Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Will Women Ever Get Paid What They Deserve?

By Martha Burk, TomPaine.com. Posted April 12, 2007.


Opponents of fair pay predict that capitalism will collapse if women's earnings ever reach those of their male counterparts. It's a Big Lie.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Martha Burk

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

We're coming up on Equal Pay Day again. That's the day in April every year -- this year the 24th -- when women's earnings finally catch up with what men made by Dec. 31 of the previous year. Women's groups, led by the National Committee on Pay Equity, will rally on Capitol Hill to call attention to the issue.

The pay gap is still a stubborn problem, with women who work full time year-round making 76 cents to a man's dollar. Though it consistently polls No. 1 with female voters in election years, politicians don't seem motivated to do much about it.

Some people say pay disparities between women and men are an illusion -- women just like to choose jobs that pay less because they're not as risky or have shorter hours. But the data don't back up these claims. Even when researchers take into account such factors as part-time work or time out of the work force to care for kids, the numbers show that men make more. Another problem that just won't go away is that so-called "men's jobs," like plumbing, pay more than "women's jobs," like nursing. That tells us something about what we value as a society, and it's not women's work.

The Fair Pay Act, a bill that would help narrow the gap, has grown old bouncing around Capitol Hill since the early 1990s, never receiving as much as a hearing. If the FPA ever passed, it would require employers to rate their jobs on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, and equalize pay for comparable jobs even if the job titles and duties are different. Employers naturally resist this, citing loss of "competitive advantage," but women's advocates suspect the real reason is that the numbers would be too damning. Women might even get big ideas like suing their employers for sex discrimination in pay and promotion, as female workers at Wal-Mart have done in the largest class-action suit in history.

A new book released this month from The Feminist Press -- "Taking On the Big Boys" by Ellen Bravo, longtime CEO of 9 to 5, an advocacy organization for working women -- attacks the pay equity issue head on. Bravo enlightens the reader in a no-nonsense way on deep-seated workplace attitudes and practices that hinder women's progress on the pay front. More importantly, she shows us how public policy is influenced through a variety of tactics used by opponents. One such tactic is catastrophizing, meaning predicting the downfall of capitalism as we know it if women catch up with men in earnings. Poster boy for this tactic is Chief Justice John Roberts, who dismissed the concept in the FPA as a "pernicious" redistribution of wealth, saying, "Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'" Pretty scary stuff for the women of Wal-Mart, should their case, now on appeal, reach the Supremes.

"Taking On the Big Boys" shows us how continued monitoring and enforcement will be necessary, even for companies that want to do better. The FPA also contains a provision that would require companies to report earnings by race and gender in each job category -- not anybody's salary on a bulletin board, but just overall statistics, so women could see how they were faring compared to the guys in the company overall.

While there's no law now that says companies have to disclose how they pay and promote their workers, there's no law that says they can't. Wal-Mart agreed last year under stockholder pressure to post its EEO-1 form online, showing broad job categories by race and gender (the form does not include pay data). Some disclosure is better than none, but all companies should go a step further and release pay data for women and men by job category, as Ben & Jerry's has done for years. If pay scales are equitable, there should be nothing to hide. Women could see right up front if the company is fair. It would eliminate the need for lawsuits and create tremendous employee loyalty and customer good will. That ought to be worth 24 extra cents in the pay envelope.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, economy, family policies

Martha Burk is the money editor for Ms. Magazine and author of "Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in the Workplace and What Can Be Done About It."

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


Advertisement
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:
9to5 at least notices...
Posted by: wagadog on Apr 12, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the months between the day the Family and Medical Leave act was voted into law, and the day that it became enforceable, 9to5 recorded a distinct peak in complaints brought against employers for pregnancy discrimination. Basically, once the fight was over, companies were firing pregnant women left and right before they'd be required by law to give them 12 weeks unpaid leave, and the same position back at the end. If you read the record of debate of the 103rd Congress which ultimately passed the FMLA, you'll notice that the "gays in the military" debate was deliberately added to the FMLA bill by people (I use the word loosely to describe republicans) who wanted to sink the FMLA so the debate could be sidetracked into an inconclusive and divisive battle over an unrelated issue. The organizational newsletters/magazines of leading HR organizations in this country, the two articles dealing with the FMLA were focussed entirely on how to game the new FMLA law to get rid of those pesky pregnant females without actually getting called on it -- the strategies included micromanagement, warning letters, layoffs, the like -- basically in retaliation for giving them the amount of notice required by the DOL in order to be covered by the FMLA. In short, they would have been better off doing what my mom always did -- claim she was "just gaining weight" and then take 8-10 days of accumulated sick and "vacation" leave to give birth, and then right back to work. -- hint: this is what working class people, married or single, have to do JUST TO SURVIVE, and all these heartless bastard HR people do with their time is to try to figure out excuses to fire pregnant women who are overworked and underpaid in the first place -- So the shareholders can buy another yacht. That's the meaning of prosperity in this country, isn't it?

