A Fair Payday

Wouldn't that be lovely? To have a fair pay packet? We might all have different ideas about what it should contain, but today is the day when all types of blogs are supposed to write and act on the topic of fair pay for women.

The impetus for this is the case of Lilly Ledbetter, and the legislation proposed as a consequence of that case:

The legislation would effectively remove the statute of limitations from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It was crafted in response to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in May that set a 180-day limit on an employee's right to sue for pay discrimination.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the court threw out the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear's plant in Gadsden, Ala., who claimed she ended 19 years of employment with an annual salary that was $6,500 below that of the lowest-paid male supervisor. Because the pay disparities occurred for years, the court said Ledbetter failed to sue within the statute of limitations.

Proponents argue that the decision invites companies to discriminate: If they can cover pay disparities for six months, workers will be unable to sue.

Opponents say the bill goes beyond a simple inversion of the decision: It could allow retirees receiving pension payments to bring decades- old lawsuits against a company that might have changed ownership several times.

What makes spotting discrimination in the first 180 days of employment so difficult is that salaries and wages are mostly kept a secret in the United States. Asking about how much someone earns is like asking about their underwear, I have learned. Not something one does in polite circles.

But that also means that it would be pretty easy to hide discriminatory pay slips for the necessary six months, and then the firm couldn't be sued again. So.

For those interested in the gender gap in wages and salaries and what it all means I recommend my three-part series available here.

Comments (53)

1. So, Ms Goodrich, is the goal ....NO statute of limitations on such suits?

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 4:15pm

2. We live in a very matriarchal society.

   Until men can achieve wage parity with women, until men's health concerns are taken as seriously as women's, until a janitor can get the same respect as a fashion model, until we are able to break free from the tethers of a clitorally dominated world, progress will be a very distant dream.

   Posted by KSP556 at 04/18/2008 @ 4:18pm

3. So, Ms Goodrich, is the goal ....NO statute of limitations on such suits?

   Whose goal? I'm not the person deciding these things, but if I where I'd probably advocate openness on how much people are being paid. That way it would be possible to see if your pay packet is fair or not and to have a statute of limitations that's somewhere between the two extremes.

   Posted by jgoodrich at 04/18/2008 @ 4:22pm

4. Posted by JGOODRICH 04/18/2008 @ 4:22pm

   I disagree with your stance. What business is it of yours or anyone else's to see or ask what a person's salary is? The left is so quick to scream about invasion of privacy and yet you would have to problem looking at someone's personal information all in the name of "fairness".

   Gimme a break.

   Posted by ACook at 04/18/2008 @ 4:59pm

5. Posted by ACOOK 04/18/2008 @ 4:59pm |

   It's not a matter if sneakily peering at someone elses information. I don't know if you read the same article I did but she is saying ASKING. If the person volunteers the information how is that invasion of privacy? They can just as easily say no. This in no way goes against a want of privacy.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 5:05pm

6. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/18/2008 @ 5:05pm

   C3, I don't care if the President asks, it's none of their business. Where do you people get off thinking it's OK to ask very personal information.

   Posted by ACook at 04/18/2008 @ 5:16pm

7. Posted by ACOOK 04/18/2008 @ 5:16pm

   Why is your salary very personal? I never got that. I don't mind telling people how much i make. I don't understand what people consider personal and not and why.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 5:36pm

8. Posted by ACOOK 04/18/2008 @ 5:16pm

   On top of that you considered it an invasion of privacy however it is not. Invading someones privacy involves acquiring information without their consent. If you ASK and they volunteer that information it's not invading its acquiring. If the government taps my phones without my knowledge and without a warrant and I haven't done anything to deserve it that is invading. If a hacker breaks into my computer and looks through my phone book that is invasion. If you ask me what kind of underwear I'm wearing and I tell you that is me volunteering information. If you ask me with a gun to my head, that is invasion.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 5:38pm

9. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/18/2008 @ 5:38pm

   Boxers, briefs, or boxerbriefs?

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/18/2008 @ 5:47pm

10. Posted by BENCHREST 04/18/2008 @ 5:47pm

    Boxers I think I got the ones I'm wearing now from Old Navy because it's across from the office building I work in.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 5:54pm

11. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/18/2008 @ 5:05pm

    So it's OK for an employer to ask if a potential (female) employee is pregnant or planning to be? Or ask anyone if he/she is gay???

    Posted by usc1 at 04/18/2008 @ 6:01pm

12. Posted by USC1 04/18/2008 @ 6:01pm

    Sure, if they don't choose not to hire the person if they refuse to answer and if they don't choose not to hire them based on their answers. I still contend it is only an invasion of privacy if they forcibly take information.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 6:10pm

13. I am a person who treats their privacy very loosely. I am very easy going in the sense that I will tell you anything about myself. Any information I want guarded is guarded within the confines of my own mind. The reason I argue against wiretaps and house searches without warrants isn't because I need to hide anything. I just don't like the idea of someone kicking down my door rummaging through my things, more than likely breaking shit in the process, and then leaving with no explanation. If a cop came to my door and asked me hey can we look through your stuff I would tell them go ahead. It's the actual invasion that bothers me not what they will find.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 6:13pm

14. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/18/2008 @ 6:10pm

    Saying we won't hire you unless you answer is invasion because you are giving ultimatums to a person to answer a question that has nothing to do with their ability to complete the duties given them. If a person is homosexual they can still operate a computer,crane, tow truck whatever. So as long as you are not using the information to determine whether you are going to hire a person then I don't care if you ask. However I would contend it is better practice not to ask because we are such a litigious society, if you ask and don't hire someone they will probably be quick to sue you for discrimination.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 6:16pm

15. Posted by USC1 04/18/2008 @ 6:01pm

    That last one was in response to USC not to my own post.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 6:16pm

16. I was once surprised to learn that my female supervisor earned $2000 a year less than me. Eventually, we both got fired anyway so never mind. It's Friday. Go Lakers!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 04/18/2008 @ 7:26pm

17. It's the actual invasion that bothers me not what they will find.

    i'd actually take it a step further and argue that the police could find something that you don't want them to find. what if you were a pot smoker, or you were having an affair, or you were drawing up plans to leave the country permanently, or that you read anarchist literature, or that you like hard core pornography. that sh*it is potentially troubling for some people.

    so, the point is: a warrant is required by law prior to search and seizure.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2008 @ 7:28pm

18. you should have time and opportunity to protect yourself, explain your case ("hey, man, i gotta a license to smoke week, man").....i firmly supported larry craig in his case.....just so you know....

    whether he's a closet homosexual, and has double standards, is not the point. the point is, he has every right to defend himself in a public civil forum.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2008 @ 7:30pm

19. Posted by MATTMAN 04/18/2008 @ 7:26pm

    I am surprised at how often that's the case. I think it is because in order to supervise you generally need less skills than the person doing the complicated job you are supervising them doing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 7:31pm

20. Posted by DARLADOON 04/18/2008 @ 7:28pm

    I don't smoke pot, I have no plans to leave the country yet, I have in the past read anarchist literature but that's not illegal and porn isn't illegal either as long as it's not kiddie porn.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 7:32pm

21. Posted by DARLADOON 04/18/2008 @ 7:30pm

    But I do agree with you. For me it's not about what they will find it's the invasion I don't like. I don't have anything I need to explain.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 7:34pm

22. I don't have anything I need to explain

    that's not the point, and you've inadvertently revealed the core justification behind the new, vast warrantless eavesdropping powers the president seeks.

    it's not that you wouldn't have anything to hide; it's that you have every right to defend against unwarranted searches and seizures of your person or property.

    a warrant is required, but the administration seeks and/or practices otherwise.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2008 @ 7:39pm

23. Posted by JGOODRICH 04/18/2008 @ 4:22pm

    Ms Goodrich, would I be right in assuming you DON'T favor "parental notification" for girls getting abortions, as a privacy matter? Or that people's choices at the library or video store keep out of the hands of the FBI or NSA without a legitimate warrent?

