Gov. Brown signs bill aimed at eliminating gender wage gap

[cal04]

Source: LA Times

Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill aimed at eliminating the pay gap between men and women in California as supporters touted it as the strongest equal pay law in the nation.

The measure was introduced by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) in response to a study by a civil rights group that found that women in California working full time made a median 84 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2013.

"The inequities that have plagued our state ... are slowly being resolved with this kind of bill,” Brown said at the signing ceremony at Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

He called the measure “a very important milestone,” and said it will help the state as it is "reaching toward greater equity."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-equal-pay-bill-20151006-story.html

[StrongBad]

1. While well intentioned, this bill will do nothing because there is little to solve.

The supposed "pay gap" between men and women the study references in the article simply takes the average earnings of men and compares them to the average earnings of women. There is a gap, but that gap can be explained away by:

1) The fact that men on average work more hours than women
2) Women purposefully decide to pursue careers which traditionally don't earn as much as the careers chosen by men (again, on average)
3) Women who pursue motherhood and raising a family are hampered by months or years out of the workforce which is hard to recapture

Ask yourself, if it were really true that women are consistently paid 16% less than men in similar positions, why aren't we seeing a phenomenon of firms heavily skewing their hiring towards women to take advantage of a 16% discount in labor costs?

[Bubzer]

2. Huh.

"why aren't we seeing a phenomenon of firms heavily skewing their hiring towards women to take advantage of a 16% discount in labor costs?" - That's actually a really good point. Corporations are nothing if not motivated by profit and greed.

[Yupster]

12. Long ago when I was a teacher, I was on the salary committee

We found that men made considerably more money than women with the same age and educational background. It was even true of men who had the same education level and years experience.

This was kind of impossible because we had a district salary schedule. Every teacher with 11 years experience and a master's degree made the same. So how did men make more than women?

So we looked into it.

Turns out men were (this was almost 30 years ago) much more likely to do extra duties that gave them extra pay. They were much more likely to teach summer school, driver's ed, coach sports teams and other things like that. Our district really wanted women coaching girls sports teams, but we had some men coaching girls teams only because we couldn't find women to coach them. When measured by age instead of experience, the gap grew much wider as many women took a few years off to raise kids.

Since I was involved in the research so long ago, I haven't payed much attention to the issue as I assume the gap is pretty much the same as the one we researched for teachers long ago.

It's still a great issue to bring up though because who's going to be against equal pay?

[bemildred]

3. I am sure women will still find it a good thing.

And if in fact there is no problem, then it provisions will be moot, it will be there just in case of some future need if business people become dumb..

[Bubzer]

13. Another good point.

[A Little Weird]

4. That's not really true

Those factors can exacerbate the pay gap, but it exists even when controlling for those factors.

Here's one article that talks about it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2012/1024/Does-gender-pay-gap-exist-Right-out-of-college-says-new-study

[StrongBad]

5. Kind of an odd and useless study, as it only looks at the first year after college graduation

Especially since it has been proven that childless women in their 20's outearn men of the same age bracket:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/

[A Little Weird]

6. That's an opinion piece

First year out of college was chosen because they were at the same stage of life - few had taken time off to become parents so that argument was controlled for. They earned less than men when controlling for college major, job choice and hours worked. You may dismiss this scientific study in favor of an opinion piece, but you are not supporting your argument very well.

In any case, I would love to discuss this more with you but I have to leave. Have a pleasant evening.

[StrongBad]

7. Here's a non opinion piece from WSJ citing the same thing

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192

[A Little Weird]

10. Ok - I think I understand your argument better

The point that was made in the study cited in the article I posted is that women earn less than men all other things being equal. So straight out of college, no work experience, same field - women get less money. This disparity will exist throughout their career and get worse as they get older - especially if they choose to have children. So in an apples-to-apples type of comparison, there is evidence of gender bias in pay.

The article you are citing is saying that for some reason, young women are getting college educations at a higher rate than young men and now they are outpacing them in pay. So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison where it is not gender differences but education levels that are primarily accounting for the difference. That is interesting and it would be good to figure out what is going on that young men are not finishing college at the same rate they once did. But it does not refute the inherent gender bias shown in the other study.

In fact, the article you posted even confirms that stating:
"While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.

At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers. "

[bemildred]

14. +1. nt

[StrongBad]

16. All fair points. I'm not disputing that women on average earn less than men.

I'm just saying that the difference is not due to some conspiracy or structural misogyny to keep women down. The reasons for the gap are explainable (see my initial response to this thread for summary) and stem directly from choices women make about how to live their lives.

[A Little Weird]

19. We've been over this already

The difference in pay can not be fully explained by the different choices women make. Some of the difference can be - but not all. It is clear you are not going to change your position so there's not much point in going on. But I do appreciate the civil tone of the discussion - that seems to be increasingly rare online (even on DU).

[KeepItReal]

8. As an HR professional in California, let me break it down for you

Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

On your reasoning for the existence of a pay gap:

1) The law addresses RATES OF PAY. Doesn't matter how many hours you work. If a man and a woman have the same job and responsibilities, they are entitled to EQUAL PAY RATES.

2) The law addresses men and women working in the SAME JOB. We are not comparing a woman in a sales executive role to a male NFL quarterback.

3) The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed to enable mothers OR fathers to care for newborn children for up to 12 weeks per year with job protection. We are not supposed to penalize motherhood any more than fatherhood.

The most important aspects of this Law empower workers to find out rates of pay of their counterparts without fear of retaliation.

Moreover, it will spur companies in California to examine their compensation and make sure equity is established where they are lacking.

KeepItReal, SPHR

[StrongBad]

9. I think mandatory equal pay is a horrible idea.

How else would one incentivize workers to achieve if at the end of the day it's required that they get paid the same regardless of performance?

As one with extensive private sector experience including management, I know firsthand that two people with the same title and responsibilities can produce completely different contributions to a team. Their compensation should reflect those differences else it's not fair to those that go above and beyond in their work.

[KeepItReal]

11. Tell that to Uncle Sam

An Army E-1 makes the same amount as every other E-1 with equal experience. High performer or not.

Remember this law is to address all-things-being-equal scenarios. It says: "Ensuring that employees performing substantially equivalent work are paid fairly by requiring equal pay for work “of comparable character”

In your example where someone is measurably performing better than other coworkers in the same role, then give them a bonus. You can justify that. Or give them a promotion.

You can always award achievement. This law's not stopping that in any way.

[StrongBad]

17. I wonder how this law will consider monetary compensation for achievement bonuses.

Perhaps only the actual hourly rate/salary is what needs to be uniform.

[Xithras]

18. While the FMLA protects you with a single employer, it doesn't help with future employers.

One very simple and relevant example is my CURRENT job. My employer has a standard baseline pay schedule that new employees are offered. $X per year base PLUS 5% for any extra degrees beyond those required for the position PLUS 1% for any job-relevant certifications held beyond those required for the position PLUS 2% for each year of related work experience beyond the minimum required for the job up to 5 years PLUS 1% for each year beyond those five years.

So lets say that you have a 30 year old man and a 30 year old woman. Both graduated at 22 with a bachelors degree (minimum required for the job), both have worked in the field ever since, and both are hired by my company on the same day. The difference is that the woman took two years off to have babies.

If the base pay rate for the position is $50,000, the opening offer to the man will be $56,500, and the opening offer to the woman will be $55,500. Why the $1000 a year difference? Because the man has 8 years of relevant experience in the field, while the woman has 6.

The FMLA prevents your current employer from firing you or from retaliating against you, but if you list it on your resume as a gap in employment, it does not prevent future employers from holding it against you or from limiting your pay accordingly.

We're in California, and we do this right now, completely legally. The new fair pay act won't change it either, because it specifically allows pay disparities if the employer can show that they are due to seniority, a merit system, quality or quantity of work produced, education, training, or experience.

[KeepItReal]

20. Neither FMLA nor CA law lets anyone take "2 years off"

Did the person quit after FMLA and CA Leave ran out? If so, of course their experience will not be the same as someone with continual employment - they left the organization.

If your employer allows you to take 2 years of paid and unpaid leave for childcare without terminating you, that's between you and your current employer. Not a break in employment as far as one's resume and next employer is concerned. How your employer calculates service/experience based on Leave Taken is another matter.

[24601]

21. This will be interesting to enforce in Hollywood. Will lead male and female actors be the same job.

How will the film industry craft salaries? Will we see some formulas that consider number of roles and factor in the success of each film on which the individual worked? Will film pay be broken down to consider number of lines spoken, or number of minutes on screen, or something else? Stunt actors are paid per stunt. Will lead actors now get paid per scene, factoring in a degree of difficulty? Porn actors are often paid per sex act. Will the pay per scene be the same even if the physical requirements cold be different? Will achieving and maintaining an erection be compensated the same as simulating an orgasm? (This law may not change the porn segment since many have moved to Florida to avoid California's condom law.)

Or will the film industry just keep plugging along, confident that laws don't apply to Hollywood?

[olddots]

15. Jerry Brown got shamed by Gore Vidal

so he went and got some soul ( the kind the wingers hate ) .Some wanker here said Brown is into austerity but Brown may be into reality .I would vote for him again .