Interim Report Card: Obama on Women, Women on Obama
January 31, 2009
by Sheryl Lee
|
We hate to seem ungrateful, so let’s begin with this:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama after he took office. Women everywhere are glad to have those legal rights restored to them that were removed when the Supreme Court decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear in 2007.
So, score one for women, for Obama, and for those early champions of the bill, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Hillary Clinton, among others.
Paycheck Fairness Act
The Ledbetter Act restores rights to women that were stripped from them in 2007, but it doesn’t address the ongoing problem of unequal pay between genders. Elana Schor, writing for Talking Points Memo, doesn’t want to see the Paycheck Fairness Act left to languish while the Ledbetter Act is celebrated as a great move forward for women (which it is not):
Media coverage of today’s White House ceremony depicts the Ledbetter signing as a major victory for gender pay equity. But a much broader bill addressing pay discrimination — the Paycheck Fairness Act — faces a mysteriously uncertain future in the Senate, where it has yet to receive a floor vote despite approval in the House last year and again this year.
What’s the holdup? And will the (well-deserved) hoopla over the Ledbetter victory obscure the facts behind the inaction on Paycheck Fairness?
When the House passed the Ledbetter measure, which deals narrowly with the Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, it combined that bill with the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA), which would refine the 1963 Equal Pay Act in several major ways.
Obama was a co-sponsor of the PFA last year, which was also championed by Hillary Clinton, and while Schor expresses concern that the PFA will get left behind in the wake of the Ledbetter signing this week, proponents of the bill say that the Senate could vote on it as early as this Spring:
Jocelyn Samuels, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center, agreed. “There are any number of champions for fair pay in the Senate who, I think, recognize that while the Ledbetter bill is a fabulous down payment on ensuring pay equity for women, we need to do more than restore prior law [as the Ledbetter bill does] — we need to move it forward,” she told [Schor].
Women in Cabinet
Despite his strong support of Ledbetter, Obama hasn’t moved things along for women with his cabinet appointments. Out of 21 cabinet appointments, just 5 have gone to women. That’s a mere 24%, when women make up 52% of the population. The Secretary of Commerce seat is still open, but the smart money is on it going to another man. In addition to The New Agenda, other women’s rights group leaders have expressed disappointment with Obama’s poor showing for women in cabinet:
“So far the numbers of women don’t look great,” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Obama’s picks. “George Bush started off with this many, and Bill Clinton, at the height of his presidency, had nine out of 19.”
Ellen Malcolm, president and founder of Emily’s List, said Obama “obviously started off with a bang, with Janet Napolitano, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice.” She added: “We’ve been disappointed to see women suggested for some positions and not chosen.”
Obama Strips Birth Control Funding from Stimulus Package
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women, expresses her disappointment in this move:
In a plan meant to help everyone in our country during this difficult time, I am disappointed that women’s health needs were cast aside with so little fight. And, it seems, so pointlessly. Reportedly the provision was removed because of House Republican opposition. But on Wednesday, the stimulus bill passed the House-without a single House Republican supporting the bill. Women’s health sacrificed for exactly zero votes.
These are difficult economic times, and there is a lot of talk about the need for give and take from both sides of the partisan divide. But unity with the radical right is a pipedream, and we will not sacrifice women’s health to make Republicans happy. As the President himself pointed out — he won.
We elected this president and this Congress, and we should not compromise our principles to make deals with those who have so little respect for us. I remain hopeful that President Obama will continue to carry out his commitment to women’s health care, and I look forward to quick passage of expanded Medicare family planning services.
Superfeminist Obama?
Ellie Smeal, co-founder and president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which publishes Ms. Magazine, is interviewed by Democracy Now’s Amy Goodwin. Smeal defends the cover of “Superfeminist Obama”, and responds to Goodwin’s questions about Amy Siskind’s criticism of the cover (see transcript, or skip ahead to 46:00 in the video):
ELLIE SMEAL: Well, we wanted to tell the world that he self-identifies as a feminist and that he’s run on the strongest platform of any major party for women’s rights. And we also wanted to capture both the national mood and the feminist mood of high expectations and hope for his presidency.
Women Supported Obama, but does Obama Support Women?
All things considered, and with the FPA and one cabinet appointment still pending, how do you think Obama is doing for women? What grade would you give him for his performance so far?
And, at the glacial rate that the pay gap closes, will women achieve equal pay before we see a woman’s face on the currency, and how long will we have to wait for these things to finally happen?
