Politics | 01/13/2009 10:10 am

Women's Groups Urge Quick Passage of Equal Pay Bill

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Think women should get paid the same as men for the same work? Yeah, we do, too, and now some lawmakers are hoping to make sure that happens.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-MD, in the Senate and House Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, (who first introduced this legislation 12 years ago but amazingly, was not able to get it passed!), would help victims of pay discrimination seek compensation.

"Women earn just 77 cents for every dollar our male counterparts make. Women of color get paid even less," said Mikulski, the dean of the Senate women. The bill "will empower women to fight for fair pay by once again making employers accountable for pay discrimination. The right to equal pay for equal work is a fundamental civil right."

"Who is Lilly Ledbetter?" you may ask. She was an Alabama Goodyear employee for 19 years before realizing her pay was considerably less than her male counterparts. So, hoping for some justice, she sued. The Supreme Court, pretty much on a technicality, ruled 5-4 against Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The Justices say that the complaint had to be filed within 180 days of the initial salary decision, even if the victim is unaware of the discrimination until later. Angry opponents scoffed, saying the decision eroded civil rights. Obama often cited the court case in stressing his commitment to work for women’s equality while on the campaign trail.

The bill passed in the House last Friday and is now headed to the Senate. Women’s groups and others like the Alliance for Justice are urging women and others to e-mail or call their senators and ask them to act fast so the bill can be ready for President-elect Obama’s signature the day he takes office.

"Our economy is crumbling, and we need fair-pay legislation now more than ever," Jocelyn Samuels of the National Women’s Law Center said in an e-mail to supporters. Seriously, it’s about time …

36 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I still have a hard time believing that this is even a subject for legislation. This should have been a done deal decades ago, and it was when McCain voted against this bill that I knew he didn’t have my vote. I mean, how ridiculous is it that a woman wouldn’t be on the same payscale that a man is, or in line for the same promotion based on her equal qualifications.

By Diana T on 01/13/2009 10:17 am

e-mail alert

Agreed Di—decades ago—but maybe finally those people on the hill will get their collective heads in tune with the rest of the US—I read a column once by Marianne Means i think it was in which she stated the beyond the Beltway in DC doesn’t exist for too many in congress—they’re insular and shielded—they need to get with the program.

By f p on 01/13/2009 11:40 am

e-mail alert

it is a subject for legislation because the supreme court did not see fit to be fair. if the court were composed largely of women who came of age in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, ledbetter’s lawsuit would have had a cause for action. now give nancy pelosi credit for getting both equal pay acts through the house last week. maybe some of the republican women in the senate will prevent it from being filibustered.

By Elisabeth S on 01/13/2009 9:21 pm

e-mail alert

It is pretty surprising. But then again, the Equal Rights Amendment has never passed so I suppose it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Personally, I think the problem is that there is a subset of our population (cough cough conservatives cough cough) who want us to keep “traditional” values. They seem to think that working women are a threat to the family, so we shouldn’t offer any more incentives to them. But I think things are improving as gen Yers and gen Xers, who are more liberal than their parents, get to voting! One thing I’ve found is comforting whenever I’m frusturated at women’s progress in the work world is to watch 80s sitcoms. This shows were made when I was born, yet they have such an archiac view of a woman’s place that it is cringe worthy. If we’ve made this much progress in a quarter century, I can only imagine that things will be better for my daughters and grandaughters. Assuming, of course, that the economy doesn’t tank and implode the country and send us back into a dark age.

By R.J.B. Reed on 01/13/2009 11:15 pm

e-mail alert

I think many at this point would just like to have paying work rather than unemployment. Business like mine would love to be able to just bring back the employees I had last year…

By S.J. Morgan on 01/13/2009 10:20 am

e-mail alert

So women should be grateful to have a job even if they are not getting the same salary a man is getting for the same work?? We shouldn’t use “the economy” to get away with righting a wrong. It’s one thing is businesses that are suffering lower wages fairly, it’s another when they do not.

By Brooklyn Gal on 01/13/2009 10:41 am

e-mail alert

Get used to it! Employers will use the economy to justify all sorts of bad treatment of employees, both male and female. They did it in the 80s and they’ll do it even more now with the word “Depression” out there.

By DeBúrca obj on 01/13/2009 11:38 am

e-mail alert

Yes, I know that. Businesses that have posted great profits are asking employees to take pay cuts. My response was that this bill needs to be passed regardless of the economic situation. For someone to comment that people should be grateful to have a job does not address the issue at hand. This bill needs to be passed.

By Brooklyn Gal on 01/13/2009 11:44 am

e-mail alert

I agreed with your post, just added my 2 cents.

By DeBúrca obj on 01/13/2009 11:54 am

e-mail alert

The House voted on a similar bill, last summer, and it failed. My Rep., a Republican, voted against it…I called his office, and wrote him an email…I told him I was going to do eveything in my power, to prevent his re-election! He still won—-goes to show how little power I have! hahahaha He told me, however, that he voted against the bill, because of the ‘slip ins’ to the bill, that he disagreed with…those ‘slip-ins’ that had nothing to do with equal pay for women, but if the bill had passed, would have allowed the ‘slip-ins’ to have passed as well…to my thinking—it was an excuse! I believe that Congress would be better serving if they took one issue at a time, instead of sneaking the pork in with something that needs to be handled, as a pander to get votes. Maybe we should lobby to that effect…? Does anybody remember their 5th gade history class? Where in the textbooks they teach what the founders of the 13 colonies discovered when they landed here? WOMEN were in charge! The Indians had a Chief…but the WOMEN chose the Chief…and if they didn;t like the way he was ‘Chiefing’, they booted him out, and chose another one to replace him…There were no term limits….a Chief was a chief until he was no more the chief! simple…and the WOMEN made the decisions about that. All those women living on Social Security know how the ego’s of men regarding their salaries, have affected their monthly SS check….it is time for a change!

By Patty E on 01/13/2009 10:51 am

e-mail alert

I have the same problems with my Rep who is also a Republican. Peter Roskam… we call him “Rubber Stamp Roskam”… he voted with Bush nearly 100% of the time, yet he still wins because my district is rampant with Republicans. Even with those Repulicans voting FOR OBAMA in this election, Roskam still won his seat back. I was very disappointed. I cannot stand this man’s politics and hate it that he is representing me.

By DeBúrca obj on 01/13/2009 11:40 am

e-mail alert

I can’t believe that not only is this in legislation, it’s happening period. In this day and age and the fact that women comprise a great majority of people in the work force as well as in top corporate positions, this is a no brainer and should never have had to go to legislation in the first place. Get with the program congress…Equal work, Equal pay!

By HA BIBI on 01/13/2009 10:55 am