Oh, and Gee, I wonder why there is so much child poverty in this country.

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

Poor babies.
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 12, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Another problem that just won't go away is that so-called "men's jobs," like plumbing, pay more than "women's jobs," like nursing. That tells us something about what we value as a society, and it's not women's work."

Men's jobs pay more because they tend to be unpleasant and dangerous. 90+% of workplace deaths are male, but you don't hear a lot about that. This tells us what we don't value as a society -- men, the disposable sex. We just expect the coal to get mined.

Women consistently devalue "women's work" to make it unattractive to men, because if men didn't do those yucky things women would have to cowboy up and `em. Men's jobs pay more simply because there are fewer people who want to risk dying in order to get a paycheck.

If women really were payed less than men anyone could clean up big by starting a company, hiring only women, saving zillions on employment costs and thereby being the low-cost producer and undercutting all the competition. But no one's doing that because the underlying premises are simply wrong.

The power of money is not in its earning but in its spending, and women account for 80+% of the discretionary spending in the country. There's a huge transfer of wealth from men to women which is not accounted for in the bogus and misleading 'victim stat' about women making only X cents on the blah, blah, blah. Women and feminists will never be taken seriously until they stop repeating this nonsense.

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

» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: writeval
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: H_H
» eeeevil men Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: ktm
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: ktm
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: Sledge28
» "Cowboy Up" Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: Tatarize
» RE: Poor babies. Posted by: Kelly
education...
Posted by: ktm on Apr 12, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i get general complaints about this article, but they do not answer one extremely valid point the author brings up. if there really was not a gender pay gap why would companies be trying to hide what everyone earns?

the teacher pay scale for all districts is a required pubic record. i know exactly what my salary will be with 5 years of experience, i know what it will be when i get a master's degree, and i know what it would be if i became an administrator. i can even tell what my collegues and boss make if i know thier years of service and level of schooling. what's more, the parents of my children can look up my salary as well if they wanted to. none of this information is secret, and it has the added benefit of ensuring that i get paid fairly according to my years of service and schooling. also, by having to provide this information by law, i have the option of applying in a different school district if i see that their salary and benefits are better. it keeps pay competitive, and ensures that the government is holding up their end of the bargin to their employees.

business should not be about fleecing the most money out of your workers. it should be about treating them fairly for the work they have done. i see NO reason that pay scales (in some form or another, of course taking into consideration the various structural differences between companies) should not be public knowledge.

if there truly is no inequality, why refuse to disclose it? competition makes everyone better, and if companies fear that they have more to worry about than hiding pay scales from their employees.

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

» RE: education... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: education... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: education... Posted by: H_H
» From the American Heritage Dictionary Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: education... Posted by: ktm
» RE: education... Posted by: astudent
» RE: education... Posted by: ktm
Try being a black female construction electrician.
Posted by: mobile68 on Apr 12, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really want to see some hate against women, go on a construction site. Or in any other male-dominated field such as the railroad, where women are the in the minority. The hate increases when the skin of the female gets darker.

The sad part is that nobody addressed how what Imus said is a reflection of why women and people of color in this so called x-tian-democratic-freeist-society-in-the-world called the u.s.a. are still being discriminated against in the work place by mainly white men, since women and people of color were finally ALLOWED to work jobs that are not low-paying and female dominated only 30+ years ago. Women cannot or will not ban together to put a stop of this kind of behavior in the work place because of the fear of losing their only source of legit income. It seems to me that the more women and people of color advance in white-male dominated careers, the white male got to ratchet up the hate.

Someone please explain to me why is it mostly white men who:
-Is being paid $200+ million to do a half ass job of running the largest companies in
america?
-Are the owners of major league football, baseball, and basketball teams?
-Are the commissioners of the major field of sports?
-Are the majority that heads colleges, universities and hospitals?
-Dominates the police and firefighter forces?
-Runs all the the labor unions?

