Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Wage Gap for Women

By Debra Katz and Justine F. Andronici, Ms. Magazine. Posted November 27, 2006.


It's time to abolish the "she-didn't-ask" defense for wage discrimination.
Advertisement

Imagine you're a woman interviewing for a job you really want. You get a call the next day with an offer, and immediately accept it. Later, though, you discover that a male counterpart earns significantly more than you. When pressed for an explanation, your boss tells you that the man demanded more when he negotiated his starting pay.

If you sue for wage discrimination under this scenario, your chances of success would, unfortunately, be slim. Current rulings in employment law have permitted employers to hide behind the "she-didn't-ask-for-more" and other so-called market-based excuses as legitimate reasons for paying women less than men for the same job or one of equivalent value.

Here's how the system has been working: Under the crucial federal antidiscrimination law -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a woman must prove that an employer was motivated by intent to discriminate when deciding to pay her less than a male counterpart. Therefore, employers who merely take advantage of the fact that a woman is willing to work for less won't be held liable for pay discrimination.

In a slightly different vein, under the federal Equal Pay Act -- which requires only that an employee prove that an employer paid men and women differently even though they performed the same job, not an intent to discriminate -- the law lets employers escape liability if they can show that the pay differentials are caused by a "factor other than sex." To avoid legal liability, employers trot out market-based excuses: The woman asked for less money, did not seek or negotiate strongly for a raise, or came to the job from a position that paid less. These excuses have, for example, shielded universities that paid female coaches considerably less than male coaches, or compensated female faculty members in male-dominated disciplines less than their male colleagues.

The current legal standard fails to account for the insidious results of gender differences in salary negotiation. A study of master's-degree candidates at Carnegie Mellon University by economist Linda Babcock found that only 7 percent of first-job-seeking women negotiated their salary, as opposed to 57 percent of men. There was no small consequence to this failure to negotiate. In their book Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (Princeton University Press, 2003), Babcock and co-author Sara Laschever found that candidates who negotiated increased their starting salaries by 7.4 percent (about $4,000), and that the starting salaries of males averaged 7.6 percent higher than the females'.

Babcock calculated that failing to negotiate for a first salary can lead to an overall loss of over $560,000 by age 60. That comprises a good chunk of the estimated overall wage gap between men and women -- further ex- acerbated by such other forms of gender discrimination as mommy tracking and sexual harassment -- which Brandeis University Women's Studies Research Center resident scholar Evelyn Murphy projects (using U.S. Census figures) costs women between $700,000 and $2 million over the course of a career.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: wage gap, wage discrimination, negotiate

Debra Katz is a partner with Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP, in Washington, D.C., a civil rights law firm specializing in employment discrimination and sexual- harassment litigation. Justine F. Andronici is an associate with the firm, and has served as a women's-rights law and policy consultant to national feminist organizations.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
justice
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 27, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it justice to pay a similarly qualified woman the same pay as a similarly qualified man? Of course it is. Should women get the same quality of justice as men? Of course they should. So bring justice to America so we can all feel proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: justice Posted by: Burton
Great article
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 27, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article has substance and directly relates to ALL womens' lives, not just young women as some of the previous Alternate articles have. Good for you editors - this is what I want. Leave the shallow stuff for Cosmo...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Past Due
Posted by: greentime on Nov 27, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it time? It is past time!
Trust these words, the bill has come due. It is past due.

For anyone to think the l-o-n-g gender wage war hasn't had casualties... think again. It has hurt children, it has of course, hurt women. Women being underpaid in the workplace will have and is having multi-generational effects.

More than that, as women retire with lower retirement wages it will hurt us all again as it will in fact hurt the overall economy. Tell me, what economist won't see this if they actually look?

Women, who bore the brunt of raising children in single parent families will be hit yet again. Women, who usually are the ones to care for aging parents will be hit yet again! Women, who have less access to health care will be hit yet again! Women, who have just as many expenses as men will be hit yet again in their ability to have an economically secure retirement.

This is the result of the deliberate gender war in the workplace. This is the result of the lack of equality. This is the result of the lies and broken promises perpetrated on us (yet again) by greedy employers and greedy stockholders. Not sure? BE SURE!

This is not the "me" generation, it is the HE generation. Is it still a man's world? Yes, and it looks it.

Women will need to work longer - again for less wages - just to have health insurance or money to live.

Congratulations all you who perpetrated this crime on your mothers and sisters, you won. Now, tell us, what did you do with all that extra money you stole from us?

