Convince me there is a role for the government to play in gender pay equality

In My Humble Opinion
1

I generally favor the progressive end of every social issue, and I absolutely think men and women should be paid the same for the same work…
…but I just really don’t see how it’s something the government should be involved in (other than when they’re setting wages for government employees).

“Equal Pay for Equal Work” certainly sounds reasonable, but I have never seen two people who have the same job title actually doing equal work. There’s always one person who does more work and/or better work than a co-worker. An employer will often quite naturally value one employee higher than another. If the highly valued employee wants a raise, the employer may feel it best to grant the raise if there is a real chance the employee will go out and look for and find another job. If the lesser valued employee wants a raise, the employer may feel less inclined to grant it if it is likely that the employee can be replaced with a comparably talented new hire.
Hypothetically, I may have to hire two sprocket shiners. My budget allows me to offer $25K for each of the two equal positions. Of all the applicants, I have decided the two best qualified are Elizabeth and Jennifer. At Elizabeth’s final interview, I ask her how much she wants to be paid. She says she’s looking for $22K. I say, great to have you on board! Elizabeth has now been hired as a sprocket shiner for $22K a year.

Then I interview Jennifer. I ask Jennifer how much she wants to be paid. She says she’s looking for $28K. I say I can offer $25K. Jennifer agrees. Jennifer has now been hired as a sprocket shiner for $25K a year.

Am I now obligated to go back to Elizabeth and say, “Hey, the other hire asked for more money than you, so we’re just going to give you a raise so that the two of you are getting equal pay for equal work”? I see no reason why I should. There’s no job that holds any unshakable defined monetary value. Your job is worth the price that you and your employer agreed upon.

Hell, Elizabeth very well may be a better worker than Jennifer but I need two sprocket shiners and Jennifer said she’d do it for $25K and Elizabeth said she’d do it for $22K. That was our agreement, so that’s what they get paid.
At every job I’ve ever had, there has been a set schedule and a set percentage for pay raises. At every job I have ever had, I have gotten occasional pay raises outside the set schedule and at a higher percentage than standard company policy. I got these raises because:[ul]
[li]I asked for the raise[/li][li]My employer believed I would quit without the raise[/li][li]My employer valued my work enough that the raise was preferable to replacing me with a new hire[/li][/ul]
If “Equal Pay for Equal Work” were the law of the land, my co-workers would not have gotten equal pay raises but rather I would not have gotten the pay raise to begin with. My employer was not about to accept the expense of giving equal pay raises across the board.

In each of these instances, my supervisor told me not to discuss the raise with anyone else. Well, I didn’t need to be told not to discuss it because what I get paid is none of anyone else’s goddamn business! I don’t even necessarily know that I am the highest paid employee in my position. It possible that I have a co-worker who negotiated a better raise- and that’s none of my business.
Now, maybe the argument is “It’s not an issue when it just comes down to individuals. The issue is that systematically women are paid less than men for the same work.” O.K., I can see that. But here’s the thing: Many employers value women less than they value men.
They shouldn’t value women less.
It’s wrong.
Kinda makes them sexist assholes.
In many cases an employer may recognize that a woman is doing more and better work than her male counterpart but the employer still values her less simply because she is a woman and the employer is just that kind of an asshole.
Sucks though it may, I don’t see any systematic solution other than “It will be better for your granddaughter, just as it is better for you than it was for your grandmother”.

Eventually, the company across town will be run by someone who recognizes the talented woman who’s work is not valued by her current employer. She’ll ask for a raise and the sexist asshole employer will scoff and she’ll walk. Yes, the unfortunate current situation is that there is not a competitor across town who will properly value her work. She needs a job, so she can’t simply quit. But it’s getting to be more and more the case that she can quit and find a better opportunity- again, it’s better for her than it was for her grandmother. Eventually, the sexist asshole employer is going to be losing the more talented and hard working employees. In order to compete with competitors, proper wages will have to be offered equally to the the best job candidates regardless of gender, and it will be better for our granddaughters than it is now.

I think the current situation is bad but I don’t see a role for government because I don’t see a way for a law to be written that does not take into account that, at Spacely’s Sprockets, George and Dorothy have the same job but George gets paid more because George is a better employee …
…while over at Cogswell’s Cogs, Robert and Susan have the same job but Susan gets paid more because Susan is a better employee.

