Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has come out with what might be the most aggressive proposal yet from a major national figure to force pay equity for women in the private sector. It builds on the Obama-era rule of requiring major employers to report to the government the makeup of their workforce by race and gender. But Harris' plan would take the further step of fining those businesses for any glass ceilings revealed by that data.

Moderates and even some progressives might conclude the proposal goes too far. Their skepticism would be well placed. The plan would be unworkable in its current form and would be unlikely to survive a court challenge. Its punitive approach could worsen the Democrats' reputation for hostility toward employers.

But whether it's with this or some better idea, addressing pay inequity is the right conversation to have when women are earning only 80% as much as men for the same value of work.

That debate highlights a telling contrast between the parties on this issue. As Harris and other Democrats offer competing ideas to level the gender playing field, the Trump administration is in court, arguing to get rid of even the existing rule requiring that companies report gender data. It's an apt illustration of the fact that while some politicians want to do something about gender-based pay inequity, the likely Republican presidential candidate for 2020 doesn't even want to talk about it.

Harris, a California senator, announced her plan Monday. It would require all companies with 100 or more employees to show the government they are paying men and women equally for work of the same level, or face a fine equal to 1% of their profits for every 1% of gender pay gap.

The new system would collect data on the percentage of women in leadership positions, prohibit asking job applicants about prior salary history (since women's previous salaries will typically have been artificially low), and ban forced arbitration in pay-discrimination claims. It would also bar companies that don't meet the pay-equity standards from bidding on federal contracts worth more than $500,000. Those ideas are closer to something moderates of both parties could embrace.

Money from the penalty fees would fund a paid family and medical leave plan. Harris' campaign estimates the penalty fee would generate some $180 billion in its first decade — though, since forcing pay equity is the point, the goal presumably would be to drop that number to zero.

Harris' plan at least starts a much-needed conversation about the current inequity in women's pay levels. Since neither party has presented viable solutions so far, the problem continues to go unaddressed, and women continue to pay the price.

This is what second-class citizenship looks like — and it should be front-and-center on next year's ballots.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: klimkin at Pixabay