Women continue to receive unequal pay for equal work. Lilly Ledbetter, who was underpaid for 19 years of work at Goodyear Tire and Rubber, made that fact clear when she spoke in Orono recently.
But it was not a travesty when Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked a vote this week on the Paycheck Fairness Act. That’s because the merits of some the legislation’s specific components were less convincing than the soundbite.
Some provisions made sense, such as those that would have provided resources for women to develop salary negotiating skills and prevented companies from punishing employees who discuss their salaries with their colleagues or bring up wage-parity problems.
But a major part of the legislation would have required employers to prove that wage gaps were based on job requirements and not gender. The provision basically would have eliminated the ability of a company to react to the varied requests of its employees.
Say a company offers a man and a woman equivalent jobs with the same pay. The man demands a higher salary, and the company agrees. The woman, however, never asks for more money. Under current law, it’s probably OK that the company gave the man the larger starting salary. Under the act, though, it would have been a problem, even though the company did not base its pay decision on gender.
Should a company be punished when an employee doesn’t even negotiate for higher wages? Under the act, a similar scenario would happen if a man asked for a raise, but a woman did not.
Perhaps the most important question, though, is: Would making companies liable really have addressed the problem of pay inequity? There are many factors that go into the wage gap of women earning 77 cents for every dollar men earn. And some of them have more to do with women’s choices than with the discrimination of companies.
For instance, a greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time, which usually pays less than full-time work, according to a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor. A greater percentage of women tend to leave work to care for a child or a parent. Women also may tend to value nonwage benefits more than men and therefore take a greater percentage of their compensation in the form of health insurance.
You can argue that those choices by women are the result of ingrained stereotypes. But is that a reason to make businesses liable for wage decisions that have nothing to do with sexism? Under the 1963 Equal Pay Act, it’s already illegal for businesses to discriminate intentionally. (Employers may pay different wages to men and women performing equivalent work if the pay is based on measures such as merit or seniority).
Of course employers never should pay women less than men for equal work. And more can be done to ensure it doesn’t happen, such as by making it harder for businesses to retaliate against women who claim pay discrimination and by providing negotiation skills training. The country also can continue its research into the issue.
But U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe were correct to vote against this version of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Don’t be fooled when Democrats use the Republicans’ vote to make them look as if they hate women. They just needed a better — or should we say fairer? — bill.
Of course they didn’t for it,their guaranteed equal pay. Their quite well off and don’t need it.1%ers.
You might get paid better if you had better grammar skills.
The TBs can’t call BDN a left wing, pinko, communist rag now. 3 cheers for this right wing, 1%,women last tribute to Snow and Collins.
Working women have no friends in them.
Good to see a balanced assessment for a change.
Balanced? This is a pro-business rationale which says it is okay to exploit women. There is nothing balanced about it.
Where does it say it is okay to exploit woman?
it doesn’t…she’s just brainwashed
If you are paying a woman .77 and a man 1.00 for the same work the woman is being exploited. Walmart does it as a matter of practice….. exploit women. Here are some stats for you to consider: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2012equalpay-factsheets/maine_equalpaystatefactsheet.pdf
walmart starts all hourly employees @ the same rate. That “fact” sheet you linked makes no mention of walmart.
I worked for shaws a supervalue company which is a huge empire these days right after I got finished with college. We all talked about our pay rates. The girls made the same amount as me. They got the same 6 month 1 year and 2 year pay increases as me and the same department differential.
I apologize. My Walmart comment referred to exploitation. As I understand it they start employees at minimum wage and then help them sign up for welfare. Vulnerable women (not talking about students, here, though offering you minimum wage, if that was the case, is also exploitation much like Plowman’s attempt to work high school students more for less) are being used by a company that can afford to pay them a living wage. I know. I work for one just like Walmart and receive better than a living wage. So, my question to you is “Did you receive $10.18 to start at Shaw’s? That is the living wage according to Maine’s Living Wage Study for Penobscot County for 2010. If not, you were exploited. That said, many companies do treat their employees equitably. This is about those who do not.
