jobs'? You do understand that the research looks at people who do the SAME jobs, don't you?

I worked with a guy who was doing the same job as me but was making $20K more. When he was hired from the outside, I had been at the company for 6 years already and he was at $30K more. Was I bitter? Sure. The problem was that I had spent the previous six years at that company whereas he had been hopping around and getting higher in salary each time.

In your world, that's a huge injustice that should be illegal. I was way more competent, but here he was making more than me. To me, it's the way things go. He looked like he was more experienced than I was and that's worth more in the market.

As far as women doing my job go, I'm afraid I don't have all that much data since I've only ever worked with two women software developers and I didn't know the pay of either. It wouldn't surprise me if one was making more than me and the other was making less as the former had more experience and the latter was an H1-Ber. (And I'd prefer if we didn't move this into a "women in tech are so underrepresented" digression.)

If you want to feel that men and women have an equal playing field when it comes to work, no one can convince you otherwise. It is sad, but it is true that there are VERY few fields where men and women are competing on a level playing field. Research it and you will find it is true.

Oh puh-leez. That's a wonderful cop-out and totally begs the question. Could you provide some of this vaunted research where experience, family status, age, and job are all controlled? I doubt it because that's a lot of variables to hold constant.

The point is that you cannot just look at two jobs, see different pay levels, and assume that the only difference between them is gender. That's the conceit of all these studies. Even if you try to account for experience, it's still very subjective to say that one set of experiences is better or worse than another. There's a million reasons why men might make more than women ceteris paribus: better negotiating skills, better interviewing, different or better experience, unlikelihood to need maternity leave, lack of family. (NOTE: all of these could explain why a particular woman is making more than a particular man just as well.)

This whole subject disgusts me because the government has no business injecting itself into the employer-employee relationship. The employee has no right to a particular salary: if one person gets paid more than another, then it's between those people and their employer. We live in a (mostly) free market and if you're undervalued (boy does that sentiment cut across gender and generational lines, as cassandra mentioned) then you are free to get a different job or, better still, start your own business.

Bill

[AnnEsthesia]

And what if, no matter how much better you make yourself, because you have children and the employer knows that your family will at time intrude on your job, they will not pay you as much because they know you may leave or may need to take time off?

How is that fair?

[AnnEsthesia]

Oh Bill, Bill, Bill. Give me a break. I gotcha. You don't give a shit because you feel if a man can make more, so can a woman. Whatever. Yep, women do not move as much as a man. Why? Perhaps because they know that there are not as many opportunities out there and once they reach a certain seniority in a place, they will never be able to get a job of equal value someplace else. And if they have kids? Forget it. Everyone who interviews them will note the kids and just assume that they will not be as focused as a man.

If you think that is false, then I wish I could live in your world. Because reality is far different.

[cassandra]

Are you calling Bill a woman? He doesn't change jobs. He has taken more paternity leave than most women take maternity leave.

There aren't as many jobs out there for anyone once they reach a certain level of senority. I guess if we all made everybody feel good and made things fair, which btw I hate the word fair (how could anything ever be fair?), then maybe you would be happy. Everyone could make the same wages and that my dear would be socialism!

[bbrown]

And what if, no matter how much better you make yourself, because you have children and the employer knows that your family will at time intrude on your job, they will not pay you as much because they know you may leave or may need to take time off?

How is that fair?

Let's see, less pay for less work. Yeah, sounds about right.

Bill

[AnnEsthesia]

Are you calling Bill a woman? He doesn't change jobs. He has taken more paternity leave than most women take maternity leave.

There aren't as many jobs out there for anyone once they reach a certain level of senority. I guess if we all made everybody feel good and made things fair, which btw I hate the word fair (how could anything ever be fair?), then maybe you would be happy. Everyone could make the same wages and that my dear would be socialism!

No, I do not want everyone to make the same. But if I put in long hours at my company next to the long hours a man makes, I should be able to make the same as the man who has the same education, same experience and same commitment. The fact is that men are viewed as the 'supporters' of a family and therefore get more pay. Women get shortchanged because it is assumed that they will take leave, they will stay home with the kids, etc.

