WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic bill calling for equal pay in the workplace. But President Barack Obama and his congressional allies aren’t finished appealing to women on the No. 1 concern for all voters: the cash in their wallets on the heels of recession.
As expected, the pay equity bill failed along party lines, 52-47, short of the required 60-vote threshold. But for majority Democrats, passage wasn’t the only point. The debate itself was aimed at putting Republicans on the defensive on yet another women’s issue, this one overtly economic after a government report showing slower-than-expected job growth.
Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted with their Republican colleagues in opposition to the motion to proceed with the bill.
“I support equal pay for equal work,” Collins said in a statement. “I remain concerned that this particular legislation would unnecessarily expose the small business community to excessive litigation, and impose increased costs and restrictions on businesses that are already struggling to create and maintain jobs in this difficult economic environment.”
After the vote, Obama said in a statement, “It is incredibly disappointing that in this make-or-break moment for the middle class, Senate Republicans put partisan politics ahead of American women and their families.”
Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, “Even Mitt Romney has refused to publicly oppose this legislation. He should show some leadership.”
Unlike past taunts over access to contraception and abortion, Republicans this time didn’t take the bait.
In Fort Worth, Texas, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee focused instead on unemployment among Hispanics.
“Of course Gov. Romney supports pay equity for women,” said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “In order to have pay equity, women need to have jobs, and they have been getting crushed in this anemic Obama economy.”
The device for the choreographed showdown in Washington was a Senate debate over the “Paycheck Fairness Act,” a measure that aims to strengthen the Fair Labor Standards Act’s protections against pay inequities based on gender.
The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would require employers to prove that differences in pay are based on qualifications, education and other “bona fides” not related to gender. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who ask about, discuss or disclose wages in response to a complaint or investigation. And it would make employers who violate sex discrimination laws liable for compensatory or punitive damages. Under the bill, the federal government would be exempt from punitive damages.
Proponents of the bill say it is the next step after the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Obama signed into law in 2009. The law effectively overturned a Supreme Court decision that had strictly limited workers’ ability to file lawsuits over pay inequity. Ledbetter said she didn’t become aware of her own pay discrepancy until she neared the end of her 1979-1988 career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala.
Near the end of her career, she received an anonymous tip that she was earning less than her male colleagues. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A jury initially awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages, a sum that a judge later reduced to $300,000.
Ledbetter herself attended the vote and scolded Republicans for their filibuster.
“Do not let these Republicans keep us from getting paycheck fairness,” she told reporters, Reid at her side and a letter from her to Romney posted online by the Obama campaign.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke instead on the looming fight over student loan interest rates. Asked if he was concerned about alienating women with the GOP filibuster, the Kentucky Republican said the bill opened the door to more lawsuits against employers.
“We don’t think America suffers from a lack of litigation,” McConnell said. “We have a jobless problem. We have a debt problem. We have a deficit problem. We got a lot of problems. Not enough lawsuits is not one of them.”
Democrats intend to test that discipline in the coming months by raising hubbubs nationally and in House and Senate races over several issues that disproportionately affect women, or just matter greatly to this group of voters that leans heavily toward their party. Independent women voters in exurbs and suburbs of states like Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina are particular targets, said these officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss strategy.
First up in this category is the looming Senate debate over preventing student loan interest rates from rising next month. Look, too, for hubbubs over raising the minimum wage, extending the Bush-era tax cuts, preserving Medicare and Social Security and access to women’s health care, including contraception, the officials said.
The paycheck bill was aimed in part at putting Senate Republicans in tough races in the hot seat over a key women’s issue. One, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, issued a statement emphasizing his support for pay equity but calling the legislation “the right cause but the wrong bill.”
“On the heels of last week’s dismal jobs report, the last thing we should be doing is putting more job-killing burdens on small businesses and employers,” he said.
Tweeted challenger Elizabeth Warren: “Scott Brown voted NO on Paycheck Fairness, telling MA women he thinks it’s ok that they continue to earn less than men.”
“The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would
require employers to prove that differences in pay are based on
qualifications, education and other “bona fides” not related to gender.”
Sounds like a great new law for the trial lawyers.
My thought exactly , there is already a law in place pertaining to this subject. This new bill simply adds the ability for lawyers to make more money off of the backs of both men and women.
No, it would actually go a long way in ensuring that employers follow the law, which many do NOT.
If the Teapublicans were so confident that employers were following the current law then they would NOT say they voted against it to avoid lawsuits and associated costs.
