A Couple of Questions for Obama about the Fair Pay Act
If you could ask ask the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates one question about employment law, what would it be? Dan Schwartz, the author of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, came up with this idea, as well as some excellent questions for the candidates.
I haven't researched all of the candidates' positions on employment law issues (does Palin have any?). Still, I would want to ask Obama this:
"You've said that you support the Fair Pay Act of 2007, which would give the EEOC the task of ensuring that men and women are paid equally for "equivalent" jobs. "Equivalent jobs," according to the legislation, "means jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions." Isn't the Fair Pay Act of 2007 really an attempt to revive the concept of "comparable worth?" And do you really believe that the federal government is better than the free market in determining what a job is worth?"
Okay, that's two questions. But they're important. This article from Fortune Magazine explains why the Fair Pay Act of 2007 is based on unfounded assumptions about the reasons that women earn less than men. (Hint: for the most part, the disparity is not caused by employment discrimination.) The article also explains how intrusive the EEOC would have to be to enforce the Fair Pay Act :
Under [the Fair Pay Act's] provisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would create criteria determining whether a given job is dominated by one sex; employers would have to send the EEOC every year a listing of each job classification, the race and sex of those holding such jobs; how much they are paid; and how such pay was determined. The goal of all this is to ensure that people in "equivalent" jobs are paid similar wages. "The term, 'equivalent jobs', according to the legislation, "means jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions." And who would decide what is equivalent? The federal government, of course. Forget the price signal: Congress is on the job!
If you think employers are already burdened by government's regulation of the workplace, just wait for an Obama administration. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
