Equal Pay Day

It's Equal Pay Day, netizens! I am blogging for fair pay for women today in an event sponsored by the National Women's Law Center.

It's been nearly a year since Lilly Ledbetter lost her pay discrimination case before the Supreme Court. It's not that Ledbetter wasn't paid less than her male colleagues at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama; she was. It's not that this lesser pay wasn't a form of sex discrimination; a jury had already concluded it was. It's that she was discriminated against for so long that it basically stopped counting. Say wha?

In the lower court, Ledbetter won a verdict against Goodyear that was based on nineteen years of discriminatory compensation and performance reviews. Nineteen years. That's longer than I've been able to do long division. But Title VII's statute of limitations requires victims of workplace discrimination to file suit within 180 days of being discriminated against. And because Lilly Ledbetter didn't know she'd been discriminated against--didn't know that she was routinely receiving smaller raises than her male colleagues--until that small 180-day window had slammed shut, she was SOL. This decision overturned the established and eminently logical interpretation of Title VII's statute of limitations, which considered every paycheck diminished by discriminatory activity to be a separate act of discrimination.

Justice Ginsberg (who was, in her lawyer days, an amazing advocate for sex equity in the workplace, and who is now the only sitting female Justice) pointed out the impossible position this new statute of limitations put Lilly Ledbetter, and countless other women in: file at the first sign of any possible discrimination, go to court with an undeveloped factual record, and risk being thrown out of court as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, or wait until the facts are better developed, the discrimination is more clearly established, and get thrown out of court as to late to the pay-discrimination party. Either way, the employer wins. Deal or no deal?

Congress is considering legislation to prevent employees from having to make this impossible "choice." Please voice your support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. But until Congress steps up, what do we do to protect our most valuable financial assets, i.e., our earning power?

First, this cultural taboo against talking about money has got to go. In addition to being healthier, saner, and better for everybody to get over our collective money weirdness, open conversations about salaries, wages, and benefits appear to be the only way victims of pay discrimination have a prayer of finding out about the discrimination within the fantastically short statute of limitations period. Having more information also sets you up better to negotiate from a position of authority. Talk to friends in your company and in your industry outside your company. Talk about pay scales, bonus systems, bennies. Can you gather more data points on the internet or through professional organizations? You want to go into informational hunter-gatherer mode. This will help you get to...

Step number 2, which is the ask. It's never too early in your career to start. All the cool kids are doing it. And there's a good reason why: If you don't ask, you won't get it. And women ask all too infrequently compared with men. Go in equipped with your research. You don't need to dispense graphs and spreadsheets, just confidence and facts. Compare this:

"In this market, for my level of experience, the median salary is X. Based on my performance reviews and abc projects, I think we agree that my work here is well above average. Therefore I think a salary of X+Y(more money, more vacation, more educational benefits, whatever) is fair and appropriate.

with this:

"Would you like to give me more money? Please?"

Just imagine which one you'll feel more confident saying, and which one your employer is going to find more compelling. It can be especially hard for women to be direct, to think of their desires as valid, rather than just taking what they are given--those things are hard to reconcile with a social expectation that we will be relational, non-confrontational, and wholly other-oriented. But you know you deserve to be paid what you're worth. You know you deserve a good advocate, and you are her. If you're nervous about it, do a couple of role plays with a friend. Have a strong cup of coffee. And then ask.

But in case they say no, it's time for step three. OK, let's take a quick detour to step two and a half for those of you who are otherwise fond of your current job. If you don't get your ask, find out what it would take to get it in the future. Is it another year of experience? A change in job title that would change your pay scale? Some additional training you could do? If you like your job, and you want to stay there, find out where there are holes in your resume that would set you up for what you're asking for. And then do them. And then remind your boss that you did them and revist the "Can I haz muny plz now?" discussion.

If you aren't in love with your job, by all means go straight to step three. Look around. You don't owe any employer your continued allegiance. If they're not doing right by you, and you don't investigate your other options, you're not doing right by yourself. And then repeat steps one and two as your job search proceeds.

The solution to unequal pay is not going to be solved on an individual basis. It's going to take continued advocacy to end all forms of workplace discrimination. But in your spare time, when you're not pushing for broad social change, don't forget to look out for your own interests, as well.

This post was featured in the 149th Carnival of Personal Finance, hosted by The Happy Rock.

Quick Hits 16 April 2008

Democracy Now reminds us about war tax resisters on tax day.

A reminder of how queer folks are discriminated against by federal and state tax systems. Via Queercents.

Paid Twice reminds readers it's what you earn and what you spend. A nice antidote to the blind bootstrappiness of those who seem to think wealth is a measure of moral strength rather than being at all determined by how much you get paid.

Kara at Ka-Blog follows upon a previous piece about a Twin Cities Compacter. Sounds like we had similar reactions to the experience (though she persisted much longer than I did).

Birth control is freaking expensive. Sing it, over at Stacking Pennies.

Mommy On The Clock

The UK paper The Guardian recently ran a piece about a trend among US-companies to allow new parents to bring their babies (up to crawling age) in to the office with them. The thought appears to be that it's cheaper than maternity leave. The article is delightfully toungue-in-cheek, with this lede setting the tone:

The United States and Australia are the only two countries in the industrialised world that don't have paid statutory maternity leave (there are exceptions in some US states). At least in Australia, though, your job is protected for a year; in America, even the leave protection only lasts for 12 weeks. It's an astonishingly backward state of affairs, like discovering that France doesn't have a postal service. A Harvard Study of 168 countries, measuring how different governments meet the needs of working families, found the US to be in the bottom five. But rather than do anything so tedious as campaign for reasonable terms, American lobbyists have instead thought more laterally, with a softly, softly, looky-after-baby approach: bring your baby to work with you. Until it can crawl, it can think of your workplace as liberty hall.

The contributing reporters bring their children to work with them and document their utter failure to accomplish anything they're being paid to do. And it understandable that it would be difficult to engage fully in a task while also being primarily responsible for the every need of a needy little being. But these are the darkly comical situations we find ourselves in here in a country that has an singularly bass-ackwards approach to parenthood and parental leave.