Actually Obama tries to talk a good feminist game and would love to get credit for anything anyone else does that is feminist oriented. Liberal Democrats who supported the way the Obamaites degraded and mocked and lied about female candidates so they could “win the game” have put women back 50 years, maybe one hundred. And they have turned a lot of women like me into Republicans and cautious Independents.
On the bright side team Obama seems always ready to talk those tried and true “women’s issues” of the first ladies fashion choices and the Corporate media is right there with them.
Also I would be very surprised if the Obama Democrats do anything about women’s health or reproductive rights, including appointing solid Roe v Wade favorable judges because if they do they will solidify reproductive rights for women for the next 25 years and that means they lose their favorite way of communicating with women which is to ramp up fear about loss of reproductive rights if Republicans win. Democrats also will likely not do anything about unequal pay for women. It is time for NOW, MS and Emily’s list to wake up and leave their abusive relationship with the Democratic party. To this point their simple minded devotion has been pathetic and certainly not something I care to associate myself with.
Obama will do what ever is politically expedient. If it means pitching women under the bus he will, if it means looking the other way when women are demonized, he will look the other way. If it means taking credit for expanding the rights of woman on an issue that even the most hardened misogynist would have a hard time objecting to, he will take credit.
We can not look to any party or person for support, we need to change the system by making sure that more women are in office, and by challenging every sexist and hateful thing that comes out of anyone’s mouth. Let’s face it, most people operate on auto pilot because it is easier, and the dismissal and hatred of women is a conditioned response.
Letter to President Obama; can be easily adapted and edited as a letter to the editor (which should be no more than 150 words in most cases).
—————————————————————————————–
Dear President Obama:
While signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law was the right decision, your comments on the legislation were less than robust from the standpoint of women’s rights in America. By stating that “equal pay is by no means just a woman’s issue, it is a family issue,” you distanced yourself from the central issue pertaining to the legislation and its history. As you know, this piece of legislation is founded upon unfair pay disparities between men and women and women’s ability to address such disparities legally. I wondered if you would have made a similar statement if the legislation had been about fair pay for people of color. Would you not have celebrated the importance of that in and of itself for people of color in a clear, strong and unequivocal manner before linking it to a broader issue? I also wondered if your eagerness to bring “families” into the discussion was not driven, in part, by your desire to use a word that Republicans managed to adopt many years ago in order to frame their party as embracing of “family values” while the Democrats were somehow devoid of any such values.
This brings me to my second point, which pertains to your willingness to sacrifice family planning from the economic stimulus package. It appears that you did this in an effort to appease Republicans in Congress in the hopes of winning their votes. However, in the end, you won not a single one of their votes. It is distressing to know that you would so readily abandon an issue as important as funding for family planning for low-income individuals and couples in order to appease the opposing party. Considering that women voted you into office and considering your stated commitment to women’s rights, one would have hoped that you would have held strong on the issue of funding for this very important issue. Family planning provides education and services on myriad health issues including contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. In so doing, more women are informed and thus empowered to stay healthy and to avoid having unwanted children. Both of these factors have a tremendous impact on the financial health of the nation, an issue of crucial importance during these days of economic crisis.
Meanwhile, with only five women appointed to your Cabinet, you are about on par with George Bush’s numbers. Regrettably, the numbers are a set back from Bill Clinton’s administration. It appears that although women comprise 52% of the population you could not find 10 qualified women in this large, great country of ours to fill Cabinet posts to reflect our numbers in the population. In the 21st century, is it not yet time that women achieved gender parity at the highest levels of government? How much longer are we to wait, Mr. President?
In sum, you have not yet been the strong advocate for women’s rights that you have claimed to be.
Uh-oh. Is this called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or the Lilly Ledbetter Act? Need to get that right before sending my letter to the President and the press.
Interesting piece but I was very disappointed to see Kim Gandy quoted on two of the subjects – as though she is any kind of pillar of authority on women’s rights issues.
Gandy is a pathetic patriarch suck-up.
Amy Siskind and other members of TNA are far more quotable and relevant on these issues. They are the ones who have stood vigilant for womens equality all along.
Wow isn’t Obama a tricky one? Republicans have been saying all along they are against the stimulus bill in it’s entirety because they don’t think it will help the economy, and because of all the pork that is basically just Obama paying back the special interest groups who supported him and has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. So Obama, already knowing they won’t support it because THEY SAID SO repeatedly, throws out the Birth Control funding so he can say “well this is what they wanted thrown out and we tried to be bipartisan.”
