House passes pay equity bill

[nclib]

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/080108paycheckfairness.html

The most important piece of pay equity legislation to be considered in decades, the Paycheck Fairness Act, was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday evening. Fourteen Republicans joined Democrats to pass the historic measure with a final vote of 247 to 178.

NOW President Kim Gandy hailed the passage, pointing out that the bill, if passed by the Senate and signed into law, could help us make real progress toward reducing the 23 percent differential in pay between women and men.

Gandy said, "Sex-based pay discrimination means much more than 23 cents on the dollar -- it can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars over a woman's lifetime that are lost to her and her family. These lost wages can mean the family is unable to afford college tuition or health insurance, and the lowered pensions and social security payments associated with lower income can lead to poverty for elderly women who were not able to save and invest for retirement."

H.R. 1338 is sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and 231 co-sponsors. In the Senate, an identical bill, S. 766, is sponsored by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and 22 co-sponsors and is pending in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Senate bill could be taken up after the August congressional recess.

The legislation would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to strengthen penalties for equal pay violations, enhance data collection from employers so that patterns of sex discrimination in pay can be identified, and more directly place the responsibility on employers defending wage differences to show that the differences are due to factors other than sex. A particularly important provision establishes the right of wage discrimination plaintiffs under the Equal Pay Act to receive compensatory and punitive damages, a remedy that is available in most other anti-discrimination statutes.

Other provisions of this historic bill apply more broadly by clarifying language in the Equal Pay Act to allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to determine fair wages and would prohibit retaliation against employees who inquire about their employer's wage practices or share information about their own wages. Further, it eases requirements on discrimination victims to proceed in a class action lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act.

The bill requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to train employees and affected entities on matters involving wages, and encourages the Department of Labor to make grants for negotiation skills training programs for girls and women -- sort of a "self defense" regimen for workers who cannot expect wage fairness from their employers.

In the face of the current administration's efforts to drop all data collection about women workers, the bill requires the EEOC to collect certain pay information and directs the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to collect data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey.

In floor remarks, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) stressed that women of color suffer additional pay discrimination, with Latinas being paid on average 57 cents and African-American women being paid 68 cents compared to the dollar paid to men.

Several amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act were adopted, including one to delay the effective date of the bill by six months to allow for the Department of Labor to educate small businesses about what is required under the law. Also adopted was an amendment to change the standard for punitive damage awards from "intentional" discrimination to "malice or reckless indifference."

The bill's sponsor, Rep. DeLauro, who has advocated for this legislation for a decade, was ardent in her floor remarks for the Act, saying that it will lead to better recognition of the "value or the work that women do in this society". She noted recent studies that show highly educated women are still earning less than comparable male colleagues across a range of occupations.

DeLauro recalled the unfair treatment of Lily Ledbetter whose pay discrimination claim was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. Legislation to address inequities in the law that affected Ms. Ledbetter has passed the House but is languishing in the Senate.

-------

While this is certainly good news, I'm disturbed that only 14 Republicans voted for this bill.

[MODU]

Reading through it quickly (here's the link to the actual text), I can't see too much in there that I would object to.  As far as why only 14 Republicans voted for it, it was probably based on the non-interference by the government into commerce by government.  I haven't searched for any of the statements by the nae voters.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye (D)

[Lief 🗽]

Aye (Normal)

No wonder single women are supporting Obama so strongly.

[Flying Dog]

Aye (Normal)

No wonder single women are supporting Obama so strongly.

^^^

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think this is a good piece of legislation.  It is certainly an area where government has the right to step in and demand equal pay for women.

The argument that government shouldn't intrude here is absolutely ridiculous... but I guess there were those against the civil rights act and may we never forget the negative reaction to the ERA.

[A18]

I almost laughed at the invocation of the 23-cents statistic. That of course shows nothing about pay discrimination whatsoever.

And obviously, I would vote against the legislation.

[Sbane]

I almost laughed at the invocation of the 23-cents statistic. That of course shows nothing about pay discrimination whatsoever.

And obviously, I would vote against the legislation.

I think you do not understand. It means that for every $1 earned by a man, for an equivalent job a woman gets 77cents. Does that seem fair to you? Since you are a republican I would not be surprised if you said yes.

[A18]

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

[Sbane]

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

No I do believe it is for a similar position. There are reasons why this might be, like maternity leave and s**t like that, but it's unfair.

[A18]

A common misperception, but a misperception nonetheless. The much-touted statistic merely compares the median wage for each sex with that of the other.

[nclib]

I think this is a good piece of legislation.  It is certainly an area where government has the right to step in and demand equal pay for women.

The argument that government shouldn't intrude here is absolutely ridiculous... but I guess there were those against the civil rights act and may we never forget the negative reaction to the ERA.

I heard that the White House (Bush has said he will veto this bill) and Congressional Republicans said this bill would be an unnecessary burden on the government, but of course this is coming from those who are perfectly fine with using government to control people's personal lives.

[wadeglade]

This is good news.

[MasterJedi]

Aye (R)

[Spaghetti Cat]

Please note that Jo Ann Emerson, Mary Bono Mack, and Deborah Pryce all voted against this, and they aren't exactly far right women-hating extremists.  In fact, the only Republican woman to vote against this was Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and she just did it because the brothers did (have those three actually ever voted differently?).

[dead0man]

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

No I do believe it is for a similar position.

It's not.  It's for all women versus all men.  They, of course, would like you to think that it's for similar position's, but it's not.  There are many reasons for the differnce.  Men tend to do the more dangerous work.  Men tend to work more hours per year.  Men tend to not get pregnant.  And then there are weird cases like nursing.  Male nurses make more than their female counterparts but it's not because of the reasons I've already given, it's because there are a lot fewer male nurses (supply and demand) and they are more likely to be able to lift large patients (heavy people are in the hospital a lot more often than skinny people, one of the reasons healthy people make more than the obese...that's not fair either is it?) in and out of beds.  And some well paying jobs have almost no women in the field, like airline pilots or network admins. 

You won't find statistics on women vs men in similiar fields, the numbers there don't show what they want them to show so they keep showing everybody this figure and they let the people make up their own minds what the poll means.  The people tend to figure it means what you thought it means.  It doesn't

[Sbane]

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

No I do believe it is for a similar position.

It's not.  It's for all women versus all men.  They, of course, would like you to think that it's for similar position's, but it's not.  There are many reasons for the differnce.  Men tend to do the more dangerous work.  Men tend to work more hours per year.  Men tend to not get pregnant.  And then there are weird cases like nursing.  Male nurses make more than their female counterparts but it's not because of the reasons I've already given, it's because there are a lot fewer male nurses (supply and demand) and they are more likely to be able to lift large patients (heavy people are in the hospital a lot more often than skinny people, one of the reasons healthy people make more than the obese...that's not fair either is it?) in and out of beds.  And some well paying jobs have almost no women in the field, like airline pilots or network admins. 

You won't find statistics on women vs men in similiar fields, the numbers there don't show what they want them to show so they keep showing everybody this figure and they let the people make up their own minds what the poll means.  The people tend to figure it means what you thought it means.  It doesn't

Interesting... although how does the bill affect that? It's not as if this bill would make a woman get paid for a lower position the same as for a male in a higher position. Whether or not the statistic is for all men vs women, the bill would only affect wages for similar jobs. Don't see anything wrong with that.

[Torie]

The proposed legislation sounds crazed, and will lead to a host of unpleasant consequences. But it does seem to be yet another lawyer full employment act so it can't be all bad.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nay (R)

[Jacobtm]

It seems that this legislation only provides for action if a specific employer can be found to be guilty of wage discrimination.

This being the case, the argument about whether, statistically, women receive less pay because they simply work in less lucrative jobs is moot. This legislation will only affect those employers and employees in situations where sex-based wage discrimination can be proven. To say that there is absolutely no sex-based wage discrimination in the U.S. is absurd, and for those women unfortunate enough to be in a situation where they are being paid less than a male counter-part, this could hopefully help.

