Thanks, But No Thanks

I want to tell you a story. 

A friend of mine recently retired from a job she had for 19 years. It was a good job, a job she enjoyed. Her work ethic was strong and her peers respected her. On the day my friend retired she received an anonymous note in her locker. 

That unsigned note told her something unbelievable. It told her that she had received less pay than her male counterparts. Less pay by a lot. My friend was being paid $3,727 a month. Her male counterparts were paid between $4,286 and $5,236 per month, even though they had less seniority. Even though she was doing the exact same job.

My friend filed a lawsuit and you know? On her pay discrimination claim, she won. The jury looked at the evidence and they agreed that my friend had been discriminated against based on her gender. 

But a jury's decision is not final. Even though she had won on the facts--won on the very merits of her case--there was a long road ahead. 

The company appealed the judgement and the lawsuit went all they way to the United States Supreme Court. And when it got there, the Supreme Court looked at the facts and they had a vote. The four liberal justices agreed that my friend deserved her equal pay. But the five conservative justices said "close, but no cigar." My friend got nothing from the company that discriminated against her for nearly two decades. Nothing. 

You see, there is this tricky thing in the law called  the statute of limitations. It sets forth the maximum number of days after an event occurs that a person can initiate a lawsuit. 

My friend only had 180 to call out her company on their shameless pay discrimination. Not 180 days from the day she found out--but 180 days from the time the pay decision was made, way back when she had no idea that she was being discriminated against. The clock started ticking--and, in fact, ran out--years before she even knew that she was worth less to her company because she was a woman. 

This is a true story. I've never met Lilly Ledbetter,  the woman who was discriminated against by Goodyear Tire Company, but her story speaks to me and I hope it speaks to you, too. 

Her story spoke to Congress and they attempted, this year, to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The act would not only protect women, but also people of color, older, and disabled workers from wage discrimination. 

In 2008, John McCain said "thanks, but no thanks" to fair pay for women.

Sarah Palin agreed. If she had a vote in a Congress, she, too, would have said "thanks, but no thanks" to equal pay.

They both say that they support fair pay, but how can that be? I suspect they support it in theory, but not in fact, as the facts, in fact, indicate. Who needs facts, anyway, when you can just speak in cliché?

John McCain sets forth two reasons for opposing this bill. First, he says that  women need more training and education. And, second, he says that it would open the door to too many lawsuits. 

More training? More education? Remember we are talking about women doing equal work "which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which [is] performed under similar working conditions." (That there would be some actual text from the law.)

"I've got plenty of training," Ledbetter said. "What I don't have is the right to fight for what I deserve."

And too many lawsuits? In America, you can sue because your coffee is too hot or because your dry cleaner lost your pants. I can sue you if you take this story and post it on your blog (which I would not do, so post away). But, our conservative Supreme Court Justices, in a narrow vote, have made it so that you cannot sue if your employer secretly paid you less than your male counterparts for years. Except, well, for 180 days worth of pay--if you find out soon enough.

I must ask--whose interests do McCain and Palin have at heart? Not yours, not mine. It is blatantly clear, that the McPalin tickets supports corporations at the expense of hardworking women across America. It is blatantly clear because we have actually seen what happens when corporations are not held accountable for their discriminatory practices. Nothing. Lilly Ledbetter got nothing. Goodyear got away with 19 years of paying Lilly a discriminatory wage. 

And McCain and Palin are okay with that.

To John McCain and Sarah Palin, I say, "thanks, but no thanks." 

Comments

[AuburnKat]

I heard about this!!! The statement that women should getting more training in order to receive equal pay is a bunch of bull!

[Jen]

Here, Here! I am flabbergasted that anyone would want to vote for McCain-Palin, but most especially women. Perhaps they don't want equal pay or the right to choose?

[Brittany]

That is shocking and crazy, but most of all, it's sad. Does this mean we could pay Sarah Palin 2/3 what Dick Cheney is currently making for the same job if McCain gets elected?

[Janssen]

ALSDKFJLASKDJFLASKJLK!!!!! I'm sharing this on google reader. My jaw just dropped as I read this story. What an outrage.

[Leah]

I completely agree with you. Thanks for posting this!

