America...in 2010! Women aren't, and won't be for years, entitled to equal pay for equal work. Astounding, but read on from The Nation:
"Women fell two votes short on Wednesday to coming closer to getting paid the same as men for the same work. Senate Republicans decided that equal pay for women should not even be considered, as they blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from moving to the floor.
The bill, which will not be brought up again in this Congress, faces more of an uphill battle in the next one, with Republicans gaining control of the House and more seats in the Senate.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would have updated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes, strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination and prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages, according to the American Association of University Women, which has been pushing for its passage for 10 years. It also would have required employers to show that wage gaps are a result of factors other than gender, to collect better data on wages and develop training for women on salary negotiations".
Update (19/11): It seems that Australia is in the same league as the US - as this piece in the SMH details the Government's opposition to equal pay for women:
"The Gillard government has argued against a pay boost for women, arguing it would seriously impact on the budget bottom line.
The Australian Services Union is running the first test case on equal pay under the Fair Work Act, seeking increased pay for women in the social and community services sector.
The union wants pay rises of between 14 and 50 per cent for about 200,000 workers in the sector, 87 per cent of whom are women.
When she was employment minister Prime Minister Julia Gillard in November 2009 reached agreement with the ASU to support the test case to establish "an appropriate equal remuneration principle".
But the federal government's submission, released on Fair Work Australia's website, argues that even if the pay rises are phased in over time, the potential cost of wage increases could be "considerable".
"Women fell two votes short on Wednesday to coming closer to getting paid the same as men for the same work. Senate Republicans decided that equal pay for women should not even be considered, as they blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from moving to the floor.
The bill, which will not be brought up again in this Congress, faces more of an uphill battle in the next one, with Republicans gaining control of the House and more seats in the Senate.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would have updated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes, strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination and prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages, according to the American Association of University Women, which has been pushing for its passage for 10 years. It also would have required employers to show that wage gaps are a result of factors other than gender, to collect better data on wages and develop training for women on salary negotiations".
Update (19/11): It seems that Australia is in the same league as the US - as this piece in the SMH details the Government's opposition to equal pay for women:
"The Gillard government has argued against a pay boost for women, arguing it would seriously impact on the budget bottom line.
The Australian Services Union is running the first test case on equal pay under the Fair Work Act, seeking increased pay for women in the social and community services sector.
The union wants pay rises of between 14 and 50 per cent for about 200,000 workers in the sector, 87 per cent of whom are women.
When she was employment minister Prime Minister Julia Gillard in November 2009 reached agreement with the ASU to support the test case to establish "an appropriate equal remuneration principle".
But the federal government's submission, released on Fair Work Australia's website, argues that even if the pay rises are phased in over time, the potential cost of wage increases could be "considerable".
Comments