Gee, how awful! Employers would actually have to prove why they were paying women less.Oh , the Horror!!
The old tact that employers used to take, was that men are the bread winners, hence they need a bigger salary. This is no longer true, with many, many single women now raising children, and being the bread winners. What is the new excuse?
If a woman feels like she is not being paid fairly, she can find another job, that’s what men do. As an engineering graduate, I was at a major disadvantage when competing with women for jobs because there are so few of them, and there were at least three jobs I did not get that I knew women in my class that did. Should we start trying to make things like that fair as well? Should we start setting up a quota system? I had a family to support already and none of these women I knew of had families, how is that fair to me? Any time you try to make something “fair” for one group you are going to inevitably screw another.
Sir, a person should be paid according to education , experience , and abilitity.One’s gender should have nothing to do with this. I worked in a profession that is primarily women and had their bosses say to me. “Well, it’s only a 2nd paycheck.Their husbands are making good money so their pay is enough.” I feel that if teaching was male dominated profession they would have higher pay. Women doing equal work with equal ability and education should be paid as well as their male counterparts, period! This is no longer the 60’s & 70’s.Your feelings reflect exactly what women have been feeling for far too long!
My feelings are my own, and I’ve never had an advantage over any woman when it comes to a job.
Exactly right! ~”Any time you try to make something “fair” for one group you are going to inevitably screw another.”~
You obviously don’t understand the concept of fairness or justice, to make a comment like this. Exactly wrong.
I just wonder how many of the ladies at SW Collins are making up there mind’s, or had them made up, with Susie’s comment’s about how seriously she takes this issue ? Right about now about a great many women in Maine just had their vote swung. Who are they going to vote for come November ? Time, and the result’s of Susie’s vote, will tell.
Talk about a jar of worms.
That bill surely would have drawn out the “ambulance chasers”.
I pay the women on my crew the same as men.
Always have.
Pay commensurate with experience.
EOE. Its the law.
Correct. It’s illegal not to.
All this would have done is keep lawyers employed and there are enough of those. Look at the yellow pages.
“It’s the law.”
Unless you’re Walmart. Oops.
Oh, I forgot. “Corporations are people, too”.
Women earn about 70% as much as men in similar roles with similar educations. That’s a fact. What part of that do you folks not understand?
Bring a discrimination suit. What don’t you understand about that?
So, you complain about lawyers, and then say that discrimination suits are a good answer.
In the real world, suing your boss as a single individual is not always an attractive option.
if a person feels that they are being discriminated then they should take the appropriate action and not be intimidated. The law is in their favor. If a person does not seek the alternatives don’t blame it on something else. You are either right or wrong and if you are not comfrtable protecting your rights then you deserve everyting you get.
That sounds tough and everything when typed into a message board with no repercussions. In the real world, not so much. “The law is in their favor” is a loose comment, particularly if your boss has good lawyers.
And a person would be intimidated because of legal representation?
If my boss has a $300 dollars an hour lawyer, and if I lose the case I lose my job and have to pay the cost of the $300 an hour lawyer (which you do), then yes, that would be daunting. I am not as super tough and anonymously brave as many of the posters on this site though.
So, your reasoning tells me that anyone who slaps a lawsuit on their employer, better make sure it’s for a VALID reason.
It’s a sad day when someone can’t be fired for non-performance, pure and simple, without the employer facing a lawsuit, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religious belief of the employee. The same goes for rewarding an exemplary employee with a raise, and skipping over the slacker, who also “happens” to be gay. “Intimidation” works both ways.
There are existing laws to deal with discrimination. Use them.
I think that is what i tried to communicate to her also.
Just another example showing us how the GOP/Tea Party will fight as hard and as long as possible to keep women in their place. Then there’s how they view and treat minorities, an even sadder story for sure. Who votes for these people?
THINK about this comment, which is merely a knee jerk reaction to news. This isn’t about GOP/Tea Party values. This is about Harry Reid trying to stir up the faithful with a sham issue. Looks like you got sucked into it, too. There exist laws that protect women from this bias. It works.
It is clearly timed with the election in mind, and it will be dressed up as another shot in the “War on Women.” But it really plugs a hole in the law that was pointed out by the Supreme Court. There is no percentage in the Rs killing it.
Incorrect! Women earn about 70% as much as men in similar roles with similar educations. That’s a country wide problem. It does not work, that’s the point.
That number is a little higher, because women leave the workforce to have children, then return later, which affects seniority. But the last numbers I saw was in the 80-85%, which is still wrong.