And please, spare us your sob stories, we watched this all happen. It happened to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Past Due Posted by: laoma
» RE: Past Due Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Past Due Posted by: laoma
» RE: Past Due Posted by: Shehova
» RE: Past Due Posted by: MAD
» RE: Past Due Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Past Due Posted by: laoma
» yep it's the guilt Posted by: deborama
» RE: yep it's the guilt Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Past Due Posted by: Burton
» Women are thieves Posted by: Burton
» This is so true Posted by: Burton
In the meantime...
Posted by: LeslieGem on Nov 27, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know this goes on, and I completely agree that the laws need to be interpreted and enforced as suggested in the article. But in the meantime, I'm not waiting around for the Establishment to save me.

I've seen wage discrimination every where I've worked. But there is something we all can do to fight wage discrimination -- talk about our wages with our coworkers.

Now, I know, we've all been raised to think this is in poor taste...this is a private matter, etc. etc. etc. Folks, that's just what the Boss wants you to think. Because talk about wages amongst coworkers is considered rude, you never know what anyone else is making. Most people assume that the Company is fair and everyone makes about the same wage. THIS IS HOW THEY KEEP WAGES DOWN!!

Folks, get out there and blow the lid off the wage secret, and we'll get equal pay faster than these courts are going to step in and do the right thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Wage Gap Myth Posted by: Sojourner
» So you're saying... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Lots of words to say... Posted by: MatthewSavage
A problem that is best left for legislation to "fix"? Or education?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 27, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The economist also has shown that negotiating can sometimes hurt a female job candidate.

Which economist? Or the periodical?

But that's beside the point. People--male and female--need to have a better understanding of what they need to earn, what they are worth, and how much their employer is willingly to move. The bottom line is that if you don't know what you're worth, be prepared to "settle" for what you're offered, which will probably be less than someone who does a lot of homework and is willing to push and/or hold a little to get what they believe they should get out of a salary discussion. That's a gender-neutral rule of thumb.

At any rate, it is dangerous for our Republic (not to mention decidedly anti-choice) for large swaths of our people to get into the habit of looking to Big Brother to determine their worth.

Education!

Educated negotiation!

Not legislation! Not until it is necessary.

As a final note, why doesn't this article apply equally to Bob and Bill, when Bob goes bragging around the office/repair bay/assembly line about his shiny new raise? That's one reason why many companies make their folks sign salary non-disclosure agreements--so that they don't have to put up with petty "but you paid Bob 2% more than me" B.S. from Bill. If you're a large company, you set an example by canning Bob for violating his non-disclosure agreement, and then Bill is happily making 100% than Bob.

Unless Bill gets in the habit of being a chronic whiner...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

keep up that divisive gender based Identity politics!
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature on Nov 27, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
keep the men and women at each others' throats! THAT'S the way the overclass divides and rules!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My feeling my fellows... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Children are an excuse and an accessory
Posted by: sashi on Nov 27, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a twenty-something female working in corporate, who has chosen not to have children myself, I am often burdened at work by "extra" things to do because my co-workers have to go home and take care of their children. I am compensated by overtime, however, but I do not have the "excuse" of children, I am expected to do extra work at the peril of not being promoted in the future. The women I work with who have children also do less work when they are in the office. They have phone calls from children, emails regarding their children, etc.
Women who chose to have children should not be given the same raises etc. that I am given for twice as much work especially when they give the reason for asking for the raise as " I have children"!
I am so sick of people considering their CHOICE to have children as a right for them to get out of obligations or ask for more resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: well excuse me for living Posted by: channing
» Thank you Posted by: LtL
» Not just women Posted by: LtL
» sashi good points Posted by: Burton
Pay Equity Is Good For All
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 27, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay equity has a whole bunch of effects and hits both men and women in the wallet. Why any man would oppose it is beyond me.

First, jobs that are mostly held by women are paid at a rate lower than others with comparable education requirements and job skills. That's true if you are a man or a woman. As someone who has done X-Ray/CT/MRI for about 20 years, I assure you that is true for Respiratory Therapists, Radiologic Technologists, Registered Nurses, LPN/LVNs, Registered Dieticians, OTs & OTAs, PT & PTAs and others. All these jobs are heavily populated with women currently and traditionally. I'm also sure it has something to do with the low pay school teachers get. Professional training and education, serious responsibility for a very low relative wage.

Next, most men have a mother, sister, significant other or spouse in the workforce. Are you really O.K. with their getting ripped off every hour of every day of their working lives because of their sex? How can anyone justify it in their minds?

