Two years ago, a majority of the Senate supported the Paycheck Fairness Act, but it died at the hands of a Republican filibuster. At the time, every GOP senator, including the so-called "moderates," not only opposed the legislation, but also refused to even let the bill have an up-or-down vote.
Two years later, the exact same thing happened.
Democratic legislation meant to fight gender discrimination in the workplace failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate Tuesday on a procedural vote.
In a 52 to 47 tally the Senate defeated the Paycheck Fairness Act. The legislation aimed to increase protections for women filing gender discrimination lawsuits, as well as create a federal grant program to improve salary negotiating skills of women. The vote was strictly along party lines, with the two Independent senators voting with the Democrats and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) not voting.
There were some hopes that less-conservative Republican senators like Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) might break ranks on this one. For that matter, vulnerable Republican incumbents like Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) could have sided with Democrats purely for appearances, knowing that their votes wouldn't affect the outcome.
Perhaps some of the senators being considered for the Republican vice presidential nomination, such as Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), or Rob Portman (R-Ohio), might side with women to make themselves more palatable to a national audience? No, they all backed the filibuster and killed the bill, too.
The GOP opposition was as unanimous as it was unyielding, White House lobbying notwithstanding.
For those unfamiliar with the substance behind the legislation, the bill would "enhance the remedies available for victims of gender-based discrimination and require employers to show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and driven by business necessity. The measure would also protect employees from retaliation for sharing salary information, which is important for deterring and challenging discriminatory compensation.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which we discussed with Ledbetter herself last night, was an important step forward when it comes to combating discrimination, but it was also narrowly focused to address a specific problem: giving victims of discrimination access to the courts for legal redress. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a broader measure.
With women still only making 77 cents for every dollar men earn in similar jobs, the question may soon become why so many Republicans seem indifferent to the problem.
Leave a Comment:
Republican Senators say NO to Violence against Woman Act, NO to Gender Based Pay Discrimination then ask What War on Woman ? How could anyone especially any Woman vote for these jokers. FOX News will probably twist it in a way that makes it the fault of the Senate Democrats and they will buy it hook line and sinker as always.
Our president needs to make the point that it is Republicans in Congress who are obstructing every step of the way. There can not be progress without getting 60+ Dems back in the Senate (and then holding our collective breath that they will have the party unity of Republicans) and a Democratic majority in the House.
Sadly, by the very nature of being Democrats and (mostly) liberals, they'll never have the "party unity" of the Rape-Public-CONs, but that still will be the only way to get anything done as long as the GOPpers are as stubbornly treasonous as they show every sign of remaining (Remember "Country First"? My gluteous maximus!).
Every member of congress, the house,all the way up to the president and all the way down to local officials should make the same as the american soldiers. Money in no way should allow a person a reason to run for any kind of office. Money breeds greed and greed breeds corruption. Every one who holds office should do this for the betterment of our country. This way we would have have leaders who have a little bit of gumption. Greed and corruption are killing our country and it's values!
If the congress made less money and retained all of its power, then I would bet they would be much more susceptible to corruption and promises of wealth upon retirement.
I think all members of congress should be given a $10,000,000 bonus upon their retirement so long as they have not participated in any corruption or violated any ethical codes during their career. Give them something wothwile to lose.
The Republican Party loves to talk about the greatness of our military, and they’re quick to smear their faux love all over our Servicemen and women (of which I am one, and personally find patronizing and insulting). And yet, they refuse to support the Fair Pay Act. Really? Has anybody told these sycophantic hypocrites that the U.S. military has the most egalitarian pay scale of any employer in the United States? Are they aware that a Hispanic female Major with 10 years of service in the Army draws the exact same base pay as a white male Major with 10 years of service in the Air Force? Or that a black female Chief Petty Officer with 12 years of service in the Navy draws the exact same base pay as a white male Chief Petty Officer with 12 years of service in the Coast Guard? If “pay fairness” is good enough for the very institution that they so self-servingly embrace in every sound-bite, then why isn’t it good enough to be codified in law?
I wish that someone in the press would point this out!
Shhhhh... if they find out they'll probably try to amend the next Defense Authorization Act to "correct" that.
;-)
If they had to pay equal pay for equal work, it would be $$$ out of their bonuses and investor dividends. Now can't have that can they?
The GOP does know exactly how "government" workers are paid (including the military) which is why they want to "privatize" all public employees. The first step is to kill the unions; then privatize.