[Stacey]

As do I... thanks, but no thanks

[Alison]

Amen, sister.

[nicole]

Just one comment, I didn't realize that the NY Times and Wikipedia were such credible sources. I say this all in good humor (poke poke and stuff). xoxo

[Gretchen]

But I've been given several job offers that I thought were too HIGH, just because I was a woman... Perhaps the training you have does make a difference - there may be a difference between men and women's pay for the same job, but it seems like a bigger issue is the lack of women going into some of the higher paying fields. If equal pay is REALLY what we want, I suppose we should spend more time encouraging young girls to dream beyond silly things like "making a difference in people's lives" and focus on "bringing home the Benjamins."

[janet]

Just want to reiterate that I am speaking about equal pay for EQUAL WORK. McCain--and his supporters--continually skirt the issue by referring solely to equal pay, while largely ignoring the equal work component.

Also, I wanted to mention that I have updated the post to include a "reputable" source--the Supreme Court's Decision--which is here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf

And, for those that don't even trust the Supreme Court, I bring you real news, an article from Fox (Fair and Balanced, as always):

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-senate-bill-that-sought-equal-pay-for-women/

[wendy]

Gretchen, do you understand what equal pay FOR EQUAL WORK means?

Yes, the issue is precisely that WOMEN WANT EQUAL PAY FOR DOING THE SAME WORK. Don't confuse the this by injecting some hullabaloo about "making a difference." or that women are choosing not to go "into some of the higher paying fields," thus aren't earning the same as men who do. The motivation behind this-- this movement, lawsuit, and controversy--assumes all things being equal. It's great that you've been offered jobs that you think pay too much (thus implying that no problem exists out there) but again, you're missing the point. When you say "there may be a difference between men and women's pay for the same job," you're on to something. That's the issue. That precisely. It's demonstrably so.

I'll break it down as simply as I can.
Two people with the same education, training, background, job title, age, seniority, motivation, ambition, sexual attractiveness--EVERYTHING--do the exact same job, in the same city, on the same floor of the same department. Let's even say they work in some capacity or other by "making a difference." One person gets paid more than the other simply because HE's a HE; that's discriminatory, that's the problem, and it needs to be addressed.

The reason SoPink blogged about this issue is because McCain/Palin are choosing on the side of big-business, sexism, and frankly, 1950s values (that's the last decade when this practice was actually legal). They say women are under-educated, and under-experienced, and thus probably should be paid less. But THEY'RE MISSING THE POINT TOO! Well, actually, I think they get the point, but really believe...well...I'm not sure what they believe. But it's stupid, and I don't agree. And people who believe that women are as intelligent and capable as men don't either. If you disagree with us, I invite you to ask yourself why.

E-Q-U-A-L P-A-Y FOR E-Q-U-A-L W-O-R-K. Anything less is immoral, unjustifiable (reasonably, anyway), and unconscionable. But it's not totally illegal, evidently, and therein lies the problem. Vote your interest in 2008.

[Michele]

Gah! They make me so angry! Palin more than McCain, only because she against everything women have fought for, even though the fight (fight? struggle? rights movement?) is what allowed her to gain the position she's in.

[bekka]

i had not idea that there was a statute of limitations on those kinds of workplace/equity issues. that's disturbing. thanks for sharing the information.

[Maura]

BIG thanks, but no thanks here. It's an incredibly disheartening story but it's the kind of thing we need to know happens every day.

[Insta-Mom]

I didn't copy this, but I did Tweet it. You're all the Twitter today.

[Jenna]

Why didn't Lilly ever look for another job? One of the beauties of capitalism is that everyone is allowed to negotiate their own fair wage. If Lilly worked for 19 years and was happy with her wage, why should I feel bad that she could have gotten more if she asked?

The flaw in this whole line of thinking is that there is some intrinsic wage for every job...but their really isn't (unless it is union work). Each person's wage is based on the supply and demand for their skills, along with the negotiating skills of the employee and the employer.

Someone further up got to a better point...we should be doing more to encourage girls to go into higher paying fields. 90% of elementary ed majors are women, and 90% of engineering majors are men. If you want to do your daughters a favor, don't tell them to complain about what they get paid...tell them to study math and science and medicine and business and law instead of the standard things we push girls into (nursing and teaching).