Has anyone seen a Snowe or Collins version of a paycheck fairness act, or for that matter any republican version of one ?
Yes its called the Ha Ha plan, they have there’s and “they” believe if you got off the couch you could have yours. GOP=Grovers own Party
I think Lepage coined the phrase for the Republican Version —-Get off the couch!
I am disappointed in you BDN. Yes, employers do need to be held accountable for every decision they make. If a man is valued at a higher wage for any reason and the job is given to a women, then the women needs to be given the higher wage. Otherwise it is exploitation. And, doing so would avoid legal entanglements wouldn’t it? An employer needs to price out the job, find the best candidate and pay them. No playing games with people’s lives. Whoever wrote this editorial needs to check their logic.
So I guess you could never have a woman earning more than a man in the same position even if she does the better job? The liberal mantra that in order to be fair, everyone must be equal.
Um, you’re missing the point of the legislation. If he/she “does the better job”, the employer demonstrates that and the different pay rate is justified. The essay clearly states that.
Right, and so now HR departments will have another pile of paperwork to do, but NOTHING will change. Silly, naive, unenforceable law.
Or maybe they’ll start paying based upon merit to avoid the “pile of paperwork.” Inconvenience is pathetic excuse anyway. A person has a right to know.
pretty much. Generally any for profit and private company will resit pay increases for all employees man or women.
Not true. People are the biggest asset most companies have. You want to treat people fair and equitable no matter the gender. There are circumstances where pay is tied to the market and operating expenses for a particular reason. Otherwise you can’t make a profit and keep the person employed. The idea that an employee could sue to determine the formula you use is insane. Might just as well shut up shop letting the fox run the henhouse.
I agree with your second and third sentence, but would you treat a woman differently in the scenario described in the third sentence? Probably not based on the former, but there are those who would.
And then someone who doesn’t understand how pay scales are arrived at can sue on nothing more that they think something might not be fair in their world view… how does that make sense?
Suing requires a lawyer right? What lawyer would take on a case that did not have sufficient cause? Most lawyers would advise their client if sufficient cause was not present and charge for the consultation. One has to be able to afford to sue. It is rarely done frivolously except by those with money to waste.
Lawsuits happen frivolously all the time… That’s how lawyers make their money. Take a look in the yellow pages… If all the lawsuits were actually legitimate these people would starve. Lawyers advertise a willingness to sue all the time with no cost to client until the payoff.
These lawyers do each other favors and make alliances… I know, I’ve seen it in up close. I was actually told by my attorney that he had made a deal with the opposition favorable to me on one matter.. so he wanted me to cut a less favorable deal on a second matter with the same opposition attorney. Needless to say I walked out the door and never looked back.
I am certain you are a good person and are sincere in your beliefs but things are never black and white and as clean cut as you believe.
Yes, I have been accused of naivete…. often. But I will not waver in my belief that recourse to injustices must be made available.
No, not equal. Treated comparably. If you have a terrible review, you get no annual increase. If you have a great review and receive a smaller percentage of the pie than your male counterpart, then you are being treated differently. In Maine apparently we fare a little better: In 2010, the typical woman in Maine working full time, year round was paid only 79 cents to every dollar paid to a man working full time, year round7 – 2 cents narrower than the nationwide wage gap of 77 cents. http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2012equalpay-factsheets/maine_equalpaystatefactsheet.pdf
I have 17 employees. They all receive different raises each year because they all perform differently. Last year, my top three raises went to women. The year before the top raise went to a man. This year? Well, we’ll have to see who puts in the extra work and gets the results. A true meritocracy is blind to gender, and can’t be monitored by a government agency.
Then you have nothing to worry about. It’s when there are people doing the same jobs and same work yet are being compensated differently that would create an issue.
I can’t imagine a situation where more than one person does exactly the same job with the exactly the same performance. I’ve never seen it…
Unless you are unable to articulate or demonstrate that there shouldn’t be an issue.
