The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex. It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy. The fair pay act act allows individuals who face pay discrimination to seek rectification under federal anti-discrimination laws. The law clarifies that discrimination based on age, religion, national origin, race, sex and disability will "accrue" every time the employee receives a paycheck that is deemed discriminatory.
One documented area of pay discrimination is the pay gap between men and women. As of 2017, it was estimated that on average, women are paid only 78 cents for each dollar men are paid for comparable work. The gap becomes wider when examining pay data for women of color, who get 65 cents on the white male dollar, and Hispanic women, who earn 58 cents on the dollar, according to the National Women's Law Center. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was considered a positive step in advancing the fair treatment of workers. According to human resources.net
One of the main things is that men just see women as a liability. Especially when things like starting a family come to the forefront. obviously, men can’t have babies so there is a lot of planning and preparation when a woman becomes pregnant. And now with the #metoo movement, whether she's being sexually harassed or trying to navigate the workplace through pregnancy, maternity leave and daily pumping breaks, a woman is usually always made to feel that her body is a liability.
Wage discrimination occurs when individuals with the same education and working experience perform similar jobs, yet are paid differently. The law in the vast majority of countries forbids wage discrimination on grounds of: gender and sexual disposition, nationality, age, marital status, descent country of origin, race, and religion.
One of the biggest gender gaps is in the area of income: One-in-four working women (25%) say they have earned less than a man who was doing the same job; one-in-twenty working men (5%) say they have earned less than a female peer. Women are roughly four times as likely as men to say they have been treated as if they were not competent because of their gender (23% of employed women versus 6% of men), and they are about three times as likely as men to say they have experienced repeated small slights at work because of their gender (16% versus 5%).
There are significant gaps on other items as well. While 15% of working women say they have received less support from senior leaders than a man who was doing the same job, only 7% of working men report having a similar experience. One-in-ten working women say they have been passed over for the most important assignments because of their gender, compared with 5% of men. The survey, which was conducted July 11-Aug. 10, 2017, with a nationally representative sample of 4,914 adults (including 4,702 who are employed at least part time), also asked about sexual harassment in a separate question. It found that while similar shares of women and men say sexual harassment is at least a small problem in their workplace (36% versus 35%), women are about three times as likely as men to have experienced it personally while at work (22% versus 7%).
In more recent surveys conducted by other organizations, the share of women reporting personal experiences with sexual harassment has fluctuated, depending in part on how the question was asked. In an ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted Oct. 12-15, for example, 54% of women said they have received unwanted sexual advances from a man that they felt were inappropriate whether or not those advances were work-related; 30% said this had happened to them at work. In an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted Nov. 13-15, 35% of women said they have personally experienced sexual harassment or abuse from someone in the workplace.
The Center’s survey asked about sexual harassment specific to the workplace. The survey was conducted as part of a broader forthcoming study on women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields.
Lilly Ledbetter vividly remembers the day another employee tipped her off by putting a not in her mailbox to the fact that she was making around 50% less than her male colleagues, for the same job she had done for 19 years. Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear, filed an equal pay lawsuit against the corporation after she learned that she earned much less than two male managers in comparable positions. Though she was awarded $3.3 million in punitive damages, this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds that employees may not contest wage discrimination if more than 180 days have passed since the initial wage discrimination occurred, even if it has been continued with subsequent paychecks. Less than two years later, Obama passed the Fair Pay Act to overturn this Supreme Court decision and help mitigate its effects by allowing wage discrimination suits to be filed within 180 days of the most recent paycheck reflecting the discrepancy.
Women and men do not have to be performing identical jobs for the EPA to apply (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The following requirements apply: a significant portion of the job tasks are the same for the positions being compared; the two jobs involve similar levels of skill, which means similar levels of experience, ability, education, and training; the two jobs involve similar levels of mental and physical exertion; the two jobs involve similar levels of responsibility or accountability; and the two jobs are performed under similar working conditions.
Democrats were fast to react, but Republicans immediately opposed the bill as drafted. The bill was defeated by Senate Republicans in April, 2008, who cited the possibility of frivolous lawsuits in their opposition. The bill was successfully reintroduced in January, 2009. Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases.
Less than two years after the Ledbetter decision, the Lilly Ledbetter Act was the first substantive piece of legislation signed by President Obama. Since statistics show that women make less than men, many feel this will bankrupt companies. An organization without clearly defined roles means all employees should be equally compensated. Other cons are that, in a workplace with total equity, there is no distinction between roles and therefore no distinction that separates management roles from support roles. The result is that all employees would be classified as equal and paid as such, regardless of an employee's actual job function. A compensation structure that rewards employees equally and doesn't have a pay scale that reflects an assortment of job functions for which employees receive pay based on their jobs' value in the labor market will eventually drive the organization to financial insolvency.
However, In some cases, such as in single-parent households, women are the primary breadwinners for their families. Equal pay for women means there is a greater chance they can earn an income that allows them to support their family. According to the Center for American Progress, the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 resulted in men losing their jobs at a higher rate than women, also placing a greater burden on women to earn a larger income.
Iceland is the first country to make it illegal to pay men more than women. Equal pay policies is now mandatory for companies with 25 or more employees. Those that cannot show that they provide equal pay will be subject to fines of up to $500 a day. The law, which was passed last year, went into effect on Jan 1st. Iceland is already a leader in gender parity. The World Economic Forum (WEF)ranked Iceland as the top country for gender equality for the last nine years based on criteria involving economics, education, health, and politics.
When The WAGE Project looked exclusively at full-time workers, they estimated that women with a high school diploma lose as much as $700,000 over a lifetime of work, women with a college degree lose $1.2 million and professional school graduates may lose up to $2 million. Not only are these inequities enormously detrimental to women and their families, wage inequities follow women into their retirement years, reducing their Social Security benefits, pensions, savings and other financial resources.
An alternative proposal would be to make all companies undergo a required audit of employee compensation every 6 months to ensure that women and minorities are being paid on a fair scale next to the men, and if not, the company will be fined, and give those they discriminated against back pay. Another alternative would be to simply pay people fairly. There should not be a law to just pay people a fair wage, especially if someone is qualified, has the education and skillset for the job you hired them to do.
NASW has been steadfast in its support of both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was originally included in the bill passed by the House of Representatives, but removed in the Senate. Despite the defeat of the Paycheck Fairness Act,
NASW strongly contends that both bills are imperative remedies to redress not only pay disparity, but also other types of discriminatory actions that impact the lives of working women. The White House has invited Dr. Clark to attend the signing of S. 181 into law on behalf of NASW and social workers nationwide. NASW celebrates this monumental step forward for working women and will continue to advocate for the alleviation of the persistent wage gap between women and men.
I do not necessarily think there should be a program to shift companies in the right direction as far as paying workers, women specifically, a fair wage. I do think that if this company get some sort of tax right off they should be penalized by paying higher taxes and fined each time they commit a violation.