    Yet everybody has to let everybody else know what they make...and stir up a lot of in-office or in-factory resentment?!?!?!?

    (No...it IS analogous, friends. Or do we lose our right to privacy in the work-place?)

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 7:47pm

24. Posted by DARLADOON 04/18/2008 @ 7:39pm

    I absolutely agree with you that a warrant is needed I am just saying FOR ME it is about the invasion not the fear of what they will find.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 8:03pm

25. Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 7:47pm

    She isn't saying that everyone HAS to know what everyone makes. At no point does she say that. She posits at some point the question of reasoning behind such secrecy when ASKED what you make. Never does she propose forcing people to tell.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2008 @ 8:05pm

26. CCCOM....translate this from Ms Goodrich for me...

    "but if I where I'd probably advocate openness on how much people are being paid. That way it would be possible to see if your pay packet is fair or not and to have a statute of limitations that's somewhere between the two extremes."

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 8:42pm

27. I absolutely agree with you that a warrant is needed I am just saying FOR ME it is about the invasion not the fear of what they will find.

    so you absolutely, positively have nothing to hide? at all? ever?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2008 @ 9:52pm

28. I was not talking about what you are all talking about, though I'm learning how very much many people value that secrecy. My point was about the fact that in many other countries it's pretty easy to find out how much other workers in your firm make and nobody minds.

    That people mind here means that someone will find it extremely hard to learn if he or she is a victim of pay discrimination. If you don't know that you make less money than others on your level, with perhaps better assessments, how can you sue for discrimination?

    Not sure what the solution to this might be. In a large firm it would be possible to let workers know where they stand in the distribution of earnings without revealing anyone else's pay. But in a small firm you can't do that.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/18/2008 @ 10:20pm

29. Posted by JGOODRICH 04/18/2008 @ 10:20pm

    Relative to your last paragraph, there are so many variables involved. Animosity would be a large risk, and once released, hard to control.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/18/2008 @ 10:42pm

30. If you don't know that you make less money than others on your level, with perhaps better assessments, how can you sue for discrimination?

    Posted by JGOODRICH 04/18/2008 @ 10:20pm

    Sorry, I had to read this about ten times to make sure it actually said that. That's pulling the trigger a little fast, don't you think? Would'nt it be more reasonable to say "otherwise how can you present a reasonable case to your superiors that an increase in pay is warranted?" Litigation should be the last line of defense. Once you do that it becomes part of the public record and then what? The only difference between a large firm and a small one is the amount of time it takes heresay and gossip to reach everyone's ears.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/18/2008 @ 11:29pm

31. Sorry, I had to read this about ten times to make sure it actually said that. That's pulling the trigger a little fast, don't you think? Would'nt it be more reasonable to say "otherwise how can you present a reasonable case to your superiors that an increase in pay is warranted?" Litigation should be the last line of defense. Once you do that it becomes part of the public record and then what? The only difference between a large firm and a small one is the amount of time it takes heresay and gossip to reach everyone's ears.

    Of course. But this post is not about how to ask for a raise; it's about the difficulties the 180 days rule causes for those who want to take a discrimination case to court. Nobody wants to do that as the first step, because it kills your career for sure.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/19/2008 @ 12:50am

32. Posted by JGOODRICH 04/19/2008 @ 12:50am

    I misunderstood. My apologies. (I seem to be doing this alot lately)

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/19/2008 @ 02:10am

33. Posted by DARLADOON 04/18/2008 @ 9:52pm

    Nope wanna come over and look through my things?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2008 @ 04:54am

34. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/19/2008 @ 12:14am

    This is more important than trying to get women equal pay?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2008 @ 04:56am

35. Rio's just mad cause this Texas polygamy thing has screwed up his retirement plans.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/19/2008 @ 08:03am

36. If you don't want my help, feel free to say so, but I think the issue here is that us Conservatives are always droning on about the "labor market" when if fact a "market" requires a number of things, one of which is relatively transparent pricing. Another requirement for markets is that the contracting parties are "equally" knowledgable. The US cultural affinity for keeping financial matters private is a definite boone to the party with the most knowledge (here it is the "consumer" of labor a.k.a. the employer because the employer knows what everybody makes but the seller doesn't have as much "sales" information.)

    In car sales, the dealer knows what all the cars sell for and the sonsumer doesn't. The consumers that are more knowledgable than others usually get the best deals.

    That's all very true, though markets that don't function very well are still called markets.

    In economic theory certain conditions, when satisfied, lead to an unregulated market which works very well, in the sense that it provides the product at the lowest possible price to the consumers while also giving the producers an acceptable profit level. Once those conditions are not satisfied, it's much more difficult to know how well the markets are working. The conditions have to do with a large number of buyers and sellers, no barriers to entry or exit, complete information and no significant external effects. Your local farmer's market is pretty close to that ideal textbook market, but most real-world markets are not.

    Many people know that concentrated markets don't work very well (monopolies, oligopolies and so on), because they give most of the power to the firms. But not as many people know that markets work less well when information is incomplete and asymmetric (in the sense that either the buyers or sellers know a lot more than the other side) or when external effects are strong (these being stuff like how what you produce pollutes the water source of someone unrelated to your business).

    If workers don't know what the going wages for similar jobs in a particular industry and area are, then it's hard to argue that those wages are set fairly by the market.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/19/2008 @ 5:15pm

37. "Why is your salary very personal? I never got that. I don't mind telling people how much i make. I don't understand what people consider personal and not and why."

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/18/2008 @ 5:36pm

    Because it's nobody's business but mine and my employer. Also, you should stop telling people your business when they ask, especially about your money. There are too many opportunists who will gladly help you part with it.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2008 @ 6:16pm

38. 2. We live in a free market economy.

    •••••••••••• hahahaha!

    The wonderful thing about our system is the power that individuals possess to a) make career choices based upon not only interest in a career,

    •••••••••••• if they're not born in shitsville

    but the earnings potential,

    •••••••••••• if they're not born is shitsville

    b) an ability to negotiate for themselves in most instances,

    •••••••••••• if they're not born is shitsville

    c)freedom of movement from localities within a state to choosing to work in another state.

    •••••••••••• oh, boy. from one macdonald's to another.

    I think the best teaching on the fairness of the employer/employee relationship was taught by Jesus in Matthew 20.

    •••••••••••• where did jesus work? what the heck does he know?

    When someone it came time to be paid, some complained to the landowner in this parable that someone else was receiving the same pay for less work:

    •••••••••••• let's see:

    "So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.' 9 And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11 And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.' 13 But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?

    •••••••••••• so, jesus says it's all right to be an unfair asshole?

    Jesus put it well. If you agree to a certain pay, what difference is it if someone else strikes a different agreement that is better than yours.

    •••••••••••• but don't you see? without any kind of regulation, the agreements work their way to the bottom, as each new hungry belly looks for some rice.

    You were satisfied with your pay until you found out someone had a better deal.

    •••••••••••• if they make better widgets, good for them. however, if they make more because i'm brown, perhaps it's time for some communal intervention (i.e. government -- you and i)

    That is greed and envy.

    •••••••••••• that all depends......

    This principle seems to escape the leftist mind which believes that parity is a more important principle than freedom of choice.

    •••••••••••• well, this mind seems to think that neither extreme is possible given that a few humans are greedy motherfuckers and they muck it up for the rest of us.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/19/2008 @ 6:23pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 6:55pm

39. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/19/2008 @ 6:55pm

    Actually, FZ, Jesus was a carpenter like his earthly father. There's a lot of factors that go into why one is paid more than the other. If my memory serves me well, there's no law that says employers must pay all of their employees the same wage. Employees are entitled to be compensated with a decent wage (not a living wage as some of you want Congress to pass) for a decent's day's work. However, there is no democracy in wage parity.

    Tell me do you think the average Joe is entitled to the same pay as a doctor or lawyer, even though he doesn't have the educational background or experience?

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2008 @ 7:34pm

40. Jesus was a carpenter.

    so they say. yet not to many passages in the bible mention mortise and tenon joints.

    seems like he was always fishing or sitting around with his slacker buddies.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 7:50pm

41. Tell me do you think the average Joe is entitled to the same pay as a doctor or lawyer, even though he doesn't have the educational background or experience?

    Posted by ACOOK 04/19/2008 @ 7:34pm

    do you think joe and jane and rufus and raúl are entitled to the same pay for the same job?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 7:51pm

42. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/19/2008 @ 8:41pm

    so, no two jobs are the same?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 9:22pm

43. No one is entitled to the same pay for the same job. Also, no two workers are identical in what they bring to the job and how they perform.

    Depends on what you mean by "entitled", but the 1963 Equal Pay Act does make it against the law to pay different wages or salaries for the same job. The law allows for extra pay based on experience, say. But it doesn't allow paying different amounts for the same tasks.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/19/2008 @ 9:31pm

44. "do you think joe and jane and rufus and raúl are entitled to the same pay for the same job?"

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/19/2008 @ 7:51pm

    Depends on who has the most experience.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2008 @ 9:35pm

45. Posted by ACOOK 04/19/2008 @ 6:16pm

    Yeah but I am also not stupid or gullible so, unless they plan to physically assault me which in that case they better have a weapon because I am not small and I am a trained fighter they aren't going to separate me from my money.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2008 @ 01:04am

46. Posted by ACOOK 04/18/2008 @ 4:59pm

    In many public institutions, salary information is available to anyone that wants it - that includes many ICU nurses working at public hospitals. I used to work in a university, which was affiliated with a hospital, that routinely had people interviewing for jobs ask for the salary information of all their future colleagues.

    There are also other ways of going about it even in private institutions. Say, for example, you work in a large Fortune 500 company. If they hire a lot of foreign nationals on something like a H-1 B Visa, all you need to do is look for where they post this information (which is required by law) - and you can find the prevaling salary for a wide variety of positions.

    Personally, I think the problem is that, in U.S. society at least, people are valued occuring to how much money they make and to a lesser extent, what and who they know. If that were reduced to a concrete number and we all knew that the administrative assistant working for a C-level executive is making more than your front line supervisor managing a dozen employees, we may have to rethink this bias or change those salaries.

    I think it would be a good thing because we might have to start crunching the numbers and figure out what our value is to an organization and get better compensation for it. I worked in another place where there would be rounds of lay-offs every year, and I got into the habit of looking at all my time in terms of its value to an organization - and would skip meetings, decline new responsibilities or what not that didn't provide good value. It was an excellent lesson - a lesson that many of those that were "let go" didn't learn.

    If you work with someone and both know what they do and what they get paid to do it, it would cut down on a lot of workplace B.S. and put a lot of pressure on companies to create fair compensation systems. It would also make it as easy to calculate what it costs the company to have a meeting as it does to buy a new copier. These are not trivial benefits - particularly when you consider the fact that your salary frequently isn't private in the first place.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/20/2008 @ 07:11am

47. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/19/2008 @ 6:23pm

    Matthew 20 assumes transparency, equality of pay, and that the employer is the Lord. None of these conditions exist outside of parables.

    I agree with your central comment that compensation is an individual matter, and to some extent, you get what you tolerate. I think the real advantage to transparency in an organization is to the organization itself. The Lord is fortunate enough to have omniscience and be running a day labor operation that even the average human could understand. Most organizations can't say the same and need to have processes in place to make sure that exceptional employees are retained, which will not happen - as you correctly point out - if those empoyees can find a better deal for their services elsewhere.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/20/2008 @ 07:31am

48. Canada can't help it that they don't have a free market economy. ;-)

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 08:25am

    nobody has a free market economy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 2:14pm

49. Once again, I recommend the three-part series on my website on these issues. Of course, if one believes that there is no discrimination to begin with then the other system is just fine.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/20/2008 @ 5:46pm

50. Case 1: Suppose scientists announce they have discovered the "charisma" gene. It is located on the first chromosome and studies have shown that 98% of Hollywood actors have this gene, but only 40% of the overall US population has this gene. Should the federal government impose a remedy to fix this blatant discrimination?

    •••••• hollywood? hahahaha.

    Case 2: Suppose scientists announce they have discovered the "leadership" gene and studies have shown that 98% of all corporate managers have this gene but only 40% of the general population has it. Oh, yeah, it's located on the Y chromosome so only men have it. Should the federal government impose a remedy to fix this blatant discrimination?

    •••••• follow me, lemmings.

    Cash 3: Suppose a study of only men shows that the amount of testosterone in corporate managers is 150% of the national average. Should the federal government impose a remedy to fix this blatant discrimination? Should we start giving adolescent girls testosterone shots?

    •••••• no, they'd better give those guys frequent PSA screenings.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/21/2008 @ 08:33am

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/21/2008 @ 09:08am

51. I truly wish that gender equality (pay equality/equity) weren't considered such "women's" issues. This is one reason that we don't give greater attention to them -- as usual.

    I spent a good many years working in the labor movement and the women's movement to advance these types of concerns. We made some great progress in the 70s and 80s (slowed during the Reagan years). Under Bill Clinton, women's wages (and opportunities) grew steadily. Under George Bush women's wages have fallen...again and the courts have not been kind to pay equity/gender equity issues.

    This is not "post-feminist." Anybody who seriously believes that we no longer need feminism (particularly young women - and men) need a course in women's history.

    Thanks for this. I have been wondering when progressives were going to address this. OTOH, it cannot be a one-shot, once-every-year occurrence in an article - something a lot of progressives seem to forget in "our" haste to save the planet and address every other problem under the sun.

    Posted by mabelle at 04/21/2008 @ 3:48pm

52. Also, what happened to pay equity - not equal pay? Pay equity is perhaps more important for women (and some men) because the jobs they do may be substantially different than those of males but "women's jobs" frequently entail sets of skills, effort, working conditions, responsibilities that are inherently undervalued simply because they are perceived as "women's jobs."

    Posted by mabelle at 04/21/2008 @ 3:52pm

53. @ LVLIBERTY1:

    That said, my entitlement quote remains. Every person needs to negotiate based upon their own qualifications and ability to sell themselves to the employer. That negotiation once completed should not then be future grounds for discontent if an individual finds others making more within the same job classification. ----------

    First and foremost: This is a very idealistic model that rarely works in practice. If your model worked, women would not be paid lower wages, generally, than men, period.

    Second: If I offend you in advance here, sorry, but your model also is "blame the victim" if h/she can't get better pay. Even in the best of circumstances, women are underpaid for doing the same work as a man. And even in low-wage jobs history has shown that women are paid less, even if they have the same "experience" and qualifications. One of the reasons for the Equal Pay Act was precisely because women faced systemic wage (and promotion) discrimination. Women (and our work) is undervalued in society. All one need do is take a walk through the blogosphere. Mainline progressive blogs rarely or consistenly address wage/job/gender inequities. We talk about them a lot, in our liberal-speak; we dance around them and address some of the causes at the margins, but gender equality falls to the bottom of a long list of liberal concerns.

    I'm all in favor of negotiating for the best possible pay in any job situation. That is simply not enough and is, imo, window dressing that hides the systemic problem.

    Posted by mabelle at 04/21/2008 @ 4:07pm