What’s unfair is trying to tell someone, you don’t do as good of a job as your male counter-part, we can’t point to specifics, but you just don’t and that’s why weren’t paying you less. If she doesn’t do as good of a job, then demonstrate why. That’s all.
But even if someone wants to discriminate, this sort of documentation is easy. So this law will only force bad behaving employers to “play the game” and document their BS excuses. My fear is that by creating the paper trail, you’ll make it harder for women who are truly discriminated against to sue their employer. They’ll have all the legally required documentation to back them up…
I am thinking you are probably right about this. But, then a good investigator will be able to expose that too. It is exceedingly complicated like all social issues. But raising awareness will hopefully change things for the better.
Bravo. We are not talking about performance. No one argues with an employer’s, public or private, right to evaluate and reward good performance. This is not the issue. The issue is those employers who do not do as you do. The law already states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender and it is good to know many don’t. But too many do. The stats show that clearly. This is about making the employer prove it was based on merit, not gender. The deck is stacked against a woman as the employer holds all the cards. The employer has the information. Lily Ledbetter was discriminated against. Other women are too if the stats are correct and no one seems to be challenging them. If you are talking about the EEOC as a government agency then I say thank goodness they are there. Yes business practices need to be monitored. Maybe not yours, but we hear about those that do frequently. This was a law to give a woman rights to information about how she is being treated by her employer.
The Conservative Mantra is the boss gets to choose who is equal!
Objectivity is a regulatory burden and Subjectivity is the right of the one in power of the paycheck!
Well, of course, because the boss is on the hook to demonstrate the productivity of their employees! NO employee is the same: they all perform differently. And now we need to endlessly document this obvious fact.
Not sure what you mean by “employers do need to be held accountable for every decision they make”, but we have enough laws and regulations already. Bad employers will always exist and will always mistreat employees, regardless of gender. There are also many good employers who will always do the right thing.
Yes and thank goodness. But apparently not enough. And the suggestion above that the income gap is due to many factors is dead wrong if these folks are right: “American women who work full-time, year-round are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.” http://www.nwlc.org/our-issues/employment/equal-pay
And your best option is to use government coercion against the employing class, despite the obviously crushing weight it bears from thousands of regulations and nine tons of taxes the federal, state, and local government inflicts upon it? Lousy idea.
I hear that the pay rates are more equtiable in Micronesia, and it is very nice this time of year (hint hint).
The crushing weight of regulating fair wages regardless of gender? Businesses are not run with a government regulator hovering over them. The only recourse for an employee subject to this kind of pay inequity is the courthouse and it’s no slam dunk. If your “employing class” is so bereaved on account of having to follow simple fairness laws, perhaps 40 miles north of Micronesian territory would be a great place for them to consider relocation. Enjoy the sharks.
So now its the “employees” fault for not asking for a raise!
The best option is for the workers to get down to the union hall and sign up!
Isn’t it hilarious how when they’re screeching about teachers they constantly cite merit based pay, but here they want it to have nothing to do with merit? “You should have just asked for a raise they say!” Isn’t that what unions do? This is bizarre as hell. They have no principles.
Well said. That is the very reason we have so many laws and concomitant regulations. No principles. Would not be needed if people were not constantly trying to take advantage of others. There are some who do the right thing without the force of law. That exists for those who will not.
so the union can negotiate for a 3% pay increase for you and which you will never notice since you pay that in dues to the union… but @ least you stuck it to your employer who now has to cut a position to fund the 3% pay increase for rest of the workers to maintain their bottom line/profit margin. Now without that extra position in the company gone the GM finds his company is not running as efficiently and begins to outsource the work to other countries…
Don’t even try to talk sense to him/her
If it were only that simple.
It is not government coercion. It gives any employee the right to challenge an employer by requiring the employer to prove they did not violate the law. I like laws that protect its citizens from abuse by their employers. And, why, why do you think those laws exist at all? It took a law to keep children out of factories for goodness sakes. They would not be needed if the business community saw what needed fixing and did it. Instead they have to be forced to do the right thing in too many cases.