[Ana]

Thank you! I've referred all my friends over to your blog to read this. You've said so much better than I ever could. EQUAL pay for EQUAL work. Why is that not just a given???

[steve]

Forget congress, forget the supreme court. Its really simple, just start a boycott of Goodyear Tires and let them know why. When they make good on damages and back wages, lift the boycott. Worked on South Africa, and that was turning real hate around.

[Bruce Small]

She was given negative evaluations, and that affected her pay level, as it should. Why should someone with a negative performance evaluation make the same as someone else with a positive performance evaluation. You work harder, or faster, or smarter, you make more money than someone who doesn't.

Ed. Note: This was Goodyear's argument at trial. When presented with all the evidence, however, the jury found that the negative evaluation Lilly received was because of her gender. The jury held that Goodyear had, in fact, engaged in discriminatory practices.

[Belle]

I absolutely agree!

[janet]

Well, that was certainly Goodyear's argument, Bruce. Goodyear had to come to court with something to explain the enormous disparity.

But, remember--the jury found, based on all the evidence presented at trial, that Ledbetter's pay was less BECAUSE OF HER SEX.

"Further, she introduced evidence sufficient to establish that discrimination against female managers at the Gadsden plant, not performance inadequacies on her part, accounted for the pay differential." (Justice Ginsberg, dissent)

Remember, too, that the Supreme Court overruled her claim because the statute of limitations had run, NOT on the merits of her case.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not even consider the facts you presented, above, but simply said that even if Lilly HAD IN FACT BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST (as the jury found), she was just too late.

[Anna]

Well I certainly hope Sarah Palin will be equally dedicated to reducing her own wages since she is in fact a woman and by her own logic should not make as much as a man doing her same job.
My English teacher would not like that run on sentence ;)

[misspriss]

Janet-

Please study hard and do really well in law school. We need you to become a Supreme Court justice someday!

[barbara wells]

Jenna--Why should we tell our daughters "to study math and science and medicine and business and law instead of the standard things we push girls into (nursing and teaching)," when, after years of hard work, focus, and dedication, upon obtaining those jobs, the law likely won't protect them from being discriminated against?

Yay for Capitalism! But back to the issue: a woman and a man in identical situations do the same job, yet the woman gets paid less for it...do you support it? Remember, we're assuming everything else is exactly the same. What is your stance? What about in the case of 25 million working American women? This isn't about "who can negotiate a better salary," it's about legitimizing a valid discriminatory issue. To move forward as a nation, we as voters need to address the specific point; and that is, assuming everything between two employees is equal--including their skill and effectiveness as salary negotiators--does one person systematically deserve a higher salary because of his gender alone?
               Y or N (Circle one.)

The flaw in your line of thinking is that you must assume there is a greater "demand" for male employees and a lesser one for women, thus justifying a man's ability to command a higher salary in the marketplace. Do we also then assume that men are inherently more capable to perform a particular job well?

Maybe we should just be teachers and nurses. Fiddlesticks!

[Antonio]

One of the beauties of capitalism (at least in theory) is that the market will reward hard work and pay wages based upon performance, not based upon gender (or any other non-work related aspect of a person), and since she was a loyal employee, as the nineteen years of dedicated work indicates, she should have no reason to question the company that she had worked so hard for, and thus, she would not need to ask for (or negotiate for) more money, but when she found out that her company was discriminatory and did not reward hard working women, she left; so much for capitalism at its best.

P.S. Run-on sentences are fine, that is, as long as they are written correctly.

[Charmarie]

Janet,
Well stated, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite bloggers.

[Elizabeth Marie]

This whole thing is absolutely outrageous. I can't believe that we live in a country where we are proud of the level of equality between sexes because a woman was in the race for the white house but we still don't give the average woman equal pay. Would they have dared to drop Hillary's salary as president down to meet the national average of 74 cents to the male dollar if she had won? Nineteen years of loyalty to a company and they couldnt even be bothered to give her equal pay. Its simply awful.

[maggienwilly]

Go Janet!

[Lesli]

To John McCain and Sarah Palin, I say, "thanks, but no thanks."

Me, too!

Great post, Janet...and quite eye-opening.