And excuse me, but I am allowed to have my opinion and speak my reality without anyone telling me I live in a fantasy world. I see the world very clearly and if you have a different experience, how exactly does that invalidate MY experience or those of millions of other women?

You make it out as if we are demanding something we do not deserve. In fact, all we are demanding is WHAT we deserve.

And how exactly do you figure I called Bill a woman? :roll

[AnnEsthesia]

Let's see, less pay for less work. Yeah, sounds about right.

Bill

Or how about the ASSUMPTION of less pay for less work? What if the woman stays late, comes in early to make up for any lost work?

Give me a break. You want to justify the inequity when there is NO justification.

[bbrown]

Oh Bill, Bill, Bill. Give me a break. I gotcha. You don't give a shit because you feel if a man can make more, so can a woman. Whatever.

Hmm, that wasn't quite my point. My point was that everyone has experienced pay inequities at some point. In my case, it was another man. Boohoo.

If you think that is false, then I wish I could live in your world. Because reality is far different.

I think women often make less than men but I'm not prepared to say it's endemic or even prevalent. I cited some reasonable justifications for that disparity. I asked you for just one study that controlled for some of those things and you make disparaging comments about my world. Give me a break.

Bill

[AnnEsthesia]

Actually, you called my world a fantasy world, so please don't complain about my making comments. You started it. :roll

As for the rest, if you are comfortable with just disregarding countless studies and lots of research that talk about the glass ceiling and pay inequality, well... that is on you.

I and those who feel it should not be that way will continue to work for equality.

I am done with this thread. Really, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you that it is real and it really is upsetting me that you can just dismiss it out of hand.

[bbrown]

Or how about the ASSUMPTION of less pay for less work? What if the woman stays late, comes in early to make up for any lost work?

Oh, now you're shifting from your earlier story of the lady who's "family will at time intrude on your job" and "may leave or may need to take time off" to one who will work late and not miss any work. She could maybe mention such a thing in the interview or during negotiations.

I know that I once interviewed for a job where I spoke about needing family time and I was passed over. It's a legitimate concern. In future interviews for positions with that company, I assured them that I would work extra or different hours to accommodate the occasional time off for family matters. Guess what? I was hired.

Give me a break. You want to justify the inequity when there is NO justification.

Enough with the breaks already, please. There is a justification: I've been a business owner and I know that someone who requires unannounced time off is a less attractive candidate to me. So if I were to hire that person, I would naturally be inclined to pay that person less.

That is a justification whether you like it or not--if it were suggested to you, you would pass on that position. Oh wait, you would petition your government to force that person to ignore his or her economic interests because it's not fair *waves arms frantically* that it should be held against you. From the owner's standpoint, that's not fair. But they don't count, do they?

Bill

[bbrown]

And excuse me, but I am allowed to have my opinion and speak my reality without anyone telling me I live in a fantasy world.

This is certainly the most ironic statement of this thread.

Bill

[issac the dragon]

In Ledbetter v Goodyear, the SC did not dispute the fact that rank discrimination had indeed occured. Only that Ledbetter had not filed a complaint in 180 days, dispite her not knowing for years that she was the victim of discrimination. Note that. The SC agreed she had been discriminated against.

In my own case, I was working on an assemble line in a factory. You can't get any more equal work than that.And I had more senority than he did.

[bbrown]

Actually, you called my world a fantasy world, so please don't complain about my making comments. You started it. :roll

I challenge you to show me where I said you were living in a fantasy world. Seriously.

Here's what I said:

In your world, that's a huge injustice that should be illegal.

All I meant there was that to you, it's a big problem. To me, not at all. Then you came back with this lovely chestnut:

If you think that is false, then I wish I could live in your world. Because reality is far different.

Here's where the irony comes in since you're saying that I'm in some fantasy world, detached from reality. Your strident retort about being allowed to have your own opinion is something I never questioned, nor did I ever accuse you of being out of touch with reality. You did, not me. Ironic.

I don't mean to suggest that I actually care about all this (not that you'll even see this). I just would never dismiss someone's statements out of hand with "they're in some cuckoo land."

Bill