Thats right!
There are good and bad employers and courts to sort out the exploiters, Abscent laws with any teeth the laws and courts are useless!
The real reason that the Republicans are against this law is they are pandering to the Chamber of Commerce who own buisnesses that dont want to be on the looseing end of a law suit.
This is what they mean when they say that they want Government to get out of their way.
No laws and regulations and they are free to exploit at will!
Obama 2012
“No laws and regulations and they are free to exploit at will!”
You seem to think that if there were no laws that bad employer behavior would become a rampant problem. I say you’re wrong. You could take away every law on the books and it wouldn’t change how I conduct my life at all. I would still try to do what I know is right and treat other people the way I would want to be treated. In the meantime, decent people will keep being decent, whether they are the employer or employee, and scumbags will continue to be scumbags no matter how many laws you put in place to try and curb their behavior. Personally, if I worked for somebody who I needed to take to court to make them do the right thing, the bigger message I would be getting is that I need to work somewhere else.
( the bigger message I would be getting is that I need to work somewhere else.)
Not exactly a viable option in todays job market.
BTW I commend you in having a strong moral code, However , What you know to be right is based on your life experiance of living in a civilized society , it is a learned experiance.
I once believed that what “I” believed to be morally right was a shared experiance, that treating people the way that I would like to be treated would be recipricated.
I wear the scars to this day for being so naive.
Your logic is what needs checking. An employer does not need to be held accountable for every decision that they make. That is just plain ridiculous. You take your life savings, you borrow and put your entire financial existence on the line and start a business and you think because someone is willing to take that risk that they should be required to answer to the likes of you for every decision that they make? Good lord.
Okay, I give you this one. I should not have said every. One should never use words like every, always, never when trying to make a point. It is flawed logic. There are always exceptions. No, the likes of me does not require you to provide answers unless I challenge those decisions that are related to laws that protect me. Then I think I have the right to hold you accountable. Does that clear things up a bit?
What if one employee does a better job, works harder, gets better results than the other?
That is not the issue. The issue is, say, two people performing the same job, say sales where in Maine women get .59 on the dollar when compared to men, getting a similar performance review but less in a pay increase. Of course someone who does not work as hard, is not a help to fellow associates, does not contribute to a positive work environment will be given a less favorable rating with improvement benchmarks and will receive less, if any, salary increase.
This is hardly a partisan article. This article cited several specific examples of holes which were left wide open in the bill’s current form. I’d be interested to hearing a solution to those blasting this story.
The complaints should be about our elected officials being unable to introduce a thorough and comprehensive piece of legislation. Just as I’ve been labeled as a “racist” for disagreeing with Obama, and you might as well jump to the conclusion that I’m a misogynist as well. Regardless of all that, our elected officials are too busy posturing with publicity stunts rather than getting things done.
I so agree with you and that was my point in several of my rather pointed posts. What is the matter with these legislators that they cannot write a simple law that addresses the problem in a straightforward way. And, I saw only one hole mentioned and personally I do not see that as a hole. Of course employers should have to prove wage gaps are based on job requirements and not gender. They hold all the cards, have all the information. If there is a complaint they can lay out all their cards. The woman complaining only holds one card in her hand.
If it is a private company they should be allowed to do whatever they want. If they value you as an employee and your an asset to their business they will pay you what is necessary to keep you there. If you feel you aren’t receiving equitable wages for your work then ask for a pay increase if you are refused quit. No one is forcing you to work anywhere. If you a women you are more likely to be a mother and therefore more likely to receive general assistance…
Well, apparently you are wrong. There already is a paycheck fairness law. This one was tweaking it to make employers accountable for the decisions they make rather than making a woman ‘prove’ she was discriminated against. The deck is stacked against a woman, or man for that matter, because the business holds all the cards. They have the information that can disprove or prove the allegations.
