Equal pay for equal work? Not yet -- Career Center Blog

June 6, 2012

Equal pay for equal work? Not yet

2 Comments |
E-mail |
Print
- Share:

By Natalie Singer
NWjobs

Elected leaders failed working women and families yesterday.

A proposed bill to help equalize women's pay to that of their male counterparts was struck down by Republicans in the U.S. Senate Tuesday, failing to proceed to debate after a 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill.

The Paycheck Fairness Act was not a panacea, but it would certainly have advanced women's earning power and closed an unacceptable gap at a time when fair pay is needed more than ever.

Nearly half of U.S. workers are women, and women tend to hold lower-paying jobs than men. But even when they hold the same job and the same level of experience as men, they earn substantially less.

Overall, women make 77 cents to a man's dollar, and the gap is even larger for minorities and for women in some professions, especially high-paying ones. Women CEOs earn 69 percent of what their male counterparts earn.

Even when life choices and time out of the workforce to have children are accounted for, women still earn a significant chunk less than their male counterparts do.

Shocking, but not surprising. It makes me wonder how many times in my life I have unknowingly been dinged well-deserved pay because I'm a woman.

Is it happening to me right now?

The pay gap between men and women is big enough to equal an entire household income for some families in America. Over the course of a woman's career, that disparity adds up to more than $430,000 in lost wages for an individual woman. Enough for full college tuition several times over. Enough to make the difference between a life lived paycheck to paycheck and a life with the comfort of a nest egg, a paid-for home and retirement security.

Because of the pay gap, women are less likely to be able to afford good housing, food, child care, education and health care for themselves and their families. Their children are more likely to struggle and to live in poverty.

This is not just their problem. This is our problem.

That is where the Paycheck Fairness Act came in. The act would help close the gap by requiring employers to show that wage discrepancies aren't based on gender and give women new legal protections when suing over pay disparity.

Women, who are the breadwinners or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of families, need these protections and equality. Families need it. The economy needs it.

Supporters had been trying to pass a version of the act for years. The last time it came up for a vote, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against it. (Maybe their wives don't work, or maybe it doesn't matter to them if the grocery money is a few apples short of a fair deal.)

This time around, the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats launched a PR effort to boost support and put the onus on Republicans to explain why they don't support equal pay for women. President Obama supported the act, saying he wanted to ensure that "hard work pays off."

Opponents said the act was unfair to employers, said it would harm business and complained that it didn't put a cap on punitive damages. They also argued that female employees already have enough protections under existing laws such as the Lilly Ledbetter law, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney remained silent about his position.

The act never even made it past its prologue Tuesday, but there's no doubt this issue hasn't gone away and will simmer on toward the fall election.

In a year in which candidates are battling hard for women's votes, it is unfortunate that the effort to equalize pay has to become just another political match to the fire raging between Democrats and conservatives.

Like so many other so-called women's issues, it's true that the issue of fair pay regardless of gender is too easily co-opted as fuel.

Still, opponents can scream "political device" all they want, but I have to go back to the numbers -- that glaring 23-cent difference. Obviously, existing protections, while important, haven't done enough. Aren't doing enough.

Are they?

Natalie Singer is a freelance writer and the founder and owner of Punkernoodle Baby, a Seattle-based cloth-diaper shop and ecommerce site. Email her at nsinger@nwjobs.com.

2 Comments |
E-mail |
Print
- Share:

2 Comments

| Leave a comment

James A Walsh | June 10, 2012 12:13 PM | Reply

Is it Really Pay Discrimination?

Any effort to solve a problem must start with defining the cause. While there is ample evidence that women earn less than men, there seems to be a lack of clarity about why this is so. Even in companies who have only male or female employees not all workers doing the same job necessarily get the same pay.I wonder – has there been a study to determine why women make less than men while doing the same work? I emphasize that because there is a difference between doing the same work and doing the same job.

In my business we hire painters. They all do the same job—painting. Some do more work than others. Not because they are more skilled or work harder, but because they work longer hours. It is possible to compare the annual income of any two painters and conclude that one earns more than the other, even if they both have the same hourly rate.

There are many factors that impact the earnings of women and minorities that do not necessarily imply gender or race discrimination. For example, women are generally the ones that take maternity leave, need to leave early to attend to a sick child, or any of the many other personal responsibilities that society expects women to shoulder. Even though this is not fair, time away from work does impact productivity, their ability to build their skillset as well as other team members.

Another factor to consider is related to what their pay expectations are. When companies interview applicants they are asked “what is your pay expectation” Generally speaking, women are known to ask for less money than men. The same is generally true for minorities.

It would appear to be simple for an employer to be benevolent and refuse to allow someone to work for less than anyone else doing the same work. Alas it is not that simple. Companies need to provide products and services that are competitively priced or it will not have work for anyone. Also, there is the element of skillset. Companies are in the market to hire the best person with the most skillset for the best price. This is the same as a company asking its suppliers for their best price and buying from the most reasonable ones. To do otherwise would be to rip off the customer by charging an inflated price for the company’s goods or services.

Jawsei | June 10, 2012 12:16 PM | Reply

Will an Equal Pay Mandate Disadvantage Women?

Let’s suppose a law is passed the mandates equal pay for women and men. Now imagine you are an employer. You have just interviewed two applicants for the position of Project Manager. One of them is a woman. One of them is a man. And both have equal qualifications. Both are single with no dependents. What can we know about their lifetime work product?

What sort of societal, cultural and gender things can we know generally speaking?

Well, we can assume that the man will not come to work, cranky and out of sorts once a month every month. Put down the whip. This is a thought experiment only and is not actually about these specific applicants.

The man will not have to ask for a leave as a result of pregnancy. The man may want to but he will not have to take off time. If the man gets married he is less likely to quit and stay home to raise a family. And if indeed he has a family, he will likely be even less inclined to leave the company.

If the women get married she is more likely to leave work early to attend to a family than her husband. And she is even more likely than her husband to want to only work part-time or quit all together.

Based on these considerations, if you have to pay both people the same wage, who is the most likely to be hired?

Over a lifetime of work the man is more likely to spend more time on the job. An equal pay law will grant a huge advantage to men. But without the equal pay law, things are a bit different. The man asks for $100,000 per year while the woman will do the same work for $80,000. If historical analysis shows that she will work only 15% less time than he does but is willing to work for 20% less, which is more likely to be hired now.