Why is there only a hand full of women and only one black senator in the u.s. senate 200 years later?
What is the big deal about if a woman, or a woman/man of color becomes the leader of a country that supposedly prides itself on being a melting pot?

If you wonder why discrimnation against women and people of color are accepted in this society go read the bible and listen to the religious right. I think if god was a woman, the world wouldn't be 1/2 a screwd up.

Being an african-american woman in this country, if I was to be a racist, my racism would not affect a white person from getting a well paying job, an apartment, a bank loan, being accepted by a university, getting beat up by the police, etc. unlike the documented racism that have been perpetuated by mostly white men against women and people of color for centuries that affects them economically on a continuous basis.

So whatever the rappers are saying about women, it has not affected me earning a living yet. It's like-minded men such as Imus, Bill Bennett, Limbaough, Howard Stern, etc. that spew racist and misogynistic comments that influence the white men that run a lot of these companies that affects me making a livable wage.

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

» YOU ASK WHY..............DUH Posted by: gellero
» Lots of smoke and mirrors indeed. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Crypto Intellectual BS Posted by: gellero
» RE: Crypto Intellectual BS Posted by: Thelma
» RE: Crypto Intellectual BS Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Answers Posted by: ateo
» RE: Answers Posted by: mobile68
Labor intensivity, workplace safety, etc.
Posted by: davelwhite on Apr 12, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike the previous poster, I support pay equality. I think one thing that needs to play a role in equalizing pay among similar-skilled-but-different jobs is an acknowledgement that some jobs-- traditionally assigned in a sexist manner to women-- are low-paying partly because they are very labor-intensive and so highly sensitive to price.

Let me compare nursing to mid-level computer technician (I'm a computer technician)-- I think that if the technician is experienced enough s/he might be "equal" in skills and training to a RN. Often the technician will get paid more, even though nursing is more "essential" to society. One reason will be price-sensitivity: the average older, sick person needs a lot more hours of nursing in a year than the average computer user needs hours of computer tech support. Plumbing is similar -- a plumber makes a lot, but nursing home bills create a lot more sticker shock for the customer than plumbing bills because the plumber works far fewer hours for each customer.

The extreme case in "women's work" is childcare: if childcare workers were paid decently but childcare continued to be un-subsidized for middle-class parents, few parents could afford the care. Sexism and gender-role training is the reason women have ended up in these jobs, to be sure; but the reason so many of these labor-intensive jobs have been done in the unpaid "gift economy" for thousands of years after other jobs moved into the money economy, is partly because they would be so expensive if paid. The money economy cannot allocate resources well in all cases, and one of the cases it seems to do very badly at is valuing labor-intensive care work.

A number of solutions present themselves; one is subsidies so that the cost of decent pay is spread more evenly (e.g. universal health care for nursing; some subsidized childcare). But tax money has to come from someplace too, so we may have to recognize that the "gift economy" still has a part to play, and shorten the workweek so that both men and women can perform the labor of care (similarly to how a hetero couple in the '50's only worked 40 hours between two adults, but the new version should be gender-neutral and acknowledge labor of care done by "single" people). Of course, this would have to be combined with strong cultural pressure for this work to be shared equally among men and women, a tall order-- but I do think that a culture of equality could emerge eventually.

As for the previous poster's comment about workplace safety, I think that danger should obviously count into how much a person of either sex is paid, but I think many of the most unequal jobs are not in this category. Management positions, where sexism is still a problem, are an obvious example. Another point is that some of the danger in the dangerous jobs comes from the very machismo that develops out of a sexist approach to the jobs: I've worked residential construction and had fellow (male) workers go out of their way to prove how "tough" they are by ignoring safety rules. I still have 10 fingers but I can't say the same for all of them. Obviously, some jobs are intrinsically dangerous (heavy construction on skyscrapers?) but I do think that machismo leads both to poor safety on individual jobs and to political environments where people look the other way on workplace safety. Also, if you take into account all types of risk, some women's jobs are quite scary-- I wouldn't want to be a nurse (or for that matter a doctor or airline pilot) because of the stress of knowing that if I make a mistake someone might be seriously injured or die. When I make a mistake, all that happens is somebody's data gets erased and we restore from backup.

