Apparently half of the senators in this country still don’t believe in equal pay for equal work. The Paycheck Fairness Act failed to move forward in the Senate on June 8 when it received on 49 of the necessary 60 votes. This says a lot about the state of employment and wages in the United States.
You may be wondering, as I was, what can the opposing Senators possibly say to defend their negative vote. The only reasoning I was able to find is a supposed defense of small businesses saying they would be destroyed by legal fees. Senator McConnell stated that it would be “saddling hospitals, schools and small businesses with crippling new legal burdens if they fail to keep pace with woke social norms.” He also expressed concern that it would “leave even the smallest American business at risk of unlimited liability in workplace cases –listen to this– even where malice plays no part.”
Really? These are the best arguments they can come up with? Paying women amounts equal to men is apparently a radical idea and a “woke social norm”?
And then the opposition turns around and says in the next breath that the bill is not even necessary because we already have the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But they cannot have it both ways. Either women already receive equal pay, or equal pay is a crazy liberal idea. And the statistics clearly show us that women earn less than men. I guess that means it is just an outrageous left wing idea that women should be paid equally.
Now, let’s address the idea of small businesses being bankrupted when there was no malicious intent. We are back to the old impact v. intent argument again. I have personally been in situations in which I earned substantially less that male colleagues doing similar work. Frankly, the intent of my employer had no impact upon my ability to pay my bills. Whether they were purposely discriminating or acting as products of cultural norms I still experienced the same stress from lack of money and I was still being paid less than I was worth. The message I am receiving here is that it is okay for women to be struggling as long as the (male owned/run) businesses survive.
The original Paycheck Fairness Act dates back to 1997 and bills have been introduced at least 13 times without success. This fact alone speaks volumes about how little importance our government places upon gender equality. By refusing to condemn unfair pay practices the legislature is silently sanctioning them.
The National Partnership for Women & Families published a very clear and concise fact sheet in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Some of the highlights (along with my added commentary in italics) included
- Women are paid on average 82 cents for every dollar men make. Women of color fair even worse, with Latinas being paid 55 cents, Native American women 60 cents, and Black Women 63 cents. The wage gap is not just a transgression against women, it is an act of white supremacy. An inequitable pay structure allows for the devaluation of the work of women of color who have historically sustained our society through their free and severely under-compensated labor.
- The act would prohibit employers from requiring salary histories as part of the hiring process. This practice harms women because once someones salary falls below those of others it makes it harder for them to catch up.
- Protects employees who discuss salaries with colleagues. Currently many companies have rules against discussing salaries. There is a lot of press telling women to negotiate pay but how can we be expected to effectively do that when we are denied basic facts on comparable salaries?
- Provide enforcement agencies with tools to uncover wage discrimination. One of the shortfalls of the Act of 1963 is the lack of provisions for enforcement.
- If we continue at the current rate of progress, the wage gap won’t close until 2059.
Sadly, yet unsurprisingly, the Paycheck Fairness Act was stalled again. It is just another reminder of how far we have to go in improving the financial positions of women in America. Women, particularly women of color, are repeatedly being told that they are insignificant. I guess we have our work cut out for us…
Maura Madden is a registered investment adviser in the State of Washington. The Adviser may not transact business in states where it is not appropriately registered, excluded or exempted from registration. Individualized responses to persons that involve either the effecting of transaction in securities, or the rendering of personalized investment advice for compensation, will not be made without registration or exemption.