Finally, when women are underpaid, they suffer, their families suffer and children suffer. Many times taxpayers also suffer as government assistance is then available due to the fact that these people are underpaid for their labor.

Pay should be determined by educational requirements, skill-sets, experience and market scarcity. Nothing else. Anything else is unjust and immoral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Something else. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Follow the money
Posted by: graylegend on Nov 27, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything you need to know about this article is summed up in the last paragraph:

"Debra Katz is a partner with Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP, in Washington, D.C., a civil rights law firm specializing in employment discrimination and sexual- harassment litigation. Justine F. Andronici is an associate with the firm, and has served as a women's-rights law and policy consultant to national feminist organizations."

The authors regret to inform you that redressing this grievous wrong will require much contingency-fee-based litigation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Follow the money Posted by: aerdrie
» RE: Follow the money Posted by: Burton
Easy to say
Posted by: MatthewSavage on Nov 27, 2006 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you're a white male.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah but ... Posted by: SDres11
» RE: Yeah but ... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Yeah but ... Posted by: Burton
Flip Side
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 27, 2006 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never fought for a better salary during a job interview. Armed with the knowledge that employers expect it from men, what I'd like to know is: Are employers impressed by men who argue for better pay? Might doing so actually work in my favor, make me seem more worthy of hiring? Because God knows I need help with my job interviewing skill set.

Anyone have an answer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flip Side Posted by: ezilla
» Go For It! Posted by: edith
» RE: Flip Side Posted by: meeper
» RE: Flip Side Posted by: Burton
brilliant!
Posted by: ezilla on Nov 27, 2006 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe I never noticed it before.

Articles on Alternet related to womens issues (although, foolishly I view this as something that relates to all people, not just women) are exactly the reason why a slim majority of voters in South Dakota voted Republican instead of Dem. It's all so clear to me now!

I suppose articles like this are also responsible for depleting the number of Alaskan Salmon and probably caused MI to lose to OSU last week.

Seriously - if we don't stop reading articles like this and shutting the fuck up (insert multiple exclamation marks here), someday there might be a hole in the ozone layer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's The Difference Between "Shutting Up" and "Shutting The Fuck Up"?
Posted by: Douglas on Nov 27, 2006 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey SDres11, Does your family know that you are going on Alternet (and probably elsewhere online) and promiscuously using the "F" word? Do the women in your life consider you a real woman hating misogynist because you consider any discussion of women's issues to be "bullshit"? I guess either got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or perhaps you didn't eat enough for breakfast. If you get tired of eating "Hemp Nuts" every morning why not switch to "Hemp Nut Flakes"? The breakfast cereals you inspired!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't want kids for the same selfish reasons that others have kids
Posted by: LtL on Nov 27, 2006 7:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never said do not have kids. I am just saying your boss pays you to work not be a mommy. If you are not at work because of your kids do not expect to be paid as much as someone that is. If you choose kids over being a CEO fine, its your life live it how you want. But don't think you are owed any extra consideration because you choose to breed.

Yes I am far to self involved to be a daddy. In fact I flat out dislike kids. With 6.5 billion apes on this planet I don't feel that my brood are needed. Unless you adopt kids that otherwise would not have a decent home, you are as selfish as me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another possibility: men are simply better at negotiating.
Posted by: Krotos on Nov 28, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't mean this to be sexist, but it should be kept in mind that negotiating a salary is not simply a matter of stating what you feel you deserve. There's always a complicated little dance that goes on in which both employer and employee gradually come to a compromise, all the while making sure not to offend or alienate each other. Employees, either male or female, who come off as having a huge sense of entitlement will be perceived as obnoxious, and therefore probably won't get what they want. Similarly, both men and women who are too passive will probably wind up getting less than they could. And, in general, getting overly emotional during negotiations is the kiss of death. Maintaining objectivity is absolutely essential to success.

Men may be better at this kind of thing because, as a group, they have a lot more experience with it, they're socialized into such interactions beginning in childhood, etc. That doesn't mean they're naturally better -- I certainly know men who are terrible at negotiating for one or more of the reasons above, and I know women who are very good at it. But the solution, IMO, is to educate women on how to effectively negotiate their salaries, not to mandate pay equity from above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: hope you don't need help from the generation below
Posted by: sashi on Nov 28, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that was a really intense answer to what i posted. and got pretty personal. you pretty much just killed your own argument by calling names. so, thank you.

the point i was trying to get across was that i don't think anyone (man or woman) should be given more flexibility than the rest of us just because they have children. children are a huge responsibility that i don't take lightly.

i also honestly think that it is selfish for americans in particular to have their own children. there are plenty of children within the US and outside of the US already that would love to have our standard of living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equality is never enough
Posted by: Burton on Nov 29, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article's premise is interesting: women have had equality guaranteed by law since 1964. Yet, the article tells us, women are too inept to compete with men in the real world. Once again, women are victims. And once again, women need the feminists' big boyfriend--the government--to fight their battles for them.

