creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Susan Estrich
25 May 2012
The Next Education President

Mitt Romney is right about one thing: Too many American children do receive what he this week called a … Read More.

23 May 2012
Susan Mary Riley, We Will Miss You

It's her voice that I keep hearing in my head. "Susan," she would say, in that quiet, commanding … Read More.

18 May 2012
Boring

When my kids were young, about the worst thing they could say about something was that it was capital-b BORRRING.… Read More.

Lilly's Dilemma

Share Comment

Lilly Ledbetter was nearing 60 and on the verge of retirement when someone sent her an anonymous letter telling her that for the preceding 19 years, she'd been earning less than her male counterparts at Goodyear Tire and Rubber. On the day she started work as a supervisor in 1979, she was paid the same as men in the same job. But by 1998, when that letter arrived and Lilly consulted a lawyer, she was making $15,000 a year less than a man with the same experience doing the same job.

So she sued.

A federal jury found that over the course of her career, she lost out on upward of a quarter of a million dollars in pay because of discrimination, and the jury awarded her interest and penalties that brought the award to almost $4 million. The judge reduced the award to $360,000. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, got rid of it entirely.

Lilly's failing, in their mind, was that she should have sued back in 1980, when her pay started falling behind that of her male counterpart. According to the law as read by the Court, she had only 180 days to complain about discriminatory pay or she was stuck with it. By the time she filed suit in 1998, the first 18 years of being shafted didn't count anymore, and the last 180 days — the only time period the five men on the Court who voted against her thought could be counted — was just the residue of the way things had been done all those years, not some new and intentional effort to pay her less. Business as usual. No recovery.

This week, the Senate failed in its effort to overrule that particular decision of the Supreme Court.

At a time when women, no matter what their education, job classification, experience or ability, still earn on average 77 cents for every dollar men earn, Republican presidential candidate John McCain skipped the vote. But he took time to make clear that he opposes the bill because he thinks government has no business telling employers they will be held responsible for underpaying women unless those women complain about it in the first 180 days. By a 56-42 vote (60 votes are required by Senate rules to cut off debate), the Republican minority voted to protect business at the expense of working women.

Too many lawsuits, McCain said.

Too much discrimination, I would say.

There are some who believe Democrats are doing everything they can to hand this election over to the Republican in what should be a Democratic year. But Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both took time from their campaigns to go back to Washington to vote for Lilly Ledbetter and the millions of women who know they are being shafted at work, but don't have the evidence — at least not within 180 days of the shafting — to prove it. McCain only took the time to say he would have voted against her.

It's the sort of vote women may remember, or be reminded of, when November comes around. Equal pay for equal work doesn't mean a whole lot if you don't have the ability to enforce it. Ultimately, politics and elections often come down to whose side you're on. John McCain made that clear this week. It may yet come back to haunt him. Some of those women he forgot about when he skipped the vote on Lilly Ledbetter may remember that, and not skip their turn to vote in November.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
You give no details such as relative seniority or past performance in your article. What about the cumulative effect of seniority and merit raises? I myself am an hourly factory production worker. I make more than any of my coworkers doing the same job, including both men and women. Why? Because I enjoy the cumulative effect of many more years of cost of living and merit raises. Under our pay-for-performance system I have received near the top of the range for exceeding goals regarding attendance, quality, safety, and productivity over the years. Some others, including people with as many years of service, have received near the bottom of the range due to frequent absence, frequent accidents, low productivity, and frequent quality issues. Differentials in raises are not only cumulative, but also compounded over time. Other people, both men and women, would have the same pay as me if they had the same work record as me. Should a young employee have the same pay as me just because she is a woman, discarding factors of merit and seniority? I don't think so.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Randall Morgan
Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:42 AM
Susan, I am so tired of this election. This one did this, this one did not. Childish to the max. Please write on the facts on how they are going to keep me safe, economics and medical. I do not like what Obama and Hillary offer in the way of home care. Who will pay for this? Write about this not the childish nit picking that you (and I am surprised) showing. Write about their character and why should I vote for them. Facts only please. Is this all you have? I am an independent and if anyone wants my vote this is not the way. I turn off the TV or mute it when I see Hillary or Obama because it all is embarrassing for me as an American to see our politicans act this way. I am not a big fan of McCain and I live in AZ. For the first time in my 53 yrs. I am afraid for America!!!!. God Bless America!!! We need it.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kathaleen McCausland
Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:16 AM
It's not about young or older, this article is about unfair pay in a new paradigm. The same sexism is showing up on the campaign trail in another form, i.e. a double-standard for a professional woman competing against a black or white man.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Soleil
Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:03 PM
Dear Ms. Estrich,

I have to agree with the courts on this one. Lilly must have some responsibility for her failure to keep herself informed of the market value of her services. People who consider themselves as the victims of their employers experience a self-fulfilling prophesy. It was her responsibility to negotiate for higher pay. Along with that responsibility should be the willingness to go out and look for another job if she did not feel her pay was sufficient.

I'm really tired of women and minorities whining because they don't receive enough respect or pay. I have been a computer programmer for the past 15 years which is a very male dominated field. My pay has always been commensurate with my skills and market value. But I actively negotiate for the best rate possible. I have never experienced discrimmination from white men. Some immigrant men have displayed discrimminating attitudes, but they are excused because their culture is just as good as ours. Now, it never affected my pay, and because I always produced results, management supported me over peers who tried to undermine my position and credibility because I am a woman. These are businessmen, they want results, they don't care about race or sex.

Businesses want the best possible results with the lowest possible expense. An employee's first responsibility when negotiating with employers, is to be truly competent or excellent; the second responsibility is to stay abreast of one's market value and to actively negotiate for commensurate pay.

When I coach people who are looking for new jobs, I encourage them to talk to many prospective employers. When negotiating salary at each successive interview I instruct them to ask for more money until the interviewer gasps. Then back down to the preceding amount that did not shock the interviewer. I have coached 4 people into doubling their income. One woman and three men.

I can assure you that women and minorities are not the only people who are underpaid, they are just the only ones who blame someone else for their own failures in managing their careers.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Gail Spurlock
Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:59 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

17 Sep 2010 Beyond Party

6 Jun 2008 Gay Marriage -- and Divorce

2 May 2007 Mission Accomplished