More on Lilly Ledbetter

PunditMom, who I had the good fortune to meet this week, has an excellent idea in her post: Goodyear, You Can Spare $360K for Lilly Ledbetter

As so many women have been basking in the glow of the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the news reports reminded us that even though Lilly has become a standard bearer for the fight for fair pay for women, Lilly herself will never see a nickel of the money that she sued Goodyear Rubber & Tire for. [...]

It's really been bothering me that a corporation like Goodyear that reported profits of $602 million in 2007 (its most current annual SEC filing) most likely spent much more on attorneys' fees than the $360K it could have paid Lilly, trying to convince us it didn't practice gender discrimination. According to its 2007 annual report, Goodyear did, however, pay millions to settle other types of lawsuits. So I thought, wouldn't it be refreshing if Goodyear would do the right thing and pay Lilly Ledbetter the back wages it should have paid her in the first place?

If we really want to honor Lilly and what she did for us and for our daughters (and our sons -- they'll benefit from this, as well), I say we should all call on Goodyear to pay Lilly what it should have paid her to begin with. You don't even need an envelope or stamp. Here's a link to the Goodyear site with the names and online form to contact Goodyear's Global and Corporate Communications honchos.

PunditMom even included a suggested letter you could send:

Dear Goodyear:

Now that President Obama has reversed the Supreme Court decision that denied Lilly Ledbetter her $360,000 in back pay, we call on you to do the right thing and pay Lilly what she should have been paid over the course of 20 years. While the new Ledbetter Law is not retroactive, think about all the public goodwill Goodyear would receive in these tough economic times if it stepped up and did the right thing by Lilly.

Sincerely yours,

(name)

Hey, if you don't ask the answer is always "no."

Senate Passes Lilly Ledbetter Act

The Senate, tonight, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The version is slightly different from what the House passed earlier, so once the House passes the revised version the bill will be on its way to the President for his signature.

The Washington Post reports:

A wage discrimination bill that heralds the pro-labor policies of the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House cleared the Senate Thursday and could be on President Barack Obama's desk within days.

The legislation reverses a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines the time period during which a worker can file a claim of wage discrimination, even if the worker is unaware for months or years that he or she is getting less than colleagues doing the same job. It has been a priority for women's groups seeking to narrow the wage gap between men and women. [...]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that "the first bill that President Obama will sign will be this piece of legislation." He said the bill would send an important message because "this administration stands for equality and fairness."

Obama strongly backs the measure and invited Lilly Ledbetter, the retired Alabama tire company worker whose lawsuit inspired the legislation, to accompany him on the train trip bringing him to Washington for the inauguration.

Bush had threatened to veto the bill, but it never made it out of the Senate. This is a good day for women!

Paycheck Fairness Act, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act First Bills to Pass House

The 111th Congress is getting off to a great start. The Feminist Majority reports:

In an outstanding victory for women's rights, the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act were the first bills to pass the House in the new legislative session. The Paycheck Fairness Act passed with a 256-163 vote and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed with a 247-171 vote.

The Paycheck Fairness Act passed the House in the last Congress, but was never sent to the Senate floor. It will deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the Equal Pay Act and by barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages.

This Ledbetter Act passed the House in the previous Congress, but Republicans filibustered the bill and prevented a vote in the Senate. It corrects the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., Inc. Supreme Court decision (see PDF) that gutted the ability of women workers to sue for wage discrimination.

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for 19 years before discovering that she was paid significantly less than her male counterparts with the same or less experience. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the complaint had to be filed within 180 days of the initial salary decision even if the victim is unaware of the discrimination until much later.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "equal pay is an issue of fundamental fairness...but as families grapple with difficult economic times, equal pay for equal work is often about daily survival for millions of families," according to the Associated Press.

Contact your Senators and urge them to pass these important bills!

What Women Want

Did you know that 46% of single mothers earn incomes under the poverty line? Or that more than 14 million women live in poverty? It shouldn't be surprising that "women feel the impact of economic insecurity and rising food, energy, education, and health care costs more deeply than men – and see government as a key to the solution." A recent poll by the National Women's Law Center indicates women want:

• A better health care system



• An end to the wage gap



• Affordable birth control, comprehensive sex education, and protection for Roe v. Wade



• Access to high-quality child care



• Improved economic security for women and their families



• A solution to the dropout crisis



• A fair and independent judiciary

The facts are in: "One in four girls drops out of high school. More than 17 million women have no health insurance. And women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men."

The National Women's Law Center is offering candidates a Platform for Progress.

Passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Fair Pay Act would be a good start. Another good start would be to reverse the damage done by the welfare reform bill signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. If Congress was so hell bent on impeaching him it should have been for this -- not a stain on a blue dress.

