Gender Pay Inequality is Alive & Well Ladies

I got an e-mail today from the AAUW (American Association of University Women) regarding equal pay in the US. This email  reminded me of a recent conversation I had with a dear friend, someone who is about my age, regarding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Like many women I have met throughout my lifetime, my friend assumed that the ERA had passed years ago. Indeed, she was shocked and dismayed to learn that it had still not passed, this reasonable amendment that was first introduced to the public in 1923.
I have even spoke to some women who feel that passing the ERA is not all that pertinent in today's society. The argument runs along these lines:

•  Women can work the same jobs as men today.
•  If a woman wants to have dildo, hell she can go out and buy one.
• Women are really not discriminated against in our modern society.
• Heck, I know some men who stay home with the kids, while the woman goes out and works!

But the truth is simple; there is no true quality between the sexes in the US. We may be closer, but closer is not destroying the so called "glass ceiling." Women continue to be treated as second-class citizens (you are a slut if you use birth control is just one in a long string of examples I could bring to the table), and women's rights as a full and equal citizen in the United States continues to be challenged. This can be seen through many facets of life, but especially through an economic lens.

The AAUA's forum "The Simple Truth about the Pay Gap" presents compelling information regarding both race and gender pay gap inequality realities in the United States. Since we are a country that treasures profit, and equates success with one's financial bottom line, the findings regarding pay inequality is staggering. It is important to note these pay gap statistics take into consideration job performance.  That is to say, the job comparison ratio assumes that both parties, male and female, perform the same job equally well. What was found was that women earn approximately 77% of what her male counterpart makes for performing the same job. If you happen to be a woman of color, such as a black woman (70% of a man's paycheck) or a Hispanic woman (61% of a man's pay check), you will struggle more seriously in our society, demonstrating that genderism and racism are alive and well and kicking our collective female asses.

Please take a moment to read this information regarding state-by-state wages, this is a chart that compares gender pay (Note: this is a PDF File, and the information was gathered by the US Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey Data). Here are some highlights regarding gender pay inequality, 2010 numbers:

•  Gender equality in the realm of pay does not exist in any state in the United States.
•  Washington, D.C. offers the best earnings ratio, with women earning 91% of a males' paycheck for the same job (Men: $ 61,381 VS Women: $56, 127).
•  I was personally surprised to find that the rather conservative state of Arizona (82%) does a better job with pay quality than the overall liberal state of Washington, which falls into the 77% category.
•  Wyoming has the biggest problem with offering paid quality to the female gender, coming in at 64%. Wyoming was closely followed by Louisiana and Utah, both in the 60 percentile.

To add fuel to this fire, Bloomberg found that the best way for a woman to make equal or better money then her male counterpart was to open a shoe shinning business, since all other business in and around wall street paid women substantially less, and could justify this reality logically:

The six jobs with the largest gender gap in pay and at least 10,000 men and 10,000 women were in the Wall Street-heavy financial sector: insurance agents, managers, clerks, securities sales agents, personal advisers and other specialists. Advanced- degree professions proved no better predictors of equality. Female doctors made 63 cents for every $1 earned by male physicians and surgeons, the data show. Female chief executives earned 74 cents for every $1 made by male counterparts. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The White House - Blog Post - A Wonderful Day

Today, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  This act will counteract the Supreme Court's decision of 2007 to limit the ability of employees to take their company to court for pay discrimination.  In 2007, the supreme court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the first day a valid discrimination of pay was instituted by the company the employee was working for to file a suite.  This ruling was not a 180 days from the first day you learned of the pay descrimination, but 180 day from the moment of pay descrimination.

Why is this a problem? Because often we do not know if we are being discriminated against, since the culture of silence around discussing issues such as salary is so institutionalized.  Indeed, several companies I have worked for has required employees to sign an agreement that specifically states that they will NOT disclose their rate of pay to other employees under the threat of disciplinary action or loosing their job.  These clauses often embedded in company "loyalty" oaths statements help corporations and other smaller companies legally practice forms of civil discrimination, and in my book - this does not bode well for labor, minorities, and women.

In Lilly's case, it was years before she knew that she was being paid substantially less for doing the same job as her male counterparts and so it took years before she brought the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. to court.  for me, today is a good, as the White House Blog states, but for others it is not such a good day.