The only cases where I see this as being something that could be regulated …
are union jobs or any other jobs that have pay raises and job promotions specifically codified in a way that employer and employees all formally have agreed to. If it is specifically codified that a male new hire gets $25K and a female new hire gets $22K, then I can see the government stepping in and saying it’s sexual discrimination and not allowable. Or if it is specifically codified that a 5% raise kicks in after a year of employment but 6% raises are frequently given to male employees and never to female employees.
O.K., I know it probably seems like I’ve laid out a firm opinion that I hold as unshakeable but I do honestly recognize that I could be missing something and I welcome attempts to point it out to me. Perhaps it is possible to write laws in ways that help speed the way to gender pay equality while still allowing for individuals to negotiate among themselves as they see fit. I’m not seeing it, but I am truly open to trying to understand it.

Again, I think there should be pay equality, I just don’t see how to make it law.

2

Well, to fix pay equity you need to find the cause of the inequity.

Is it childcare? There are remedies for that, from supporting childcare to flex time.

Is it negotiation? Maybe we need to teach negotiation skills, or reduce the role of negotiation, or add a little transparency.

Is it breaks in work? Paid paternity leave does wonders to level that field.

Is it prejudice? Well, in that case you start looking at incentives.

I am not a social scientist, so I don’t know what the barriers are. But unequal pay is not a force of the universe. It comes from real things, many of which can be addressed.

3

Employers would pay women, blacks and hispanics less, on a grand scale. It’s in all our best interests to make such arbitrary wage differences illegal, because it is in all our interests for people to feel that they are given a “fair” shake in the marketplace.

Equal work for equal pay is, of course, not possible for reasons you state.

4

The government should do its utmost to prevent and/or punish discrimination. If women are paid less for non-discriminatory reasons, the no, I don’t see a role for the government in dealing with that. Like the things Even Sven suggests, I just think that goes too far. Government does enough things badly without adding more things. Teaching negotiating skills? What would federal employees know about that? They don’t negotiate pay, they are paid based on a formula. Paid paternity leave? Not the worst idea in the world, but yet another cost piled on top of all the other regulatory costs we foist on business. If we repeal other costly regulations to “pay” for paternity leave I can see supporting it.

I also don’t see how paid paternity leave solves the “breaks in work” problem. All paid paternity leave does is make sure that you are paid while you are gone. You’re still falling behind your colleagues and it will still make it harder to advance because you’re spending a lot of time out of the game.

These non-discrimination factors can only be changed by society from the bottom up. We need more stay at home dads and we need to treat that option as a valid choice for men. Government can’t do that, that can only come through changing societal values.

5

Because the government defines the rules of a marketplace.

6

Not really, economics does fundamentally. The government can set rules to try and mitigate any issues deemed undesirable that are created by those but it cannot simply sidestep them.

In any case, the ‘equal pay for equal work’ mantra is largely (but maybe not entirely) political legend that has little to no basis in reality. Women, as a whole, do make less than men if you simply take all women and do the division. However, that does not mean at that women make substantially less than men in the same job.

The 70 cents for every dollar claim is absolute political bullshit because it compares unequal jobs, experience and time commitment. All of the studies I have read puts it closer to 95 - 97% of men’s pay for the same job but even those don’t fully correct for time commitments or experience. How would that even work? Anyone that works for large corporations or government agencies knows that they don’t have two pay scales divided by sex. There is usually only marginal flexibility in how much you make once you are in a particular job whether you are male or female.

It is a largely manufactured and fictitious problem if you take the statement literally.

7

Some people go further by saying that it isn’t fair that women tend to take lower paying jobs like teacher or nurse so that drags them down unfairly. That is complete bullshit too. Teachers and nurses are both paid well above the median household income in most parts of the U.S. $60K or much more is common even in some lower cost of living states. Combine that with benefits and time off and it isn’t a bad deal at all. They obviously work hard for their money but they are not poor in the least. A pair of married teachers (the husband is going to make the same as the wife based on the government payscale) let alone nurses is upper-middle class in the vast majority of the country and they have more time off than the vast majority of people. A lot of these ideas are old myths that once applied but really don’t anymore.

8

Most companies have a rule that states that if you tell someone what you make, they can fire you on the spot.

