 |
4/24/05 COMPENSATION US Senator Tom Harkin is backing a bill that could boost women's wages. Called The Fair Pay Act of 2005, the Iowa Democrat introduced the legislation last week. It addresses pay gaps between white males and women and minorities, and it comes more than 40 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, which guaranteed fair wages to women. Harkin says, however, that women today earn just 76 cents of every dollar made by a man and some minorities earn even less. The Fair Pay Act was among two bills introduced last week that focused on workplace concerns. A second bill, refiled by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, last week after legislators declined to pass it last year, supports the right to organize unions. Both bills, however, face uphill battles in a mostly Republican Congress. But Harkin remains undaunted. "This legislation would address the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called 'women's jobs.' he said in a statement released last week. "For example, social workers - a female dominated field - are paid less than probation officers even though both jobs require similar levels of skills, effort, and responsibility. The Fair Pay Act says that where working conditions are similar, wages should also be similar." Members of a national group called Business and Professional Women USA have unveiled plans to mobilize women across the country to fight for the bill's passage and urge the elimination of the wage gap. "Poll after poll has demonstrated that unfair pay ranks as one of the top issues of concern for working women," said Nancy Hurlbert, president of the organization, which has 1,400 local chapters. "The wage gap affects women throughout their working lives and then follows them into retirement where they receive lower pension and retirement benefits based on the salaries they received while working." Not everybody agrees there is an unfair wage gap, however. In his book, "Why Men Earn More," author Warren Farrell argues that males earn more because they enter higher-paying fields. He says they choose those professions over service-oriented or "caring" professions because they have been socialized to believe that to be successful they must be able to provide for their loved ones. By contrast, Farrell says, women are socialized to play it safe. That means choosing the secure and safe profession even though it might not be as financially rewarding. "There's no perfect formula for financial success," he says. "People who make a fortune are more likely to have lost a fortune, a la Donald Trump. But overall, informed risk-taking pays off." "So, before we say that women with equal education suffer from discrimination because they earn less, we have to ask whether they and the men are taking equal financial risks," Farrell writes. "And before we criticize women for not doing it, we need to do a better job socializing them for the option." Still, even in jobs where women are more heavily represented, men tend to earn more. For example, Farrell looks at the wages of men and women in low-paying jobs like counter attendants, dishwashers, and child-care workers. According to the data Farrell collected, the median annual income of a male child-care worker is $19,188. By contrast, female child-care workers earn $16,952 per year. Even male dishwashers earn more: $15,080, while females make $14,176. Women have the upper hand when it comes to packaging and packing, however. Female packers earn a median annual wage of $18,200. Their male counterparts: $17,940. Robert J.S. Ross, a sociologist and labor expert at Clark University in Worcester, agrees that childrearing and other factors do cause women's wages to lag, but he also says there is an unexplained variance. In other words, he says, "If you control for education, time of, and other matters, there still remains a statistical gap between the wages of males and females, blacks and whites and other groups." Also on Capitol Hill, Kennedy has reintroduced the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill states that workers should not be penalized by employers for taking part in organizing efforts. Second, it says that workers who join a union should reach their first contract through mediation and arbitration so employees do not wind up working without a contract for several years. Lastly, the bill seeks some protection from employer retaliation against workers trying to organize unions at their workplaces. Currently, employees who are fired for organizing are guaranteed back pay and reinstatement to their jobs. Under the new bill, such employees would receive three times back pay and employers would face a civil fine. According to Kennedy, 25 percent of prounion workers are fired for participating in organizing drives. The Free Choice Act was voted down when it was introduced last year, and it is likely to be struck down again. But Ross said that might not matter to its supporters. "Legislators sometimes put a bill in the hopper knowing that it might not pass, but they will campaign on that issue in '06," he said. "Under this bill, if a union is able to get 50 people plus one who want a union, then the employer must be compelled to bargain." WORKPLACE A new study offers some troubling news: One-third of the people who become disabled in their 50s were injured because of the work they do. Economists Robert Reville of the RAND Corp. Institute for Civil Justice and Robert Schoeni of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research also found that 50 percent of disabled men in their 50s were injured on the job because of the work they do. The two economists estimate that Medicare and Social Security disability insurance costs associated with such injuries exceed $33 billion per year. The authors also said that while men are generally more likely than women to become disabled because of work - at a rate of 50 percent versus 24 percent - that gap has begun to close because more women are working full time. Diane E. Lewis can be reached at .
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
E-Mail This Article