The Sunlight Foundation, a fantastic organization that works to promote transparency in government and business using technology and blogging, is worried about this action today by Obama.  In a blog post, Paul Blumenthal rightfully questions the "transparency" promises of the White House with this bill.  Blumenthal writes:

For quite some time President Obama has promised that all non-emergency
legislation will be open for public comment on Whitehouse.gov for 5
days before the President signs it. I am not sure what constitutes
“emergency” legislation; providing emergency appropriations in response
to a disaster or attack would apply. This was supposed to be a major
element to the President’s transparency efforts, even though the effect
of it can be disputed (the bill has already passed and can’t be changed).

As Blumenthal points out, this is a huge slip of transparency on the first major act of the Obama Presidency.  Yet the truly important point I believe that Mr Blumenthal presents us with, and a critical thinking point at that, is how does the administration and WE define emergency. 

Here is the rub!

For me, civil rights violations constitutes an emergency.  It continues to be a problem in this country, and a very serious one at that.  Being that most of the people I have heard from regarding this issue today are men, I would ask them to take a moment and consider the position of others like Lilly who has been consistently discriminate against because of their race, gender or disability.  Further, think of those solders who have served our country who are also being currently discriminated against because of corporations' fear that they will be called back to combat and so they are also being discriminated against. In general, I believe Obama's efforts here constitutes a utilitarian action - the most good for the most amount of people.

For others such as some fellow twitterers (sp?), an emergency equals only war.  I understand and emphasize with this position.  Regardless, for me, transparency should be really followed in times of war - look at the lack of transparency used to get us into our current war-and how well that came out, right?!  So how do we define 1) transparency and 2) emergency.  This is the real question and we should be debating this question right now and then relaying our definitions to the current administration.   Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation is quite right about being concerned here and as was pointed out in his post: "I am not sure what constitutes “emergency” legislation" (para 2), and either am I -this is a problem.  As to other "responders" who calls these concerns "retarded" (Para. 11), this is the communication approach most of us were rejecting when we voted for now President Obama. 

From a communication/ critical thinking point of view, "That's just retarded" is an example "loaded Language" and an ad baculum fallacy that ends discussion possibilities and potential for transparency, as a result of threating language and/or insults.  May I suggest that we all join the conversation and not simply end it.

All thoughts are welcome here.

Rebecca

(Note: I have published this post on both my personal and educational blogs because I think these questions are vital)

Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act

Please consider signing the "PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE TEACHING AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT." This bill would "amend the National Labor Relations Act to restore collective bargaining rights to teaching and research assistants at private universities and colleges." Further, this is a public bill and petitions so anyone, non-teachers and students, programmers, anyone, can sign this petition. You may or may not be aware, but Grad student TAs and adjuncts are often paid very low pay with no benefits, for doing substantial work. I myself work a day job as a receptionist and teach two classes as an adjunct just to keep a float--but this schedule has me literally working from 8am to 10pm five days a week. If you care about education and about keeping good teachers around, please sign this petition and pass it on for others to sign. Here is what the Petition says:

To U.S. Senators and Representatives: We, the undersigned, urge you to co-sponsor and support the Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act, which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to restore collective bargaining rights to teaching and research assistants at private universities and colleges. This bill would reverse the unjust decision by the Bush appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (in Brown University) that stripped thousands of teaching and research assistants across the country of their right to negotiate equitable pay, health benefits and workload protections. This decision to deny teaching and research assistants their internationally recognized right to freedom of association has been condemned by thousands of scholars and human rights advocates, including the International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations. Teaching and research assistants perform an increasing share of universities’ labor -- including teaching, research and administrative duties. Teaching and research assistants are workers who deserve, and whose livelihoods depend on, the full protections of the National Labor Relations Act, including the freedom to form unions and to bargain collectively over working conditions without fear of reprisal. Fair and secure working conditions for TA’s and RA’s at private colleges and universities mean better learning conditions for students at those institutions. Intellectual freedom and democratic exchange are hallmarks of institutions of higher learning, yet these values are undermined when TA’s and RA’s are denied their freedom of association and their right to collective bargaining. We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that you co-sponsor and support the Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act. ***NOTE: WHEN YOU SIGN THE PETITION, ONLY YOUR NAME AND ANY AFFILIATION OR TITLE YOU CHOOSE TO ENTER WILL BE DISPLAYED PUBLICLY ***ANYONE CAN SIGN THE PETITION -- PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY