You know what that means, right?
It's Equal Pay Day. (Please, you know I didn't mean that that 4/20)
Today is the day - we're told - that "symbolizes how far into 2010
women must work to earn what men earned in 2009".
Akin to "Tax Day" (the day you supposedly have to work until you make enough
to pay all your taxes) - this figure is a bit misconstrued.
It certainly doesn't take into account a number of figures: For instance,
according to many naysayers, single women between 27 and 33 make only 2%
less than men in the same category. Certainly, these women wouldn't fit
the "4/20" figure on Equal Pay day.
Other naysayers claim this is merely a result of women's "life
Wow. We're really saying this in 2010? Did I miss a Back-To-The-Future ride to 1950?
The American article cites Labor department official Charles James who says:
"This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in
the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of
factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to
justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The
differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the
individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
I about spit up my soda because of the absolute stupidity of that
comment. Let's look at some other REAL facts (not hypotheses):
While equal pay can be enforced, and companies are doing a better job of paying women equal wages (this should be celebrated) - there is
still work to do. Hiring managers must continue to promote female
employees to power positions. Clearly, given the numbers, there is still overt
discrimination.(come on... 50% of the work-force... and only 3% of the CEOs?!?)
So, while naysayers have a point that there has been improvement, there is a long way to go. But to say no corrective
action is needed, all I ask is: What are you smoking?
Follow the author's blog.