The whole point of Obama’s sneaky move here, was to blame Republicans for costing women funding, continue to use women’s issues as a partisan wedge, and paint Republicans as “anti-women” when it was his whole stimulus they objected to. Looks like it worked too because see who Gandy’s blaming? According to her, Obama made a mistake but he was just trying to be bipartisan. But it was those evil Republicans who were really at fault and got our poor Obama all confused and off track.
I remain unfooled and unimpressed!
Thia – Very interesting comments! Have you read or heard Obama pointing the finger at Republicans re: the family planning funding or are you just putting the dots together?
Sadly, I think that what you have picked up on and so beautifully articulated is what goes on in politics. Each side polorizes the other, tries to paint them as evil at every opportunity, and appear too invested in winning points than actually serving the public interest.
sigh
Should someone inside the Feminist Community that TNA is part of be asking Madam Speaker where she was when this decision to strip off the funding for birth control was made?
Sheyrl,
Thank you for a very clear explanation of the Ledbetter/Fair Paycheck issue. Since the latter is more controversial, delaying it till the Democrats have a larger majority might be a good move.
Constance at 11.32
I agree! I’ve been thinking that for quite a while: if Obama DID appoint pro-Roe judges, then the next Democrat would no longer have Roe as hostage.
Thia
Ooooh good points. So what was Obama’s real reason for taking out the family planning provision? Just to have something to blame the GOP for?
The GOP is not blameless here. Actually I’ve seen quite a few comments from social conservatives (mostly GOP but not all) bashing “$200 million for contraceptives” — when in fact the provision would SAVE $200 million in pregnancy and birth expenses. (according to a WP story linked from Heidi Li’s blog).
Still, I think Obama is very very morally wrong here (to put it mildly). Poor families’ contraception is not something to play political games with. Even a few weeks’ delay on this issue can result in many family tragedies.
John,
Actually Pelosi was reported as speaking out in favor of the family planning issue, on the same economic grounds I just mentioned.
I don’t know how long she stood out for it, though.
Well, when you’re talking products instead of constituencies–and that is what THEY are talking here–it’s easy to play games. These aren’t real people, they’re pins on a map with demographic data to back them up.
I was a big fan of Bill Clinton for basically two reasons–one, he balanced the budget for seven solid years. No president had done that since, what, Eisenhower? Or was it before FDR? It was a long, long time ago, though. Two, his active, intelligent wife. But he had his problems, including needlessly capitulating on things like welfare reform, which hurt and continues to hurt a lot of people, including some people I know personally. It was a frontal legislative assault on women, period.
The irony of the next four years is that Obama got elected on so much Clinton Derangement Syndrome, but he has Bill’s worst qualities, and none of his strengths. We won’t see a balanced budget in his term(s), and we’ll continue to see legislative assaults on women like we saw with the stimulus package. While I watch the nation burn, I’ll at least have the pleasure of seeing the Progressive Dude Nation gnash their teeth again and again.
I give him a D-, ftr.
HELP NEEDED: RE-POSTING MY QUESTION FOR ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER IT:
Is the legislation that Obama signed called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or the Lilly Ledbetter Act?
Thanks.
Anna Belle – Thanks for that most interesting comment! What a great thread this is!
Anna- Pelosi said it, Obama said it – It was all over the news. Google and you’ll find plenty.
I’m certainly not saying that some very conservative Republican’s wouldn’t have been against it, but they were all against the whole premise behind the stimulus package in general and the way it was put together. Many of the Republicans in the House spoke out about the lack of tax breaks or reductions, etc., but that isn’t making the news. You can look at the individual congress member’s websites and most have issued press releases about their vote. Just think about it, 11 Dems voted against it too. Why was that? And if the Republicans were against it because of the Birth Control money, why didn’t they vote FOR the bill after the BC money was removed? Because it was never the point in the first place, that’s why! Most of the Republicans I have heard speak about this said they felt almost the whole bill had nothing to do with stimulus, it was about special interest payback. Which is how it works by the way, but don’t expect to wrap poop up in a pretty package, call it stimulus, and then be indignant when someone recognizes the smell— it’s still just poop!
The BC money was a red herring.
“I wondered if you would have made a similar statement if the legislation had been about fair pay for people of color.”
