Share
On his first day in office, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The administration coined it the “Equal Pay for Equal Work” bill.
However, the law does not give fair pay for equal work, but rather extends the period of time that women are able to file a claim of wage discrimination. With each new paycheck, the six-month time frame for filing a lawsuit resets. The bill passed with minimal Republican support.
The Republican members opposed the bill primarily because of how it affects employers — and therefore job creation — and on the belief that, as a result of the new legislation, gender discrimination — and hence, not hiring — in the workplace would likely increase because employers would fear lawsuits from female workers.
The Obama Administration cites the Department of Labor statistic that full-time working American women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.
They claim this is the ‘wage gap.’ However, the statistic does not account for the number of hours per week women and men
work on average. To a considerable degree, the ‘gender wage gap’ is more a ‘gender hours gap.’
The Department of Labor considers full-time employment to be 35 or more hours per week. Men are more likely to work more hours, while women are more likely to work less than 35 hours per week. In 2009, 66.6 percent of American workers working less than 35-hour workweeks were women. In comparison, just 45.1 percent of workers logging more than 35 hours a week were men.
Adjusting for education, experience, race, industry and occupation, nine cents per hour was attributed to gender discrimination, according to Blau and Kahn’s “Perspectives,” and between five and seven cents per hour, according to Consad Research of Pittsburgh.
The wage gap depends on the labor-force participation rate by women, which is a function of a number of variables, both personal and societal.
In a study done by the University of Chicago of college-educated women who graduated between 1992 and 1993, only 25.6 percent were working 10 years later. Women are likely to opt out of the labor force in order to spend time with their children.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act provides a forum to air grievances that may or may not be related to wage differentials. However, it obscures the fact that differentials are due to choices. Even with Lilly Ledbetter, you would expect these differentials to continue and perhaps resolve a few individual claims.
However, it does not affect the decisions of women regarding labor-force participation.
As a piece of social legislation designed to improve women’s wages in comparison to men, the Lilly Ledbetter Act is more likely to result in fewer employed females because firms fear potential litigation, adverse publicity from such cases, and the amount of resources they would have to devote to defending themselves against such claims.
A version of this article appeared in the Oct 16 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 42 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Couldn't have said it better -- though I try in "Will the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Help Women?"
http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/
To illustrate your "hours" point, here's a perfect example that shows why even the most educated, sophisticated women average less pay even in the exact same profession:
“In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” -amednews.com, March 26, 2012
Reply to this Top
First off, don't refer to women as 'females'.
And you screwed your statistics up for your 'point.'
'Just 45.1 percent of workers working more than 35 hours a week were men?' That means women made up the other percentage - that they are forming the majority working more than 35 hours a week. You were apparently trying to spin that women work less than men, when that's not what the statistics say. The 'working over/under 35 hours' statistics were likely from different studies. Did the survey just as 'do you work more than 35 hours a week?'
The gender gap exists. And you're generalizing all women here. The gender gap exists, and it's not caused by 'hour differences'. Get your facts right.
Reply to this Top
since when did 'female' become a derogatory term? ... you're full of it.
Reply to this Top
Why not? we ARE females..so get over it.
Reply to this Top
Let people run their lives and businesses any way they wish. What next? Will you tell Jewish men that it is discrimination to have disproportionate control over international banking and the media? H-ll no you won't! We ARE the best people for the job. Let us do our job!
Reply to this Top
Oh great, the free market here to save the day. When did that ever go badly?
Did you just say that men are the best people for the job? Are you serious right now? Women are just as capable as men are.
Reply to this Top
Sorry, my petulant little lady, but it was a typo. It should read "By comparison, just 45.1 percent of workers logging more than 35 hours a week were women." If you understood context at all, you would have inferred that. Even so, it took me less than a minute to dig up the truth. So there you have it- your whole argument is gone.
Reply to this Top
So instead of just paying women the same amount for the same job, you think employer just won't hire women? I appreciate this legislation because it will keep employers honest and fair. If an employer is distributing pay equally, then he/she shouldn't fear a lawsuit.
