![]() |
||
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is |
||
| July 8, 2008
|
||
|
Moms Rising has created a petition in support of the Fair Pay Act - and they're also encouraging women to send their resumes to John McCain. Apparently Sen. McCain was not present to vote on the bill (which did not pass), but he would have voted no anyway. According to a New York Times editorial by Gail Collins: ...if he had been in Washington, he would have voted no because the bill "opens us up for lawsuits, for all kinds of problems and difficulties."The impetus behind the Fair Pay Act is a suit filed by Lilly Ledbetter that went to the Supreme Court: Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., for almost 20 years...When she was near retirement, she got an anonymous letter listing the salaries of the men who held the same job. While she was making $3,727 a month, the lowest paid man, with far less seniority, was getting $4,286.Unlike my time in the Air Force, where I had a pay scale tacked up in my cubicle and I received the same pay as any other 1st Lieutenant with three years of service, I had no idea what my co-workers were making when I was in the private sector. We didn't talk about it. Salaries in the private sector - even hourly wages - are not typically disclosed in casual conversation, and there's certainly no pay scale to refer to. In essence, according to the court, Lilly Ledbetter should have been comparing notes with her co-workers for the past twenty years, poised to file a lawsuit in the event that her bi-weekly paycheck differed from that of co-workers in like positions and with comparable seniority. The Fair Pay Act aims to reset the 180 day time frame each time a paycheck is issued. That is, if a worker realized, a year after being hired, that her paychecks were less than those of her peers, she would have 180 days to file suit from the time that she received a "short" paycheck - even if her paychecks had been "short" during the entire tenure of her employment. The court's decision stemmed from concerns regarding "the burden of defending claims arising from employment decisions that are long past." That is, if Ledbetter successfully sued her employer for pay discrimination that began years and years ago, many similar cases would likely arise. Hence McCain's objection to the bill. As anyone who has worked in the private sector can attest, it's downright laughable to think that employees would sit around and compare notes after each paycheck. It's just not done. We're taught as children not to talk about money - how much we make (or our parents make) and how much our possessions cost. It's unreasonable to expect that workers would know how much money each other make, so the 180 day time frame is unrealistic. Such lawsuits aren't comparable to those being filed against tobacco companies and fast-food purveyors. I agree that nobody forced anybody to smoke unfiltered Camels, scarf down Big Macs, or supervise tire production assembly lines. But the awards in a pay discrimination lawsuit are more easily quantified: What were the other supervisors with similar seniority, qualifications, and job performance making? Do a little simple arithmetic - just as Ledbetter did when she offered to settle - and right these wrongs. I don't have much sympathy for companies that are paying their workers according to an undocumented and indefensible scale - particularly large companies with the bureaucratic infrastructure of Goodyear. Whether the workers being shorted are men or women is irrelevant to me, even as a woman. Fair Pay means Fair Pay. Unfortunately, the Fair Pay Act is not limited to resetting the 180 day timeframe for filing suit. Like almost all legislation, it's padded with other provisions that make a yes-no vote much less clear cut. In the case of this bill, "...the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would create criteria determining whether a given job is dominated by one sex; employers would have to send the EEOC every year a listing of each job classification, the race and sex of those holding such jobs; how much they are paid; and how such pay was determined. The goal of all this is to ensure that people in "equivalent" jobs are paid similar wages." While I am unequivocally in favor of equal pay for equal work, education, and experience, my Libertarian sensibilities balk at the bureaucracy proposed herein. Stay even more informed about politics and parenting issues by visiting our Parental is Political resources. |
||
| ||
5 Responses to "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is"Leave a comment: | ||
| ||
| ||
IMPERFECTION IN YOUR INBOX
| ||
| ||
POPULAR RIGHT NOW
Coffee or Tea, Which One is for Me? When I registered as an Independent, I did so because... read more » The Ides and Crooked Teeth of March According to the old saying, the month of March usually... read more » |
1. Amelia Sprout
Jul 08, 2008 12:35

Private sector wise, most companies I have worked for, discussing your pay with your coworkers is considered a firable offence, so to say that she should have been discussing and figuring this out is complete bullshit. I know I am underpaid, but it may have more to do with my lack of degree (at least that is what they would tell me) than the fact that I take tons of time off to deal with a kid who is sick from daycare.All of it is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
2. Suebob
Jul 08, 2008 13:08

I don't understand this case. They expect her to know something she had no way of knowing. Of course, in my experience most men DO compare salaries much more freely than women do, so perhaps the court made the mistake of thinking that women's culture is the same as men's.3. oktree
Jul 09, 2008 13:22

I am conflicted in many ways. Bureaucracy - no; equal pay for equal work - yes. Where jobs are absolutely comparable, yes. Often positions / roles are not absolutely the same and comparison across the board is not reasonable.I keep thinking of the disparity in salaries for a recent college grad with a highly-sought degree versus an employee with more experience, but who graduated at a time when the market was softer. Sometimes, an honest employer has to make an honest jump in compensation or risk losing valuable, trained employees.
Somehow I am chafing under both the Fair Pay Act and the interpretation handed out by the Supreme Court. Surely a compromise would be better.
4. Heidi M.
Jul 11, 2008 22:54

Not only do people not discuss their paychecks, many companies make it punishable for employees to do so. I work for a non-profit agency and have been there almost 10 years. Everyone there makes more per hour than I do. Why? Because the person who makes the salary decisions wants me to quit. I'm a single parent and my little, and I do mean little, paycheck is our only support. Additionally, they are trying to get a male co-worker of mine to quit by consistently misreporting his hours so his paycheck is always short. This started right after he insisted on being paid consistent with his new position. Something needs to be done. Not only should we be receiving fair pay, we should also not have to be afraid to ask to be paid fairly.5. Megannn33
Jan 27, 2010 15:15

Students that would like to have good grades find a trustworthy essay writing service to purchase their free term papers at. These actions we do as well.