http://freebeacon.com/senate-dems-betray-lilly/ Do as i say, not as i do... ----- SENATE DEMOCRATS PAY FEMALE STAFFERS LESS THAN MALE STAFFERS BY: Andrew Stiles - May 24, 2012 5:00 am A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals. Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers. Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent. That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent. A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s. Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent. The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011. The employee gender pay gap among Senate Democrats was not limited to Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein. Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers. Senators elected in 2010—Joe Manchin, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal—were not considered due to incomplete salary data. Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more. While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previous Free Beacon analysis. The pay differential is quite striking in some cases, especially among leading Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who runs the Senate Democratic messaging operation, paid men $19,454 more on average, a 36 percent difference. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent. Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent Sen. Sanders, who is an avowed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has the worst gender gap by far. He employed more men (14) than women (10), and his chief of staff is male.*Like many of his fellow partisans, he has previously accused Republicans of “trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights.” One possible explanation for the pay disparity is the noticeable preference among Senate Democrats’ for male chiefs of staff, who typically draw the highest congressional salaries. Of the 46 Democratic Senators listing a chief of staff on their payroll in 2011, 13 were women. A similar disparity exists in the White House, which employs 74 men and only 48 women in senior positions. Senate Democrats have been actively pushing the issue of equal pay over the past several days. “In 19 of the 20 most common occupations for men or women, women earn less for the same work. We need*#EqualPay,” the official Twitter account of Senate Democrats wrote on Tuesday. Sen. Murray has invoked the so-called GOP “war on women” in fundraising pitches for months. “Women are people. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, at least not to extreme Republicans who see us as mere targets of their political strategy,” she wrote in May 10, 2012, campaign fundraising e-mail. Senate Democrats plan to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act, which some have described as a “trial lawyers’ payday” that would facilitate large punitive damage claims in discrimination suits, up for a vote following the Memorial Day recess. Congress already passed equal pay legislation in January 2009. President Obama has frequently touted that bill—the Lilly Ledbetter Act—as the first piece of legislation he signed upon taking office, and has sought to declare “problem solved” on the issue of equal pay for women. “We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act—the first bill I signed—so that equal pay for equal work is a reality all across this country,” he said in June 2009. When it comes to prosecuting instances of gender pay discrimination, however, the Obama administration has been far less active than that of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. Under Obama, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed six gender-based wage discrimination lawsuits. That number is down from 18 lawsuits filed during Bush’s second term. This entry was posted in Progressive Movement and tagged Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, gender pay gap, Lilly Ledbetter, Obama, Patty Murray, Senate. Bookmark the permalink.
While I agree that this is hypocritical, I'm curious to see how this compares to how the Republican members of congress' pay their staff. To me, thats a huge piece missing. Do Republicans pay women more equally, less equally, or about the same. I'm betting its probably about the same..in which case, both Dems and Repubs are part of the problem. Without the Republicans pay scale included in the article, this article seems more like something Michael Moore would do - leave out pertinent information to skew the results.
agree, to a point. there could be several reasons for the disparity, including one that's often overlooked: women as a rule don't negotiate salary the way men do. also, republicans aren't trying to make a case that their opponents are anti-women, so in this particular instance, the behavior of democrats is more relevant.
men definitely negotiate salaries far more aggressively - at least in the business world. And lobby harder for promotions. Part of the issue isn't just salary equality or anything like that - it is the perception of women in the workplace both by their co-workers and themselves.
true - another thought..as a whole, women tend to take more time off and work less hours than their male counterparts. However, if they do their job just as well as a male with the same # of years in the same position..then they should be paid the same.
not wanting to pay women equal pay and not wanting to legislate equal pay are two different things. I think women, assuming they have the same credentials, talents, and spend the same amount of time at work as their male counterpart, should definitely be paid the same amount as men...however, I don't think it should be legislated. The point of the article is that Democrats are championing themselves, yet are guilty of doing the very thing they're complaining about. However, like I said earlier, I would like to see the Republicans staff pay as well and I think the article does a disservice to the public by not including it.
