Good News! The Sex Pay Gap Is Gone!

In a September 2, 2010 article in USA Today reported research done by Reach Advisors on 2008 Census data. This data compared the income data for single men and women ages 22-30 in major metropolitan areas. The results showed that single women in this age bracket when compared to single men in that age bracket out earned them by significant factor, in a range of 12% to 21%. Several factors where cited, but the prime reason was education. More women than men are going to college and they are 1.5 more likely to graduate. This trend is even more apparent in cities with higher minority populations. As an example single women in the study made 21% more than their male counterparts in Atlanta.

Women in their 20's who are married and have children do not have the wage advantage their single "sisters" have. They are making just 90% of what married with children males make. Hmmmm... could that be due to the career interruption of having the child? Could it also be that women in that age bracket with children are also less likely to have college degrees?

Does this mean that sex discrimination in pay may not be the "great evil" it was once considered to be? Does this mean that legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act is unnecessary? Can the market actually take care of this, as many have postulated?

What do you think???

Just In Case You Didn't the Feds Were Controlling Enough In HR

Before I start on my "rant" for the day I want to thank Stephanie R. Thomas for the post that is the inspiration for my post today. Her post, entitled The Men from NEPET Are Coming , appeared on the Compensation Cafe on August 20, 2010. In that post she pointed out a report from the government. This report, entitled National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force (Stephanie's NEPET), is a document from the White House that discusses the cross agency efforts to get the Paycheck Fairness Act passed by increasing the amount of scrutiny paid to, and information gathered from, businesses in the United States. My post will summarize what I consider to be the "high points" (or low  points depending on your point of view) of this report. For a complete understanding of the what you will be facing you need to read the report and Stephanie's post in addition to what you are reading here. Just follow the links above.

In his campaign to be elected president and in the State of the Union address, Barak Obama made it clear that one of his goals was to erase pay inequities based on gender. Getting the Lilly Ledbetter Act passed was considered to be the first step. The report points out the next step "To implement President Obama’s pledge in the State of the Union address to crack down on violations of equal pay laws, the Administration has created the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, bringing together the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Department of Labor (“DOL”), and the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”)"

The report says that there are five areas that need to be addressed. These include:

1. Three agencies of the government have jurisdiction over pay discrimination and they do not coordinate efforts enough;
2. They feel they don't have enough data on pay and gender. So they will develop methods to extract this information from all the employers in the US, especially federal contractors;
3. They think employees don't know enough about their rights. The implication being that if they did they would turn their employers in more often. Also, employers don't know their obligations under the law, so they are going to provide information. They will also be hiring and training more investigators in order to step up criminal prosecutions.
4. They have determined they are not as "clean as a hound's tooth" so they are going to make sure they are complying with the laws too. (What an origianl concept!)
5. They don't feel the existing laws, especially the Equal Pay Act, are sufficient to handle the situation. So doing what all governments are compeled to do, they want to pass a new law, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Here is my interpretation of their solutions:

1. Make sure that all agencies responsible do a better job of coordinating with each other. Hire more investigators and ferret out instances of pay discrimination in whatever form. Especially make the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) an agent of the EEOC in enforcing wage discrimination based on gender violations in federal contractors. Increase the focus of EEOC on wage discrimination. Remove restrictions on the OFCCP regarding audits, hire more investigators and prosecute more employers.
2. Increase the methods used to extract data on wages from employers. If you are a federal contractor the amount of information you will have to reveal will be increased substantially. The goal is to reveal companies in violation of the laws (pick one) and to prosecute them. Failure to provide such information will result in loss of contractor status. Since they do not have that hold over the private sector they will probably change the EEOC reporting requirements and will be looking for more information. (My prediction is that the minimum company size for reporting on the EEO-1 will be dropped below 100, probably to the 15 employee level)
3. Undertake a public education campaign in order to make it clearer to women why and how they can sue their employers for pay discrimination. They will educate employers on their obligations in order to remove "ignorance of the law" as any excuse. After hiring several hundred more investigators they will be trained to find cases to prosecute.
4. Clean up the Federal government, so businesses can't complain that the Federal government isn't following its own rules.
5. Working with unions, push and cajole members of Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, because, after all, that is what government is in the business to do, pass new legislation.

Ok I admit, if  you read the report, they probably didn't use the same language I did. I was taking some "poetic license". But it is clear that the intent is to get harder and tougher on businesses, ESPECIALLY FEDERAL CONTRACTORS. If you are a woman working in HR at a company where you are paid less than the men in HR, this may be a mixed blessing. You may get more money but jeeezzz look at the extra work you are going to have to do as a result of this effort.

And Stephanie... I think your title is probably incorrect. It will most likely be the WOMEN from NEPET Are Coming.

ISM Number Two: SexISM

Sexism is the second part of my series on ISM's in Human Resources in the United States. According to Wikipedia "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other."   (Click here for a great discussion of the totality of the meaning of the word SEXISM.) In the US the term sexism is generally taken to mean men see themselves as superior to women, exhibiting a sexist or chauvinistic attitude toward women and their place in society. Though this is just one interpretation of the term it has been generally been taken to mean that women have had a history of being discriminated against in the workplace. However, the 20th century saw a number of laws passed that moved to lessen or eliminate the discrimination.

