BlogHer - Fighting for Equal Pay - Comments

JUST SAYING

Miss Confused — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:42:03 -0500

Obama Pays Women Only 78 Percent of What He Pays Men
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35972
“Women occupy seven of the top 10 highest-paid positions on McCain’s staff, and five of the top 10 highest-paid positions on Obama’s staff.”
Obama’s staff: 30 women to 27 men

McCain’s staff: 26 women to 16 men

Hillary

annielives — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:31:58 -0500

If Hillary and Bill Clinton, as well as Barack Obama, have stated that Hillary did not want to be vetted and was not interested in the Vice-Presidency -- why do you think his choice was sexist? She said flat out she did not WANT VP, but if he asked she would run because of a sense of duty. I could see your opinion of Obama lying, but are you saying that your VP choice is a liar, because I find that odd.

Equal Pay

Paddycake — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:40:08 -0500

Please Ladies open your eyes. Together we watched Obama discriminate against a women that was more qualified, more deserving of an executive position when he choose his VP. Equal pay, equal rights c'mon as usaul we are being pandered to. We are smarter than this, it is time we open our eyes and see the writing on the wall. Action speaks louder than words. I'm gonna vote for McCain not because I think he will push the equal pay (which now he just might) but because I expect more from democrats and they need to learn that they cannot pander to us, they must earn our vote. And when Obama did not choose Hillary he lost my vote.

Equal PAY???

Miss Confused — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:01:45 -0500

Did Michelle check her own husbands staff and see there are more men than women (McCain just the opposite) and the women get .87 cents to the dollar of men --- just so everyone knows - my sister works there.

Thank you for taking a serious look at this

Tacomamama — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:32:55 -0500

So when you make head-to-head comparisons, it more-or-less seems that
it's pretty good on pay equality, but when you look at the staff as a
whole, it is male-heavy at the top.

I think that is fair to say. And I do think it's important to hold progressive leaders' feet to the fire and make sure they walk the walk on issues like this.

But, I still want to see the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act passed! I haven't heard anything from the McCain campaign on this issue.

Tacoma Mama

Kitchen Table Issues

Equality & Inequality In Pay

annielives — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:10:57 -0500

Thanks for taking the time to give it further review. I think you are right to say that his staff is male heavy at the top. In that case, is it that he preferred men in those roles, or that his HR candidate did, or that more men applied or were qualified for the positions in question? I don't have the answers to that.

Where I used to work, there were 12 employees. Between 2-4 were women, depending on the sales staff, which had a high turnover. It would seem that we chose to hire men more often. However, I do know that the number of female applicants compared to men was about one for every fifty. That may or may not be the case here.

I have no idea why the upper end is male heavy, but it does seem that when apples compare to apples, he has shown fair equity practices. Though it might be PC to have exactly the same ratio of men to women at every level in every company, the truth is that in adhering to those strict criteria, the most qualified candidate would sometimes be overlooked for the most balancing criteria of the day.

Thank you for the friendly and educated discussion. :)
Annie

Equality and Inequality in Pay

InCville — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:22:50 -0500

Hi, I'm just about to send you that spreadsheet so you can take a look. Of note, when I initially computed my figures, I'd mistakenly labeled a couple of women as men, since I'd just quickly looked at names. I've since changed it, but it didn't really change what I'd said earlier.

You are quite right, though, about some of the variances and their causes between men and women with the same position. I've talked about this a bit with a friend of mine and she has friends who work up in Capitol Hill and apparently it's very common for people with longevity to get paid more, and she looked up some of the staff and that does seem to be the case.

So, taking a step back, if you look at Sen. Obama's staff, in positions where you have multiple people, and a mix of men and women, it seems as though pay is fairly balanced out. However, if you look at the staff as a whole, the appearance of a marked pay discrepancy exists. Here's what I mean:

His staff has 26 men and 32 women (45% male). But, if you rank them based solely on avg. monthly pay, and look at the top 24/58 (or the top 40%), what you see is that it is 15 men and 9 women (63% male). Or, put another way, 58% of all the men on his staff are in the top 40% pay-wise, whereas only 28% of the women are.

So when you make head-to-head comparisons, it more-or-less seems that it's pretty good on pay equality, but when you look at the staff as a whole, it is male-heavy at the top.

Interesting and Informative, Thanks

annielives — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:16:37 -0500

I would love to see the spreadsheet, to see if I did mine the right way! annielives@aim.com

The reason I used 2007 data was because I wanted a full fiscal year for more thorough processing. I understand that there is disparity in the salaries, so let me readdress the situation.

I noticed that in some cases women make less and in some cases women make more, therefore I did not see it as merely a gender issue.

The two things that data cannot tell you are: if in the two 112% cases, the women have worked for Obama longer, or began with a more experienced work history or educational background AND if the four that were at the 90% you mentioned were newer, less educated, less experienced or carried less responsiblity.

I manage a sales staff of varying wage. It comes with both genders, different salesmanship and varied backgrounds. I assign some salespeople with more responsiblity (such as ordering product) and some with less. Their titles are the same.

My point is not that discrepancies don't occur or were not visible in my data, but that (even pulling one job title above) the variance showed women and men were varied overall. I think that is to be expected in any workplace. In fact, if all "legislative consultants" made $3600 a month, for example, I would question that. All of them? Did they all start on the same day? Does he not offer raises annually?

I'm afraid if they were the same, someone would have reviewed the data and said that recently hired men were making the same wage that women had made who had been there two years.

My final point is that I was satisfied that the female wage was not always lower across the board and saw a normal degree of variance. Other than that, the Legistorm data is simply not enough to use for basing any conclusions as the other variables are not addressed by Legistorm: education, background, capacity for extra responsibilities, and duration of employment. We are all truly hindered without more information.

Annie

Sorry, I must beg to differ

InCville — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:34 -0500

Hello, I will admit that I'm weighing into this a little late, but I too have just entered all of the data from legistorm and it does show a disparity. Also, I used the Oct07-Mar08 data, because it is more recent, but may be different from the FY07 numbers. I also converted everything to a monthly salary, so that it wouldn't be extrapolating. Anyway, here it goes:

On his staff, Sen. Obama has 30 women and 28 men. Taken as a group, the
average monthly salary for the women is $3734 and the average salary
for men is $4569, or the women make 81% of what the men make. So, keep
in mind, to make an "apples to apples" comparison, when Michele Obama
talks about how women only make $0.77 for every dollar a white man
makes she's using US Census data that lumps all women together, so in
that context, a number-to-number comparison with Obama is valid and as
such, Obama doesn't do much better with his staff.

However, a further examination of the numbers sheds a little more light:
There are six groups where multiple people have the same "position" and that at least allows for some comparison.
For the constituent services agent (2male/2female), avg. male salary $3297; avg. female salary $2667 (80.9%)
For the legislative assistant (5male/1female), avg. male salary $6192; female salary $6917 (111.7%)
For the legislative correspondent (2male/2female), avg. male salary $2683; avg. female salary $3000 (111.8%).
For the legislative counsel (1male/1female); male salary $7833; female salary $6917 (88.3%).
For the special assistant (1male/2females); male salary $3015; avg. female salary $2806 (93.0%).
For the staff assistant (3male/6females); avg. male salary $2556; avg. female salary $2244 (87.8%).

So, in 4 out of 6 cases where you have both men and women with the
same position, the women make less, about $0.90 for every dollar a man
makes. In the other 2 cases they make $1.12 for every dollar a man
makes.

Additionally, you have some skewing at the top and bottom of the
payroll. Sen. Obama pays 6 people more than $7000 per month, 4 are men and
2 are women.
If you look at the next bracket, ($5000 to $7000 per month) it's a better distribution with 5 men and 6 women.
Also, if you look at the bottom the payroll (<$3000 per month), you
also see the discrepancy with 7(maybe 10) men and 15 women.

And I will admit that there are three men who have reported salaries that appear to be out of the same time period, and they weren't included in this analysis, but their salaries were less than $3000 per month (hence why it could be 10).

If you would like to see a copy of my spreadsheet, I would be more than glad to send it to you!

Get the word to party leaders

judithL — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:19:54 -0500

First, let me say how grateful I am for the intelligent, diligent women here at Blogher - women who research and speak to the facts, and doing their best to stay out of the mud.

I don't know if Michelle can find the time to check the responses to her blogs, but I do hope that the facts as presented here, regarding pay equity on Obama's staff will be relayed to the leaders of both parties - but especially the Dems. Just two nights ago, on Larry King, a Republica commentator spewed the misinformation about women on Obama's staff being paid less. I was astounded when neither of the Democratic commentators had the facts at hand to dispute this totally false claim.

I'll tell you, it's a bit of a challenge for me to retain facts but I am going to commit to memory some of these important statistics so that I will have them at the ready when anyone parrots the false information being put out there.

Remember, life is a journey, not a destination. Here's to Living Well! www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com & www.lwbms.blogspot.com

Double Standards

NewUrbanMom — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:28:14 -0500

TM - thank you, thank you, thank you. You clarify and educate at the same time. It just baffles me that when "some folks" attend an Ivy League School and provide "ballet lessons" for their kids it's elitism but when others enjoy a similar lifestyle as a result of their blood line or millionaire status that's okay - heck it's true Americana....Hmmm

Sharon

I think that Michelle Obama

Rachel09 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:17:40 -0500

I think that Michelle Obama did a good thing by writing this article, I believe that woman should be treated equally in the workplace. So they should be getting equal pay.

