IBJNews

Equal Pay Day highlights persistent wage disparity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

For most working stiffs, Tuesday came and went just like any other weekday.

But it also had some significance of its own. Known as Equal Pay Day, April 12 marked the date in 2011 when women's pay caught up to what men made the previous year.

“It’s a really good way for people to visualize the discrepancy” between men's and women's wages, said Jennifer Pope-Baker, director of the Women’s Fund of Central Indiana. 

The Washington, D.C.-based National Committee on Pay Equity organized the annual recognition day in 1996 to draw attention to the gap, which the group says has been closing at a rate of less than a half-cent a year since the federal Equal Pay Act passed in 1963. At that time, women made 58.9 cents for every dollar paid to men.

The most recent statistics available show women nationally earn an average of 80 cents to every dollar men make. In Indiana, women working full time are paid an average of $31,762 per year while men earn an average of $43,631 annually, U.S. Census Bureau statistics show.

Advocates are making progress, however. A bill known as the Paycheck Fairness Act has been reintroduced in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives after stalling in the Senate last year.

Supporters say the legislation would provide a needed update to the 1963 law by requiring employers to demonstrate that wage differences between men and women performing the same work stem from factors other than gender. It also would provide workers with the means they need to ensure equal compensation, including fair remedies, additional enforcement tools and technical assistance and training for both employers and employees.

Critics deny gender is a factor in the pay disparity, saying the difference typically has more to do with the jobs workers perform. And opponents of the legislation have said the bill would result in more lawsuits, which would be expensive for businesses to fight.

Despite the push for equal pay, many local women don't know about the 5-year-old awareness day.

Count successful Indianapolis criminal defense lawyer Linda Pence among them.

Though she admittedly earns a better salary than many of her male counterparts, her rise to the top of the legal profession was hardly an easy climb.

“I had to fight and claw my way to the top,” she said.

Pence recalled her days as a young law clerk in 1972, when she earned $95 a week, only to discover that her male colleagues were earning $100 a week. Though the disparity was just $5, Pence raised the issue with her boss and was awarded the difference.

“If you have good employees and you pay them in a disparate fashion, you’ll lose their loyalty,” she said.

Myra Borshoff also was unaware of Equal Pay Day. Yet, the owner of Borshoff, the city’s largest public relations firm, supports the campaign.

Her company has 49 employees, 35 of whom are women.

Borshoff thinks instances of pay disparity occur more often at the management level than in lower-level positions.

“As you move up the ladder, those lines tend to get fuzzier and fuzzier,” she said.

Borshoff said she never experienced pay discrimination during her career and thinks women are making progress.

“Not that there isn't more work to be done,” she said, “but I believe, for the most part, we’re making progress.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What facts?
    To FishersMom: If you are highly educated like you say, you would have used the word "don't" instead of "doesn't" in your third sentence. These "facts" are inconclusive. Like Toby12 stated, the old adage "comparing apples and oranges" fits well here. BTW, I am a female who doesn't make much money.
  • Vague Stats
    Until there is an equal number of male and female teachers, nurses, business owners, etc then stats can be made to say anything.

    I cheer for women who stand up for the rights that they should already have, but these equal pay stats are vague and misinterpreted.

    Those who stand up for equal rights, I support...they are oout to make the world a better place for every person.

    Feminists on the other hand are women who are just plain bitter that they are not men.

  • Study Labeled "Flawed"
    There are two sides to most stories. The study that Don the 14%er refers to has been labeled as "flawed" by other researchers. Read their thoughts at http://www.womensenews.org/story/women-in-science/110218/flawed-study-dismissing-job-bias-thrills-media . Are you open-minded enough to read it and consider its points or do you tend to automatically rule out new knowledge in favor of your unexamined ideologies (a tendency all too prevalent today)?
  • feminists again
    Read the Wall Street Journal article (link is below) that Don sent with his reply. Also, read the response from MaleMatters. A very good point is presented. The feminist groups need to find something else to do than to complain about wages. BTW: Can you imagine the improvement in the unemployment rate AND the benefit to society if more women would raise their own children instead of going to work each day? Both would improve. Just a thought from someone who has lived through both the old system and the current one.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  • Apples and Oranges
    I believe that there continues to be job disparity between men and women, but the data above is really inconclusive.

    I would offer that in order to make a more fair comparison, that the following factors be included in any assessment:

    ----Job Titles (but verification needed across companies and industries, as responsibilities vary across both, and major corporations tend to pay more than start-ups, etc.)
    ----Starting Salaries at the time of hire.
    ----Years on the job, as longer tenured employees tend to make more money than shorter tenured employees.
    ----Other variances also need to be factored in, including breaks in employment, e.g. in our culture, many women can/could? take more frequent and longer breaks in employment due to child rearing. I'm not saying this does occur, but the data should be assessed in making any further comparisons.
    ----Assessing education pool availability of women vs men in any job category.
    ----I am sure there are other factors as well, but coming to conclusions before these and other factors are considered doesn't paint the full story in either measuring progress or in identifying areas of true discrimination.

    Hope this helps.
  • Really?
    Note that the two people responding negatively to the story are men--not surprising. Yes, some women do choose to be stay-at-home moms but many others want the same opportunities as men in the workplace. The old arguments about women choosing careers that are traditionally lower paid doesn't hold water anymore. We are highly educated and have the skills to make a difference in the world if we are given the same opportunities for advancement.
  • Why women's pay is "unequal"
    No legislation yet has closed the gender wage gap â?? not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..... Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act work.

    That's because pay-equity advocates, at no small financial cost to taxpayers and the economy, continue to overlook the effects of this female AND male behavior:

    Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,â?? he says in a CNN August 2008 report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, â??many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.â?? (â??Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....â?? at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If more women are staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs â?? so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

    As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband.

    Both feminists and the media miss â?? or ignore â?? what this obviously implies: If millions of wives are able to accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives are able to accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/45ecy7p) â?? all of which lower women's average pay. They are able to do this because they are supported by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike women, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.

    See â??A Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Actâ?? at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcu

    By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone.
    See http://blog.american.com/?p=30031
  • Pay gap is a myth
    The gender pay gap is not due to discrimination! See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT