Equal Paycheck Act, S3772 – Women’s Rights to Pay Equity Continue to Lag Behind Male Counterparts Due to Legislative Incompetence As If By Design

John F Kennedy Signs Equal Pay Act, yet another instance of show over substance when it comes to actual parity

On November 17th, the Senate voted against proceeding with S3772, the Paycheck Fairness Act, along almost straight party lines. The Act would allegedly mandate equal pay for women, who still lag behind their male counterparts earning only .77 cents for every dollar. Those arguing against the passage of this particular bill, including the Boston Globe’s Editorial Board, noted the language of the Bill was flawed, even though there is a need to remedy a pay gap. The bill would encourage lawsuits against all employers, which, in this economy, was considered an undue burden and “job killer”.

It is also a perfect example of how the status quo is maintained by politico’s, both men and women, in order for equal pay for equal work to remain out of reach, while at the same time allowing these politicians to appear to support women’s rights. “Throw a Dog a Bone” is an appropriate idiom to what took place in the Senate, during the Lame Duck session; with Democrats now crying foul due to Republicans not supporting this particular act. This set's up “women’s groups” to rally for the cause along party lines, and with 2012 on the horizon, the Democrats need every trick in the book to keep up appearances – so do the Republicans.

Those voting against the bill (roll call below), included a Democrat or two, and one can bet the House (or the Senate in this case) the Act had less to do with women actually achieving pay parity, than with the growth of the Federal government and ridiculous costly programs.

The Act can be read in its entirety here in PDF format: with particularly glaring segments of the Bill, by which any individual, regardless of gender, should have taken exception.

For example the language states: “Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors.” Therefore, the Legislature admits that the government itself is guilty of gender discrimination, however, the language of the Bill then sets up an exclusion from compliance for the Government under the “Enhanced Enforcement” section.

In addition, there are provisions to set up additional governmental agencies to oversee investigation of complaints and training of women. Who would be responsible for this training and what would it include. Those who would qualify for funding include government agencies and community organizations. In order for those “entities” to be eligible for funds, they must:

“Carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male employees."

Seriously, a direct quote from the bill (see PDF), that would teach women (and girls) negotiation skills in order to receive higher wages is the basis of this Act.

Frankly, the authors of the final piece of legislation (keep in mind, a Bill takes many forms from the original version in the House, to its final form in the Senate), should be summarily chastised for doing nothing for equal pay, rather, creating a nonsensical document that was doomed from the onset for one reason only – enslavement of a voting bloc.

Strong word, but this appears appropriate as the language of the Bill’s final version may have read somewhat differently – simply:

Women shall be paid wages equal to their male counterparts for performing the exact same job descriptions, in the public and in the private sector. Those private or public organizations that do not strictly comply will be a) fined, and b) forced to compensate the aggrieved employee back wages equal to the difference in wages paid to her male counterpart, for the time period beginning when the pay disparity began. Since wages are reported, along with job functions to the Internal Revenue Service, monitoring of these wages will be simplified. As all returns are computerized, software would be able to check firms and job descriptions against gender and wages. If an employee had a suspicion that she was not earning as much as her male counterpart a simple call to the IRS would either support or dismiss a case.

No need to hire a lawyer, no need to set up investigative arms (the IRS is already in place watching over wages and running audits), no need to teach negotiating skills or to fund community organizations to do the same.

Instead, mandate that women doing the same job as a male be paid the same, use the current government agencies that have the capability to monitor salaries in place as “watchdogs”, and supply a handy toll-free number for complaints. How many employers, understanding that an Act such as the aforementioned, which would monitor taxes and payroll would take the chance of facing fines, and not pony up the .33 per hour in order to comply?

In the meantime, women must wait for equality where equality is already mandated, simply because politicians, including women, would rather play politics with their lives, while attempting to enrich, not the victim,(who will surely vote for the party that at least "tried" to aid women - i.e. enslavement) but lawyers and community organizers.

That is the question that should be asked of each and every member of the Senate who will be in the 112th Congess, some of which voted on S3772:


Roll Call:

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---58
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 1
Murkowski (R-AK)