Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina
As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination.
For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.
|
[bolded type yours and left for emphasis]
I note that these figures are still quite popularly bandied about -- nor do I say that they are actually wrong; they're actually kind of close.
However, the 78/100 wage gap and the "women of color" gap figures ARE most definitely
misleading and yet still popular for their sensationalistic potential.
Based on the Equal Pat Act of 1963, it is 100 percent
illegal -- let's say that one more time:
ILLEGAL -- for companies to pay separate HOURLY wages based on gender or color, and illegal for companies to pay separate SET SALARY wages based on those same factors.
That means right up to the point where wages become
negotiable women are on a precisely equal footing with men. Zero argument. When it's discovered that separate pays are being handed out for the same job in settings where the scales are hourly or set-salary (which is a schmancy way of raising pay while it can still be broken down hourly), companies are in violation and subject to prosecution and back-wages.
Nobody wants to face that or deal with the hassle; ergo, nobody is really DOING it out there. They're just not.
But we're not after answers or facts; we're after
sensationalism, because that's what people respond to. So we gloss over various studies done numerous times demonstrating that there are myriad factors involved in that pay disparity between men and women.
For example:
---
Men show a significantly higher tendency to negotiate for higher pay when entering a new job.
For the woman who has been on that job for quite a while it can be frustrating when the new GUY turns out to be earning the same wages she feels she earned through putting her time in, when the fact is that she had the same opportunity to negotiate that he did.
It also lends itself nicely to that famed 78 cents on the dollar because that figure is broken down over TIME combined with EARNINGS. He WILL earn more in his first six months than she did. THAT is what we'll hold up while we scream about unfairness, and the reason behind it will be nicely swept under the rug.
---
Men are often subject to more physically demanding aspects of what would otherwise be the SAME job, ie., certain positions on a standard conveyor line. Women sometimes hold these positions but are replaced by a man in the event that she proves incapable of handling the increased physical intensity involved.
For a woman on a conveyor line who is picking items in a warehouse this can seem frustrating when it involves a
positionary differential, which is relatively common in otherwise hourly-wage settings.
Picking in a warehouse, for example, requires speed and dexterity; it tends to pay the standard hourly wage. Beyond a doubt it's difficult work, physically demanding -- but on a level
everyone is expected to maintain.
Loading, on the other hand, requires
brute force and while it begins at the standard hourly wage, it typically earns a
positionary differential such as an additional quarter or fifty cents on the hour.
Women who are physically capable of holding those positions EARN THE SAME MONEY AS THE MEN ON THOSE POSITIONS. Women who cannot handle those positions are not kept on those positions. Those positions are typically held by -- guess who? Men.
We still hold up the 78 cents placard, brandishing it like a weapon -- but nobody bothers to ask
why it's true because that's not politically correct.
---
Women demonstrate greater absences from work settings due to health reasons, often involving pregnancy.
This leads to time off with reduced pay in the event of fluctuating salaries based on production, such as in a corporate setting. A lawyer, for example, will find that her billing falls off during maternity leave, while a man has no such difficulty imposed on him.
I, for one, HATE this aspect of our maternity leave system and wish we had something closer to the standard European maternity leave system. I believe it's absolutely WRONG that in this case women are penalized for something
impossible to achieve by a man, and because I believe reproduction is a right (although there are times when I question this) I believe our system is in dire need of repair with regard to this.
On the other hand we're not talking about morals here, we're talking about business -- and companies and corporations are in
business. When they hire between men and women they are not only taking capabilities into account, they must take
liabilities into account.
All else being exactly equal between a man and a woman who are up for a job, the company MUST take into consideration that the man will NEVER get pregnant and require leave for an extended period.
A popular counter for this argument is that
men get sick too, with diseases and injuries and cancers, etc. This counter is legitimate and true -- but when men experience these things AND take the time off, their pay falls as quickly as a woman's would. Further, comparing maladies to something which ultimately IS a CHOICE (a right, absolutely, but also a choice) gets into apples-and-oranges territory. It's
possibility vs likelihood.
That part is never mentioned when we scream about 78 cents on the dollar.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People don't really want "equality." They want anything that will favor them.