It's really not about "smaller government" but rather ALL about bigger corporations with less regulation. No taxes for corporate persons but LOTS of "fees" for you. Want your trash collected; pay a fee. Want a library; pay a fee. Want a police force responding to 911; pay a fee. Want fire department; pay a fee. If you don't pay taxes, you get no services. If you want services, then you pay a fee for service and there is no organization to regulate what that fee is or what it covers. Remember the guy whose home burned down because he didn't pay the "fee?" No local taxes; no fire department. And think of all the "fees" they could collect; just don't call them "taxes" and they are not taxes, but fees. Riiiiight!
And don't think a "private military" isn't in the plan. Just imagine what a "private" police force would be like! Privatized schools means that your kids will be "brainwashed" by what ever the corporation - think Koch Bros. - wanted them to "learn."
This is like a really, really bad movie - if only! These folks are serious.
Point so very well taken, Joe - as I recall, Willard "Reversible Mittens" Raw-money likes to brag about how he kept "taxes" down in MA. Of course, he refuses to talk about how he increased "fees" for governments services by more than $700 million!
As a liberal, I don't object to the concept of taxation. As the web meme (I think that's where I saw this!) says, I know that freedom isn't "free" - that's why we pay taxes. The relentless subterfuge and dishonesty from the right grows so tiresome...
The Republican Party loves to talk about the greatness of our military, and they’re quick to smear their faux love all over our Servicemen and women (of which I am one, and personally find patronizing and insulting). And yet, they refuse to support the Fair Pay Act. Really? Has anybody told these sycophantic hypocrites that the U.S. military has the most egalitarian pay scale of any employer in the United States? Are they aware that a Hispanic female Major with 10 years of service in the Army draws the exact same base pay as a white male Major with 10 years of service in the Air Force? Or that a black female Chief Petty Officer with 12 years of service in the Navy draws the exact same base pay as a white male Chief Petty Officer with 12 years of service in the Coast Guard? If “pay fairness” is good enough for the very institution that they so self-servingly embrace in every sound-bite, then why isn’t it good enough to be codified in law?
I wish that someone in the press would point this out!
I have two daughters, and I am greatly disturbed by this vote. One daughter is just ready to enter the workforce and now she must be told "Sorry, the work you do is just simply not worth as much as a male co-worker." Ladies, how many more times do we have to be told we are not good enough, we are not worth it, we are too stupid to handle ourselves and our own bodies and we are not able to make our own decisions? How much more of this are we going to take?
Jan- You are so right on. The question is how do we get that message to both the general voting public. I look at these votes and think how can any woman or right thinking person actually enter a voting booth and vote for these guys. I mean a woman actually voting for someone that does everything against there interest. I think part of the problem is that there is a large portion of people in this country that can name every member of the Jersey Shore cast and every contestant on American Idol but ask those same people to name 5 members of the SCOTUS and they look at you like your Crazy.
That seems to be the reason our education system is failing. I have always contended that Americans are more interested in who won Dancing with the Stars than sitting down with their own children and helping them with their homework.
Our kids seems to know the cast of any Nickelodeon show more than how to spell something correctly or how to do basic math.
Americans are lazy and uniformed, but they sure will bitch and complain if they are taxed. We could force every one to vote, but they won't research the issues. I've always hated the push to "Get out and vote" - voting without understanding the issues or knowing who is running and what they stand for, is worse than not voting at all.
Did you folks miss the part about this being a simple majority vote in a Democrat controlled Senate? To put it plainly, it was voted down by Democrats.
Let's see you all go at them with the same enthusiasm you vilify Republicans. Gad.
Did you miss the part where nothing can get done in the Senate because the GOP fillibuster everything that moves so that a super-majority; ie. 60 votes, are needed to pass bills?
That wasn't the case on this particular vote, as in "simple majority". Please look before you leap.
Move along folks; nothing here to see. What war on women?
No it needed 60 to go forward it got 52 Yays so your wrong
The vote was strictly along party lines, with the two Independent senators voting with the Democrats and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) not voting.
A "simple majority" would mean 51 votes ... this bill got 52 and failed. Please look before you leap.
You are absolutely correct. From the cite...
My apologies to all.
Interesting that our Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk DIDN'T vote.
He would have voted against. Suspect his calculus was not to have that vote on his record. But not voting FOR will still cost him many many women's votes - perhaps even the Senate seat. Will our smart, firebrand Rep Jan Schakowski run . . . ?
Shooter, this may sound sarcastic but it isn't ... thank you for that. It's nice that every now and again we can poke through the noise on either side and come to an understanding. Even if it's only for a little while ;-)
I'm glad it was killed. This was just another example of special laws for women. It's not that a woman doesn't deserve equal pay but it is just a one sided law.
