Mikulski's declaration came after the defeat of a Senate Bill known as the “Fair Pay Restoration Act ” (S. 1843). S. 1843 was born from the fairytale that women make less money than men for doing the same work (The Myth of Equal Pay). S. 1843 was in response to a recent Supreme Court case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear (US Supreme Court: Ledbetter v. Goodyear) that flew in the face of the feminist agenda.
The litigant (Ledbetter) was employed by the Goodyear Tire Company for over 10 years, and she claims that while some of her male counterparts were receiving raises, Ledbetter was being denied the same level of increases because of her sex. Ledbetter won her initial lawsuit in front of a jury, but the decision was overturned in the Federal Circuit Court, which in turn was upheld by the US Supreme Court, 5-4.
S. 1843 was sponsored by Senator Teddy Kennedy, which always makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. S. 1843 was in response to what the Senate “felt” was a misinterpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the act used to bring the lawsuit against Goodyear.
The appeal filed by Goodyear was based on the fact that a plaintiff has 180 days from the discovery of the first act of discrimination to file a complaint, to which Ledbetter did not comply with. The dissenting judge, Justice Ginsberg, felt that although the letter of the law had been followed (which should be the only thing the Supreme Court should be concerned about), it was her opinion that it was never the original intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Justice Ginsberg is also a mindreader). Ginsberg’s own dissent stated, “small pay discrepancy (as was the case with Ledbetter) is often difficult to recognize” It was Ginsberg’s statement that prompted Kennedy to take action.
1843 is being called the Fair Pay Restoration Act, but you cannot restore something that never was there or taken away. 1843 “amendments” the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include new language; language so vague that it could be interpreted a millions differed ways. 1843 was only going to make it harder for judges to rule. Additionally, if 1843 had passed, it would have been retroactively applied to all cases filed in the past, which most likely would have led to a mass of “re-filings” from previously lost cases, including Ledbetter’s case.
There was one other fact that was lost in everyone’s haste to pass 1843. The Supreme Court sided with Goodyear’s contention that the complaint was not filed as required by law, but the Supreme Court also stated that Ledbetter never proved her case. That’s right, she never proved discrimination.
Ledbetter was subject to the same process as her peers in regards to the awarding of raises. Raises were awarded based on merit, which was derived from one’s annual evaluation. Mind you Ledbetter isn’t claiming she did not received raises, just that her raises were not on par with her peers. You may have the same job title as a fellow employee, but merit pay means some people get less money and some people get more money. Ledbetter’s case was unable to withstand the scrutiny of TWO impartial appeals.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co and S. 1843 were being held up as another attempt to falsely correct the myth of unequal pay in the workplace. I read counter arguments by the ACLU and NOW stating that 1843 was necessary because of the difficulty woman have identifying and reporting discrimination. But in reality this bill was never about equality and was perpetuated on a fallacy. But like I always say, why would Progressives every let the facts get in the way of the truth.
Posts
6 comments:
This piece misrepresented the real facts that working women deal with everyday. This is nothing more than typical tripe that you hear from the far-right radio wackos. Women are still only making 77 cents for every one dollar that men are making for doing the same work. Add in the fact that a recent study showed that women still do a majority of the housework, and our burden in life is further complicated.
You either live in a fantasy world, or do not work with women. Either way you have failed to realize how important this type of law is, and the difference it would have made in millions of women’s (and men who believe in equality) lives.
Deborah, we need to present facts when dealing with injustice:
·In 2005, women's median annual earnings were only $.77 for every $1.00 earned by men. For women of color, the gap is even worse – only $.71 for African American women and $.58 for Latinas.
·The General Accounting Office compiled data from the Current Population Survey regarding the ten industries that employ 71 percent of U.S. women workers and 73 percent of U.S. women managers. In seven of the ten industries examined, the pay gap between full-time male and female managers widened between 1995 and 2000.
·If women received the same wages as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education and union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these women's annual income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.
·Pay equity in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) would increase wages for women by approximately 18 percent.
·Fifty-five percent of all women work in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) whereas only 8.5 percent of all men work in these occupations. However, the men working in female-dominated jobs still receive about 20 percent more than women who work in female-dominated jobs.
·Women are paid less in every occupational classification for which sufficient information is available, according to the data analysis in over 300 job classifications provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.
·In 1963, the year of the Equal Pay Act's passage, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average to the dollar received by men, while in 2005 women were paid 77 cents for every dollar received by men. In other words, for the last 42 years, the wage gap has only narrowed by less than half of a penny per year.
Harry Reid has already stated that he will brings this bill up again when he can get at least three more Republicans to be brave enough to vote for it. We can support the Senates efforts by keeping the pressure on!
From Jeff:
Deborah and Kaitlyn,
Your facts come straight from NOW and other feminist organization that benefit from promoting an adversarial relationship between men and women for selfish motives. Kaitlyn, each one of the fallacies that you speak of in your comments were addressed in my original piece. Click on the hyperlink , The Myth of Equal Pay, to see who equal pay statistic have either been misrepresented or entire elements removed to benefit the narrow, feminist view on this issue.
Also, you would be wise to read the entire progression of Ledbetter v. Goodyear before you follow others blindly in support of a false cause.
Ah, but Ledbetter DID prove her case, which is why she was awarded a settlement by a jury. Goodyear won because of a statute of limitations that was bogus, not because Ledbetter couldn't prove her case.
https://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/goodyear-needs-to-make-good-on-unfair-pay-treatment-towards-women-starting-with-lilly-ledbetter/headquarters
From Jeff to Velvet:
1- You are correct that she "won" in front of a jury, but jury decisions over the past decade have become more like a lottery than justice.
2- You link fails to mention three key points related to Ledbetter:
a. Ledbetter was retired and collecting a pension for 10 years prior to sueing
b. Ledbetter waited until after the death of her immediate supervisor (the person that could best speak to how the "merit pay" was based) to allege unequal pay.
c. Both the appeals court and the Supreme Court mention the filing period, but it was not the sole reason why Ledbetter lost. Text from the Supreme Court decision clear states that Ledbetter herself did not feel that the discrimination she was alleging was intentional, which is key:
"Ledbetter, as noted, makes no claim that intentionally discriminatory conduct occurred during the charging period or that discriminatory deci-sions that occurred prior to that period were not communi-cated to her."
Since S. 1843 was the based on the Ledbetter decision, and Ledbetter was not alleging intentionally malice, S. 1843 is an over reaction.
You write very well.
Post a Comment