equal pay

A Moment on the Lips; A Lifetime on Pay Slips

by Kathryn Ciano on October 13, 2010

in Culture, Economy, Labor, Zeitgeist

New studies suggest that very thin women earn proportionately more money than do average-sized women. Comprising only women within 25lbs of doctor-recommended weight, the latter study strictly compares the rail-thin to her average-sized female colleagues.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that employers “seem to treat women…the way the fashion industry does”; thin women get much higher paychecks than do average-weight women, while thin men tend to earn less than their average-weight colleagues:

The study is the first look at the effects of being very thin on men vs. women. Separate studies of 11,253 Germans and 12,686 U.S. residents led by Timothy A. Judge of the University of Florida found very thin women, weighing 25 pounds less than the group norm, earned an average $15,572 a year more than women of normal weight. Women continued to experience a pay penalty as their weight increased above average levels, although a smaller one — presumably because they had already violated social norms for the ideal female appearance. A woman who gained 25 pounds above the average weight earned an average $13,847 less than an average-weight female.

Men were also penalized for violating stereotypes about ideal male appearance, but in a different way. Thin guys earned $8,437 less than average-weight men. But they were consistently rewarded for getting heavier, a trend that tapered off only when their weight hit the obese level. In one study, the highest pay point, on average, was reached for guys who weighed a strapping 207 pounds.

Plenty of logical explanations account for the disparity and have nothing to do with “sizeism.” Perhaps folks who conform to social image ideals produce better results because they can better influence others. Perhaps people who work hard to attain an unnatural weight — very thin for women, overtly muscular for men — apply the same work ethic to their jobs. Perhaps women who care enough about body image to forego dessert are more attuned to their bosses’ opinion of their performance in other areas. Or perhaps the body types prevalent in the study sites — Germany and Florida — tend towards thin, and 25lbs becomes a highly variable range.

Even more poignant is the idea that a great deal of weight control is competitiveness. Weight plays into office politics. Office politics affect confidence. Confidence in turn changes the way people perceive themselves — and changes the way people negotiate for employer perception or pay.

WSJ goes on to cite a September George Washington University study comparing obesity costs across genders:

Meanwhile, in separate research, economists at George Washington University tabulated the cost of obesity and found that it’s more expensive for a woman to be obese than for a man, according to the New York Times. (Their calculations included direct costs, like medical expenses, and indirect expenses, like lost wages and reduced work productivity.)  While a man racks up $2,646 annually in extra expenses if he is obese, a woman’s obesity costs her $4,879, almost twice as much[.]

The weight-gender-pay spectrum reeks of sexist scandal, but there’s another side to this story.

Women have fared much better in the recession than have men. Women’s paychecks may be more elastic to social pressures, but this flexibility provides a measure of job security that men’s inelastic, less-sensitive paychecks seem to lack.

When considering drastic measures like the Equal Pay Act 2010 that will subject women’s salaries to the inelastic measures men enjoy, recall that pay flexibility has allowed women to retain jobs at a much higher rate during the recession. Women have also bounced back into the workforce in droves, while male-dominated sectors continue to fall and men continue their weak showing in gender-neutral industries.

Price always conveys information.

Paycheck disparity may sound like scandal, but as a measure of personality cues, workplace signaling, willingness to negotiate, and hours actually worked, this is merely one more factor in the employee informational bundle.

Employers pay workers who product more than they cost. If weight plays into this formula, hopeful employees take note. If we erect a price floor by attempting to thwart the market information available here (or by passing yet more “equal pay” legislation), the next round of layoffs will hurt much worse.

Change Is Coming, To Benefit Trial Lawyers

by Hans Bader on January 8, 2009

in Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Obama promised change, and it’s already happening, at the expense of the poor, consumers, and small business. ”Regulations set to take effect next month could force thousands of clothing retailers and thrift stores to throw away trunkloads of children’s clothing.” That’s the result of a law championed by Obama and trial lawyers, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which imposes draconian requirements and penalties on sellers of childrens’ toys and clothing. As a result, used clothing stores for poor kids, like Kid to Kid, are going out of business. Some small toy makers will go out of business, and price increases in children’s toys and clothing will also likely result.

The trial lawyers will score another major victory tomorrow, by obtaining House passage of two bills backed by Obama that will greatly expand the ability to sue employers. One, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, would effectively get rid of the statute of limitations in pay discrimination cases. The other, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would pressure some employers to pay people performing different jobs with very different working conditions the same pay, if the different jobs are predominantly held by different sexes, and the different jobs are deemed comparable based on specified statutory criteria.

Supporters of these bills have relied heavily on false claims about what the Supreme Court held in its Ledbetter decision, which did not adopt, as the bills’ supporters claim, a rigid 180-day deadline for bringing pay discrimination cases. (There is a 3-year deadline under the Equal Pay Act, and the 180-day deadline under Title VII, which is simply one alternative avenue for bringing wage discrimination claims, is not rigid, but is subject to equitable “tolling“). False attacks on opponents of the bill were a staple of the 2008 presidential campaign, which featured TV ads from Obama, and mass mailings by state Democratic Parties, falsely claiming that McCain backed wage discrimination against women, simply because he did not support these two bills. Amazingly, the McCain campaign did almost nothing to counter those attacks.

Last Minute Smear in Virginia?

by Hans Bader on October 22, 2008 · 3 comments

in Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Lies multiply in election years.  Legal commentator John Rosenberg notes that he “received in the mail today a glossy, large flyer from the ‘Democratic Party of Virginia’ saying, with many incorrect examples, that ‘John McCain opposes equal pay for women.’” 

In reality, neither McCain nor Obama has ever suggested that equal pay for women is a bad idea.  Instead, they disagree on what the legal deadline should be for bringing pay discrimination claims.  Obama just thinks the deadline for suing should be longer than McCain does.

Every employment lawyer knows that equal pay is already mandated by federal law, and that employees can sue over pay discrimination years after it happens.  An employee can sue both under the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline, and under Title VII, which has a 180-day or 300-day deadline (depending on the state).  Moreover, these deadlines can be extended when appropriate under a doctrine known as “equitable tolling.”

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Supreme Court, in a divided 5-to-4 decision, applied the Title VII deadline rigorously, holding that the deadline runs from the date of the first paycheck affected by the discrimination — even if future paychecks are affected by the discrimination, too.  (The plaintiff in Ledbetter could have sued instead under the Equal Pay Act, which had a longer deadline.  Instead, the plaintiff inexplicably sued only under Title VII — and waited to sue until long, long after she suspected discrimination).  Four dissenting justices argued the deadline should run only from the last paycheck or pension benefit affected by the discrimination — even though that could result in an employer being sued decades later, even after the supervisor who originally set the pay has retired or died.

Obama agrees with the four dissenters, who argued that the deadline should run from the last paycheck affected by the discrimination, and has supported legislation, called the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,” to override the Supreme Court’s decision.

By contrast, McCain’s view is closer to that of the Supreme Court’s majority, and he has opposed the bill to overturn the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision, viewing it as opening the floodgates to litigation and stale claims. 

Regardless of whether Obama or McCain has the better argument, McCain’s position is certainly consistent with a Supreme Court ruling – and is not a basis for claiming that “McCain opposes equal pay for women,” as the Virginia Democratic Party claims.  (Many eminent employment lawyers, like Ross Runkel, predicted the Supreme Court’s decision, and considered it a logical outcome of the Court’s own past precedents.  The decision didn’t surprise me, either.  As a lawyer, I used to handle discrimination claims, and later worked at the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education.).