“Say a company offers a man and a woman equivalent jobs with the same
pay. The man demands a higher salary, and the company agrees. The woman,
however, never asks for more money. ”
That’s a silly argument. Republicans are CONSTANTLY going on and on about merit based pay and then now here it is a bad thing? Sounds like she is asking for a raise when she asks why her co-worker is being paid more for the same work.
Raw census data provides no pertinent information about any wage gap that might exist. To extrapolate the fact that, on average, women make 77 cents to every dollar made by men into some kind of statement on wage inequality requires some rather absurd assumptions, including the assumption that women have exactly the same preferences in choosing an occupation as do men. Age and professional experience must also be controlled for. For example, we would want to know if the wage gap is greater among older adult than among younger adults, because this might mean the lingering wage gap is attributable to past issues that are already being dealt with.
This bill doesn’t mandate equal pay. It just says that if there is a different pay rate for the same job, the employer can be asked to prove that the extra pay is based upon merit. So if the man has more experience and a better education, he can still be paid more.
Try this site for some stats: http://www.nwlc.org/our-issues/employment/equal-pay
and this for the situation in Maine: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2012equalpay-factsheets/maine_equalpaystatefactsheet.pdf
Good for the BDN to see through this ruse, though bad for them to fail to condemn the Dem’s ginned up “war on women” that provoked this boondoggle legislation.
This bill was a set up from start to finish. Like so many other initiatives we have been subjected to this 3.5 years, this one was designed to fail so the libmedia can pin the tail on the elephant. Pure 100 percent baloney.
All fat and no cattle.
They always had an option to vote for it!
It only failed because of Republican opposition!
Thats the cold hard truth!
No , it failed because it was a bad bill.
And it was bad because it put teeth in fair wage laws instead of fluff!
The Republicans could have offered amendments and worked with the Democrats in a cooperative
fashion rather then just saying no way and obstructing as they have been since President Obama was elected.
Looks like the corporations are doing a better job at paycheck equality than former speaker Nanny Pelosi, whose women staffers earn 27.6% less than her male staffers.
I’ll give the President some credit here, though. His female staff makes on average only 18% less than the male staff.
For some reason, the mainstream media never really trumpeted that news…guess it didn’t fit the “Republican War on Women” template.
LOBBYING for the Women Vote in NOVEMBER.
DAILY Debate on CSPAN from both sides. Several bills stalled in the SENATE as the DEMS are trying to put off ACTION on the ECONOMY & JOBS until February, 2012.
IF RE-ELECTED the U.S. will be bankrupt & on the brink of becoming a SOCIALIST GOVT at the hands of BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
This is so “Gloria Steinem”. This movement of the 60’s & 70’s is over. Women ARE ALREADY protected and are free to take their employment, harassment and any other concerns directly to court. And so are men. It’s called equality. This fabricated issue is but a ploy, to disguise the real issue of the absence of JOBS for both men and women.
No, not fabricated. For anyone to prove wrongdoing on the part of an employer you have to have information. And the employer in this case is the one with the information. The deck is stacked against a woman. This would have leveled the playing field. But it did not pass, so the deck is still stacked against women. And, the women’s movement is hardly over. This is a case in point. It is pretty well documented that women do not receive equal pay for equal work. There is still work to be done.
Let’s see…..the Republicans don’t want welfare to support children, they don’t want the woman to take contraceptives, they don’t want the woman to have abortions…..well, I guess they just want women to disappear completely….or put them in camps, if they don’t conform to their socialist ways..
…where have I read that before?
It shouldn’t matter whether the employee asks for a raise or not. Too much of this salary business is based on cronyism, a wink and a nod anyway. That is what the bill is about. There is nothing wrong with establishing a set of qualifications and a salary for a position. You want to give a job to a friend, fine. You want to pay your male friend more than a female employee doing the same job, not fine anymore.
so how about pay disparity between two guys? Is that included in this bill? What about 2 different positions that have different requirements but the workload can be said to be comparable? I think this is getting into a slippery slope of wage control.
