Get PJ Media on your Apple

Senate GOPs Make Tactical Move in Allowing Fair Pay Language

Some form of the Paycheck Fairness Act has been around for 15 years, and it will likely linger on the Hill for much longer.

by
Bill Straub

Bio

March 27, 2013 - 12:01 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats took a small step last week toward assuring that women receive compensation equal to that of men performing the same or a similar job, but it appears the years-long effort is likely to go no further.

As part of the budget bill hammered out during an all-night session last week, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, inserted language declaring that her legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, will not add to the nation’s deficit should it pass later this year.

Mikulski called her amendment “the functional equivalent of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.” It was adopted by voice vote with no objection.

“Under the legislation I am proposing, no longer will women be on their own in fighting for equal pay for equal work,” Mikulski said. “In this country we say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead.’ We work hard every day, but we find that the rules are different for women than for men. Actually, the rules in many workplaces are rigged against us.”

The budget vote came as something of a surprise. Some form of the Paycheck Fairness Act has been around for 15 years. President Obama has strongly endorsed it, going so far as to request its passage in his State of the Union address. This year it has 43 co-sponsors – all Democrats.

Senate Republican filibusters in 2010 and 2012 killed the measure even though it carried majority support in both instances. It faces the same possible fate this year.

GOP acquiescence on the budget language doesn’t mean they’re prepared to embrace the legislation when it pops up in the future. Senate aides instead said permitting the non-binding language to pass was a tactical response – shielding members of the Republican conference from having to make a nettlesome vote.

Republican lawmakers are aware that their standing among women voters continues to erode in part because of the party’s stances on issues like abortion and availability of contraception. Leadership, aides said, saw no reason to cast a vote at this time on a proposal that doesn’t effectively advance the measure. If nothing else, they are now on record favoring equal pay for equal work – at least until Mikulski’s bill comes up for a vote.

It’s unlikely the Mikulski bill will vault the Senate’s 60-vote hurdle when, or if, it comes up for a vote without major change.

The Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been introduced in the House and the Senate, would, among other things, protect workers from sharing information about their compensation with other employees – a practice that now can result in dismissal. It requires employers to prove that any salary differences were based on qualifications, not gender, and allows plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases to seek punitive as well as compensatory damages.

The Society for Human Resource Management, generally composed of those who do the hiring, opposes the legislation and has produced talking points. The legislation, it said, “would outlaw the consideration of many legitimate pay factors, such as an employee’s level of education and training, professional experience and salary history.”

The bill’s requirements would also “make it extremely difficult for employers to use a ‘factors other than sex’ affirmative defense” for claims that are brought.

In the past, Republicans have focused opposition on a provision that fails to cap punitive damages in any salary discrimination cases.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The left continues the delusion that gender or race are the only
factors in employment and pay. The paycheck fairness act that
allowed salaries to be public would actually hurt employment prospects for women. Why risk being sued for pay disparity when
it's easier to hire men instead? Besides there are valid reasons
for differences in pay that cannot be determined from job title
or description alone. In general women can be less desirable to hire because they get pregnant; have primary care for children and home; work fewer hours a week; have shorter careers; and are less likely to be available for travel or put their careers ahead of their
families. The government needs to stop feeding the trial lawyers
at the expense of those it means to help. Would a woman's pay
be constrained by what a man is paid?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Tell me, does this legislation also require that men be paid the same as women for equal work, as well? Or is it OK for women to make more than men for the same work? Let me guess -- it doesn't work both ways. That would be too rational, coming from our elected lawmakers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How about "fair pay" for the private sector?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“Today, women are paid only 77 cents to every dollar made by men,”

if this was, in fact, true - and there is plenty of evidence to say it is not - please explain why I would ever hire a man. In this day and age, my wife says any woman being paid less has only herself to blame. Negotiate for what you are worth, just like men do.

This is nothing but feel-good legislation with no greater aim than political brownie points, mostly the continuation of the ridiculous 'war on wimminz' that Repubs are allegedly waging. It pretends that men and women are no different, with exactly the same goals and workplace aspirations.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Senate GOP capitulated to supremacist radical feminists when they reauthorized VAWA, despite VAWA's notorious documented problems, anti-constitutional processes, and discrimination against male victims of violence.

What gives you any indication they won't capitulate again?

If the GOP wants to keep pandering the "woman vote" they'd better hope Emily's List and NOW start donating money to them because men are leaving the plantation.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Can we please stop talking about the Republicans' stance on "availability of contraceptives"? As far as I know, no Republican is blocking the doorway of a CVS or Rite Aid to keep women from purchasing birth control pills with their own money.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is just a boondoggle for lawyers, who will make employers "prove" that any differential in pay between one worker and another is "justified." Employers should be free to pay whatever they and their employees agree to, and employees should be free to find new jobs if they believe, for whatever reason, their contributions are not being properly rewarded. Letting the courts decide these matters is going to be unfair to all and extremely costly.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This proposal is based on the idea that we can litigate our way to a perfect society -- or bankrupt business in the effort.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What is not discussed is that women also want to be able to come and go to have kids, take off when they're kids are sick and miss far more work than their male counter parts. Why should a woman make an equal salary for an unequal effort. Who are they? Obama?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"A research paper released in October 2012 by the American Association of University Women, “Graduating to a Pay Gap,” determined that women receive 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts in their first year after college."

The fact that people are still touting this nonsense is enough to make me think that the only cure is SMOD.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
just you all wait until businesses find out they can hire women and minorities to do the exact same work for less $$$. won't need affirmative action laws forcing descrimination then, huh? haven't we learned yet that gov. handouts never stop, once started?

equality of outcomes is not the same thing as true equality. capitalism has a way, over time, of leveling the playing field. do sane people really believe folks hire people in their business, where they desperately need to make $$, bottom line, because they are male and males just stick together like that? yeah, right. that's it. (picture me laughing)



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All