FemChat

This morning I had the honor and pleasure to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, at which Vice President Biden and then the Secretary spoke eloquently about working people in America and their commitment to achieving a better life for them. Several hundred people, DOL guests and staff members alike, were alternately cheering and letting tears of happiness roll down their cheeks. It was lovely to see big, beefy union presidents (brothers) crying along with us women. Getting the Department to serve workers again and to enforce labor regulations is key to the organizations IWPR works with. Secretary Solis received a standing ovation when she said no one should make any mistake that there is a “new sheriff in town!” Secretary Solis announced her three priorities as preparing the workforce, enforcing labor regulations (areas such as equal opportunity, wage and hour, and health and safety), and retirement security, all issues that IWPR research addresses. We have worked with Secretary Solis when she was Congresswoman and served as the Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues and we look forward to working with her in her new role.

I’ll be letting you know more about our work with the Obama Administration in future posts. I only have time to say now that the first 6 weeks have been very busy ones, from the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Act to yesterday’s announcement of the new White House Council on Women and Girls. At a telephone call, also Friday morning, Valerie Jarrett, the newly appointed chair of the Council mentioned planned work to improve opportunities for women business owners.

Now on to Paycheck Fairness, the Fair Pay Act, the Healthy Families Act and many more pieces of legislation waiting in the hopper.

As soon as the cabinet is fully confirmed I will update my earlier blog on the numbers of women in the cabinet. The nomination of Kathleen Sibelius and the confirmation of Hilda Solis are steps in the right direction and improve the numbers previously posted.

Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President, IWPR

Over the past several days, Senator Susan Collins (R, ME) has emerged as a leader of the moderate Republicans working with several Democratic Senators also concerned about the high cost of the economic recovery bill. Unfortunately the compromise they have crafted, which seems to be mainly about cutting government expenditures to make room for expensive tax breaks, cuts deeply at the precise areas in which women typically work, Head Start, education, and health care. Half of the proposed additions to Head Start funding ($1 billion of a total of $2 billion in the House) and approximately half of the proposed aid to the states, which would largely be spent on education (a cut of $40 billion of $79 billion in the House version), are eliminated in the Senate proposal. Another huge proposed cut is the assistance that would be given to unemployed workers to enable them to exercise their COBRA benefits and purchase their employer-based health insurance policies (a cut of $19 billion of a House total of $41 billion). Also $6 billion in health prevention activities would be cut. $11 billion of proposed child tax credits for working families are also proposed for cuts, in favor of an expensive ($70 billion) 1 year fix to the alternative minimum tax (extending a patch which Congress has usually taken up annually). The latter tax was originally designed to collect a minimum amount of taxes from very high earners whose specialized deductions might otherwise allow them to escape taxes; because it is not indexed for inflation, it is beginning to affect earners who are not especially wealthy, but are still at the higher end. In the “moderate” Senate proposal, funds are apparently being taken from women's jobs in health care, education, and child care and from tax cuts that would go to low and middle income women and their families in order to give more disposal income to high earners.

A fundamental flaw in the moderates’ proposed Senate package is a misunderstanding of what a fiscal stimulus is all about. Right now in the United States, no sector of the economy is strong. What we need is more aggregate demand, more entities buying products and services so businesses can make money and hire more workers. Instead, the financial crisis has set off a downward spiral. Consumers have reduced spending because they have lost jobs and/or equity in their homes and/or because they are worried about losing their jobs and/or because they are simply worried about the future, and want to have some savings for whatever comes next. No one knows for sure how long the economy will remain in recession. Like domestic consumers, the export sector could also provide demand for US products, but the rest of the world is faring no better than the United States. Another component of aggregate demand is business investment; even though the cost of borrowing funds for investing is very low now, businesses are not investing, because under current conditions there is too much uncertainty and they do not see clear opportunities for profit. This leaves government. $1 of government spending generates at least $1 of aggregate demand. Some types of government spending generate even more aggregate demand. For example, every $1 spent on food stamps generates $1.73 in aggregate demand as those who sell the food take their earnings and spend them in turn. This additional spending is often called the multiplier effect. Infrastructure projects also have a high multiplier, about 1.6. Aid to states is estimated to have a multiplier of about 1.4. With all other sectors of the economy weak, the only way to increase aggregate demand and to enable businesses to sell goods and services, make profits, and hire workers is to increase government spending.

Fortunately, the US government is able to borrow in order to spend these funds, since most people around the world have faith that the US government will repay its debts. The safest investment world wide is now considered to be US government securities, promises to pay from the US government to those who hold the securities. And, to be sure, while we should all consider our ability as a nation and as taxpayers to pay off this debt in future years, the alternative is much worse. If we do not enact a large enough stimulus, we risk allowing the economy to wallow in recession. We will inevitably run up a huge deficit from the failing economy because our government will still have to provide essential services like defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, aid to the poor, and so on, while revenues from the failing economy will shrink precipitously. The stimulus bill is an investment in increasing the nation’s income and hence increasing the income tax revenues that will allow us to repay the government debt that we are incurring. It is a sound investment. Thus, the effort on the part of moderate Republicans and "blue dog" Democrats (conservative Democrats) to limit the size of the economic recovery bill is horribly misguided. Right now, many, many economists are recommending a fiscal stimulus of at least $1 trillion.

It is true that some types of government spending, those with higher multipliers, are more effective as a stimulus than others, those with lower multipliers. The so-called moderates in the Senate seem not to have a very clear idea of which types of projects have higher multipliers than others. They are apparently concerned about refurbishing trails and parklands, yet those expenditures likely have a fairly high multiplier since so much of the expense of those projects is wages: workers will spend their earnings and those who supply them (with food, clothing, etc.) will then be able to spend their earnings and so on. The moderate Senators have also eliminated some energy-related provisions because they don't think those are very "stimulative"--about $5 billion for retrofitting schools and public housing to increase energy efficiency, as well as $16 billion for new school construction, all programs likely to have high multipliers. They clearly have not chosen to continue or expand those programs with the highest multipliers and eliminate those with the lowest. If they were doing that, they would not be decreasing programs like these and increasing tax cuts.

In contrast to government spending, many tax cuts do not result in 100% of the lost revenue to government actually being spent, because people typically do not spend all their incomes--they also save. Tax cuts to low and moderate income people are likely to be mostly spent, say in the 90-95% range—a payroll tax holiday, which delivers the tax cut in small sums in every paycheck (rather than in larger annual lump sums) is scored at $1.29 generated in aggregate demand for every $1.00 of tax reduction. Tax cuts to higher income individuals will generate less spending (extending the alternative minimum tax is scored at $.48), and tax cuts to businesses generate the least spending of all (down around 20-40% spent). The Obama administration included tax cuts to the tune of about 39% of its original proposal, because even though some tax cuts are not 100% spent, they do put money in people's pockets quickly, whereas some government spending programs take time to get up and running (other government spending, of course, like food stamp expansion and extended unemployment insurance benefits, are very fast-acting). But the Obama tax cuts (especially after the House eliminated the low-multiplier business tax credits) are targeted at low and moderate income families who are most likely to spend the extra money they find in their pockets, while the Republican-led tax cuts are not.

It's extremely unfortunate that so-called moderates in the Senate are cutting important spending from the economic recovery package to provide tax cuts to high income people -- those tax cuts will not generate nearly as much aggregate demand as the spending programs being eliminated—they weaken the bill’s stimulative effect. Moreover, it is ironic that Senator Susan Collins has chosen to cut spending programs that are especially important to women, both as consumers of the services for their families (health and education and child care) and as workers in the affected industries. Women are about 42% of the unemployed now and about 47% of employed workers. They surely should have a proportionate share of the jobs that will be created by the stimulus package. Unfortunately, the moderate Senators' proposal takes us further away from fairness to women.

Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President, IWPR

Women Leaders call for Obama to appoint a Woman to the Cabinet to head a Government-Wide effort to Achieve Equal Opportunity for Women

It's looking very likely that President Obama's cabinet will have fewer women secretaries than George W. Bush's--hardly progress for women. Strangely, women's organizations seem to have been very polite about this turn of affairs--at least so far.

Of the 15 departments in the current Bush Administration, 4 top posts are currently occupied by women, 2 of whom are white; one is African American and one Asian American. There is also a Hispanic man and the rest, 10, are white men.

Of the same 15 departments, Obama has so far picked 13, including 2 women (both of whom are white), 2 Hispanic men, 2 Asian American men, and 1 African American man. 6 are white men. There is so far no woman of color. 2 are as yet unnamed. With 5 men of color he is achieving racial and ethnic diversity with men but not with women. There is no Native American and only 1 African American.