Would a man get the same privledge if he was paid less than a woman? Is everyone in the company required to reveal their pay? How much would experience or performance count? Would companies just decide to pay women a bit more to prevent law suits? Would men then be allow to sue? See what crap this is. Rachel is just another woman wanting special privledge. They already get it in many other laws. The Dems have no sense on this one.
We've never tried that yet. Maybe we should switch everything around and pay the men only 77% of the women's pay for oh, say 50 years. Then maybe you'd get it. My guess is the men (of which I'm one) wouldn't accept it past a single paycheck. Same work with the same experience and same performance should equal same pay. It doesn't.
Women make $.77 for every $1.00 men make doing the same exact job ... no special privileges, no additional perks. Same exact work but women make less than men ... I'm curious however as to what "special privileges" you "think" women are getting from this bill ... please, do tell ...
Does anyone know how they determine if the job is the "same" ?
If a MAN makes less than another MAN for doing the "same" job can he file a suit?
I am a guy. I worked in a kitchen and another guy had the same exact job as I did. We were interchangeable. He actually was hired the year before me. I made more than he did, could he file a suit for that?
Please note the 77% does not distinguish between jobs. It merely says, on the whole, women earn 77% less than men. Somehow, "similar work" came into the discussion.
Masculinists are an abomination unto Nuggan (one of the few Nugganite abominations that make a lick of sense).
vfeinstein,
A 2007 study found that--even when accounting for key factors generally known to influence earnings such as race, educational attainment, and experience--nearly half (49.3 percent) of the pay gap can be explained by differences in the industries and occupations that men and women work in, and 41 percent of the pay gap cannot be accounted for but may be partially explained by discrimination in the workplace.
So, really only a 9.43% is not accounted for, and MAY (that doesn't mean that it actually is) be PARTIALLY explained by discrimination in the work place.
you know, i'm beginning to think at this point that the republicans are just trying to see how much they can get away with before people start "really" protesting. it's like a six year old child, trying to see how far he can go before mommy finally has had enough and gives him a good wack up the backside.
hey, we're way past there, mommy. let's go!! give 'em a good wack!
I think this is correct. They're testing to see what the boundaries of obnoxiousness are. Many of the things they've been doing -- proposing Medicare's destruction, tax cuts for rich, tax increases for poor, killing the EPA, etc. -- just couldn't have happened even 10 years ago.
They're finding out Americans kind of like obnoxiousness. What a surprise.
They call it the Overton window.
Also, I suspect that they'd dearly love to provoke an uprising in order to justify a severe crackdown.
Republicons are not going to go against whom ever is pulling the strings of their party. Personally, I think it is the billionaires. To go against their party dictates would be risking the GOP support when it come time for re-election. Regarding Wholewitt's comment, men have been paid less for doing the same job as others since time clocks were invented. It generally has to do with job performance, expierence, years on the job, etc. It's not because they are just men.
You just have to admire how The Hill constructed that first sentence, don't you?
"Democratic legislation meant to fight gender discrimination in the workplace failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate Tuesday on a procedural vote."
If you didn't know any better, you'd think Democrats torpedoed their own legislation and you wouldn't know there was even something called a Republican party involved. Priceless stuff.
My thoughts exactly ...
Shooter242 you are still wrong:
The bill's defeat came after Democrats made a tightly coordinated media blitz to call for the bill's passage. President Obama, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-M.d.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Rosa Delauro (D-Conn.) all held conference calls expressing strong support for the legislation. But Republicans strongly opposed the bill, leaving Democrats short of the seven votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Democrats said the paycheck bill's defeat is the latest example of a Republican "war on women."
if the women in the congress don't want to pass the act then they should accept a pay cut of the 28% so they will get what they think,all other women are entitled to they should not be an exception to this rule they should live what they believe and how they vote they are not very special to me at all theu should get a grip to r4eal life for a change
Actually that would be 23%. However
A 2007 study found that--even when accounting for key factors generally known to influence earnings such as race, educational attainment, and experience--nearly half (49.3 percent) of the pay gap can be explained by differences in the industries and occupations that men and women work in, and 41 percent of the pay gap cannot be accounted for but may be partially explained by discrimination in the workplace.
So, really only a 9.43% is not accounted for, and MAY (that doesn't mean that it actually is) be PARTIALLY explained by discrimination in the work place.
El Ornitorinco,
It's about the same pay for the same job and work being done, I think a study of that pay desparity needs to be used.
Like what? Do you have one? I Copied and Pasted this directly form the Findings (section 2) of the Fair Pay Act that we are discussing.
Do you have an alternative source of information?