Economic security won't happen for single mothers until they have access to quality, affordable child care. And it won't happen for many women (and men) until we have universal, single-payer health care.

Yes, those Commie socialist ideas feminists have been advocating for decades!

It's amazing how people don't seem to have a problem with socialized fire or police protection -- but somehow offering security to women and their children is a Communist plot!

Comprehensive sex education could help keep a lot of girls in school. As would providing them the same opportunities to participate in team sports. Girls who participate in sports generally have higher self esteem than girls who don't. And when girls feel good about themselves, they are less likely to need validation by a boy (or man), which delays the onset of their sexual activity by around 18 months. For some, it's just enough time to graduate.

The National Women's Law Center would like to know what you think.

Woman of Courage Lilly Ledbetter

One of the things I've always enjoyed about being involved with NOW is the opportunity to meet courageous women who are working to make a difference for all of us. One of those women is Lilly Ledbetter.

For 19 years Lilly worked at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber production plant in Alabama. She was hired as a supervisor in 1979, received excellent employment evaluations over the years and was even selected to take on a special task for the company.

When she discovered that men doing her same job were earning much more, some as much as 40% more, she took her employer to court. A jury agreed that she was paid unfairly, and awarded her $223,776 in back pay, and more than $3 million in punitive damages, but a judge cut that to only $300,000 because of a 1991 law that limits a company's liability for damages.

Goodyear took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against her, taking away every cent of the damages and back pay. In a decision written by Bush nominee Justice Samuel Alito, the Court told Ledbetter that she should have filed a complaint of pay discrimination within 180 days of her first unfair paycheck, even though she had no knowledge of the disparity.

Lilly Ledbetter may never recover the pay she rightly earned. But federal legislation has been introduced in her name in an effort to restore the true intention of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and protect other women from wage discrimination.

The House has passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but the bill fell four votes short in the Senate. Republicans, who have used the filibuster at an alarming rate (up more than 150%) blocked the bill from even coming to the floor for consideration.

Ledbetter said she was surprised to receive a personal call from Sen. Hillary Clinton when the Supreme Court decision was announced. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama interrupted their campaigning last April to fly back to Washington for the Senate vote.

NOW presented Ledbetter a Woman of Courage award today, and she truly deserves it. She not only stood up to Goodyear, but to family and friends who thought she should just leave well enough alone.

But the question remains: Why should women settle for less than what men are paid? And as I have said before, when women are paid less than men EVERYONE suffers. The additional $223,776 in back pay Lilly EARNED could have paid off a mortgage, paid college tuition, or could have been invested to insure her retirement.

When women are discriminated against, everyone in the family suffers.

Lilly Ledbetter will probably never recover the pay she rightly earned, but the federal legislation in her name could restore the true intention of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and protect other women from wage discrimination.

We must make this a priority of our new Congress ... and president.

Equal Pay Act at 45

On June 10, 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA was enacted to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers."

In the 45 years since the EPA became law women's salaries have risen from 62% of men's earnings in 1970 to 80% in 2004. The original goals have not yet been achieved, and it should be noted that in recent years the narrowing of the gap has more to do with depressed wages for men than it does for a increase in salaries for women.

In previous posts I've noted that when women earn less than men who do the same job EVERYONE suffers. The families of women earning less suffer, and single women -- or single heads of households -- don't get a break on things like rent/mortgage, groceries, or the light bill because they are women.

Treating women is against the law, but we have seen recent examples of a conservative U.S. Supreme Court saying "so what?"

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Robber Co. the court determined that because Lilly Ledbetter didn't report the discrimination within the statutory limitations period, 180 days, she was not eligible for relief. Writing the five-justice majority opinion, Justice Alito ruled that employers are protected from lawsuits over gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more.

This ridiculous decision presumes that employees know the salaries of their co-workers. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg argued against applying the 180-day limit, noting that the discrimination often occurs in small increments over long periods of time. She also argued, rightfully, that pay information of fellow workers is typically confidential and unavailable for comparison. Ginsburg was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer in the dissent.

If business owners treated workers fairly there would be no need for a Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, labor unions, or all the other protections enacted to safeguard workers. But we know that very few business owners care about the people they employ.

In one of the wealthiest countries in the world some people still go to bed hungry, or without a roof over their heads. Families struggle to provide for their children, hoping to give them a better life. And single people face growing older without the resources necessary to sustain themselves during what should be our "golden years."

To address a problem that costs families an average of $4,000 a year, Sen. Hillary Clinton sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act in 2005, and has continued to reintroduce it since.

This legislation will help prevent pay discrimination in the first place and provide critical tools to resolve it if it occurs by, among other things:

• Prohibiting employers from punishing employees who share their salary information with their co-workers; (Sharing salary information is often essential for understanding that discrimination exists and addressing it.)