The EPA Administrator has in recent administrations also been considered cabinet level. Bush currently has a white man in the Administrator position; Obama has picked Lisa Jackson, an African American woman now serving in a similar role in New Jersey. If confirmed, she would be the first African American head of EPA and the fourth woman.

Obama has also named Susan Rice as his Ambassador to the UN, a position not always considered cabinet status, but Obama has said he will treat it as such. Rice is an African American woman. Thus, as of now, there would be two women of color in his cabinet but neither would be leading a department.

Here's how it stacks up.

Homeland Security--Obama nominates the first woman to head this quite new department, Janet Napolitano, current governor of Arizona; she is white. This department was formed in 2003, after the attacks on 9/11/2001

Justice--Eric Holden, first African American Attorney General, male

Veterans Affairs--Eric Shinseki, retired general, Asian American male (this position has never been held by a woman; Obama appoints first Asian American)

Energy--Steven Chu, scientist and Nobel laureate, Asian American male (Obama appoints first Asian American)

State--Hillary Clinton, white female, 3rd woman to be Secretary of State

Commerce--Bill Richardson, current New Mexico governor, second Hispanic male in this role (the current Secretary of Commerce is Cuban, making Richardson the first Mexican American)

Interior--Ken Salazar, current Colorado Senator, Hispanic male--would be the second Hispanic and Mexican American at Interior

Defense--Robert Gates--Republican holdover, white male (this position has never been held by a woman)

Treasury--Timothy Geithner, white male (this position has never been held by a woman)

Agriculture--Tom Vilsack, former Iowa Governor, white male

Health and Human Services--Tom Daschle, former Senate Democratic leader, white male

Housing and Urban Development--Shaun Donovan, white male

Education--Arne Duncan, white male

Labor--unnamed as of now--Mary Beth Maxwell may be in the running, she would be the first openly gay cabinet secretary; Jennifer Granholm, current Governor of Michigan, like Maxwell also white, and one or more women of color may also be in the running (Maria Echeveste and Linda Chavez-Thompson)

Transportation--unnamed as of now--a white woman and a woman of color may be in the running (Jane Garvey and Maria Contreras-Sweet).

It is still possible Obama will equal Bush's current record of 4 women cabinet department heads if he appoints women to both Labor and Transportation, but both Bush and Clinton had 5 women who served as cabinet secretaries and Bush has had 6. To equal those records Obama would have to replace some of his men with women in the future.

The Clinton Administration had 5 female cabinet secretaries, of whom 4 served simultaneously: Janet Reno (Justice), Donna Shalala (HHS), Madeleine Albright (State), and Alexis Herman (Labor), and, in the first term, Hazel O'Leary (Energy).

George W. Bush has had 6 women cabinet secretaries, of whom 5 have served together in the second term: Gale Norton (Interior), Elaine Chao (Labor), Margaret Spellings (Education), Condoleezza Rice (State), and Mary Peters (Transportation) and, in the first term, Ann Veneman (Agriculture).

There are also several positions that are cabinet level or typically made so by the President: Vice President, EPA Administrator, UN Ambassador, OMB Director, Chief of Staff, National Drug Control Policy head, US Trade Representative. Of these 7, Obama has named 5, 2 African American women (mentioned above), and 3 white men. Drug Policy and Trade Rep are still to be named. These appointments (including the vice president who is elected but was also selected by Obama) bring the total cabinet positions, so far, to 22.

Of the 22 appointments 4 are still vacant. The 18 filled break down as follows: 9 white men, 5 men of color, 2 white women, and 2 women of color, or 14 men and 4 women (22 percent female), or 11 whites and 7 people of color (39 percent minority). Not quite looking like America yet. Even if the 4 openings were all filled by women, the breakdown would be 14 men and 8 women or only 36 percent female. Even that wouldn't look like America.

In the Clinton Administration, the heads of OPM, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Economic Council, and the Small Business Administration were all considered cabinet level at one point or other. Obama could follow suit to try to bring his number of women in the cabinet up. (Of these possible additional cabinet level appointments, 2 are already filled, with 1 white woman and 1 white man.) But of course Obama could create other positions and give them cabinet status. For example, he could convert Carol Browner’s position of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change to a cabinet level position. One thing Obama could do that would appeal to women's organizations and make a real difference for women in the United States would be to do what most countries in the world have done, and that is to create a cabinet level position responsible for coordinating all government policies with the aim of achieving equal opportunity for women (see request from women leaders to the President Elect and Vice-President Elect on December 16). As Obama is so fond of saying, it's time we strengthen our ability to compete internationally. On women's equality, the US needs to catch up to the rest of the world. This is the change we deserve.

Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President, IWPR

I believe that it is a woman’s choice whether to have a professional career or to devote her time and energy to motherhood; it is her right to decide. Yet I doubt that, in lieu of the slumping U.S. economy and the many financial barriers that women face, all of these women left work completely out of their own preference. Many factors most likely affected their decisions. Research shows that women leave the workforce for many reasons, including child care costs, lack of workplace flexibility, and earnings disparity.

A large number of women in the United States cannot afford to balance both childrearing and their careers. Child care is increasingly more expensive, and if hiring a baby-sitter costs literally as much as a woman’s salary, then she may feel compelled to simply raise the children herself, abandoning her own career aspirations.

In light of the current economic downturn, rising child care costs only worsen families’ financial situations. Child care fees at licensed centers reach as high as nearly $15,000 a year for infant care, according to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. All-day care for older children can cost as much as $11,000 a year, more than most U.S. families spend in a year on food or public college tuition.

Employers often do not improve this situation. Many offer an insufficient amount of maternity leave time to female employees, who frequently can be subjected to employee discrimination for both their gender and parental status. In her June 6 Congressional testimony, Dr. Hartmann cited single mothers as having a particularly high unemployment rate, experiencing difficulties finding work that can accommodate their available child care options. Many women who would like to return to work face many barriers in doing so—they are victims of a still unequal society.

IWPR’s recent report Statutory Routes to Workplace Flexibility in Cross-National Perspective details how many women stop paid work altogether when faced with little workplace flexibility or affordable childcare. The report’s findings indicate that statutory employment rights should be modified to grant employees the right to request flexible working hours and arrangements, to make it possible to balance work and family.

We need to equalize the family care burden between men and women in the United States. Only after women receive equal rights and considerations as employees and workplaces embrace work flexibility standards already set by other leading nations will women be able to make truly free decisions for their own lives.

Furthermore, women still do not earn equal salaries to men, pressuring their economic decision-making. According to IWPR’s The Best and Worst State Economies for Women, in no state does the typical full-time woman worker earn as much as the typical man. At the present rate of progress it will take 50 years for women to achieve earnings parity with men nationwide. Additionally, IWPR’s report Still A Man’s Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap shows that over a 15-year-period women earned 62 percent less than men, or 38 cents for every dollar that men earned.

Naturally, if a couple must choose who will stay home with the children and who will continue to work, generally the spouse with a higher income – usually the male – will stay at work. If the wage gap did not exist, and the disparity in salary levels between men and women were to dissipate, then many women would have more freedom in their choices and would not necessarily be pressured into staying at home.

As I watched Dr. Hartmann present a compelling argument refuting Ms. Furchgott-Roth’s claims during the Congressional hearing, she reminded us of the many barriers that women still face. The current economic downturn only worsens the situation for American women, furthering burdening the decisions they must make. It is crucial for women to ask themselves: am I staying home with my children because it is truly what I want, or because it is more economically feasible? If you are doing as you please, more power to you. But if you answer is the latter, then we still need some real change.

By: Elizabeth Mattey
IWPR Communications Intern

I remember going to a concert with my sister in the Palacio de los Deportes (Sports Palace, an indoor arena) in the eastern part of Mexico City. On our way, we were both packed like sardines on the bus, when she whispered in my ear someone pinched my hips, and I couldn’t do anything but burst into laughter. And I thought how unfair…women still have a long way to go.

Many other women living in crowded Mexico City have experienced these unpleasant trips in public transportation during rush hours. Physical contact is impossible to avoid and for years this situation has made pick-pocketing, and finding uninvited groping hands all over you, a problem for many riders, especially women, like my sister and me.

Only last year, according to statistics from the Office of Justice of the Federal District, 14 percent of stalkings and rapes against women in Mexico City took place in public buses and those figures don’t fully reflect the whole problem.