So far so good, unless I've missed something hidden within the legislation.

[A18]

There's very little, although doubtless some. There's some against men, as well--largely government-endorsed, of course.

Discrimination against women in employment decisions is already illegal; this has to do with the enforcement mechanisms. While even the present laws should be scrapped entirely, this bill establishes a far more draconian regime. Particularly egregious is the decision to strip away at the education, training, and experience defense, by limiting its scope to cases where "(i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (iii) is consistent with business necessity." Needless to say, these vague standards are merely an invitation to judicial legislation--to ex post facto law, of the most pernicious and immoral form. Worse still, the bill allows for unlimited compensatory and even punitive damages.

And those are just some highlights. Rarely has a more appalling piece of legislation received the assent of the House of Representatives.

[dead0man]

It seems that this legislation only provides for action if a specific employer can be found to be guilty of wage discrimination.

This being the case, the argument about whether, statistically, women receive less pay because they simply work in less lucrative jobs is moot. This legislation will only affect those employers and employees in situations where sex-based wage discrimination can be proven. To say that there is absolutely no sex-based wage discrimination in the U.S. is absurd, and for those women unfortunate enough to be in a situation where they are being paid less than a male counter-part, this could hopefully help.

So far so good, unless I've missed something hidden within the legislation.

Why did the article and the people pushing for this bill use a statistics that has nothing to do with the facts at hand?  Because the statistic made them look good.  Why didn't they use appropriate statistics?  Because those stats don't show what these ladies what they want them to show.  Why is that?  Because the facts don't support their position. 

Emotion does though!  Especially when you use worthless numbers as "proof" that your cause is valid.

[dead0man]

Rarely has a more appalling piece of legislation received the assent of the House of Representatives.

Yet it would pass here.  It's easy to sell a sob story if the people listening really want to believe in it.  Facts be damned.

[Jacobtm]

It seems that this legislation only provides for action if a specific employer can be found to be guilty of wage discrimination.

This being the case, the argument about whether, statistically, women receive less pay because they simply work in less lucrative jobs is moot. This legislation will only affect those employers and employees in situations where sex-based wage discrimination can be proven. To say that there is absolutely no sex-based wage discrimination in the U.S. is absurd, and for those women unfortunate enough to be in a situation where they are being paid less than a male counter-part, this could hopefully help.

So far so good, unless I've missed something hidden within the legislation.

Why did the article and the people pushing for this bill use a statistics that has nothing to do with the facts at hand?  Because the statistic made them look good.  Why didn't they use appropriate statistics?  Because those stats don't show what these ladies what they want them to show.  Why is that?  Because the facts don't support their position. 

Emotion does though!  Especially when you use worthless numbers as "proof" that your cause is valid.

Does it really shock you that deceptive language/logic was used in the U.S. Congress to pass a piece of legislation, or that emotional pleas outweighed rational arguments? Sure, the stats they used were misleading, but it doesn't change the fact that there indeed are cases of women being paid less for equal work, and this legislation just provides for remedies in those cases.

You're acting as if the bill mandates a 33% pay raise for all working women in the U.S., but no employer who isn't discriminating against women has to worry.

So if, as you're saying, the statistics don't at all reflect reality, and that gender-based wage discrimination isn't happening, then nothing will change, even with the passage of this law.

[A18]

That argument is addressed in my post, to which you did not respond. This ridiculous piece of legislation would, in the first place, change what qualifies as discrimination. It also allows for draconian penalties; a concern that is in no way undermined by your cartoonish statement that "no employer who isn't discriminating against women has to worry." Contrary to popular myth, whether an employer has "discriminated" or not, is not written on his forehead; it is a matter of weighing evidence, and necessary involves the possibility of error.

Additional false claims will almost surely be brought should this legislation become law. (It greatly increases the potential benefit of making a claim.) And even when the employer wins, it will come at a cost.