One of the early laws to do so was establishing that women had the right to vote. The movement to establish this right was called Women's Suffrage and more information can be found HERE. Although this was not really a workplace right it did set the standard for later movement.

One major, and early law regarding the workplace, was an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This law was passed to address the issue of women making only $0.58 for every $1.00 that men were making. The law requires that men and women doing the same work that requires substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and is performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment, receive the same pay. There are exceptions for seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, and any other factor other than sex (gender.) This law required of HR departments to focus on the work done, not titles, and to insure that the same rate of pay was paid if the jobs met the standards were met.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the next law to deal with sexism in the workplace as it did with racism. Originally sex (gender) was not one of the protected catagories in the law. Sex was inserted as an attempt to defeat the law. In the early 1960's the make up of Congress was mostly males, so the opponents of Civil Rights attempted to defeat the law by sticking gender in the law. Well, as we well know it did not work! Sex discrimination became illegal, as did sexual harassment, and today all HR departments need to be aware of situations in which discrimination and harrassment occurred or could occur and take corrective action. All good HR people know this.

The next step in dealing with sexism in the workplace was the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1977, an amendment to Title VII. This made it illegal to discriminate against pregnant women in all terms and matters of employment. Even prohibiting employers from barring women from doing high risk jobs that could endanger the development of the fetus. Employers are required to point out the dangers but cannot bar a woman from performing that job if she is qualified. Many companies still struggle with this issue. Even women managers have difficulty with this. I have encountered female managers who do not want to hire a candidate who is pregnant knowing that they run the risk of productivity issues or the possibility of loss of the employee after birth, just as I have encountered male managers feeling the same way. I would be interested to know if any of you have encountered a similar dilemma. How did you deal with it?

Since these three big laws several others have been passed that deal with the issue of sexism. The Family and Medical Leave Act to an extent touches sex discrimination by providing protection to allow for the birth of a child, a benefit few men initially used, and certainly not to the extent the female employee giving birth is likely to have done. The most recent law passed that deal with sexism is the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed earlier in 2009. It goes back to the pay issue, not as a revision of the FLSA, but as a revision of Title VII. It changed the interpretation of when an act of pay discrimination can be reported. It has major implications for recordkeeping, how pay decisions are documented and how long a company is liable for its actions. The Ohio Employer Law blog has a very good discussion of these implications. The Compensation Cafe also has a very good discussion.

Coming down the pike is proposed legislation called the Paycheck Fairness Act. I posted earlier about it here and here. It brings back the very nasty issue of comparable worth, a concept that was rejected many years ago as unworkable. It has not yet been passed, and may not in the current legislative year, but it is definately on the agenda for the current administration. So educate yourself.

All of this pay legislation, both passed and proposed, is based upon the concept of discrimination in pay based upon sex (gender.) Statistics show that currently women make $0.75 for every $1.00 that men make. Ann Bares at Compensation Force presents research that may cast a different light on this subject. This research shows that compensation differences are not as simple as JUST sex discrimination. You can read the research and make your own decisions.

As a close to this, already too long, post I will just say that sexism is not a simple subject. Sexual harassment is a two way street. Reverse discrimination, where women receive preferential treatment, exists in many forms. Fathers in divorce situations are frequently not given the same rights as mothers, even in situations where it is evident the father would be the better care-giver and provider. Society allows Women only events, groups and gyms yet protest loudly against men only groups. Examples include: Silicon Valley Women In Human Resources, Executive Women in Chamber of Commerce groups, women only workout gyms, etc. I can only imagine the outrage that would be expressed by Silicon Valley Men in Human Resources. Yes I understand the issues of trying to overcome the past, but to my way of thinking discrimination is discrimination.

Will sexism go away? Nope, no way. It is even less likely to go away than racism. Eventually everyone could be the same racial mix, but there is no possibility for us to be the same sex. So it is something we will have to learn to deal with as a society. But as a workplace we have the responsibilty to minimize it as much as possible.

Discuss your trials and tribulations of dealing with sexism in the workplace by leaving a comment here.

Next week: AGEISM

The First 100 Days of Obama: Fistful of Talent Saved Me An Update

The folks over at Fistful of Talent saved me a legislative update. Follow this link to Tough Love: The First 100 Days of the Obama Administration. It is getting very hard to be an employer these days and it is not going to get any easier. So read and learn and prepare. Or be active and contact legislators to express your opinion on the pending legislation.

Change you can believe in.... well you can believe there will be change and more change. Hang on to your hat the rollercoaster is leaving the platform!

What The Future of HR Looks Like in 2009

Ok, I told you I was going to take a stab at being a futurist. Well here goes.

