Sunday, April 28, 2013


How many of you think that there is a disparity in our economy about the pay to men (higher) as to the pay to women (lower)? Probably most of you, as that's what the media and some politicians have told you to believe. Is it true? The answer is superficially YES, but practically, NO. How can that be when we all know that men generally draw higher pay than women?

Let's look at the facts. The “Paycheck Fairness Act”, that is presently bouncing around Congress, seeks to finally “end” pay differences between men and women, or so they say or want us to believe. The legislation is well-intentioned if there really was an organized conspiracy to keep the pay differential at the bogus figure of 77¢ on the dollar that women are paid as compared to men.

As you can see, men and women don't do the same work (in most cases). Ever since the 1960's and the woman's liberation movement (made up mostly of disgruntled liberal thinking women), this 77¢ figure has been kicking around. With all the “sensitivity” training about how women can (or should) be miners, movers, truckers, carpenters, plumbers, soldiers, construction workers, firemen, and cops, women continue to prefer the office environment. They (women) generally gravitate toward jobs that involve lower stakes, shorter work weeks, a preference for personal relationships over ruthless, cutthroat competition, and, of course, to be near home for the children. Take the medical profession (where more than 50% of the people in medical school are women), 73% of pediatric residents were women, and 64% of dermatology residents were women - but, 60% of residents learning surgery were men. Is the pay for surgeons generally higher than for internists and dermatologists? Of course it is!

Another factor that must be taken into consideration in determining pay scales are experience, education (although the education gap has closed substantially over the years), overtime (which men are more likely to accept), and travel away from home. Taking all that into consideration, the real pay gap is more like 5¢ rather than the 23¢ as the woman's groups claim as the disparity. In fact, a career woman with no children (in most cases) makes salaries on a par with what men make.

The proposed legislation (Paycheck Fairness Act), proposed mainly by the Democrats, if passed, would be a boon to the trial lawyers who would more than be willing to take a business to court claiming pay discrimination. The trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democrat Party. Do you think that was taken into consideration when proposing this bill? Is the Pope catholic?

A provision in the PFA would require employers to disclose salary information so that everyone knows what their fellow workers were making. What kind of chaos, in the workplace, would that kind of knowledge be put to use? Lawyers working on commission (a/k/a contingency fees) would be authorized to pursue feminist class-action shakedown lawsuits that would include all women in a firm unless they opted out. Just what we need, more “junk” lawsuits and more paperwork.

In today's economic environment, women tend to gravitate to employment in fields such as, teachers, nurses, and government jobs, which tend to have more stability and job security, than do men, who are affected more by the economic downturn by having jobs in the private sector.

So when you hear some of the strident feminists and liberal politicians, claiming that women are getting the the short end of the stick in regards to pay - don't take them at their word, as to what they claim are mostly all exaggerations and faulty biased facts made to look like something which it is not. As the old saying goes (to paraphrase), the road to hell is almost always paved with good intentions. So it is in this case. Kill the PFA!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share


James J. Pirretti said...

First, there already is an Equal Pay Act that is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA requires equal pay for the same jobs. Second, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex.

What the proposed legislation wants to deal with is comparable work. For example, if a man is a carpenter for a company and a woman is a secretary the jobs are different. What this piece of legislation does is to require a job analysis to see whether the jobs are not the same - but comparable. Market conditions and market factors are not relevant.

Such legislation would result in endless litigation and would put an end to the small business person. Every company would either have to pay every job at the same rate or go to the expense of hiring an expert to analyze each job.

This is not the first time this wacky legislation was proposed -but the first time a wacky President has endorsed it.

Cliff Coughlin said...

What a difference 60 years make. When kids growing up in the 50's and 60's came home from school, most likely a parent (most likely a mom) was home to take care of the house and personal needs of the family. From the 70's on, with many women going into the workforce, that personal relationship with the mom was no longer there. With the cost of living going up it was, in many cases, expedient for the mom to bring in extra income for the family. The cost to our society has been tremendous, as many kids growing up after the 1970's, had to fend for themselves. In addition, our birthrate has declined, as a result, and in another 50 or so years, the etnhnic makeup will have shifted to Latin, African, and Muslim cultures. That's the plus and minus of the result of a nation of working women. Is it good or bad?

George Giftos said...

It'll never sell Chuck, because it makes too much sense!