Why won’t Mitt Romney make any statements about Senate Republicans expected blockade of the Paycheck Fairness Act later this week? Because he has three conflicting interests: he needs to align himself with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, distance himself from Obama, and secure a greater percentage of women voters, and he can’t do all three.
In 1963, when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act (EPA) into law, women made an estimated $.59 for every dollar men earned; since the law’s passage, that number has risen to $.774 cents. But the wage gap between genders has been closing at an increasingly slow pace. Look, for instance, at the figures from 1996, which showed women to be making $.738 to the dollar. That’s a net gain of less than four cents to the dollar in the past twelve years, which isn’t much of an improvement.
The EPA has a number of vague provisions and loopholes that Democratic congressmen hope to close on June 5 with the Paycheck Fairness Act. Here are some of the ways in which the new Act is intended to strengthen the EPA:
- First, the Act will provide more substantial remedies, letting successful plaintiff get punitive and compensatory damages. The goal here is to equate gender based wage discrimination with discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
- Second, the Act makes it easier for lawsuits to proceed as class action lawsuits, which increase the efficiency of the legal process, allowing groups of people to pursue cases that individuals might not have had the incentive to pursue.
- Third, the Act prohibits employers from punishing employees who share salary information. This helps employees know if there are any significant wage disparities based on race, gender or ethnicity.
- And fourth, the Act makes it more difficult for employers to claim an "affirmative defense" that associates the discrepancies with a "factor other than sex." This is a damaging loophole that lets employers provide defenses, like "male workers have stronger salary negotiating skills" and "the men used to have higher salaries." The Act makes an attempt to close that loophole, forcing employers to prove the discrepancies are due to "factors other than sex," like job performance or business necessity.
Senate Republicans are expected to block the act on Tuesday. Republicans and right-leaning business groups, largely led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say it would give the government too much influence in business. Last month, the Chamber, along with a number of other business groups wrote to Senate leaders last month, “This level of government intervention in employee compensation is both unprecedented and unwarranted.”
Politically, this only makes sense within the framework of what Obama said, “Let’s face it: Congress is not going to act because I said it’s important.” Aside from frustrating any piece of Democratic legislation, the move has no political benefit: by blocking the Act, Republicans are reducing their chances at securing a greater percentage of women voters. In 2008, there were 53.1 million eligible women voters. That number has since increased to 55 million. 56% of women voted for Obama in 2008, and polls show Obama opening up a huge lead among women in 2008, including 45% among young women.
Romney does not want to be in a position in which he is choosing between the support of women and the Republican leadership. But, he’s in that position now, and faced with that choice, he’s chosen to keep his mouth shut.
---
Related: Mitt Romney And The Paycheck Fairness Act: Can Mitt Be Both For Women's Pay And Against It?
Follow David Barnett @blankbarnett
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment!