Paycheck Fairness Act

[dramaturge]

(06-05-2012 11:22 AM)EmilyKing Wrote:  I don't think it will solve anything either way. I personally have never held a job where the gender determined pay. What bothers me is many of the studies I've seen haven't seemed to account for men spending more time in the same job. Women are more likely to take a leave of absence to raise a kid, and then re-enter the workforce. If a female was out of the job following pregnancies, she wouldn't have the same amount of time at work as a male, even if both had been at a company 5 years. Women are also more likely to take lower-paying, but 'family friendly' jobs. Why should she be paid the same, when she hasn't contributed the same amount?

I think this will just make employers more reluctant to hire women, rather than solving a problem.

Well, the Paycheck Fairness Act isn't saying anything about average pay over all fields. Most pay disparity studies take all of the things you mentioned into account, yet women are still paid less for doing the same job all else being equal. A "family friendly" job should still pay the same regardless of the sex of the employee. Even considering taking 6 months off for a birth, the salary of the woman should not be less than a man in her position. Her income that year may be less due to taking a leave, but that isn't what's being discussed by the Act or by pay disparity studies. The problem here is that salary is unequal even after taking all else into account.

Edit: I think the use of the term "income disparity" can cause some confusion. It isn't technically actual income that usually being analyzed, but salary. Actual income can, of course, be affected by things like medical or family leave for either sex, and that's understandable. Salary difference for equivalent jobs and experience is what's meant to be corrected with this.