Some information about the legislation in question:
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amends title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and modifies the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that ANY act of unlawful discrimination in compensation is renewed for statute of limitations purposes by each discriminatory paycheck.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 IS “about fair pay for people of color” — indeed, the protections against sex discrimination were added by a Southern senator who supposedly was trying to torpedo the bill by adding something that he thought Congress would oppose. (This interpretation has been challenged by those who say that this senator actually was sincerely concerned that white women would have fewer legal protections than black women.)
The law does NOT change the only legislation that deals with protection against compensation discrimination solely on the basis of sex, i.e. the Equal Pay Act of 1963, because that law already has a more generous provision for how long after the discrimination first occurs that a worker can sue. This fact often is brought up by opponents of the Ledbetter law, who apparently don’t know that Ledbetter originally sued under this law as well as the CRA of ‘64, but had her Equal Pay Act claim dismissed before trial, so that the jury only could decide in her favor on the CRA claim.
But in fact, by extending statutes of limitation for *all* forms of discrimination forbidden by federal law — race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is a boon to all Americans, not just women.
Thia – Thanks. (It’s like a media black out in my household so I get my news in bits and pieces). I’d say it’s time for a TNA press release on the matter, wouldn’t you? And maybe you should write it (hint, hint)! You’ve got most of the material right here!
((((((Thia)))))))
PS Does anyone know the exact name of the act Obama signed??? Last chance! 80% off for the correct answer if given within the next 15 minutes!
Anna-
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
http://www.whitehouse.gov/brie.....licReview/
Missed your deadline but it’s:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
Nancy Pelosi rode into office on the back of feminist support, now she is the one telling the “ladies” to sit down and be quiet because we have to deal with global warming.
As long as women don’t fight for themselves, come together as a group and stop swooning over that handsome dude in the WH, expecting a progressive agenda, we’ll be treated like several weak constituencies instead of one strong one.
Also, Obama is courting the evangelical right. Women’s issues will be sacrificed to win over the church goers.
I think these legislations are crucial and I am uncertain that this would have passed with a Republican presidency. I look forward to future fair pay legislations getting passed.
PGofHSM thanks for getting out the details. the Lili Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is then a general antidiscrimination bill on fair pay.
although it does include other discriminated groups it helps women.
Also like many others here I appreciate Thia’s comment and Pumabear’s.
in general my rating for Obama stays low D to E range, cannot forget the primaries, the speechwriter assault, the giving up of birth control for poor women, the cabinet positions, the constant lies….for a complete list go to puma sites, to noquarter
Sheryl,
I found Ellie Smeal’s interview quite interesting. She never really answered the questions, except for out-lining the Ledbetter Act. Her comments about the cover of Ms. magazine were lame, especially in light of the cabinet picks, the stalling of the Fair Paycheck Act, the lopsided stimulus favoring men, and now the family planning money being thrown under the bus.
Where does she get feminist out of this mess. Obama gets put on the cover of Ms. magazine because he self-identifies, and ran on a platform of women’s rights? And? What about the election rigging? What about the sexist attacks? What about disenfranchising FL. and MI? What about all the things in my first paragraph?
Although Ms. Smeal says that she doesn’t rely on hopeful thinking, that’s exactly what she’s doing by proclaiming Obama a feminist before he has proven himself to be one.
PGofHSM
Yes, I understand the context of LLL, but made that comment because it is my impression that this particular legislation focused on gender issues, namely discrimination against women in terms of pay equity. Perhaps I am mistaken on this point.
Thia and Anne-Marie
Thanks. I am so confused. I thought the “fair pay” part was removed. But, perhaps the name remains. (Anne-Marie, because you were late, only 60% off for you!)
Pumabear
You got a link?
Kiuku
“I think these legislations are crucial and I am uncertain that this would have passed with a Republican presidency. I look forward to future fair pay legislations getting passed.” A very fair post. Much appreciated.
marille
Not just birth control, but family planning clinics often address std’s which is a major major area where education is vital.
Kiuku-
As it stands you are probably right. However, women’s groups in general have ignored the Republican party until it comes time to blame them for our lack of progress. Then we deride them for not giving us what we want/deserve while simultaneously sending more money and support to their opponents. We’re surprised that they aren’t listening? Then the Democrats take our money and time while they laugh at us, allow women candidates to be treated like dirt, and occasionally throw us a bone if we get too “shrill”.
I think it’s past time to start a dialogue about the issues that we want addressed with anyone who will listen, and I don’t care what initial is after their name.
Thia, you are right. You get special kudos for hanging out with us as we display our blind prejudices about R’s. I don’t know what you did to deserve it, but it seems to be your karma to awaken some people to their indoctrination by the Democrats.