• Toughening the penalties associated with violating the Equal Pay Act;


• Teaching women and girls negotiation skills; (Women are 8 times less likely to negotiate their starting salaries then men and if a woman with a starting salary of $25,000 fails to negotiate for $5,000 more a year, she stands to lose more than $568,000 by age 60.)


• Rewarding model employers; and


• Strengthening the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to crackdown on equal pay violations.

It's past time for this to be passed and signed into law.

Why We Need 60

It's the magic number -- 60. You need 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster. You need 60 votes to override a presidential veto. You need 60 votes to GET ANYTHING DONE in the Senate. The Democrats don't have 60 votes. So what we have is the most obstructionist Senate in history.

The National Women's Law Center reports:

On Wednesday, the Senate voted on a motion to advance the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a key bill that would have a major impact on the lives of women who’ve been subject to pay discrimination. While we didn’t get the 60 votes necessary to move to the next big step — scheduling a debate and vote on the bill itself — the fight isn’t over. Tell your Senators the bill deserves fair consideration on the Senate floor.

Women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. For women of color, the numbers are even worse - African American women earn 63 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men.

Equal Pay Day - the point in 2008 when the average woman's wages finally catch up with what the average man earned in 2007 - was Tuesday, April 22. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would have given all employees a better shot at a fair workplace, making it easier to ensure justice for those who have been discriminated against based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, and age.

The New York Times wrote:

...[T]he bill would re-establish that the deadline for making a charge of pay discrimination under Title VII runs from when a worker receives unequal pay, not from the day a company first decided to discriminate, as the Supreme Court wrongly insisted.

Many employers keep salaries and raises confidential, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg aptly noted in her dissent in the Ledbetter case. By making it clear that the 180-day clock restarts with each discriminatory paycheck, the act avoids rewarding employers that obscure lower raises given on the basis of such considerations as gender or race.

Far from eliminating the current statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination claims, as some opponents claim, it merely restores a reasonable notion of when the clock starts running. The House approved the same measure in July, but it remains to be seen whether enough Republican votes can be mustered to overcome a filibuster threat in the Senate.

The act’s defeat would please the Bush White House and the United States Chamber of Commerce. It would be a significant civil rights setback.

Take a look at how the Senate voted, and you will see why we need more Democrats in Congress. If you are not working on a campaign, sign up to do so TODAY.

Blog for Fair Pay Day - April 18

I have been asked to help spread the word about an upcoming blog event -- the Blog for Fair Pay Day. It's certainly something I can support!

The National Women's Law Center would like you to know that:

Women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts.

And for women of color, the numbers are even worse. African-American women earn 63 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men.*

It’s time to take action.


A bill awaiting a vote in Congress would help women fight for fair pay. Advocates are pushing for the Senate to vote by the end of April, to commemorate Equal Pay Day on April 18.

Raise your voice in support! Sign up to blog on Friday, April 18, about the importance of fair pay for women. Please also ask your readers to urge to their Senators to support the Fair Pay Restoration Act. We’ll send you a reminder as the date gets closer.

You can also download a graphic to let your readers know you’ll be participating and learn more about the Fair Pay Restoration Act.

We hope you’ll join us in supporting fair pay for women!

*Note: These statistics are for full-time, year-round workers.

Hey, who couldn't use a few more $$$ every pay day!

It doesn't pay to be a woman

It's been another long day ... I'm really tired ... but I have to comment on a recent report in the Wapo.

Have you heard the old saying, "damned if you do, damned if you don't?" That seems to apply to women who do (or don't) ask to be paid what they are worth. Staff writer Shankar Vedantam's report on "Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling" tells a story some of us have known for a very long time.

It's acceptable for a man to ask for what he wants -- a better position in the company, a raise, etc. -- but when women ask, if they even do, they are viewed in a negative light.

The traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.

Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

My thoughts on this are "no more Ms. Nice" women. It's time for men, and some women, to realize that women pay the same amount at the grocery store, our electric bills are just the same, and we don't get a discount on our rent or mortgage because women -- traditionally -- earn less than men.

Men need to wake up and realize that it's in THEIR best interest to advocate for pay equity for women. When they do, the overall income for their households will go up!

Although differences in starting salaries are usually modest, small differences can have big effects down the road. If a 22-year-old man and a 22-year-old woman are offered $25,000 for their first job, for example, and one of them negotiates the amount up to $30,000, then over the next 28 years, the negotiator would make $361,171 more, assuming they both got 3 percent raises each year. And this is without taking into account the fact that the negotiators don't just get better starting pay; they also win bigger raises over the course of their careers.

Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men who hold full time jobs. It is past time for this to change.