If, as the article assumes, women are incapable of learning the art of negotiations, does this mean that there are inherent differences in the sexes? That women can not compete in the real world? And that women, simply because they are women, ought to be given special priveleges that no man would ever get in competing for jobs/salaries?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Own a vagina, get a job Posted by: Burton
Now to get serious
Posted by: Burton on Nov 29, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oddly enough, I work for a couple of women. (Mainly as a private contractor.) They also have women working for them. Do you think they pay men more than women? What of all the female owned businesses. Are you saying that they will pay a woman less?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's think about the accusation for a sec...
Posted by: H_H on Nov 29, 2006 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A company will happily pay a man $50,000 to do a job that's only worth $30,000 when a woman does it, EVEN THOUGH the woman might be better at it? The company will knowingly break existing antidiscriminations laws, just to spite women, because they enjoy overpaying men? Let me go-off and barf for a sec...

Okay, I'm back.

With such a moronic pay-system, how can such a company stay in business for more than 5 minutes?

By reading this article, you'd think people start businesses not to make money or be successful- but simply to form little boy's clubs and run low-performing unsuccessful businesses just to spite women- all the while breaking well-known antidiscrimination laws by choosing unsuitable men over suitable women who would help the businesses succeed.

Once again, feminists are so determined to make charges of discrimination that they demonstrate how little clue they have as to how businesses work. Women's choices are never an issue. Women have no free will, no adult autonomy. Some evil force (the penisocracy) makes them do everything. Like puppets.

Hey, I've got an idea: Let's start a company employing only women, pay them 75% of what men earn, and we could out-cheap all the competition? Gee, I wonder why anyone hasn't tried that by now? Maybe because on average, women tend to make lifestyle choices that cause them to take career-tracks that result in them being less productive over a lifetime and earning lower pay?

Oh right. Right. Whenever a woman makes a bad choice, it's always some man's fault. Riiiiiight. Men made her do it. I forgot how women don't have adult autonomy if they fail to do something. If the same woman gets a professional award, it's 100% due to her adult autonomy and men DIDN'T make her do it. Funny how that always seems to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An absolute travesty
Posted by: chomsky on Nov 29, 2006 4:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering that women can get a raise by sucking my cock, I am outraged. No man would get a raise for that. Unless he was very good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An absolute travesty Posted by: Burton
thought provoking gender articles
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Dec 2, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
please keep up the thought-provoking gender articles Alternet. Get some really interesting responses.

I'ld like to see an article about how men have benefitted from feminism, being able to let go of restrictive, oppressive gender roles and embrace the best of being human.

As a Canadian, I see men so much more involved with their kids; men taking parental leave; lots of co-parenting arrangments, with children spending equal amounts of time with mum and dad (and thriving); grand-dads looking after their grandchildren.

When I was a girl it was very unusual to see men in the grocery store or fathers by themselves with babies. Even the language reflected the mental models of that time: fathers would occasionally "babysit" . . . their own children . . .

not that there isn't a long way to go; I think it will take generations. (And I really wonder what will be long-term sociological effects of women dominating advanced education . . . ) But women, children an men have made significant progress from my grandmothers' time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if women are equal to men why are they still cracking the same boring jokes about us??
Posted by: fliss on Feb 26, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
iv been doing a study of feminism and womens rights and i happened to chance upon this site. i must say that with all the discrimination still going on at all women in general how the hell are we supposed to find an equal paying job without risking the interview going horribly wrong as we may seem to be cocky women who are demanding more money from the off. we've all heard the jokes about women being only good for housework and sex and there is nothing we can do against these crude remarks because that was how the small minded sexist men of the 1900's used to think. did you know that women are still fighting for the right to vote in some parts? thats how discriminating and sexist men can be. we are hardly too inept to fight our own battles and get somewhere in the world but explain to me how we are supposed to do this as easily as men do when its men who are still insisting on dragging us back down. if you can explain why men in general are still demanding on being "the big cocky men" who can do whatever they like and say that women can too but don't put that theory into practise and if you can explain why crude, ridiculously boring and frankly unimaginative jokes are still being cracked about the female gendre then please put me and all other women with the same concern out of the confusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]