The great thing about 2008 is that for many it was like hitting the political reset button. For those who are willing to take a walk on the wild side and really listen to the two parties, there are some great ideas and some awful ideas on both sides. For me at least, my days of blind fealty to one party are over. And it feels so good!! It’s like being Rip Van Winkle, awakening after a long slumber. At first it’s hard to make sense of it all, but after some time passes as you take it all in from your new perspective, it’s quite mentally stimulating. Like seeing new worlds without having to travel anywhere—-a nice trick in a recession.
Thia – Right on!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a bunch of comments, and a bunch of links… I will include the links in a subsequent post, since they’ll fall into Moderation.
The Paycheck Fairness Act needs to be passed. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a hell of a good start, but we need to know that we’re being paid unfairly before we can act on that. I’ll include a link to Govtrack’s entry for the Paycheck Fairness Act, so you can see exactly where it’s at.
John: Speaker Pelosi was giving interviews to CNN lauding the inclusion of monies for family planning in the stimulus package. They showed the interview, right before they discussed how the President said Pelosi had mis-spoke/spoke out of turn… I forget the exact language, but it sucked; I had images of Colin Powell being hung out to dry as it told the world about yellowcake. I am very suspicious that Pelosi may find her political credibility undermined (and OF COURSE they do it knowingly; what, they forgot to tell her, before a huge interview, that the family planning money was out?). Make her look uninformed and let her hang herself in public, and she becomes not-a-threat. And/or gets back in line where she belongs!
Constance, we’ve come a long way. We only got the right to vote in the US in 1920, and that was won after a LONG fight. They can’t shove us that far back without stripping us of the vote. We have a long way to go, but we also VOTE. And that’s the only thing politicians give a rats ass about. They may pick sides based on ideas or ideals, but then the gloves are off, and its wheeling dealing for votes.
OT: For those who haven’t read it, check out the Declaration of Sentiments signed at the First Women’s Rights Convention in 1848 (yep, that’s an 18 at the front, not a typo). It’s STILL a radical document, 160 years later. Link to follow. If you’re in the area, visit the Women’s Rights National Historical Landmark in Seneca Falls, NY. Really.
Thia: What you said. If TNA really is non-partisan, then it’s non-partisan. That means picking friends and fighting battles, regardless of what side of the aisle people are on. Messy? Yep, sure has the potential to be. But equality is about ALL of us, not just the us who are like us. We can fight amongst ourselves over the specifics, but while we’re bickering down here in the trenches, the big boys just roll over us. Maybe we get a bone, if we’ve been good.
I’d also like to propose that we not forget to have a little fun, and even (gasp!) laugh at ourselves sometimes.
Links from the above post:
Govtrack, for the Paycheck Fairness Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....l=s111-182
1848 Declaration of Sentiments, courtesy the Women’s Rights National Historic Landmark website:
http://www.nps.gov/wori/histor.....iments.htm
Digger – Great post, including the last idea. I love that TNA is a place where I can come to engage in substantive dialogue, but, geez, sometimes it’s stifling. We can have a lighthearted exchange at times, no? Meanwhile, to add to your historical piece for anyone not aware:
Victoria Woodhull was the first female to run for President of the United States (lots of folks think it was the late, great Shirley Chisholm) in 1872. She was quite a controversial figure. She ran on the “People’s Party” ticket. And, she invited Frederick Douglass to be her running mate, but he never got back to her on the invitation one way or another. What a curious thing to think about and look where we are today….
Looking forward to your links!
Anna,
Thanks for the historical note… I did some reading, and not surprisingly (at least for me, but that’s another story!), Victoria Woodhull is described as a colleague of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was one of the main hands in writing the Declaration of Sentiments (Frederick Douglass was one of the signers).
Ack! I can’t resist… a link to a biography of Woodhull; nestled amongst what appears to be some serious Feminist Geek how-to…
http://feministgeek.com/teachi...../woodhull/
Hey, everybody — great comments.
Just an fyi: I changed the settings on the comment moderation filter, and hopefully it won’t be holding so many of your comments from now on.
I’d give him a D at best, though imo Ms. Magazine is responsible for its own foolishness.
[...] The New Agenda editor Sheryl Robinson noted, this lack of governmental recognition is also leading to a rather disturbing tendency by Barack [...]
[...] The New Agenda editor Sheryl Robinson noted, this lack of governmental recognition is also leading to a rather disturbing tendency by Barack [...]
