[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog. Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]
Republican Scott Brown has been airing vapid television ads that Joe Battenfeld of the Boston Herald and NECN calls “political porn,” hoping to Etch-A-Sketch over his lousy record and rhetoric on women.
How bad is that record and rhetoric? Well, not only did Republican Scott Brown vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act – a measure whose purpose is to further enforce the value of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” – but Brown also added insult to injury by calling the measure a “burden” on business.
Do you think paying a woman the same as a man for doing the same work is a burden? Scott Brown thinks so. Show him you disagree by clicking on the below graphic and Sharing it on your Facebook Wall. (And, if you’re on Twitter, you can re-tweet the graphic at this link.) Take an active role in spreading the word about Republican Scott Brown’s disappointing record.
And onerous compliance issues for small businesses. You don’t have to believe me, these are the words of Sen. landreau (Dem). So everyone here wants to throw the baby out with the bath water?
Thank you Scott for being concerned for those who risk everything, by starting and operating a small business. Perhaps if people on this board had to sign the front of a pay check, instead of throwing rocks, they would be blowing you kisses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/senate-republicans-block-pay-equity-bill.html
Equality for women is more important than onerous compliance issues for small businesses. I have no problem with the GOP working to figure out a way to get that pay equality with less onerous provisions, but if they’re too busy bloviating, then the businesses suffer form the GOP’s creativity going to waste.
Any and every regulation proposed on a businesses is called onerous or overburdensome. A great example is ADA — it really does cost businesses more money to comply: elevators, larger bathrooms, and so forth. Know what? Tough noogies. We’re a wealthy society, and it’s reasonable for us to act in an economically inefficient manner in exchange for fairness and equality for more of our society.
Perhaps if you were Dana from Waltham, you’d be appropriately offended by Scott Brown’s actions on this manner.
Gone are the days we pass bills to find out what is in them, at least we hope. The unintended consequences of a feel-good bill may result in Dana’s husband getting his bonus eliminated, or Dana’s husband remaining on the unemployment line, because small businesses have to defend and settle every frivolous lawsuit by a disgruntled employee.
Remember the Kelo v. City of New London case in CT which the SCOTUS allowed government to take over private property by eminent domain, for the purpose of economic development? What resulted was people from all across the country, forced from their homes so hack politicians could line up developments for contractors who donated to their campaigns. Please stop the knee-jerked reactions to bills that sound good on paper, but end up hurting those who do nothing wrong.
Don’t forget poor Marylou’s Coffee, being harassed by Obama b/c they hire eye candy for their target audience, men like me (honest as the day is long, God fearing, hard working, etc). It is the same harassment this equal pay bill would cause, or worse. Where is BMG on that issue? Not a peep, right?
Employers doling out unequal pay would create litigation – anyone interested in avoiding litigation merely has to avoid breaking the LAW.
that Business finds paying women 23 cents/hour more to achieve pay equity to be onerous.
Please…nobody is claiming that paying equal wages is onerous and you generally appear intelligent enough to know that.
You are the king of spin.
Oh, for sure. Nobody is claiming that paying equal wages is onerous. Instead, the claim is that each and every effort to enforce it is a horrific burden. Please offer just one example of a GOP-sponsored alternative approach for accomplishing the same goal.
but I can tell you that where I work, i’ve used my influence and responsibilities to see that it’s not happening here. Tom you know I preach individual responsibility and accountability, I often read on this site how we all should bring environmentalism to our own world, act responsibly, small footprint etc. That’s how I handle the pay inequality issue, I have an effect in my world, I make a difference, I’m comfortable with that.
but nor did I claim they had, and nor did I say anything about the GOP.
Sometime I fear you assume too much about me.
That was beautiful, man.
I don’t doubt that you do all in your power to avoid gender discrimination in your workplace. Nevertheless, the statistics overwhelmingly confirm that it exists and is significant. No matter how effective your individual efforts have been, this pervasive discrimination continues across the board.
Should we declare laws that prohibit racial discrimination “onerous” because our individual companies don’t have racist employment policies?
Decades after America refused to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, we still have pronounced gender discrimination. We have clear evidence all around us that our individual efforts aren’t enough. The Democratic Party, like a majority of Americans, wants this bill to pass. The GOP does not.
If we believe in “equal pay for equal work”, then I suggest the time has come to make the law of the land reflect that belief.
There are two, maybe three, major pieces of legislation now in effect which address the inequality issue; the Fair Labor Standards Act 1938, the Equal Pay Act 1963, and the the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Evidently they have not solved the problem. As I wrote above, perhaps it is a problem which will never have a solution, there are just too many variables. The legal battles will start, companies will explain “experience, talent, productivity…” are the reasons for the differentials. Employees will claim “unfair pay differentials, same job, same everything”… but so often it isn’t the same, that’s why quarterbacks and strikers make all the money.
It isn’t that hard to correct for the variables you mention (experience, talent, productivity) in statistically measuring disparity. The results are always the same — pervasive wage discrimination against women.
In my view, this isn’t that different from our history with racial discrimination. It took decades of effort, much legislation, and a not-insignificant amount of civil unrest to force the business world — kicking and screaming — to not discriminate against men and women of color. While racial discrimination still exists, it is not nearly as pervasive as it was a few decades ago.
The best way for businesses to avoid expensive legal battles is to do precisely what you are already doing in your own business — do all in your power to avoid gender discrimination in the workplace.
or grind up kittens and feed them to babies.
I forget which.
Please try to avoid engaging in blanket unsupported statements. I’d be interested to see the proof.
Is there any evidence to back this up: “Do you think paying a woman the same as a man for doing the same work is a burden? Scott Brown thinks so.”
There is no evidence that Brown thinks women should be paid less or that a business paying the same for a woman is a burden. Merrimackguy is responding to progressmass’ leap of liberal derangement, portraying Brown’s reasonable vote against a new burdensome federal law that would have very little effect on anyone’s pay but only make lots of lawyers rich and reward a few women who happen to win a case or two, but would result in pretty much every company being sued and lots of workplace disruption, as a belief that “Brown thinks” “paying women the same as a man for doing the same work is a burden.”
Come on ProgressMass, we are sick of this. Can’t you just say he voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act without lying about Brown’s reasons for doing so?
I’m a young woman working in a very large private-sector corporation. It’s very difficult for me to tell if I’m getting paid less than my male colleagues because they work in different divisions, sometimes in different parts of the country. If I call or email them and ask them to talk about salary and my company finds out, I can be fired– legally. So even if there is legitimate discrimination, I can be punished by my employer for trying to find out.
So, how are we supposed to ensure employers are fairly compensating us, the women workers? By risking our jobs – which in this economy, and especially for young people – is really stupid.
(no text)
List all the wages for every employee, performance evaluations, work schedule and projects, etc.
The goal is to have everyone paid the same, regardless of ones performance. For example, let’s say have a Tom Brady like employee, anda Tim Tebow like employee. One is clearly better than the other, but to avoid headaches and lawsuits, cut Tom’s compensation to Tebow’s. That will be the end result, exactly what many Dems want. Equal results, not equal opportunity.
This bill was an early Christmas gift to lawyers, to sling the lawsuits, and see what they find by making businesses open up their payroll receipts.
Scott Brown said in a time of anemic growth, this is not the right recipe for creating more jobs (unless you are a lawyer). On this score, I side with Brown.
is a legitimate point.
Who choses what work is equal to what other work? Outside the realm of jobs that require time cards, this is a thorny question, which seems to be glossed over.
A is a problem. The government should do something about A. B is something. B will accomplish the goal of solving A. The cost of B is worth it.
Each level of the logic contains assumptions that should be unpacked and analyzed rationally and without bumper-sticker slogans. Until I see that, I would not support this legislation. Indeed, given the present condition in Washington, one must assume that the proposal is not intended to be enacted, but rather to be a source for bumper sticker material.
Every regulation should be guilty until proven innocent, in order to limit the type of thing that results in the state-mandated licensing of barbers, interior decorators, and athletic trainers.
I don’t know so much about interior decorators, but any man who’s allowed to hold a straight razor to the neck of another man should be licensed. Hygiene is important, and the negative public health consequences of a bad barber are very real.
Same goes for athletic trainers. A bad trainer can get somebody really hurt, in a completely avoidable situation. Hurt for life.
In both cases, there’s little that the individual consumer can do to know if the barber or trainer is well trained and performing the business with best practices for the health of the consumer. That’s exactly why licensing makes sense.
I know I was being paid less than others with less experience, men and women, but that was the deal I took when i signed on, I could have quit but liked the slacker track. How would that work out if I sued the company? I think it should be up to the worker to quit if they think they can do better.
I just can’t believe there is any company that offers less to a woman than they would to a man, all things being equal. There are other fuzzy reasons that result in pay disparities, some women are better candidates and can get more money. If women are undercutting men to get jobs by asking or accepting less, well that’s what I did too and it shouldn’t be illegal, there is no IT union setting our pay.