The easiest way to tell it’s wrong is to ask, if the roles were reversed, would men tolerate it? Hell no.
Yes, and all the other minority groups that are denied equal rights. People of a different sexual orientation come to mind. Who votes for them? The ignorant mostly, and those with minds that cannot grasp what it is to be human.
At least Maine women know their place and do what the men tell them. Good job Senators.
Note that a majority of senators favored this legislation but a minority was able to prevent any vote on the bill at all. By using the parliamentary stunt, the filibuster, Maine’s senators once again shut down our government in order to prevent the people’s business from being conducted.
Senators Snowe and Collins should be explaining why they would not allow our democracy to function. Their votes were not for or against this bill. Their votes (votes that actually belong to us) were used to prevent any action from taking place at all.
The government was not “shut down”. That is hyperbole. As far as I know normal governmental operations are ongoing.
A filibuster prevents any action being taken in the US Senate on any subject until it is ended by a supermajority vote or until the matter being filibustered is withdrawn. In this way the minority shuts down the US Senate until they get what they want.
Used so routinely by minority Republicans in recent years, it doesn’t seem like a government shutdown. But that’s what it is.
When people talk about Washington DC being broken, the filibuster is a major reason why.
Our senators are two of the biggest offenders and should be ashamed.
Never the less Government was NOT “shut down”.
As a smart person like you knows, there is more than one branch of government. Sometimes the executive branch is shut down but not the others, as was the case here in Maine under Senator Snowe’s husband ‘Jock’ in the 1990s.
Other times, as with a filibuster, the legislative branch is shut down.
Although you and the ‘mainstream media’ may not call it so, both are government shutdowns by a minority in order to get their way.
I know what a filibuster is. It is normal part of the process. You only call it a “shut-down” because you lost.
“Normal part of the process”….hmmm….where in the Constitution does is say that, or anything about the filibuster for that matter?
Senate rules are not in the Constitution. Neither are the rules Congress operates by. As far as I know laws concerning Jaywalking aren’t either. What is your point?
My point is that “normal part of the process” seems to imply that that’s the way it has always been done. I know that internal Senate procedures are not in the Constitution, but the whole a filibuster is implied every time a bill gets introduced is really a new thing. The rule needs to be changed so that they actually, you know, need to filibuster (like, read the phone book and stuff) instead of it being implied every time.
Comparing how the U.S Senate operates and therefore with how the federal government operates (the point of the Constitution) with jaywalking is just stupid.
Chessecake, You are right on everything you say in your comments. But to try and reason with these lefties here is like trying to teach a room full of monkies with typewriters how to type the Bible.
I’m quite sure that when the time comes that the GOP is in the majority in the Senate again, and the Dems attempt to use this “normal” procedural obstacle, you and all your tribe will be screaming bloody murder. Your argument is transparently self-serving.
Normal Governmental Operations, ” Gridlock ‘ are ongoing!
LOL
Our two women senators would feel differently if women senator’s were paid less than their male counterparts! But they’re not part of the real working world , only a slave to their corporate masters who like saving money by paying women less.
Well said!
Let’s see…..the Republicans don’t want welfare to support children, they don’t want the woman to take contraceptives, they don’t want the woman to have abortions…..well, I guess they just want women to dissappear completely….or put them in camps, if they don’t conform to their socialist ways..
No, they want women to have no choice but to marry unsavory and unattractive hogs like themselves and stay married to them no matter how miserable, abusive, controlling and rotten they are to be married to.
shame on you, ladies.
This was a sham vote, always run out during election years. It has been proven time and again that the two laws supporting equal pay are working and that it is social/demographic issues that skew the pay question. Harry Reid is merely playing vicious politics with this one, too, and it is so disappointing that our commenters here are not paying enough attention to catch what is going on here.
“It has been proven time and again”…Really? Please explain why it has been proven time and again that women make 70% as much as men in the same jobs with the same education levels.
I don’t see why this is a bad law. If a woman wants to know why she’s being paid less, why shouldn’t that be outlined for her?
Ironic how Snowe and Collins love their equal pay with the other male Senators. They vote against equal pay for women. How happy would these girls be if they only received 3/4 of what the other male Senators get.
Thank You!!!!!
What’s wrong with the law?