Taking care of women’s needs is an important goal of the RTP line of buses director Ariadna Montiel, who in response to multiple complaints about sexual harassment on public transportation started a program that runs buses only for women. These buses can be identified with a pink placard on their side and are intended to cover as many as 15 of the major routes in the city. On the program’s first day, each one of the “pink buses” transported 90 women and by the end of that week they were transporting 200. Many women endorse the idea, and many men do, too, since they feel their daughters, mothers, and wives will be safer.

As sad as it is, could this be a stepping stone for sound long-term solutions? Is this really the best way to deal with the problem? Or instead should we pursue campaigns to make society aware of this problem and develop strategies to stop the behavior?

Claudia Williams, Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellow

The other day I found myself walking down the street peacefully enjoying the music on my iPod and my time to myself when I had a revelation. As I walked past yet another group of men who insisted upon showering me with inappropriate comments, it occurred to me that as a woman, I owe Steve Jobs and the creative geniuses at Apple a thank you.

Not long ago women walking down the street had no mechanism that allowed them to avoid hearing and dealing with the harassing, inappropriate, and distracting comments frequently yelled in our direction by men for whatever inexplicable reason. But now, with the advent of the iPod and other portable music-playing products, women like me are happily shielded in a world of our own, listening to music that we chose, and effectively drowning out the constant drone of the patriarchal society in which we live. It’s such a relief to not have to hear such annoying comments.

I do not mean to suggest that such comments should be completely ignored or forgotten. Women are constantly faced with the sad burden that we are still unsafe in this world. After technological advancements that allow us to carry our entire music collection around in our pockets and with women in such prestigious positions as the Speaker of the House and the President of Harvard, you’d think women would be a little better off in society. But rape and domestic violence statistics nationwide along with the wage gap and other social inequities prove that women still have a long way to go.

I keep all of this in my mind as I walk the streets of DC, but I am very grateful that my iPod provides a break, that for once in my life I truly do have a choice of what I want to hear, what sort of language and opinions I want to listen to. It’s so nice to not have to hear those men, to not allow them to get in the way of my good day. And maybe one day, when men realize women are ignoring the exclamations of disrespect, they’ll finally stop. For now, I simply choose not to listen, and I enjoy my walks a great deal more because of my choice.

Elisabeth Crum

Nearly half of all workers (59 million) in the United States are without any paid sick leave. A majority of these workers work at low-wage private-sector jobs and, when they fall ill, they often must decide whether their health or that of their family members is more important than a day’s wages or being punished, even fired, for missing work.

IWPR has been conducting research on paid sick days since 2000. In November 2006, San Francisco was the first city to pass legislation requiring employers to provide paid leave. Dr. Vicky Lovell’s analysis, Valuing Good Health in San Francisco: The Costs and Benefits of a Proposed Paid Sick Days Policy helped to inform voters and legislators on the costs and benefits of the proposed nine paid sick days (five days for smaller firms).

Since then, eight states have introduced similar legislation and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) also reintroduced the proposed federal standard, the Healthy Families Act, in March 2007. Now, Washington, DC’s City Council is one of the latest legislative bodies considering a change in their sick leave policy.

On July 9, the DC City Council Committee on Workforce Development and Government Operations held a hearing on The Paid Sick and Safe Days Act. Currently, at least 210,000 workers in Washington, DC, are without any paid sick leave. Under the proposed act, introduced in May 2007, workers would be given a minimum standard of ten paid sick days, to use when they are sick or a member of their family is sick.

At the hearing, a total of 34 witnesses appeared in panels of four before City Council members and the Chair of the Committee, Carol Schwartz. IWPR’s own Dr. Vicky Lovell testified and used her time aptly expressing the need for the proposed bill. IWPR has been assessing the cost and benefits of paid sick days in the District of Columbia since 2004 and, similarly to San Francisco, the benefits outweigh the costs.

According to Lovell’s testimony, in 2005, using methodology developed by IWPR, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed sick day legislation and found that, per worker per week, the costs would amount to $10.35 while the benefits total $11.69. These numbers amount to average net savings of $1.34 per week for each worker due to savings from lower turnover, improved productivity, reduced family health-care spending, and reduction in the spread of influenza in the work place.

Aside from numbers, many of the witnesses testified with personal stories relaying the need for paid sick days. Councilman Jim Graham, a co-introducer of the act in May, made a short appearance to make his statement, saying the issue of paid sick leave is a “matter of simple humanity.” Councilwoman Schwartz agreed with that statement, but admitted, in her opinion, changes would have to be made to the bill for it to be passed.

