I have a question about gender equity pay bill.

[county worker]

I understand the reason for the bill is that women are paid 78 cents and a man is paid 1 dollar for the same work.

My question is this. How is that calculated? Logic would tell me that if a man and a woman worked side by side doing the same job with the same skills and the same time on the job, the idea here is that the woman is paid 78% of what the man is paid.

Somehow that just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

There must be some more parts to the equation. It's not just 1 woman plus 22 cents equals 1 man.

Is it all women taken as a whole and all men taken as a whole no matter what the jobs or anything else? I mean do we take all the working men and divide their total salary by the number of men and take all the working women and their total salary and divide by the number of women and compare?

Or do we take an average woman's life time salary and divide it by her age and do the same for an average man?

I wonder if this makes sense. Say you take the average working woman's total wages over her life time and divide by a number of years and do the same for a man. Now if you take into account that a woman could take years off to raise kids and so drops out of the work force for a period of time then reenters the workforce, wouldn't measuring her total wages divided by her age or some measure show less per year the someone who did not take off to raise kids.

I don't think the above is the case but just how is the pay inequity determined?

[WhiteTara]

1. as a county worker, you are immune

it is in the private sector that this is VERY prevalent. In most cases, he is given a title and she is given the work. The title earns more money.

[county worker]

4. I understand what you are saying but I have never seen documentation that supports

the idea. All I have ever heard is that the charge is true. I want to see the statistics and calculations behind it.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Ditto White Tara

Or - as in my situation - black female manager that had a male working below her - with less education and less experience - making close to 12K more. And nope - I've never been married or had children so the 'lame assed' excuse that I was out of the work force can't be used as tool of punishment against me.

We aren't lying in the private sector. This is very real. We women (depending on education level) lose out on between $700K and $2Million in a lifetime.

Look up the Wal-Mart lawsuit. It happens in the retail level right up to managers in large global enterprise organizations.

[county worker]

5. I don't think you are lying. Like I have said, were are the static tics and reporting that

supports the new law?

I want women to make as much as men because my wife works and we pool our incomes.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Start Here

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/lowerwageshurtwomen.pdf

That's a pdf on the NWLC's site. They are champions for women! Within that report track back all of the resources. As well - look at Census Reports from the past 40 years. Good luck! :-)

[slackmaster]

3. It's a matter of documented company policy, or at least has been in some companies

Before I was married, my now-ex was working at a bank in South Carolina. The company had clearly documented separate pay scales for male and female employees. Women were paid about 70% of what men were paid.

The justification is typically that women get pregnant and go on maternity leave, and men don't. They see that as absenteeism, which has a tangible cost.

BTW, I live in California where that kind of discrimination is prohibited.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Yep

It's the policy at Wally World too . . . And they are crying in their brandy and smoking their cigars (dropping ashes on their ascots) in the good old boys club because a few 'lowly women' are the suing the shit out them! :rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. Have you tried to look for the original data?