Alot of mid level management puts in more time and work then top level/CEO positions but are paid drastically less… this is the nature and the goal of owning your own company is it not?
I believe the law states a business cannot discriminate on the basis of gender and comparable work so neither of your points apply here. It would apply to a man doing comparable work with same performance ratings getting less than a woman. I have not heard of any such cases however. Here is a nice presentation of the issues: http://www.wageproject.org/files/ncwd.php
Not sure how this will ever be enforceable, for two reasons:
1) Companies absolutely should be able to negotiate pay. I do it all the time. Different people push for raises differently, and receive them accordingly.
2) No such thing as “equal work”. Most employers pay for merit and every employee is different. My employees are all different in their ability, work ethic, experience and productivity and are paid accordingly. The job descriptions are identical, but the performance is not. My highest paid employee is a woman and she deserves it.
So basically corporations will file all the new necessary paperwork to make sure what I said above is properly documented. Which costs everybody $$, but does nothing of substance.
Wong reply
You’re being willfully naive. You’re going to pretend that women are always compensated equally for their work? That merit is the only thing that matters in the equation? Come on.
What’s naive is believing this law will do a thing. HR departments will have a series of meetings to ensure their current practices comply with the new regulations and nothing will change.
The point is, that even though there may be many cases where sex discrimination occurs, the fact is because there is no such thing as “equal work” in our modern workplace, and certainly no such thing as an equivalent worker, the law is just a jobs program for HR departments. Waste of time.
Then what’s the issue? If someone wants to know why they’re being paid less, tell them. This law wouldn’t mandate equal pay for unequal work. Instead, if asked, you’d have to show that the unequal pay is based in unequal work.
Fine, we’ll employ a new army of HR pencil pushers to document everything and then nothing will actually change. You’ll just have official, carefully crafted BS to point to. Great.
Most companies have performance evaluations where strengths and weaknesses are laid 0ut. Some are more explicit than others concerning raises. I make it clear to my employees: there’s a minimum standard that allows you to keep your job, but you get no raise. Then there are those who work extra hours (all my employees are exempt), are more productive or bring more to the table (new ideas, etc.). They get raises in proportion to how much they’ve made the unit function better. I don’t buy the notion that this is unusual: it’s a competitive world out there and if you’re not pushing and rewarding GOOD employees, you’re sunk.
You are a good employer, but not all are.
Of course there is such a thing as equal work. But merit pay is a different story. In my experience, the less you work the more you get paid, as long as you’re the boss’s friend or family member.
Sorry you had to work in such a place. Clearly they weren’t interested in maximizing productivity.
Its simple record keeping, So and So came and talked, wanted more money or was going to leave, he is a great resource and wanted to keep him, we gave him a raise. Boom Problem solved. Or so and so was offered such and such salary, countered with this much, meet in the middle because we think he would be a great addition to the company.
I actually think this law will have the opposite of the intended effect (protect women from job discrimination) because it will mandate a paper trail to protect employers. Because “proof” of performance differences are objective but qualitative, all employers will properly document performance differences to comply with the law, leaving women with valid complaints less ammunition to take to court.
Yes it could have the opposite of the intended effect. Employers may now say to their male employees, “Sorry, but I can only pay you as much as the females.” Then, heaven forbid, the male and female employees might unionize and ask for raises together!
The problem here is that women and men ARE different. Men do not get pregnant, leave work for a time and return. Women are generally not as “assertive” in their demands for equitable pay.
I worked the same job (in a retail store) as a woman who had been there years before I was hired. I requested her pay level and on employment was granted it. A year later I requested a raise, and got it putting me above my senior coworker. A good boss would have rectified this disparity. We did not work for a “good boss.”
Something about assuming one is being treated equitably. Or trusting, until that trust is no longer warranted. That is what gets women in trouble a lot.
No surprise that the BDN would find a way to praise both Maine Senators, who are always put on pedestals no matter how they vote. Had they voted for the bill, they’d have been as fervently praised as well. Let’s see if this cynical comment will actually be posted. I doubt it.