The vast majority of witnesses testified in favor of The Paid Sick and Safe Days Act. In the crowd of supporters, many showed their silent support by holding signs or wearing stickers advocating paid sick leave and safe days. For the most part, the Committee and Council members were receptive and eager to start a conversation about the bill in order to process it further.

To read Dr. Vicky Lovell’s testimony click here.

Lovell also recently presented IWPR’s research on paid sick days at a congressional briefing entitled, “Get Well Soon: Paid Sick Days for All Working Families” on July 17 at the Capitol Building. The briefing was hosted by the National Council of Women’s Organizations and the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF). Rachna Choudhry of NPWF moderated the event and speakers included: Linda Meric, Executive Director of 9to5; Thomas Shellabarger, Policy Advisor of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sonya Mehta, Co-Director of Young Workers United; Greg Asay, Senior Analyst of the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement; Karen Minatelli, Director of Policy at the DC Employment Justice Center; Jen Kern, Director of the Living Wage Resource Center at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

To read more of IWPR’s research on paid sick days click here.

Jill Hindenach

On May 29, 2007 the Supreme Court ruled to uphold a time limitation in which an employee can sue their employer over wage discrimination. As if women need more discouragement from reporting wage discrimination, the court voted 5 to 4 against Lily Ledbetter, a female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, and her claims that she had been paid substantially less than male supervisors over her 19 year career with Goodyear. Since Ledbetter did not sue for discrimination within 180 days of the first occurrence of an alleged injustice, she was unable to collect on the $3.5 million she had initially been awarded by a jury in her favor.
The 180 day period stipulation comes from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Undoubtedly at that time in history, regardless of the limitation, it was a step forward in narrowing the wage gap and discouraging discrimination. However, in 2007, the 180 day period given to employees is a step backwards in terms of basic human rights and equality.
In 1998, Ledbetter first brought her suit to court when, on the verge of retirement, she was tipped off by an anonymous letter that detailed the salaries of workers at her plant. Though Ledbetter’s salary had started off the same as her male counterparts, she received smaller raises and over time the wage gap grew. Despite filing a complaint well within the 180 day period after finding out, that was nearly two decades too late in the eyes of the Court.
In December 2006, IWPR released a briefing paper entitled The Best and Worst State Economies for Women. The Institute found that in no state does the typical full-time woman worker earn as much as the typical full-time man worker. The paper also projected that at the present rate of progress it will take 50 years for women to achieve earnings parity with men nationwide.
Considering IWPR’s findings that women still earn substantially less than men on average, perhaps it is ultimately in the best interest of all women to file a claim of wage discrimination within the first 180 days of time at their job. As seen through IWPR’s research, statistically, the odds of a wage discrimination suit would be in women’s favor. Apparently, waiting until one has evidence of such claims is taking action too late.
In all seriousness, the 180 day period is a restriction that makes little sense. In her case, Ledbetter made a valid claim that every paycheck should mark the start of a new 180 day period. This claim is legitimate, especially since wage gaps tend to widen over time with salary raises, as hers did. Also, realistically, if an employer doesn’t want an employee to know they’re being discriminated against, are we really that naïve to think they don’t have ways of hiding it? In fact, many employers have employees sign confidentiality agreements that prevent them from discussing their salaries with coworkers. Thus, it can take years for this sort of injustice to be revealed like it was for Ledbetter.
Decreasing the wage gap in the United States has been a slow, tedious process thus far. This ruling only adds to the silencing of women and their rights within the workforce. Enduring setbacks like this comes at a cost women in this country can’t afford.
To find out what you can do to help narrow the wage gap and support pay equity in the United States, visit the National Committee on Pay Equity’s website for more information. You can also go to The Wage Project’s website to determine if you are a victim pay inequity and if so, what to do about it.
For more information on the case of Ledbetter vs. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., go to the Supreme Court website or to read the transcript in pdf format.

Jill Hindenach

The keynote speaker, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, challenged the audience to think boldly about solutions to the multi-faceted problems facing the American workforce. While DeLauro was realistic in her thinking about these issues, she remained optimistic and was not hesitant to hope for the possibility of dramatic, positive change in the near future. She emphasized that the U.S. is far behind its peers in accommodating labor laws; the U.S. does not require employers to guarantee paid sick leave or paid parental leave for employees. As she discussed her participation in the recent Children’s Summit and convincingly pledged to continue fighting for reform, she urged listeners to join her efforts.