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

DUH ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 12, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reasons for pay disparity are right here in your column. Every time someone states a reason why we should have equal pay someone else chimes in to "explain" why it is that we don't. And women buy into it. They seem to understand. The excuses have been piling up for thirty years . For such a flawed system it certainly works well. Thank,s ANNA

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

unite for better jobs
Posted by: boxspring on Apr 12, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s understandable, MartianBachelor, to be angry at the dangerous working conditions that men have to face all over the country (and the world). Maybe there are macho cultural reasons for it, as davelwhite agued, but corporations certainly fight health and safety regulation to save money. We all should be fighting for regulatory reform and a dismantling of the legal obstacles to worker union organizing. (See http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/)

At the same time, as mobile68 points out, there are overwhelming social forces – besides the fear of injury or death – that keep many women out of the coal mines, off of the fishing boats and down from the scaffolding. First, those workplaces can be highly uncomfortable (at a minimum), degrading, or actually really dangerous places for women. (See also “North Country” http://northcountrymovie.warnerbros.com/). Also, women still bear the responsibility in most (though obviously not all) families for the daily physical tasks of taking care of children, ailing or old parents, laundry, and meals, not to mention doing the emotional work of maintaining social ties to the larger community and families. Many women would gladly take up more dangerous or uncomfortable jobs in exchange for double or triple the salary. But only if they felt they’d get a modicum of respect at work, and that someone else was sharing the responsibilities for all the other things that need to get done to keep families afloat.

And physical danger is bad, but I imagine many would prefer it to changing strangers’ bedpans, cleaning up other peoples’ children’s throw up, or scrubbing toilets for poverty wages.

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

» Blaming the victim Posted by: MartianBachelor
Just force a man to pay child support to make up for that 24%
Posted by: White middleclass male on Apr 12, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never see women fighting for equality when it does not suit them.

If you can abort a fetus but I can get stuck making 216 monthly payment, I do not care about your gender issue.

I have read comment on this page that boil down to "tough luck" when a man asks why he does not have equal protection from parenthood. When I can "abort" my responsibility to a fetus the same way woman can I'll care about pay inequality but not until then.

Like I told an ex-girlfriend “How can you say you are my equal when you never pick up a check?”

FYI I do not have child support payments or a kid.

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

» Here's another tip for you... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» That's just not right! Posted by: lulunw
» You're not adding to the discussion. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» No one has answered why... Posted by: White middleclass male
Capitalism SHOULD collapse!
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 12, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism IS the problem! Not only is it a male based system...capitalism LEADS to social unequality and environmental destruction.

Aside from unequal 'job' pay -(which defines a person in a capitalistic society) to pay a woman for her work, bearing and raising children, housekeeping, providing sex, talking care of the family...no working man could afford to pay for all that.

When will women quit trying to fit into a male system? We need to CHANGE the system!

Profit based systems are the problem. We need environmental and people based systems.

EAT THE RICH.

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

» RE: Capitalism SHOULD collapse! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» EAT THE RICH! Posted by: tikit
» RE: AT THE RICH! Posted by: bballboy
WorkingWoman
Posted by: WorkingWoman on Apr 12, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are entitled to the same pay.
When I shop I don't get a discount because I'm a woman.
When I pay my utilities, they don't charge me less because
I'm a woman.
When I rent or buy property, I am not charged less because
I'm a woman.
Same work, same pay.

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

» RE: WorkingWoman Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» Beautiful Posted by: Beck
» got any numbers? Posted by: Beck
Feminist utopia?
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 12, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beijing - China is to create the world's first "Woman Town" where women make all the decisions and disobedient men face punishments.

Chongqing is to convert its Shuangqiao district into Woman Town, covering 2.3 square kilometres, reports Chongqing Morning News.

The slogan: "A woman never makes a mistake. A man can never reject a woman's request" will be carved into the town gates.

"Construction will take around two years, and the place will become a very good destination for entertainment and relaxation," says Li Jigang, director of Shuangqiao district tourism bureau.

"In any tour group entering this town, female members would play the deciding role, concerning shopping and other items of the itinerary.

"We are drafting a township law, which stipulates clearly how men should be punished and for what. A disobedient man will be punished by kneeling on an uneven wooden board or by washing dishes in a restaurant."

- source: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 &click_id=29&art_id=iol1176210364483W550
(remove space - alternet filter wouldn't let whole link through)

Ironically, this tourist trap shopping center will be built and otherwise made possible -- including all the shopping -- by male labor.

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

» RE: Feminist utopia? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Feminist utopia? Posted by: Blue Heron
» sex roles Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: sex roles Posted by: MatthewSavage
Burke: Teller of Tall Tales
Posted by: faultroy on Apr 12, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard this for so many years, and it just is not true. Burke talks consistently about generalities but shows no specific examples of unfair wages. Let's see specifics. She uses the ridiculous example of Nurses and Plumbers to demonstrate that Plumbers make more money than Nurses and therefore there is an unfair wage disparity between women and male workers. Being the ditz that she is, she does not even differentiate between LPN (Licensed Professional Nurse) or RN (Registered Nurse). The last time I looked, most plumbers are paid on the basis on the amount of jobs they do. Plumbers are currently the highest paid trade in the building industry. However the building industry has its ups and downs--mostly downs. Let's see how many nurses would like to trade with a plumber to make more money. Let's see them stick their hands in a cesspool to unplug a clog. Let's see them roto-route a sewer line that was plugged up with women's Kotexes--and dig them out. And let's see them go out on a job when it's 20 below and work in an unheated new structure running six inch pipe. Plumbing is backbreaking physical labor. A Registered nurse in the US starts out at approximately $45,000- $50,000. A good plumber--after a four year apprenticeship-- makes around $50,000-$58,000 with many making far less. Most Plumbers work out of their houses and are self employed. Out of this he has to pay the wife for bookeeping services, and he has to order his own parts and supply his own equipment and trucks. I defy Burke to compare W2s and let's see who really makes more!!! Let's compare an RN's income with that of the entire building indusry based on the number of hours worked. You will find that she (the RN) makes more money than 95 per cent of the building trades. Furthermore when someone becomes a surgical nurse, she is looking at somewhere around $75,000--how many building trades pay that kind of money? In addition, statistics indicate that there are a host of building apprenticeships just waiting for women, but there are no takers. Women want to have clean easy jobs--have you ever seen women working with road crews? What are they always doing? They're holding the signs!!! While the guys are doing the ditch digging and all the dirty hard work!!! When it comes to women in the building trades, it is very difficult for the average women to keep up with the average guy. In factories, women are already having difficulty keeping up with heavy manual labor. Men have to pick up the slack--doing there own work, and helping women do theirs. I speak from personal experience--I've worked with women in manual jobs and they have great difficulty doing the heavy work--they're just not built for it. They break down very easy. It is a violation of federal law to discriminate on the basis of sex. Let Blurke file some lawsuits and let's see what kind of rulings the courts disseminate rather than shooting off her ignorant dumb ass. Is there any wage discrimination in the school system: the government system? The Healthcare system? Where is this pay disparity coming from and why do we always here of generalities--they make less money--why are there never specific examples? Lastly, no business man that I know of is willing to pay a man 25 cents on the dollar more when he can get the same quality of work for 25 cents less.
Since Burke is such a super journalist, let's have her interview businessmen and have them tell us why they would rather pay 25 cents more on the dollar for the same quality and amount of work just because a man is packing a penis. Why is it that we can get quotes from Mafia Dons but there has never been a quote from a businesssman talking about hiring women and paying them less for the same amount of work? The way Burke explains it, this is such a common occurence, that in a nation of 300 million we she should be able to get at least one attribution!

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

» RE: Burke: Teller of Tall Tales Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» RE: Burke: Teller of Tall Tales Posted by: MatthewSavage
The Dirty Little Secret
Posted by: odcherenow on Apr 12, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While researching a book on women and work in 1981, I used The Bureau of Labor Statistics, published by the US Government every couple of years. On the page describing the wage gap between men and women (67 cents to the 1.00 paid to men) I noticed a footnote. It said: Populations surveyed are high school graduate males compared to college graduate females. That footnote was removed by the Reagan Administration in the next publication and has not showed up to this day. Considering that the US has one of the most knowledge intensive female labor force, the powers making social policy are really setting women up as a cheap labor force.

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

Why women earn less money
Posted by: ateo on Apr 12, 2007 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my experience working various jobs over the years women simply do less work. That's right, I said it - now hear me out. Studies have shown that while the average married man puts in over 50 hours a week at work the average woman puts in less than 40.

Women make less money? Maybe that's because they work far less and are therefore worth less to their employers.

Give a woman flexibility in her job and she will abuse it to no end. Her kids *always* have something to do. Sometimes a doctor appointment, sometimes a play at school, then the next thing you know they want to take off from work to have a car stereo put in. All the while her male co-workers are still at work picking up the slack.

