I have to admit I was surprised when I saw the issue of equal pay for equal work was back in the news—the law that a woman doing the same job as a man must be compensated the same amount. I thought this was a settled issue. But apparently not. The vehicle is the Paycheck Fairness Act, being pushed by congressional Democrats and opposed—at least in large part—by Republicans. I think the Democrats are right on this one, although I want to start with some reservations…
*First off, I almost feel guilty about taking up what’s seen as a pro-woman stance. Not because I think there’s anything wrong with it. But because whenever I see a guy going on some crusade for women’s rights, I generally assume this is a guy with an ulterior agenda. Do I need to spell it out? Okay, I will—I assume that guys who get on huge crusades for women’s rights are looking to get someone into bed. The late Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton are my first pieces of evidence.
And look, I’m not innocent myself. My favorite actress, Stana Katic, who plays Detective Kate Beckett on the TV series Castle every Monday night (and masterfully played Simone Renoir in The Curse of the Judas Chalice) tweeted in favor of it and I find Stana to be considerably attractive (especially when she drops a Russian accent). So, in short, I’m often skeptical of the male ability to reason above the waist when it comes to issues like this.
But it doesn’t mean we can’t give it an honest try. Now frankly, I don’t see how anyone argues against equal pay for equal work, purely as a matter of justice. Here are the legitimate points that I have heard raised against the Paycheck Fairness Act, followed by why I don’t find them persuasive arguments…
*This bill is not about equal pay per se. It’s about how the means an employer can use to defend themselves and prove non-discrimination. Current law allows “any factor other than sex” to be used. The proposed bill would limit an employer defense to “bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.”
*The stats cited by the Obama White House say women are paid 77 cents to every dollar for a man. Critics, including the liberal Washington Post say this is more in the neighborhood of 84-85 cents.
*The Obama White House is hypocritical—a review of their own staff showed women make 88 cents on every dollar for a man.
*Employees are often paid what they are based on conditions at the time of the hiring—i.e., depending if it was a bad economy (where leverage favored the employer) or a good one (where the employee had more bargaining power up front).
That’s four criticisms that a perfectly reasonable person can have. However, none would dissuade me from supporting the bill and here’s why…
*The first reason is the strongest criticism, but it can be rectified with either an amendment or more precise language. The concern is to ensure that job performance can be used as a defense by the employer. That doesn’t fall under education, training and experience. It might fall under the “bona fide factors” criteria, but that leaves judges way too much leeway. Put in job performance as a criteria and this problem is solved.
*Even if the figure is 84-85 cents on the dollar, I don’t know that this would make me feel a lot better if I were a divorced mom raising kids by myself, making $42,000 a year, and watching my male colleague pull down $50K for the same work.
*The Obama White House’s performance is proof of their own unwillingness to live up to their own standards and for which they deserve political heat, but it’s not an argument against the bill itself. And while Obama is being at least a little bit hypocritical here, even this isn’t on a par with Al Gore flying a gas-guzzling jet while he preaches conservation to everyone else. Either way, it’s an argument about Barack Obama, not the Paycheck Fairness Act.
*I think the arguments I have made to this point could be easily supported by conservatives, if only the case is separated from the polarizing personality of Obama and the obvious fact that his party is pushing this as a midterm election issue, rather than out of real conviction (because if it was real conviction they would have pushed it a long time ago, not when they’re looking at a November meltdown).
But the fourth point is different, and here I suspect I will part company with conservatives on purely ideological grounds. I could frankly care less what the market conditions are at the time of employment. The job is the job and if it’s worth $50,000 a year than pay the person $50,000 a year. The political Right has taken free market rhetoric and ideas to an extreme and this is another example.
The market, at least in a good society, allows for individual initative, for people to move up and to have hard work rewarded. The market, in a bad society, rewards scumbags who exploit their position, regardless of the hardship it inflicts upon others. Reasonable regulation is necessary to keep the market at the service of the good, which is why even Ronald Reagan never advocated getting rid of government regulation entirely, but to trim back where it gotten excessive.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, with a few minor tweaks, is not excessive and places the market at the service of good ideals. Congressional Republicans should pass the bill, and then feel perfectly free to pound the president of the United States for not living up to the very ideals he proposed for everyone else.
Recent Comments