Reply to this Top
You spoiled your whole point by being rude and EXTREMELY condescending.
Reply to this Top
Suppose you are hiring physicians for your medical practice, but you know the odds of securing (for 10 years, say) a full time female physician is much lower, knowing the stats listed. So your offer for the male applicant is higher. Is this discrimination? Stats are just stats. The insurance actuaries use them all the time.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
So maybe if employers paid women the same as men then they wouldn't have to worry about lawsuits. I put in 40 hours a week; I should be paid the same amount as a man who does the same job as I do.
Reply to this Top
Our firm pays according to what people produce without regard to gender or age. That is how to make a business and yourself successful.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
Even if women are payed only 9 cents less on the dollar, that is still a 9% difference. Im sure that if men had to pay a 9% higher tax rate than women (which mathematically would be the same thing) there would be riots.
Reply to this Top
couldnt respond to the substance of the comment eh?
Reply to this Top
This is the same type of law as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Politicians push through unnecessary and harmful legislation in order to score political points. The fact that Obama's running around calling the Lilly Ledbetter Act, "Equal Pay for Equal Work", tells you it's all political since that's not what the law provides. Anyway, the main result of this Act and the ADA are make employers fearful of hiring from either of these protected groups due to a fear of lawsuits. If you take a class of employees and make them protected by giving them all kinds of extra rights, then an employer is just going to start weighing if the increased risk of a lawsuit is worth hiring that person. It's common sense but not to leftists who have no idea how the free markets work.
Reply to this Top
How bout this-we (men) will give you (women) your 9/23% of pay that you deserve, and you can start paying for dates, $10,000 engagement rings, and weddings. Deal?
You can't have it both ways
Reply to this Top
lol what does that have anything to with the subject? we don't require by law you pay for our dates or expensive rings..that's YOUR fault and decision. My wedding ring cost a little over $100 and until i was engaged i helped pay for our dates..not every woman does this or lets a man pay but we NEVER require BY LAW as this legislature does that you do. Your post makes no sense.
Reply to this Top
It's 9 cents per hour not 9%. So at $9/hr the difference is 1%.
Please read before posting else it makes you sound stupid.
Reply to this Top
It is shocking to hear the comments of some of the people on this issue. Paying for dates and weddings? We deserve less pay than men because you foot the bill for dinner? I have been the breadwinner throughout my entire marriage and my husband is a stay at home dad. I work every bit as hard and probably harder than some the men I work with. My female peers work just as hard and are just as qualified as their male counterparts. The fact is, that we should earn equal pay for our work. The law does not guarantee equal pay, but increases the amount of time to file a lawsuit if pay discrimination is found. If employers pay fairly, they have nothing to worry about. Lilly Ledbetter filed a a lawsuit, but her judgement was thrown out because the Supreme Court decided that the statute of limitations started the day she received her first discriminatory paycheck, not the date that she found out she was being paid 40 percent less than the male workers doing the same job. That is why the legislation is important. How is it fair that the timeframe to file lawsuits should be the six months after you receive your first check? If you work for that employer for a year or ten years, you would not be able to file if you found discriminatory practices.
Reply to this Top
Awesome! Exactly my point. I also am the breadwinner in our home.And it's fine with me. I was a nurse when we met and so he stays home with the kids. win win! there's no descrimination here. weddings and rings and dates..aren't even an issue. i just wanted to say i totally agree with your comment. thank you. :0)
Reply to this Top
According to this article above, “Men are more likely to work more hours, while women are more likely to work less than 35 hours per week.” In many full time salary positions the number of hours you work does not affect your take home pay, unless you are eligible for overtime. Therefore, the majority of men working extra hours may see their career trajectory is affected, as their extra “dedication” may be rewarded. But that is not the same as giving the same pay for the same position. Mrs. Ledbetter did not have a career trajectory problem, she had a payroll issue.