This represents the nonsense repeated incessantly that Maine’s Senators are at heart “moderates.” On non-controversial issues, yes, they will often vote with liberal and moderate Democrats. But when Republican party loyalty is the crucial issue, as here, they routinely vote the party line. How sad.
http://www.cq.com/doc/floorvote-235548000 Harry Reid voted against the bill…
Ok, so you have no idea how the Senate works. The Majority Leader often times votes against bills he knows won’t pass so that he has the opportunity to bring it to the floor again.
if they knew it wouldn’t pass, it sounds like a way of getting Republicans to vote against a frivolous lawsuit bill disguised as “Pay equity”.
Well, thanks for the GOP talking point. The passive-aggressive placing of pay equity in quotation marks is a nice trick too. The lack of pay equity is a real problem, I would love to know what the GOP’s answer to it is other than quotation marks.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963”
I believe this is still in effect
And 40 years later women still earn far less than men in equal jobs with equal education levels. Sounds like we need a stronger “pay equity” law.
I agree with you, and I’m sure there will be better bills put forward that will be passed by the Senate in the near future.
Finally on one of her last vote’s she acts like a conservative
Senator Collins said she opposed this because it would bring about too much litigation, harming small businesses. Well, as I see it it would not harm small businesses that pay fairly. If you sue and do not have a case, the plaintiff pays for the defendants costs.
Senator Collins has shown us that she does not mind continued inequality. Remember this ladies when she comes back around again, asking for your vote or contributions.
Just a couple of party girls, those two! Never expect more from them when workplace fairness and worker rights are on the line.
I think that it’s OK to pay Republican Women Senators less than men.
Another reason for American women to vote AGAINST the Teapublicans. They want women barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen and subservient to men. They want to go back to the 1950’s.
Let’s see…..the Republicans don’t want welfare to support children, they don’t want the woman to take contraceptives, they don’t want the woman to have abortions…..well, I guess they just want women to disappear completely….or put them in camps, if they don’t conform to their socialist ways..
How about instead of the female senators getting paid what their counterpart males get paid a year $174,000.00- they get paid what other females get paid simply do to their gender…$133,980.00 works for me. After all what is good enough for some should be good enough for all right?
Send this the Olympia and Susan to see if they would agree to that.Well said!
——
Maybe the “war on women” is just political BS foisted on the uninitiated to capture their votes.
Exactly!
{ Near the end of her career, she received an anonymous tip that she was earning less than her male colleagues. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A jury initially awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages, a sum that a judge later reduced to $300,000. }
The real Travesty here is the Bush “Tort Reform” taking justice out of the hands of the jury and placing caps on damages!
Maybe they would pay attention if they recieved penalties.
I agree with Collins’ statement. ~“I support equal pay for equal work,” Collins said in a statement. “I remain concerned that this particular legislation would unnecessarily expose the small business community to excessive litigation, and impose increased costs and restrictions on businesses that are already struggling to create and maintain jobs in this difficult economic environment.”~
Rational people would digest and understand the above statement, instead of jumping on the “Republicans are against women’s rights” bus. Tucked into this proposed legislation is all about one more mandate and expense, as Collins has pointed out, for small businesses. No, I’m not saying that PEOPLE are not treated unfairly by SOME employers, but with this bill, the ONLY group of employees left, who could be simply fired for non-performance are white American able bodied men ….. get it? (We could even get into a racist conversation on this one.)
The employer is at the mercy of all gays, blacks, immigrants, the disabled, and now the proposal of ALL women, when there may simply have been a situation of non-performance, dishonesty, or heaven forbid, “let go” because business is slow. To reward and compensate ANY employee who goes the “extra mile” and becomes highly efficient, would become a nightmare. Nine times out of ten, the employer will have to prove in court the reasons for his actions, when each group has their own set of “issues”. Why? Because the common mantra is “discrimination” within certain groups. This concept is ENCOURAGED by civil liberties lawyers and media outlets everyday, everywhere we look.
So, where does this leave the one remaining group of “white American able bodied men” ? I remember the days that labor laws were for ALL PEOPLE … what a concept, and so much more FAIR to ALL involved!
What next? … Investigate a heavy equipment repair shop, because there are no WOMEN on the payroll? With this mentality shown in most of these comments, it’s only a matter of time.
Well there you go, so since they are against it let’s reduce their pay they are women and as such should be paid less. We should demand they give back 50% of their pay.
The bigger issue is the Republicans really want us fighting amongst ourselves so they can reduce ALL wages not just womens…….. hey now you got fairness and are all making the same slave….. oppppps I mean working wage. Us 1%er’s get to keep more of our money by paying everyone the same slave….. working wages big win win for some of us. Their thinking is you peons should be grateful for the few crumbs that we allow to fall from our cakes and into your mouths.