[...] The New Agenda editor Sheryl Robinson noted, this lack of governmental recognition is also leading to a rather disturbing tendency by Barack [...]
Anna,
The Fair Pay Act was drafted specifically as a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling (by Republican appointees, for those who may believe that the parties are equal on issues like this) that Ledbetter could not file a claim for discrimination that had occurred decades ago in the first decision to pay her less than male colleagues, even though that decision reverberated to the end of her career, because every subsequent raise was based on a percentage increase of that first, too-low paycheck. Indeed, this system of compensation simply exacerbated the initial disparity over time.
This was Congress slapping down the Supreme Court and saying, “No, we DO mean for the Civil Right Act and other anti-discrimination legislation to allow people to sue for acts of discrimination that took place a long time ago, so long as that discrimination has had effects that continue to hurt people today.” If the people at Goodyear had ever stopped to think, “I wonder why Ms. Ledbetter gets paid less than men who are junior to her?” the lawsuit wouldn’t be possible even under the Fair Pay Act, because then they would have corrected the disparity and the paychecks at the end of her career would have been on par with her male colleagues’. But no one ever did stop to think about that, and under the Supreme Court ruling, there was no reason for a company to think about it. Now companies have an incentive to look at how longtime employees are getting paid and making sure there’s no disparity. It’s a lot better for society for companies to correct this themselves than for every person to have to litigate it.
The Paycheck Fairness Act does something quite different: it changes what companies can use to defend the differential in pay. At the moment, companies can go scot free if there is ANY factor other than sex itself that caused the pay difference. Of course, there are things that aren’t sex itself that are nonetheless wrongfully discriminatory. For example, if an employer says, “I paid her differently not because she’s a woman, but because she has three kids and I knew she wouldn’t spend as much time at work compared to my childless male employee.” That’s a factor other than sex, but that’s NOT a good reason to pay someone less. Employers should evaluate employees based on the actual performance, not based on assumptions. If one employee really does clock fewer hours — OK, pay that person less. If the employee with kids works just as hard — discrimination shouldn’t be legal.
So Paycheck Fairness would require that for defense against discrimination lawsuits, companies have to show that there is a “bona fide” factor, i.e. one that is in good faith, that distinguishes one employee from another. Assumptions about women with children probably wouldn’t suffice to be in “good faith,” but a demonstrated difference in hours worked probably would be.
PGofHSM
Thank you so much for your summary of these two different pieces of legislation. I greatly appreciate it! Greatly! Thank you, much!
Digger
Meant to comment last night about one of yours regarding HOW a person would even come to know if they’re being paid unfairly. That’s a huge issue and if employees don’t have a way of becoming educated and informed, all of this legislation will mean not a wit. I hope TNA will develop a Resource Center, and if they do, your links should be included under an easily identifiable heading.
Anna,
Re: your comment to Digger, I forgot that that is also part of the Paycheck Fairness Act:
“(d) Nonretaliation Provision- Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended–
(2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: “or has inquired about, discussed, or otherwise disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee…”
In other words, the PFA also would protect employees from getting fired for doing what one of Ledbetter’s colleagues finally had the courage to do (albeit anonymously): tell her that she was getting jacked. It also would protect someone like Ledbetter from getting fired for asking her male co-workers, “Hey, how much do you guys get paid?” At the moment, many employers forbid discussion of pay and will fire employees for comparing paychecks.
Interestingly, this is a provision that has come under less attack by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, than the provision I noted earlier (the requirement of a *bona fide* factor), so it’s really a pity that no one seems to have thought to insert it in the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Like the rest of the LL Act, it would apply to a law of general applicability rather than specifically to the issue of sex discrimination, which makes it a more appropriate fit for the LL Act than the PFA.
Re: Alice Paul
H.R. 406: Alice Paul Women’s Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act
To award a Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of Alice Paul’s role in the women’s suffrage movement and in advancing equal rights for women.
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....l=h111-406
Caveat, imo things like this, H.R. 406: Alice Paul Women’s Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act, and even the ERA, strike me like throwing us a bone to keep us busy so we won’t use our time and energy digging into substantive current issues.
fsteele,
Agreed, and never mind who does the picking of who would get it, and why… but I’d noticed it in my surfings, and figured I’d toss it out there.
Right then, I just read the full text of HR 406. I take back what I said about who does the picking and why (I misunderstood the point).
But I still agree with you fsteele, that although Alice Paul deserves such a thing, it would make a fine “see, we support women’s rights” action, without any substantive action.
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...