Umm, it seems like this should be a bit more than a footnote. The bill is about equal pay for equal work - not equal pay for equal generic titles (ie, "staffer"). If there are more senior male staffers, of course they would be paid more and result in a higher average. A much better analysis would have been a comparison of male vs female chiefs of staff or male vs female entry level staffers. This doesn't seem like it would have been hard to analyze.
And democrats are trying to make it right but... FACT: Senate Republicans unanimously filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act.
I've yet to work at a place that paid women less than men for the exact same job. I've worked at many places that would routinely overlook women for promotions and higher paying leadership roles. National gender wage differential numbers reflect that, and so do, apparently, the political staffs of the offices of representatives who are supposedly most concerned about this issue. Seems like a valid point to make.
While this may be true, it has nothing to do with the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is about creating equal pay for substantially equal work - which apparently is not always the case (either that, or the law is unnecessary). So if they are going to look Senate staffers' pay as evidence of hypocrisy given what the law attempts to fix, they should look at ... what the law attempts to fix. What you're talking about is a much deeper and more complex issue, and one that it's unclear what the real problem is, or if there is one. To properly analyze that, we'd need to know whether equally qualified women are being passed over for promotions, whether the men are more experienced than the women (and why), etc. For all we know, there are more male senior staffers because senior staffers have been around longer, which is more common with men (because more women self-select themselves out of the workforce for family reasons). Or, it could be that the field attracts more men in general because of the power-centered nature of it (especially at the senior levels). Or, it could be that most Senators are male and thus are biased and promote men over women.
In rereading the piece, I think the more relevant numbers might be: National wage gap - 23% Congressional Democrat wage gap - 11% Whitehouse wage gap - 13% Sample size in individual offices likely distorts things too much to be meaningful. In this context it's possibly not too bad, and comparing to Republicans might be meaningful. Or possibly to other fields with similar demographics. Age, education etc. EDIT Missed your reply Major. The national wage gap is being used as justification of the need for legislation. The legislation is more than equal pay for equal work. It's more about equal pay for work of equal value -- looking at why certain gender based jobs pay differing amounts and trying to address systemic biases...(or at least that's my understanding of it). I think there's already legislation to address differences in the same job.
I'm not an expert on this issue, but from what I can tell, the Paycheck Fairness Act is just there to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act Despite the Equal Pay Act’s broad language and purpose, courts have narrowed and constrained the law in ways that undermine its fundamental goals. In particular, some courts have interpreted the “factor other than sex” defense to permit employers to pay discriminatory wages for a limitless number of reasons. The Paycheck Fairness Act would close this loophole by ensuring that employers relying on the “factor other than sex” defense may not pay men and women doing substantially equal work different wages unless the wage differential is justified by a job-related reason, such as education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs. The Act, which is pending in the 112th Congress, has twice passed the U.S. House of Representatives and fell just two votes short of a Senate vote on its merits in the last Congress. Before an employer need even offer an affirmative defense in an Equal Pay Act case, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of wage discrimination. The plaintiff’s burden is substantial, as she must identify a comparable male employee who makes more money for performing equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.[15] If a plaintiff fails to make this showing, the case ends, and the employer need not offer any defense at all.[16] Unless there's another key piece of the act that I've missed (very possible), it seems this only applies to cases like a junior female staffer making less than an equally junior male staffer doing the same basic work.
I don't really get the legal nuances either. I think it broadens the scope beyond same job (possibly making it easier to sue Walmart for not promoting enough women, etc). But I'm usually well out of my depth in the contesting a speeding ticket threads of the hangout...so WTF do I know???? 78 men and 48 women in senior positions seems out of whack for this type of an industry. So sometimes it's good to highlight these things so they can be reviewed for inherent bias. That's not the intent of this piece, of course -- the 'freebeacon' url kind of gives that away. And who doesn't want free bacon! Happy Memorial Day Weekend Guys! I'm headed for the hills....
This, and as a club with which to beat their republican counterparts. I've no doubt there is a disparity, but this legislation is pure political theater.
BREAKING: Senate GOP Blocks Pay Equity Bill Today, Republicans in the Senate blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act by filibustering the bill. The legislation would have strengthened protections for women who are being paid less because of their gender by creating larger penalties for employers who discriminate, creating more transparency of salaries so that women know whether they are being paid less, and protecting those who sue for pay equity.