I’m the only king not to have a secret meeting with Scott P. Brown 🙁
and yet pay inquality between men and women persistss. How does Business explain that?
but pay inequality exists between men and men too. it’s the result of so many influences; talent, experience, productivity, dedication, length of service, relationship to the boss.
Look, I am absolutely for fairness in the workplace but this seems to be one area where forced equality isn’t going to happen. I imagine if one were to study differences between the pay of other groups, there might be differences too. I suspect those differences might be attributable to some of the reasons I mentioned.
I do believe this, same job, same experience, same productivity, same length of service…same pay, whether man or woman, redhead or blond, tall or short, black or white, handsome or ugly.
I’ve seen studies which indicate tall people get promoted more often that short people. Should we legislate for fairness in that arena too?
Getting fired for asking is wrong and stupid and should be illegal, but the asking part assumes your colleagues are willing to tell, and plenty of folks see compensation as something taboo to compare notes on and would rather not reveal their own information in that regard. Absent that communication the only thing I can think of is that employers be required to annually file with the EEOC their payscales, including how they justify them based on seniority, level of education, etc, that would otherwise be kept on a very need-to-know basis. Also, I’m not sure different divisions or parts of the country is helpful in this equation since different divisions are presumably different job descriptions and therefore a company can say in Division A you get paid x and in Division B you get paid y. Different parts of the country also have different costs of living and different job markets, though since Boston is expensive that should mean you get paid more here than you might in other places.
Those mean factory-owning men.
What is the fantasy of business that equal payers think is out there. Are they really dumb enough to think that it’s still some cigar-chomping golfers setting all the pay rates for women 70% below that of men? Are you serious???
Study after study has shown: women get paid less because they work in less risky occupations than men. They work less hours per week and take more time off for their kids and forego experience.
What equal payers want is to force businesses to pay women MORE than men, and whether the work gets done is not their problem. As usual liberals are always ready to throw more weight on the back of business in pursuit of some social goal, and when less money comes out the other end in the form of tax revenue, they refuse to believe it has anything to do with them.
Businesses will cut the salaries of the higher wage earners (men in your example), to equal those who willing work for less (mostly women but some men) in exchange for flex hours, etc.
Yes, part of the wage gap exists because traditionally women-held occupations make less money than occupations traditionally held by men. And there is an overall wealth gap that is partly explained by the fact that women tend to work less over their lifetime to care for family.
But the pay gap still exists when you control for occupation, education, aspiration, and for family type. Here is a report of over 4,000 full-time employees with MBAs that demonstrates these trends: http://www.catalyst.org/file/340/pipeline%27s_broken_promise_final_021710.pdf
New research shows that men with stay-at-home wives do promote women less often than men with working wives: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2018259 Other research has shown that managers prefer to hire attractive men over attractive and unattractive women; that managers prefer candidates who wear masculine perfume/cologne; studies that demonstrate negative bias against women being evaluated for positions traditionally or predominantly held by men; and that measures of performance and perceptions of competence can be conflated with characteristics of people who already occupy positions of leadership – historically men. Stanford has a good list of many such studies that show that pervasive gender stereotypes exist and are perpetuated in the hiring, evaluation, and promotion processes: http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/institutions/bias.html
It’s also insulting that you think women want to get paid more than men. We are asking for equity, not an advantage.
There are also studies that remembered to take those variables into account. We might not get to perfect parity based on those factors, but we can definitely get closer.
From Scott Brown’s website:
Mr. Brown said he supports equal pay, but that the bill was flawed, and would go into effect at a time when businesses cannot afford more regulations.
Here’s my question for Mr. Brown:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that in the classification of Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners women make $20,384 while men make $24,596. Do you think these women can afford life on $20,384?
Janitors and building cleaners? Men:$26,728 Women: $21,736
Can these women afford it? Could he or anyone he knows live on this?
(BTW, Starwood Hotels 2011 revenue was $5,624,000,000 with gross profit of $3,654,000,000. Its CEO was paid $8,855,858 plus $33.6 million in stock options. But Brown thinks businesses can’t afford to pay women as much they pay men.)
As I have written before the pay difference is ubiquitous.
Women elementary school teachers make $4,628 less a year than men in the same job. Can they afford it?
Perhaps the salient question is “Can Scott Brown afford to defy business interests in an election year even when it means real human suffering?”
The answer is no.
Even when you look at cleaning people there are legitimate gender differences. I was in the cleaning industry for a number of years early in my career.
The men tend to be the equipment operators, running floor cleaning equipment (scrubbers) carpet cleaning equipment, etc. They do the heavier work of floor cleaning, waxing etc. They push often large carts of trash and swing bags into dumpsters.
