McCain: More education, less equality

While the Senate was deciding on a bill to ensure equal pay for women, Republican presidential nominee John McCain stayed on the campaign trail. While he wasn’t able to vote, he asserted his thoughts on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” McCain told reporters yesterday. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

He also said that women should simply have more training and education. You know those women with the college education and 5 years of work? Well, they need more training in order to be paid the same as a dude with the same credentials, apparently.
The “more education” argument probably does not apply in the case for the act’s inspiration, Lilly Ledbetter, who spent 19 years at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

For a long time, Ledbetter didn’t know she was earning considerably less than men in the same position. At some point one of her co-workers showed her that she was making considerably less money than the guy in the lowest supervising position (this is why you make friends with the people in accounting). She took her employer to court. A jury agreed she was paid unfairly, awarding her nearly a quarter of a million dollars in back pay, and more than $3 million in punitive damages; however, a judge cut that down to $300,000 because of a 1991 law that limits a company’s liability for damages. Goodyear appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against Ledbetter, redacting all the cash settlements. The court told her that she should have filed a complaint of pay discrimination within 180 days of her first unfair paycheck, even though she had no prior knowledge of the disparity.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed into law at a time when women were just blatantly told that they shouldn’t go for a raise because her hubby was earning all the “real” money, anyway. In 2007, the statistic was still that women, on the average, made only 77 cents for every dollar that a man made, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. (This isn’t to say that every woman in the country is paid by that rate; that stat is founded on the laws of averages). However, institutional discrimination may not be only the driving force in the disparate pay for women.

Granted, there is the argument that women are not as comfortable with negotiating for higher salaries, or not believing that the deserve better pay; I think that’s partially b.s. but I can see how it’s also true. According to Forbes Magazine, by not negotiating our salaries, women sacrifice more than $500,000 by the time they retire. That’s a whole lot of money; that could buy a sweet condo in the nice part of town (well, for some of you. In NYC, SF, or LA, that might get you an OK crack den).

Here is what assistant prof. of public policy at Harvard’s JFK School of Government, Hannah Riley Bowles, had to say about it all:

People have different expectations and reinforce different types of behavior by men and women. For instance, women tend to be more modest in their self-presentation style, but modesty undermines perceived competence. If a man and a woman are self-promoting, both are perceived as equally competent, but the woman is seen as less socially astute and so is less likely to be hired.

There’s also the issue of Pink Collar jobs. As blue collar jobs are labor-driven, and white collar jobs denote positions where you sit at a desk all day, pink collar jobs are those that are typically held by women. Up until about 40-30 years ago, it was tough for women to get a meaningful, substantially-paying job other than one of the epitome of pink collar jobs—secretary. Others pink collar jobs include teaching/childcare, and nursing.

In a way, the notion of the pink collar job has evolved: twice as many women are now CEOs of Fortunte 500 companies than five years ago… however, 70 percent of them work in pink-related fields: food service, cosmetics, fashion, etc.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with having a pink collar job. It’s honest, admirable, necessary work. The question that this disparity poses, however, is why do we value women’s work less than work traditionally held by men or by a mix of men and women. Being a teacher was once a coveted, honorable position. Now, teachers make pennies compared to the valuable foundation that they instill in our youth.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act is being proposed to ensure that women who put in the time, and are good workers aren’t given the short end of the stick. Not that they should make more than men. Not that they should have an advantage if they sue their employer. Just so that if a male senior account exec at Awesome Co. is making $80K a year, the female senior account exec should be making the same, as long as she’s doing as good of a job.

(Getty Images)

Leave a comment