Now one way government COULD help is if they would make firing a person just for telling others their wages illegal so at least you could find out what others are making.

9

I think it also goes back to education.

Back when I was in college very few females were taking courses in engineering or the hard sciences. Alot of them were art, english, nursing, or education majors. All those are nice - BUT - they dont pay well. Their were also few in finance or computers.

Now this was in the 80’s so their wasnt a damn thing keeping them from majoring in chemical engineering, except they didnt want to. One big engineering school in Rolla Missouri was only about 15% female. Again, no woman was ever told they couldnt go there and in fact many were encouraged to do so and even offered scholarships. But no. They didnt want it.

Where I work as a mechanic only maybe 1 in 20 are female.

10

To the OP: Many people will believe that you are clearly a racist, sexist asshole. Personally, I believe that your discussion merely means that you believe in the free market. Or at the very least, understand that it exists and how it works.

Personally, I live by the mantra that nobody gets what they deserve. They get what they negotiate. In fact, deserve is a null word. It doesn’t deserve to even exist.

11

Um, yeah, prior to your reply the six other responses were really tearing me a new one. Wasn’t sure I’d survive the onslaught. I can’t thank you enough for coming to my rescue …or something.

12

I think the Ledbetter Act does that, doesn’t it? But yeah, that should definitely be illegal because it’s a corporate attempt to limit wage competitiveness. It’s hard to bargain when you don’t know what the job you’re doing is actually worth. Prices should be transparent and I don’t see a distinction between wages and prices. All a wage is is the price of labor.

13

Michael, Sprocket Polishing Supervisor at Spacely’s Sprockets makes $70K/year.
He has turned in his resignation. He will need to be replaced.

The board at Spacely’s Sprockets has decided they need to drastically cut costs in many areas. The job market is poor, so they feel confident that they can get a suitable replacement for the Sprocket Polishing Supervisor position at a fraction of what they were paying Michael.

Spacely’s Sprockets interviews Anthony. He is well qualified and has relevant experience. They offer him $40K/year. That’s less than he was hoping for, but he agrees to it. Anthony is the new Sprocket Polishing Supervisor at Spacely’s Sprockets with a salary of $40K/year.

Douglas, Director of Cogs Marketing at Cogswell’s Cogs makes $90K/year.
He has turned in his resignation. He will need to be replaced.

The board at Cogswell’s Cogs has decided they need to drastically cut costs in many areas. The job market is poor, so they feel confident that they can get a suitable replacement for the Director of Cogs Marketing position at a fraction of what they were paying Douglas.

Cogswell’s Cogs interviews Karen. She is well qualified and has relevant experience. They offer her $55K/year. That’s less than she was hoping for, but she agrees to it. Karen is the new Director of Cogs Marketing at Cogswell’s Cogs with a salary of $55K/year.

A year later, Anthony at Spacely’s Sprockets finds out that his predecessor had been making $70K/year.
Anthony now feels a bit disgruntled about his salary of $40K/year.

Also at this time, Karen at Cogswell’s Cogs finds out that her predecessor had been making $90K/year.
Karen now feels a bit disgruntled about her salary of $55K/year.

Karen can sue Cogswell’s Cogs under the Ledbetter Act.
Anthony has no basis to sue Spacely’s Sprockets.

Is my hypothetical flawed in any way?

The way I see it is that there is nothing intrinsic about the position of Sprocket Polishing Supervisor that makes it a $70K/year job.
There is nothing intrinsic about the position of Director of Cogs Marketing that makes it a $90K/year job.

These are both just jobs that need to be done and the company wants to pay as little as possible while still having a talented and competent individual in the position. The job is worth what the employer and employee agree to. Neither the previous employee’s salary nor the salary for the same position at a different company attach any indelible market value on a particular job title.

14

There needs to be a “discriminatory decision,” which there isn’t in the above hypothetical.

15

Yeah, but Karen believes there was a discriminatory decision. If there had been a discriminatory decision the results would be identical. In principle, the defense isn’t supposed to have to prove innocence but doesn’t Ledbetter make it really easy for Karen’s lawyer?

16

It’s not “in theory.” That’s how the legal system works. Like many crimes, discrimination is hard to prove, and thus has a low conviction rate.