The women tend to push around carts and clean toilets, vacuum, dust etc. The work is still not pleasant, but easier than operating equipment, swinging mops and lugging water around.
I think in general the gender gap is due to too many factors to legislate and as has been pointed out, could be spread to all reasons that people get different pay. I for one want to eliminate higher pay for all professions just based on education. Law firms, consulting organizations all pay a higher starting salary to graduates of elite schools despite doing the exact same work as those that come from state and other schools. Once we standardize that pay, then we should address the gender gap.
* Note the reason I bring this up is because it solves the college tuition problem. If going to a better school no longer gets you a better job, this would drive their tuition costs down.
Some farmers in New Zealand lop the tops off of any poppies that grow “too tall”, because the farmers seek the “beauty” of uniformity in the fields they cultivate.
You seem to propose penalizing high achievers in academia rather than increase academic opportunities for all. I guess that’s one way to “solve” the college tuition problem. I’m reminded of those who say that IT departments would like to see NO USERS AT ALL, so that the IT department can brag of 100% availability. It sounds to me as though you are proposing rather precisely what the right wing often falsely accuses “liberals” of advocating — punishing high-achievers in order to gain “equality”.
I want to live in a society where EVERY INDIVIDUAL is provided an opportunity to achieve whatever academic success they are capable of, and rewarded correspondingly.
I’m only trying to point out that if we seek to eliminate all differences in wages based on all variables we would have to come to this point eventually.
I realize you need to dispute everything I say, but can’t you give it a rest.
Even I detected that Bob Neer was joking (though he did it poorly) when he asked for a link to my statement that Brown fed babies to kittens.
By the way one thing we do agree on is father’s rights, but I suppose we would completely differ on causes and solutions.
Sorry, there are enough comments like this from various right-wingers on the board that I assumed you were serious.
merrimackguy wrote: “The men tend to be the equipment operators, running floor cleaning equipment (scrubbers) carpet cleaning equipment, etc. They do the heavier work of floor cleaning, waxing etc. They push often large carts of trash and swing bags into dumpsters.”
For arguments sake, let’s say that men who cleaned hotel rooms got paid more than women who did the heavy work that required more brawn. I can imagine the case being that the men should be paid more because room-cleaning is what the customers see and so it is more important.
Lots of reason can be found for pay differences in any given job classification.
But cashiers, teachers, nurses, physical therapists, human resource managers?
Can we just admit that the enduring and widespread discrepancy in salaries can’t be explained away by all the individual arguments.
Lily Ledbetter was not alone in earning less money than men for the exact same job. Sexism is alive and well in the salries men and women are paid and it’s OK with Scott Brown.
“Law firms, consulting organizations all pay a higher starting salary to graduates of elite schools despite doing the exact same work as those that come from state and other schools. Once we standardize that pay, then we should address the gender gap.”
or he is calling for one big international union!
But I think its the former; let’s fix the class inequity at the law firms and THEN we can address the gender gap. Really. Honest.
The truth is Lodger and Merrimackguy are not at all interested in fixing the gender gap because to them there is no gender gap. Expecting business to address this is a burden that they cannot bear. Oh sure, they see class inequalities when they want to dodge gender discrimination and I’m sure they would regognize gender inequity if it meant denying a class issue.
Yesterday’s dodge was about how we should tax Harvard before we increase taxes on the 1%.
That’s my idea about taxing Harvard. You agree with me?
and reconsider your rash position.
I wrote about how at my workplace I’ve used my influence and responsibilities to make sure there no pay inequity at our factory, no gender gap. If I didn’t think one existed, why would I address the issue where I work? Please refrain from assuming to know what I’m interested in fixing, or what I believe exists or does not exist. I am happy to speak for myself.
… I don’t even know what that means.
But good for you making sure the right thing is being done on your little island. Very commendable. I’m sure if slavery existed you would emancipate your labor force too.
The problem with all of this “personal responsibility” drivel is that most of the world is not personally responsible for its actions, and, in fact, looks to exploit situations rather than correct them. And the proof of this? We continue to need legislation that rights these wrongs. Do you seriously believe that if the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were repealed today that this country wouldn’t start to drift once again towards an apartheid state, particularly when you consider the disparity in wealth and income distribution?
I would ask you what the US Chamber of Commerce’ view is on this matter but you have already said you won’t speak for business. Well speaking for youself alone, though commendable, is not sufficient.
The Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act aren’t stopping the GOP from stripping the right to vote from minorities under guises such as “Voter ID” and the various creative ways they are manipulating voter roles.
So long as there are racists and misogynists, we will need legislation to protect society from them.
“If men were angels no government would be necessary.” – James Madison