The disparity in pay for working women and men was the subject of a June 8 hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Citing statistics showing that “women today earn about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns,” Committee Chair James Jeffords (R-PA) said: “The unfortunate reality is that pay discrimination has continued to persist in some workplaces. It is clear that we must do more to ensure that all working women receive the pay they need and deserve.”
Katharine Abraham of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) described a recent report compiled by her agency, which found the “earnings in 1999 of women who worked full time was 76.5 percent of the median for men who worked full time.” She compared that number to a ratio of 62.5 percent in 1979.
Ms. Abraham said researchers have designed studies to control for factors such as differences in education, occupation, hours at work, and time taken out of the workforce for childrearing. In one such study, she said, 12 percent of the approximately 25 percent wage gap remained “unexplained” even when these factors were taken into consideration.
In another study, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) reached the same statistical conclusion. A 1998 CEA report described the “unexplained” 12 percent, adding: “The unexplained portion of the pay gap is often interpreted as the result of discrimination.”
Existing Law
There are two major federal laws intended to address gender-based wage discrimination. The Equal Pay Act, which was passed in 1963, requires employers to pay equal wages to women and men for work that is substantially equal. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employers from discriminating against certain individuals, including women, in determining their pay or other conditions of employment.
That law was supplemented by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows employees who can prove intentional discrimination to collect compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to the back pay that can be collected in lawsuits involving unintentional discrimination. However, the standard for proving intentional discrimination is considered difficult to meet, and Senators commented that it is seldom pursued.
Legislation
Witnesses offered testimony on two legislative proposals, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 74/H.R. 2397) and the Fair Pay Act (S. 702/H.R. 1271). The Paycheck Fairness Act is sponsored by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) in the Senate and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) in the House, while the Fair Pay Act is sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) in the Senate and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) in the House.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would authorize wage discrimination class-action lawsuits and allow participants in a lawsuit to seek compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to back pay. The legislation also would allow an employee to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) if another employee with a comparable job receives more pay, even if the two employees work in different locations. Under current law, complaints are limited to employees working in the same “establishment.”
The Fair Pay Act would require employers to provide workers with information on the wages paid to other employees. If a worker believes she has education, experience, work conditions, and job responsibilities comparable to another employee who receives more pay, she could file an EEOC complaint seeking a pay adjustment.
Both measures would make it unlawful for an employer to punish an employee for discussing wage and compensation information with coworkers. In addition, they both would require the EEOC to train its employees to improve the handling of pay discrimination cases and to conduct research on reducing the wage gap.
Much of the hearing’s testimony related to the proposals’ “comparable” standard for equal pay. Gail Shaffer of Business and Professional Women/USA spoke in favor of both bills, citing as an example a case in which a county’s social workers and parole officers were required to have “similar education, skills, responsibility, and working conditions; in fact, the social workers actually had to have more education.” However, she said, “the social workers—who were mostly women—earned approximately 20 percent less than the mostly male parole officers.”
Ms. Shaffer also said that jobs predominately held by women are “undervalued and underpaid.” She cited BLS statistics for 1999, which “reveal that male nurses were paid six percent more, or $2,288 per year, than female nurses.”
Professor June O’Neill of the City University of New York told the committee, “Since there is no way to rank occupations by worth, a ‘comparable worth’ policy would ultimately lead to politically administered wages that would depart from a market system of wage determination.” She added that the approach is “demeaning” for women: “It conveys the message that women cannot compete in nontraditional jobs and can only be helped through the patronage of a job evaluator.”
Ms. O’Neill said the wage gap is “largely” due to women’s efforts to balance work and family obligations. “Until family roles are more equal, women are not likely to have the same pattern of market work and earnings as men,” she added, stating that the wage gap will eventually close if market forces are allowed to proceed without legislative intervention.
Anita Hattiangadi of the Employment Policy Foundation joined Ms. O’Neill in criticizing the proposed equal pay legislation. “Although these proposals are being promoted as ‘pay equity’ measures, they would fundamentally alter the way in which wages are determined—essentially throwing the free market out the window,” she said. She added: “Members of the Senate should look at the facts and not the rhetoric designed to incite women and make them feel victimized.”
In contrast, Dr. Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) said that legislation should be used to intervene, rather than leaving the narrowing of the wage gap to market forces. “Women’s progress in narrowing the wage gap has stalled in recent years,” she testified.
In addition, families increasingly rely on the income of mothers, Dr. Hartmann said, adding: “When women’s earnings are reduced by discrimination, rather than by women’s preferences or choices they have freely made, their family incomes are unfairly depressed.” She cited an IWPR study indicating that the incomes of families relying on women’s earnings are reduced by approximately $4,000 annually.