CBS did not "break" that

miteegirl — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:09:29 -0500

CBS did not "break" that story. If you follow your own link, you will notice that it is in the "Opinion" section (not news) and was written by a right wing pundit named Deroy Murdock who writes for the National Review, a magazine for conservative commentary (again, not news).

Because if Deroy Murdock was a journalist who had done his homework, he couldn't have written this opinion piece. As it is, Deroy Murdock is a a public relations representative who works for the Republicans and has no bipartisan credibility.

And if you think the hackers of 4chan works for ANYONE but themselves, then you don't know much about that group. I think the hacking of anyone's email is pretty heinous and so do many people no matter who they are voting for in November.

TM - I think I love you.

vpavlot — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:20:27 -0500

*grin*

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said above.

The McCain family can't remember how many homes they own - the Obama family has 1.

If I were in the public eye as much as they are, my children would go to private schools, too, where they would/could be more protected from any sort of attack.

If I had the opportunity, you bet I'd have gone to an Ivy League school.

Does it make me an elitist to wish these things? No, I guess in your eyes, Moonpie, it would only be so if I'd actually gone.

Open your eyes, Moonpie. Go do some actual research. Not the kind they post on Republican blogs or editorials. Not McCain's website.

And Palin, well, she scares the hell out of me. Go read about her, too, while you're out there.

Thanks for the facts, Tacoma!

Liz Henry — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:45:04 -0500

Tacoma Mama, I'm sending you huge waves of respect for your patience and your careful research. Thanks!

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Contributing Editor, World and Latin America

Fighting for Equal Pay

Michelle Obama — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:00:02 -0500

This week, I’m hitting the campaign trail. I’m heading back to Virginia and North Carolina, excited to meet lots of people, hear lots of stories, and share Barack’s plans for bringing the change we need to the country we love.

During the past 19 months, I’ve learned that, at its best, “campaigning” is just another word for “talking with people.” And talking with people is something I truly love to do. That’s why, since the beginning of this campaign, I’ve been hosting roundtable discussions—particularly with two groups of people that America doesn’t hear from enough: working mothers and military spouses.

In these conversations, we all get together around a coffee table and just talk—about our kids, our jobs, our dreams—and the hectic, funny, sometimes frustrating, often rewarding realities of our lives.

I’ll be having two roundtable chats this week—one in Richmond, Virginia, and one in Charlotte, North Carolina.

In Virginia, I’ll have a special guest with me: Lilly Ledbetter.

Perhaps some of you may have never heard her name before—but she is right in the middle of a crucial legislative battle that will have an effect on the lives of millions of American women now and for generations to come.

Lilly is from Alabama. For nearly 20 years, she worked for a Goodyear tire plant. She was the only female supervisor—so you know this is a tough, hard-working woman. One day, someone sent her an anonymous letter with a list of salaries of her co-workers. That’s how she found out that she was making less than the men she worked with—even men who were less senior than she was. And we’re not talking about a few dollars. Some of her male counterparts were making 40 percent more than she was—for doing the same work.

Over 20 years, that adds up to a lot of money—money that could have helped Lilly send her kids to college, provide some comfort in her everyday life, or prepare for her retirement.

So Lilly did the brave and difficult thing. She confronted this injustice. Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court. And in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, according to the law, Lilly only had 180 days to complain about the pay discrimination. So because it had taken her 20 years to find out the truth, she had missed her chance at justice.

Well, some people in Congress decided to change that law, so it would no longer reward employers for hiding discrimination until they ran out the clock. Last July, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the House. But this April, Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Now, Democrats in the Senate are working to bring Lilly’s bill back for another vote this fall.

My husband is a proud supporter of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Senator McCain does not support it. In fact, Senator McCain said that what women really need is more education and training.

But Lilly Ledbetter had plenty of training. What she doesn’t have is the right to fight for the pay she deserves.

Pay equity is a major issue at stake in this election. Today, across the country, women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and minority women are paid even less for equal work. This isn’t only an economic issue. This is a family issue. When women are paid less than men, their kids pay the price.

Pay equity is just one example of how times are tough for American families. Parents are working harder than ever to do it all—raise their kids, pay the bills, help out their parents, and keep up with the rising cost of living. Caring for their families is their greatest joy—but it’s getting harder to make ends meet.
Barack understands this. And he’s committed to restoring the middle class.

Under the Obama economic plan, 95 percent of middle-class families would receive a tax cut. And because so many people are struggling with the rising cost of energy, Barack would provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to working families.

Barack would also fight to establish pay equity for women and expand family leave—because today, over 22 million working women don’t have a single paid sick day.

Finding ways to better support America’s families is Barack’s focus, and my passion. When families are healthy, communities thrive. We really are all in this together. We should have government policies that reflect this reality to – as my husband says – make the world as it is and the world as it should be one in the same.