First some background information. Unless you have been in a hole somewhere you are aware that there is a Presidential election going on in the US. In addition to President, voters will also be selecting members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Although the Presidential selection is not yet clear it is relatively certain that Democrats will gain majority control of the Senate and will maintain, and probably increase, their hold on the majority of the House. Right now it is projected that Democrats will gain 8 seats in the Senate to give them 65 seats. This is just 2 shy of the 67 needed to override Presidential vetos. The House will gain 12 seats making it 260 Democrats and 175 Republicans. If all members are present to vote 291 votes are needed for a veto.

Why is this information important? Because my prognostications will deal with potential legislation. Whether it gets passed or not will depend on which candidate becomes President and whether "The Veto" becomes a factor.

Here we go. With two houses controlled by Democrats we can expect the following legislation to pass:

1. Unions will call in their "marker" for helping Democrats get elected and the Employee Free Choice Act will pass making it easier for unions to form.


2. A second 'marker' item will be the RESPECT Act. RESPECT stands for Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Trade. This law will change the definition of "supervisor" and as a result, to the great benefit of union membership, will allow many supervisors to become unionized. You can find more about this at the Pennsylvania Employment and Labor Blog.


3. In recognition of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency the Paycheck Fairness Act will pass the Senate. The House of Representatives' version has already passed. This is an amendment to the Equal Pay Act. Opponents say the EPA handles these situation, proponents say that inequities still exist and need to be legislated.


4. In conjunction with the Paycheck Fairness Act is the Equal Pay Act Amended. This introduces the concept of equal pay for "equivalent jobs." This harkens back to the concept of Comparable Worth. This may or may not pass, as this creates a major burden on the DOL of determining job equivalency from company to company and even internally in companies.


5. A third compensation bill that will pass will be the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. This bill essentially eliminates the 180 day period during which discrimination must be reported. Currently if a complaint is not made to the EEOC on pay discrimination within 180 the EEOC does not recognize the complaint as valid. In essence the 180 days rolls because every day there is discrimiation in pay it resets the clock. This will not be retroactive but it will greatly increase the number of future lawsuits that will be filed.


6. In deference to the very long service of Ted Kennedy in the Senate and in anticipation of his death I predict that two of his pet pieces of legislation will see some action. First, the Minimum Wage increases will be revisited and will be extended for another 3 years of increases culminating in $10 per hour. Secondly, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will be amended to allow for much larger punitive fines for companies found guilty of discrimination. The current caps will at least be doubled, if not tripled for large companies. It will also make it easier to file class action law suits.

I predict that the Employee Free Choice Act and two of the compensation pieces will be passed and made effective July 1, 2009. Other passed legislation will be effective January 1, 2010 and the minimum wage law will be effective July 24, 2010 as the last increase of the current legislation is reached.

The above scenario assumes a Democrat as President. If Obama is elected there will be no veto of the above legislation since Senator Obama has already supported all this legislation. If Senator McCain is elected there will be vetos in most, if not all, cases. However, with the gains for Democrats mentioned above there is a much greater liklihood of a veto overturn.

Regardless of the outcome of the Presidency battle, 2009 promises to be a very busy one for HR professionals. Unions will certainly be a much great "threat" and the compensation legislation will be a virtual nightmare for HR job analysts and compensation professionals.

We will check back later in the year to see how "Swami" Haberman has done.

Paycheck Fairness Act: Part II

As a follow up to my post yesterday here is a statement given to Congress by Camille Olson, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw, LLC. Camille is a expert on women's pay issues. She gave this testimony on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce AGAINST the Paycheck Fairness Act. The arguments she makes are compelling, interesting and educational. I encourage you to spend some time on this. It will make you a BETTER HR professional.

Click on Camille Olson's testimony statement to read the pdf.

Paycheck Fairness Act: Everyone Gets Paid NYC Wages

The Paycheck Fairness Act is in the House! The House of Representatives that is, and it is a crock! The Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) (wow, what a surprise), was approved by the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor on July 24, 2008.

SHRM is recommending to its membership that we contact our Congressional representatives, both houses, and tell them to VOTE NO. I will add to that "HELL NO". The misnamed piece of legislation is a nightmare. Here are the provisions of it. Specifically, the bill would:

• facilitate class action lawsuits by repealing the requirement that employees must give their written consent to become a party in a gender discrimination class action,


• lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. Such damages would apply to even unintentional pay disparities,


• prevent employers from retaliating against employees who disclose or discuss the wages of other employees,


• prohibit certain employer defenses for pay disparities. For example, the bill would eliminate an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living.

That last bullet point alone is enough to show how nuts this is! It means if you have locations in high paying cities and lower paying cities (because of the cost of living) you will have to pay everyone the HIGHER WAGE.

I am not for wage discrimination in any form, but falling back to the past rejected concept of comparable worth is not the way to go. Comparable worth pay systems require the government, rather than the private market, to determine employees’ wages. Congress explicitly rejected comparable worth during the original Equal Pay Act debate—when wage disparities between women and men were greater—because it would mandate the same pay for completely different jobs. Furthermore, courts have repeatedly declared that the Equal Pay Act does not require a comparable worth system.

Watch this one and shake in your HR boots as we move to a Democrat lead administration and Congress.