To the comments regarding women and family, etc. a 2011 report from the US Bureau Labor Statistics states (Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2011.pdf):
"Of the 44.5 million women working full time in wage and salary jobs in 2011, a little more than one third were mothers of children under age 18. Median weekly earnings for mothers of children under age 18 were $669. Earnings for women without children under 18 were $692.”
Why are women without children earning only a small amount more per week than those with children? If childbearing were affecting the ability of a woman to perform her job, than women without children should earn more than 3.4% more than their counterparts.
This article claims the legislation will result in fewer women obtaining employment. This statement is equally as reasonable as the idea of “job creators” creating fewer jobs if they have to pay 5% more taxes – unfounded.
Reply to this Top
According to this article above, “Men are more likely to work more hours, while women are more likely to work less than 35 hours per week.” In many full time salary positions the number of hours you work does not affect your take home pay, unless you are eligible for overtime. Therefore, the majority of men working extra hours may see their career trajectory is affected, as their extra “dedication” may be rewarded. But that is not the same as giving the same pay for the same position. Mrs. Ledbetter did not have a career trajectory problem, she had a payroll issue.
To the comments regarding women and family, etc. a 2011 report from the US Bureau Labor Statistics states (Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2011.pdf):
"Of the 44.5 million women working full time in wage and salary jobs in 2011, a little more than one third were mothers of children under age 18. Median weekly earnings for mothers of children under age 18 were $669. Earnings for women without children under 18 were $692.”
Why are women without children earning only a small amount more per week than those with children? If childbearing were affecting the ability of a woman to perform her job, than women without children should earn more than 3.4% more than their counterparts.
This article claims the legislation will result in fewer women obtaining employment. This statement is equally as reasonable as the idea of “job creators” creating fewer jobs if they have to pay 5% more taxes – unfounded.
Reply to this Top
So you didn't explain your personal situation other than " I work every bit as hard and probably harder than some the men I work with." Sure you do. Everyone thinks that. But, as a woman, do you get paid less?
I have, at times, made less than colleagues that I thought were doing the same job as me. And even other male employees were making more because of things like time at the job and better evals. But when some women see this discrepancy they immediately jump on the "it must be my gender" bandwagon. In fact most pay gay issues are related to the reduced amount of hours women tend to work due to pregnancy and raising a child.
But when that factor is eliminated, recent studies have shown that women are earning MORE than men with the same jobs. So, should men be covered under Lilly Ledbetter Act in those circumstances? Somehow, I doubt you think so.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
As a woman, I always pay for my half of the bargain. And I declined an expensive engagement ring in favor of investing that money in future expenditures such as a house. I believe my ring was ten dollars, not ten thousand, and I'm more than happy with it.
Reply to this Top
Women without children UNDER EIGHTEEN may simply be empty nesters, who would be older and therefore more senior employees. Long time employees, or those with more experience, would naturally receive a higher salary.
As for the employers not having to worry if they pay equally, the problem is that they FEAR lawsuits. Even a lawsuit without merit would damage the company with bad publicity and lawyer fees. Furthermore, there are other criteria that determine salary level, such as job performance. The employer may FEAR that any discrepancy in salary based on other legitimate factors may result in a lawsuit based solely on gender.
Reply to this Top
Haven't you considered that women have to spend less hours at work and don't maintain longer careers because they are often the ones that are expected to take care of the children? It is seen as normal for the woman, not the man, in a relationship to take time off to take care of the kids. It's a problem with how gender roles are applied in our society and people like this author, women who continue to enforce it, are shameful.
Reply to this Top
and we don't get paid for that either. ;0)
Reply to this Top
suggesting we shouldn't pass legislation like this simply because the already misogynistic employers will even react more negatively would just be keeping us at a standstill and denying any hope of progress. This legislation is a step in the right direction
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
The purpose of this was to educate people on gender discrimination in the workplace, not to give you something to complain about
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
prove they deserve to.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
kwgvyxk <a href="http://www.timberlandschuhede.eu/22-womens-timberland-14inch-stiefel/" title="Frauen Timberland 14inch Stiefel">Frauen Timberland 14inch Stiefel</a>
Reply to this Top