Women Officially Screwed at Work…And a Bill that Could Fix It Languishes in Congress Why Exactly?
As if we needed any more evidence that women making less than men at work is straight-up unfair—and not, as some would have you think, because of motherhood or part-time work, or career choice—an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times argues that the recent landmark judgment against Novartis proves that we need legislation protecting women at work more than ever before:
Some of the most powerful evidence put to the jury concerned gender disparities in pay. Female sales representatives at Novartis were paid $105 less per month, on average, than men with the same amounts of experience and tenure. Unfortunately, such shortchanging is hardly unique. Nationally, women still make, on average, 78 cents for every dollar earned by men performing substantially the same work.
In January 2009, the House approved the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure that would help close that yawning pay gap by, among other things, making stronger remedies available under the existing Equal Pay Act, protecting employees from retaliation, and ensuring that courts require employers to show that wage disparities are job-related, not sex-based, and consistent with business needs.
It is time for the Senate to stop dawdling and approve this needed tweaking of the rules.
We’re glad that the Times is standing up on this issue. But here’s what’s disappointing:
- The piece ran on Memorial Day, a Monday, which means it was probably read by fewer people than any other day of the week.
- The legislation has been languishing in Congress for a year and a half already? Yes, yes, we know that there’s been some, um, important stuff to take care of down in D.C., but we’d think an act like this—“fairness” is in the title for chrissakes!—would be sort of a no-brainer. Who takes issue with protecting employees from retaliation (that’s the same as protecting whistleblowers, no?) or making companies prove that unequal wages aren’t based on sexism? Color us naive, but we just don’t get it.
- Also: it’s 2010. Remind us why this didn’t pass 40 years ago?
Any D.C. insiders reading? Help a sister out! What is the deal?