I saw this all first hand in what is likely one of the most flexible of all employers when it comes to women: the U.S. Air Force (at least for those who don't get deployed - ever, such as the ones I am referring to). So many scandals over the years have created an environment in which women can do literally anything their male supervisors won't say a word.

A married man goes to work every day and busts his ass to put food on the table for his family. A woman's priorities are typically elsewhere. For whatever reason (male pride, hormones, gender roles in society) men will literally work themselves to death (see lower male life expectancy) and women will work as little as possible. I know I'll catch plenty of flak for this post but open your eyes at your work place and take a look at who is actually doing the work and I think you'll come to realize I'm right.

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

SOS
Posted by: willymack on Apr 12, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lots of interest and good comments here, but unless we have a Constitutional Convention to mandate equal pay (among several other things), the Neanderthals in business will resist this to the death, and their wishes will be reflected in Congress.

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

There is a reason for it all...
Posted by: EagleMB on Apr 12, 2007 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The feminist movement is rather hypocritical. It argues that woman can do anything that men can do, and then argues the opposite when it is convenient. For example, I have a male family member who is a Highway Patrol officer. To get into the acadamy he was expected to do a physical qualification in the form of an obstacle course. Part of the course was to run 100m in under 15 seconds, and then to scale a 6 foot wall. The women on the other hand, had 20 seconds to run the 100m, and only had to scale a 5ft 4in wall. I fully support women being able to do any job they want, but they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

Furthermore, from a business perspective, I understand why businesses may be hesitant to hire women. Many, and perhaps most, women plan to have kids. So if I am a business owner hiring a manager for my business, do I want to hire someone who may decide to leave the workplace after only a few years to have kids, thus forcing me to have to rehire and retrain someone new. And the laws that prevent me as an employer to inquiring about a womans family plans does not help.

A few years ago I saw C-Span debate with the former president of NOW (National Organization for Women) dealing with the "glass ceiling." This hardcore feminist, leader of a prolific womans righst organization, left his job because of a study conducted by NOW was contrary to their cause. The study found that there were in fact far less woman CEO's and upper managers than men. It also found that when a male and female manager (at the same level) was being looked at for upper management, the male got the job most often. But here is thge kicker. It also found that the male had an average of 6 years more work experience than the female. Thus, the woman were less qualified than the men, despite them being at the same level.

Yet one more interesting study. In a book on negotiation written by an instructer at the Wharton School of Management (I think his name was Robert Shell), there is chronicled a study that found that over 60% of female MBA graduates (1st year out)from Wharton received an average starting salary that was $5,000 less per year than the men who graduated in the same class. The study also found out why. It wasn't because of prejudice against women. Rather, it was because most of the men negotiated their salary after gettiing an offer. Most of the women, on the other hand, merely accepted the salary that was offered.

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

Equal pay for equal hours sounds good
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Apr 13, 2007 6:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the male professionals in my workplace usually work about 10 to 20% more hours, they deserve 10 to 20% more pay.

If you have a problem with that, you are getting perilously close to serious male violence. Sorry, we want justice too.

Women only have whatever equality they have right now because of the good graces of enough men that the wishes of the keep-em-down-and-pregnant troglodytes are forcibly overruled. Keep kicking the decent men in the face (who are just trying to bring home more $s for their wives and kids to spend), and we will leave you alone with the something much worse.

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

BOO HOO POOR BABIES another silly whinging feminist article
Posted by: mike51 on Apr 18, 2007 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hypocrisy of some feminists is truely unbelievable. They always cry driscrimination when it suits them but are silent when it doesn't. In terms of pay a few important facts are that 1) males on average work longer hours 2) they work in more hazardous occupations and 3) they tend to be more proactive in negoiating a better deal for them selves. Numerous studies show elements of these. Why does this author not argue the case for more female sewer cleaners and garbage collectors or female underground miners, clearly there is a major unrepresentation of women of these professions, but has no problem about the corporate context. Its a case of, you find a feminist you find a sexist hypocrite.

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

The Big Secret of the Wage Gap
Posted by: odcherenow on Apr 18, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real gap between women and men's wages is much bigger since the statistical population used is men with a high school degree and women with a college degree. This little piece of research data used to be included in a footnote in the Bureau of Labor Statistics publications (1980) but was dropped out during Reagan's Administration. I wonder why?

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement