PLANK JUNE 6, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I generally have a pretty steely stomach for political machinations (seven years in Washington will do that to a person—I hear tolerance only increases), but there was something a little nauseating about watching the pre-determined defeat of the Paycheck Fairness Act in the Senate yesterday. (“Paycheck Fairness fails in the Senate, as expected,” reported The Washington Post. “Senate Democrats knew they had little chance of passing the Pay Fairness Act on Tuesday,” said NPR.)
This legislation addresses the wage gap between men and women. The exact size of the gap is debatable, but the gap itself is real and should be addressed. It wasn’t the defeat of the bill, however, that was motion-sickness-inducing. It was the merry-go-round, here-we-go-again sensation that this latest front of the “war on women” prompts. Despite the earnest endorsements from the president and Valerie Jarret (she dedicated her first tweet to the subject), there seems little doubt that politics motivated the vote.
That’s not to say that this isn’t an important issue. It’s worth banging the drum about pay inequality. But, I worry that fanning the flames of this “war” threatens to obfuscate the legitimate issues that should be at its core. It’s hard to fault the Democrats or President Obama for voicing support of this, but it saddens me that their support and the timing of this vote makes everyone assume that gender-based pay inequality is going to be (primarily) just another political pawn. It’s unfortunate that people seem so comfortable playing politics with civil rights.
1 comments
It's not just the size of the gap that is debatable; it's the cause of the gap. Opponents of the Act argue that the mere existence of the gap shouldn't be sufficient to create a claim against an employer; instead, the claimant should be required to prove the cause (i.e., intentional discrimination against women). Of course, proving subjective intent (to discriminate) is very difficult (what was the boss thinking), so supporters of the Act argue that objective factors (i.e., the existence of the gap) be allowed to prove subjective intent; in other words, the existence of the gap should create a presumption of intent and put the burden on the employer to rebut discriminatory intent. It's not simply a choice between being for women or against women - one can be for women and for requiring the claimant to actually prove discriminatory intent. Schama's point is well taken: if discrimination against women in the workplace is widespread, then shine a light on it, not by adopting evidentiary rules that make it easier or more difficult to prove subjective intent, but by exposing discrimination and making it an unacceptable practice. I support Obama but his administration does sometimes resort to phony politics when it comes to important public policy issues, a recent example being to include $50 per month birth control pills in the minimum national standard for health insurance rather than addressing the more difficult and important standard for chronic illnesses like cancer. Iit's great that my birth control pills will be covered, but what the hell is covered if, God forbid, I am diagnosed with leukemia?
- rayward
June 6, 2012 at 10:40am