No I don't. It says a 2007 study, is that the one in the act? If the fair pay act is using numbers from a study of all jobs you are right, it is all jobs and not just those that are the same. However, the idea of getting the same pay for the same work is still good and fair, why vote it down?
Because it is based on an ASSUMTION that the disparity is based on gender.
I don't have anything against the ideal it represents, but it infringes upon the rights of employers to make important decisions on their own accord.
Hypothetically. Two guys working for the same company are paid different wages for the same job. (lets make them Lawyers) The one making less money can't file a suit claiming discrimination, but if he were a woman he could. That doesn't seem fair.
Personally I believe women need to be empowered not protected.
I actually do believe that there are cases of gender discrimination, but that the companies who do discriminate will eventually find that they are hurting themselves because the more qualified Women will find employment elsewhere.
I think that this bill makes employers more weary of hiring women because it just amounts to more opportunity for liability. Especially if the woman comes off as a Democrat.
This is just another political move on the part of Democrats to point the finger at those Rape-Public-CONs and say they want to hurt ___________! Fill in the Blank.
why?
Maybe it's their ideology of never give an extra penny to the lower classes that can be kept by the corporations.
Maybe they are truly bigoted against women.
Maybe they would prefer to lower men's wages to that of the women to make it fair..aha, I think I found the bill they would sign!
A despicable bunch, these Republicans.
I don't think they see women as being actual people. More like unreliable, malfunctioning things that need to be controlled.
I haven't seen anything in while that would challenge your statement, and with all that christian evangelist stuff it is definitely true for some.
I disagree.
I believe Democrats in Washington are just telling women "don't worry we'll protect you." Which implies a that they do need Protection.
While most Conservatives would agree that women in the workforce don't need Special Treatment.
I believe that a small minority of women may need some empowerment or encouragement, but to do that they must first shed the victim mentality.
I believe the victim mentality is more to blame of the actual 9.43% paydisparity than discrimination.
Taking into account everything that has been said . . . Why wasn't this this vote on so called "equal pay" and this manufactured war on women not an issue when the Democrats had big majorities in both houses?
Why is it being considered five months before one of the most important elections in our history?
Is it that Democrats didn't care about women in 2008-2009?
Was it that health care reform was more important that equal pay, jobs, the economy, out of control deficits?
Things that make you go hmmmmm!!!! If you really truly in your heart of hearts think that this bill, on top of the other multitude of regulations, that already protect women from salary discrimination. I would never want my mother or sister to get paid less than a man for doing the same job (everything else being equal), however both are smart enough to ensure that doesn't happen.
Instead of looking to Republicans that only control one house of Congress for this bill not getting passed, look in the mirror.
But if we are honest, the fact is what most of us know is this equal pay legislation is ONLY being used as a wedge issue.
PLEASE DON'T BE SO TRANSPARENT!!! OBAMA WILL HAVE TO RUN ON HIS RECORD AND TO HIS DEMISE THAT WILL BE TO HIS DESTRUCTION.
I apologize my initial post needs a few edits. I am not sure how to edit after posting.
I agree, but I don't think it will negatively affect Obamas campaign.
Women need to be empowered not protected.
Its not an issue about whether the vote will negatively effect either side. However, it is telling why the Dems think they even needed a wedge.
The Dems are in serious trouble!
You're absolutely right, Congress shouldn't do anything for at least one year before any election so that it doesn't appear that they are doing those things for political gain.
Hmmm, make that two years, since they start running 18 months in advance of an upcoming election.
With the ways the rules are for the Senate, it is entirely possible for the minority party to run the show.
You ask why didn't the Dems pass this when they had majorities in both houses. I'll counter your question with this conundrum - During Bush's administration, he had majorities in both houses and a majority in the Supreme Court. They could have ramrodded any legislation through that they wanted, and upheld it in the Supreme Court.
Ban abortion - done. Abolish Social Security - check. End Medicare/Medicaid - bye bye. Remove all taxes for all corporations everywhere - yup. The fact is, they didn't. The reason they didn't, they want to use these hot button issues to get votes - so they use them as a carrot with no intention of ever abolishing any of it. They need it to get votes/donations for the next election.
The media coverage of this vote has been awful, even and especially from NPR. It's constantly framed as an election-year stunt to force republicans to take unpopular votes. I haven't heard a single commentator mention that, maybe, just maybe it's a good idea for women to make the same money for the same work. Awful horse-race coverage as usual.
Women don't deserve equal pay! They will just use the extra money to do immoral things like get abortions or buy contraceptives.
Besides, Congress should focus on more important things, like how do we extend the Bush taxes cuts permanently.
Passing this legislation would have hurt corporations, we better not do anything to hurt the corporations!