Dr. Heidi Hartmann, President of IWPR, followed DeLauro’s rousing speech with startling statistics and a hopeful outlook. She outlined the three components of her policy program: subsidized child and elder care, paid care giving leave, and greater flexibility on the job. The program calls for both income replacement and job security. What we found most astounding was her finding (from IWPR’s research) that if women (and minority men) were paid equally half of poverty would be reduced.

Although Dr. Hartmann agreed that the U.S. is far behind other countries in their labor policies and that “what we need is everything,” she acknowledged the important contribution of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to the international labor policy conversation. The FMLA is a very important workplace benefit for families, and is a step toward making the work/life balance easier. However, it is of limited value to workers who cannot afford to go without a paycheck. While the FMLA is in need of reform and extension, it does bring ideas of universality and equality to the forefront by applying to women and men alike. Despite its lack of pay, it does help workers significantly by requiring employers to provide one thing that only they can provide, a guaranteed job to come back to after a period away from work on family leave.

Janet C. Gornick, director of the Luxembourg Income Study, concluded the panel with comparisons of U.S. labor policies to those of other countries. According to Gornick, America’s public policy is failing working parents and their families. For example, the United States is one of only five countries in the entire world that does not have federally guaranteed paid maternity leave; the other four are Australia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho (and Australia has recently added a lump sum payment of about $5,000 to each family who has a child, which some observers consider a form of maternity leave). Gornick ended her presentation by reaffirming the other speakers’ assertions that gender equality is at the heart of the employment policy reform we need today.

The event painted a clear picture of where U.S. work-family policies stand and what must be done to reform them. The combination of research and enthusiastic advocates for change present at this forum reaffirmed our commitment to continued work for reform.

Krystal Lechner and Karen Spitzfaden

A couple of weeks ago radio show host Don Imus, who’s show aired on MSNBC, made some derogatory remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Amid a discussion of the team, he called the women “nappy-headed ho’s.” This slanderous statement is a knock both to the ethnicity and the gender of these players, and it has no place in professional journalism or sports casting. After a plethora of complaints were filed, Imus finally offered up an apology and the show was suspended for two weeks as punishment. CBS radio fired Imus last Thursday following a strong public outcry against him and dwindling support from many of the show's sponsors.

As a young woman and sports fan, it’s very disappointing to be reminded once again that the world of sports is still dominated by men who seem to think that they can make such remarks without repercussions. Many in my generation reacted only with a sigh of resignation at the fact that this is the world we live in and comments like these are commonplace, especially in sports. I do not sigh with resignation, rather I get angry and frustrated by the lack of outrage.

But as I was taking out my frustration on the elliptical machine at the gym recently, I tuned into the ESPN sports show “Pardon the Interruption” (PTI). Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser were discussing the comments Imus made when I started listening. I have to report that Mike Wilbon is one of my new gender heroes after the comments he made on the show. Wilbon came out in support of women in the sports world when Augusta Golf Club refused to admit female members several years ago, so this is not his first foray into the world of gender issues.

On the show last week, he very appropriately acknowledged that the comments were not only racist in nature but sexist as well. Wilbon acknowledged that as a man, he and other men were less likely to think of the implications such a comment can have for women as a group. I heard him use the word gender and almost fell off the machine because I was so excited. Wilbon continued by stating that the word “ho” was such a standard part of the cultural lexicon that most people don’t think twice before using it when referring to women. But he said that when he watched the press conference where the players commented on the insults they’d received, he realized that nothing could be further from the truth as these women were clearly eloquent, well-educated, and upstanding people. Wilbon frowned on society’s use of derogatory language and urged viewers to think about the gender implications of such disrespectful comments.

I want to personally thank PTI for addressing Imus’ remarks in a fair and balanced manner and for bringing gender issues to the floor in the world of sports. Women have made tremendous gains in the fight for equality in the world of sports, but we still have a long way to go. I’m very excited to know that we have allies in sports broadcasting, and I would like to encourage other sports journalists to follow suit. With the help of journalists and commentators, women and other advocacy groups can bring discrimination to public view and someday eradicate it from the wonderful world of sports. I look forward to that day and I thank Mike Wilbon for taking an important step in the process.

Elisabeth Crum