Previous post
Next post
Since 1997, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) has been introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act. In the early evening on March 27, 2019, the act finally passed the House of Representatives. This is not good news for women, despite what Dems like DeLauro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi and Elijah Cummings will tell you.
Immediately after passage, the Dems let the Twitterverse know of their success 22 years in the making:
You know, the Dems can repeat the same old saw about women making $.80 for every dollar a man makes or that women make less than their male counterparts make but that doesn’t make it true. As a matter of fact, Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) took to the House Floor to repeat these “wage discrimination” tropes. The video evidence:
Like Bonamici said, in 1963 President John Kennedy signed into law The Equal Pay Law. From the History Channel:
The Equal Pay Act is a labor law that prohibits gender-based wage discrimination in the United States. Signed by President Kennedy in 1963 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law mandates equal pay for equal work by forbidding employers from paying men and women different wages or benefits for doing jobs that require the same skills and responsibilities. The bill was among the first laws in American history aimed at reducing gender discrimination in the workplace.
Well, if it’s against Federal Law, why do we need another law? The Dems will tell you that employers have sneaky ways of reclassifying jobs and deceptive company practices are to blame. The American Association of University Women is happy to lay out their beefs for you:
The gender pay gap is the result of many factors, including occupational segregation, bias against working mothers, and direct pay discrimination. Additionally, such things as racial bias, disability, access to education, and age come into play. Consequently, different groups of women experience very different gaps in pay.
The gender pay gap varies substantially from state to state, due to such factors as:
The primary industries in the state and the opportunities they create; Demographics such as race/ethnicity, age, and education level; Regional differences in attitudes and beliefs about work and gender; and Differences in the scope and strength of state pay discrimination laws and policies.
Cuz out here in redneck land the patriarchy of the good old boys work hard to keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Could that really possibly true? Are men conspiring to underpay women and keep them in poverty? Are there no women employers in 2019? Are women really at the mercy of EVIL men? Do women in 2019 have no agency in their own lives? Are women in 2019 without choices about their futures and their work life?
Let’s take a look at the other side. Let’s take a look at The Heritage Foundation and the Conservative side of the argument:
By seeking to force equal wages for unequal work, the proposed “Paycheck Fairness Act” (H.R. 7) would hurt women, raise costs and lower productivity for employers, and reduce wages across all workers. Not only would women become huge liabilities for businesses—making it harder for them to get their foot in the door—but they would lose some of the freedoms and choices that they currently enjoy. The so-called “wage gap” is really a choice gap, but a federal, one-size-fits-all approach to pay threatens to take away women’s choices.
Let’s take my friend Nicole. Nicole is a Mechanical Engineer. The average mechanical engineer at the firm where Nicole works, men and women, puts in about 60-70 hours per week. Nicole has a ten year old child at home. Nicole has chosen to work part-time. Nicole makes less than the other Mechanical Engineers at her firm. Let’s be fair, most ME’s are still men. So the men at Nicole’s firm make more than she does. Is this fair? Nicole would say yes. She loves Mechanical Engineer stuff (Can you tell I think it’s like magic or something?) Nicole gets to practice her profession and keep her skills up. She takes home a good paycheck. When she is ready to re-enter the workplace full time, her skills are up to date and she is really marketable. The ME firm gets an extra pair of hands without paying a full time employee. Win-win, I say. The Social Justice Warriors fighting the Patriarchy would say Nicole is being taken advantage of at work.
The same story can be told whether the woman is a file clerk, waitress, or teacher. Work-life balance doesn’t enter in to Democrat policy making. Women making choices and having agency in their own lives is not a concept that can be understood by out elitist betters.
Are you as tired of this whale waste as I am. Boresville. Tell your story somewhere else.
Hopefully, H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act will die a painful death in the Senate. If the Republican Senators, male and female will find their spines and vote it down. This act is bad news for women’s choices.
Photo credit: Pixabay/Pexels.com/Creative Commons License/Cropped
John C. says: The simplest argument against the notion that employers can get away with paying women less for equal work is why do employers hire men at all, if they can get the same work for less by hiring women? Payrolls are the biggest expense for most businesses, so eeeevil Capitalists could be expected to save money by hiring only women, and yet men are hired. There has to be more to the situation.
Another question is “What is FAIR?”
I handled payroll IT in one job – thus, I had to know what many people made when testing new rules. The best ones to do, of course, were my coworkers, who knew I had that access and had reason to trust me with it.
I had a female boss. One thing I noticed about the salaries was that she was paid nearly $20K LESS than one of her male subordinates (not me, I was paid about $20K less than her). The difference? HE was in the California office – SHE was in the Arizona office.
HE had a very small house in the LA area, rather close to the freeway. SHE had a very nice, large house in one of our more “ritzy” suburbs. In real money, to be honest, HE was being paid less than I was, even though I was just about $40K behind him. (Which might be why he left the company – he could get more, in California, than he was being paid by my company.)
Kathy says: Sounds like another bureaucratic nightmare that we don’t need. Also, when they start mixing in people that identify as the other sex this will be even more insane.
“Work-life balance” is a key factor for a great many women, at all levels of the job market. That often means less hours, and unscheduled time off (often without pay). Not to mention that if the “equal pay for equal work” is to be accurate, it has extremely limited scope. You can’t compare a dental hygenist to a plumber. Last up, while “equal rights” have done away with “jobs for women” and “jobs for men” that distinction is still out there. There are very few women working in any of the high physical risk jobs, or the ones that require significant physical strength. There are very few men working in the medical assistant field, or as company admins, etc. You can’t compare apples to oranges. Plus what John C said: if companies really could get away with paying women less, no man would have an indoor job anywhere.
I just read the Glassdoor study this trope is based on. According to their annual report, that 79¢ thing – a 21% wage gap – reduces to less than 4.9% when all factors are taken into account. That’s 95¢. And if you can factor out what they call job segregation – men and women naturally being attracted to different kinds of work – that could reduce the 4.9% by another 56.5%. Which takes 79¢to more than 97¢ which is negligible.
Oh, and women VASTLY out earn men in the lower paying jobs. It’s not until you hit the $60,000 bracket that they’re on par, at which point men pull ahead, and by the $225,00 and higher range they’re pretty much dead even.
Glassdoor admits that their data is skewed 3:1 towards college graduates, compared to the actual population. So, once again we might be dealing with a “universal” phenomena that only really applies to urban/suburban white women from the middle class. We saw the same thing with “women in the workplace” back in the 70s and 80s.
Scott says: Now Drew, don’t confuse the poor little SJW’s with facts, their tiny brains are incapable of grasping such things.
GWB says: Consequently, different groups of women experience very different gaps in pay.
Then, it would seem that the fact they’re women is NOT the primary discriminator.
Demographics such as race/ethnicity, age, and education leve
That would NOT be based on gender, then.
It’s more Orwellian bullsh*t, is what it is. You WILL admit there are five fingers!
@John C.: DING DING DING!
@Kathy: They’re already beating women in races! 😉
@Drew458: Nailed it.
7 Comments