Working Women’s Struggle for Equality

Erin FrumetAshley Waugh

Aaron Williams-Banks

o housekeepingo factory workosweat shops (garment factories)ohot, dusty, dirty, unsanitary

factorieso10-12 hour day shifts

o telephone operatorowoman have pleasant voices men

want to hearo Receptionisto Teachero Nurse

Occupations before WII included:

Either the job was grueling or based on a woman’s beauty or femininity

When “unfeminine”

jobs opened up during WWII, it WAS NOT

men’s acceptance to

women’s knowledgeable,

capable, resourceful, and effectiveness in the workplace

Women were simply temporary fill-ins /

supply demand and were pushed out

as soon as the war was over

Considering this, clearly men never really wanted woman in the work force

from the beginning! And because of it, they

definitely weren’t/aren’t in a hurry to pay them.

Between 1950 and 1960 women working full time jobs earned on average between 59-64 cents for every dollar the male earned (NOW)

Dates and Stats

Before the 1960’s newspapers published separate job listings for men and woman

Jobs based on gender

Higher level job usually found in the

exclusive: “Help Wanted-Male”

Jobs ran for separate wages

(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

Regardless of the act, statistics consistently prove from past to present woman have not been

receiving equal pay

In 2005, the median amount for most

women to men was .77 cents to the

dollar.71 for African

American.58 for Latinas

For the last 42 years, the wage gap has only narrowed by less than half a penny per year (NOW)

According to data (Department of

Labor), women are paid less than men in every occupation for which sufficient

information is available for- MORE

THAN 300 JOB CLASSIFICATIONS

MAKE SURE DOOR CLOSED PROFANITY!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba5F7NoHgVQ

The National Organization for Woman (NOW) states: “If women were paid as much as men

who work the same number of hours, have the same education and union

status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, women's

annual income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half.

Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income

annually.”

BUT REMEMBER, this would just be a result, it’s not because or dealing with equal pay.

Congress is considering raising the federal minimum wage from its current $5.15 per hour to $6.15. The main beneficiaries of this one-dollar increase would be working women.

11.8 million workers would receive a pay increase as because of this higher minimum wage.

58% would be women, simply because as a group they earn lower wages than men.

A federal minimum wage increase WOULD help to reduce the overall pay gap between women and men.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act OF 1964

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

• Lily Ledbetter was an employee for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. from 1979-1998

• She began looking into pay discrimination in March of 1998

• She finally made a federal suit the following November

MOVIE TIME…AGAIN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVHMYe2oHQ

Findings5 Judges found that, “The EEOC charging period is triggered when a discrete unlawful

practice takes place. A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts

that entail adverse effect resulting from the past discrimination.” Thus, it rejected Ledbetter’s argument that each paycheck she received violated Title VII and

triggered a new EEOC charging period. The majority noted that, “current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” Rather: Ledbetter

should have filed an EEOC charge within the first 180 days after allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her. She did not do so, and the paychecks that were issued to her during the 180 days prior to the

filing of her EEOC charge do not provide a basis for overcoming that prior failure.

“The EEOC charging period is triggered when a discrete unlawful practice takes place. A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not

commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effect resulting from the past discrimination.” Thus, it rejected Ledbetter’s argument that each paycheck she received violated Title VII and

triggered a new EEOC charging period. The majority noted that, “current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” Rather: Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each

allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her. She did not do so, and the paychecks that were issued to her during the 180 days

prior to the filing of her EEOC charge do not provide a basis for overcoming that prior failure.

Continued…• But four argued, Four Justices disagreed with the majority’s opinion and

issued a dissent. They would have allowed Ledbetter to recover for pay discrimination, explaining: The Court’s insistence on immediate contest overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination. Pay disparities often occur, as they did in Ledbetter’s case, in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee’s view. Employers may keep under wraps the pay differentials maintained among supervisors, no less the reasons for those differentials. Small initial discrepancies may not be seen as meet for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.

• The dissenters also stated: The problem of concealed pay discrimination is particularly acute where the disparity arises not because the female employee is flatly denied a raise but because male counterparts are given larger raises. Having received a pay increase, the female employee is unlikely to discern at once that she has experienced an adverse employment decision. She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity. Even if an employee suspects that the reason for a comparatively low raise is not performance but sex (or another protected ground), the amount involved may seem too small, or the employer’s intent too ambiguous, to make the issue immediately actionable – or winnable.

“Justice”

In a majority decision that turns our understanding of employment discrimination on its head, the Court ruled that a Title VII complaint must be filed within 180 days of the specific action that

sets discriminatory pay, regardless of its ongoing and continuing discriminatory impact on the employee. As a result, many victims of pay discrimination will be left without an effective remedy, even though their rights have been

violated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08iKrQOqzxc

Both are for increasing wages in female-dominated jobs beyond

that determined by the market. (Rich Lowry, Clinton and Obama’s Great Feminist Pander)

Clinton and Obama want to establish "comparable

worth“, equal pay for different work in female-

and male-dominated professions.

The Obama-endorsed bill

mandates equal pay for "equivalent

jobs“.Clinton's bill would establish

voluntary "guidelines to enable employers to evaluate

job categories“

As noted by the American Association of University Women “wage discrimination lowers total lifetime

earnings, reducing women’s benefits from Social Security and pension plans and inhibiting their ability to save not only for retirement but for other lifetime goals such as buying a home and paying for a college education”.