Gov. Jerry Brown stands to applaud female factory workers from World War II as he visits the Rosie the Riveter National Monument in Richmond on Tuesday to sign the California Fair Pay Act into law.
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 California
took a huge step in attempt to close the wage gap between men and women.
Governor Jerry Brown signed one of the toughest pay equality laws in the nation,
which will take effect on January 1, 2016. Women in California who
work full time are paid substantially less; about 84 cents for every dollar a
man makes. With the passing of The Fair Pay Act, women
will now be paid the same for equal work. This act forbids employers from
paying employees less than their opposite-sex counterparts and requires
employers to provide a reason if they pay an employee less than their coworker.
Although many support the bill, some feel as though the bill will have negative
affects on the economy of California. Richard
A. Epstein, a Professor of Law and Senior
Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School,
called the California bill “crazy,” predicting it would only intensify the
state’s economic woes by discouraging voluntary job changes. Even so, the bill
passed with almost no opposition. Only two Assembly Republicans voted against
the legislation on the floor, while no state senators opposed the measure.
Question: Do you think
this law be effective or will it be similar to the Equal Pay act of 1963 where
it did not fully accomplish the goal of abolishing wage discrimination based
on sex?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/06/us/ap-us-xgr-equal-pay-california-.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/06/us/ap-us-xgr-equal-pay-california-.html?_r=0
I think the law will be more effective than the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but will not bring about exactly equal rights for women. As stated in the article, the Fair Pay Act puts in prevents employers for setting different wages, based on gender, for similar work compared to the previous equal work. This alteration in wording allows for more room to argue for both sides. The word used is still vague, allowing for multiple interpretation and definitions, making it difficult for the law to enforce set equal wages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amelia that the law will be hard to enforce. I fail to see Epstein's point about it weakening the economy. To my, untrained eye, it seems it would benefit the economy by providing more money to recirculate back into it.
ReplyDeleteThis law should end up being more effective than the Equal Pay Act of 1963; however, I suspect there will still be issues with implementing the law. There do not seem to be any serious repercussions with not following this law, so private companies may not necessarily follow through. Epstein's argument is not backed up with any factual data or analysis, making his statement unlikely. Even if that was the case, the equal pay issue could be solved by either lowering men's pay or created a middle bases to pay men and women (his argument is just an excuse).
ReplyDeleteAn important component of this law, and of most equal pay acts, is their wording; more specifically the fact they contain the phrase "for equal work." This act is a great step forwards towards achieving this goal, but as a whole there will probably disparity between wages for each gender due to certain careers being skewed towards one gender or another. Along with Amelia and Ben, I fail to see how this act would strike a blow to the state's economy, but I also don't think it will have the overall impact most believe it will have since it doesn't target the main forces impacting gender wage disparity.
ReplyDeleteI think the bill's effectiveness will depend on the level of enforcement. The reason why the Equal Pay Act of 1963 failed to deliver desired changes was because the act was not strictly enforced by the government. No matter how harsh or tough the bill is, the level of its effectiveness will depend on California's commitment to enforcing the new equal pay law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David's point that the success of the law depends on how committed California is to enforcing it. It's similar to the marijuana laws that we discussed in class. Because they're not enforced very strongly, they're ignored. However, I feel as if this act will be enforced more strongly than the marijuana laws are because it's a much larger issue and directly effects women's lives.
DeleteI believe that the bill will be effective because of the presence women hold in the workforce in today's society. Although it will be effective, some people may not be happy with it because of the underlying prejudice that some people hold. The reason that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 failed was because it was not enforced properly and women were still heavily discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe this bill will be effective in decreasing the wage gap between men and women, it will be almost impossible to enforce completely. Employers can always find a way to get around it, and I agree with Cuyler that the words "for equal work" makes everything up for interpretation. Because of this, I believe it will not completely eliminate the wage gap, but it will help decrease it. Also, if it is properly enforced, I don't really get how it hurts the economy.
ReplyDeleteI think it will be helpful because it will force employers to consciously acknowledge that they are paying a women less for equal work. This will help people at least acknowledge the problem, which is the first step in making a change. It won't hurt the economy, because at a minimum it won't help and will not have a negative impact. It can only help, and it is worth trying.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reality is that equal pay is going to take a long time to be fully integrated into our society. The issue is tied to much more than employers being unequal in their wages, although fixing that issue is a good step. There are still unbalanced ratios of men and women in particular jobs that lead to men making more and women making less. For example, the majority of engineers in the US are male. Engineers make much more money than teachers, and women make up most teachers in the US. If we want wages to be truly equal between genders there needs to be a less skewed ratio in the jobs and professions men and women take on.
ReplyDeleteThe act calls for more transparency in workers wages & says there should be equal pay for similar work. These two provisions should create some means to push employers to be more fair, though some of the reasons for the wage gap are societal.
ReplyDeleteOnce the bill is solidified, it will narrow the gap between men and women when relating to a pay check, because bosses will not be able to use as many excuses. However, people will find ways to pay men and women different amounts of money, but this is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI think that this act will be similar to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 because it will be difficult to enforce and doesn't seem to outline specific serious ramifications for pay discrimination. I think that the closing of the pay gap will have to be accompanied by a societal shift towards having more women in higher paying jobs. Part of the reason the wage gap exists is because women generally go into lower paying professions. There is still undoubtedly some amount of discrimination "for equal work," but the gap is getting smaller. I think that the best way to achieve progress regarding this issue is to encourage more women to become programmers, scientists and doctors, etc. If a larger percentage of company executives are female, they will have greater say in how employees are paid, and will challenge whatever outdated bias' employers are currently using to justify wage discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI think this act will have the exact same unsuccessful outcome as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 did because I feel there are many more organizations pushing for feminism now in comparison to 50 years ago. As a high schooler, I feel like I have been exposed to reality of feminist issues with a big part being due to social media. In addition to technological advances expanding communication, progress has been made in politics, where there is now an increased (although still not completely equal) population of women in government. In agreement with some of my peers, I am apprehensive of the way the wording of the law will be manipulated so that employers fail to follow the law and that this will lead to a lack of enforcement and visible change in the intentions of cultivating a more equal society, economically, in this case.
ReplyDeleteI think that the effectiveness of the bill depends on how well it is implemented. If the agency in charge of monitoring its implementation is strict but fair in following up on and penalizing employers that are disobey the law, it will be successful. In contrast, if they are lenient and forgiving, employers will surely take advantage of this, as was the case of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
ReplyDeleteI think that the effectiveness of the bill depends on how well it is implemented. If the agency in charge of monitoring its implementation is strict but fair in following up on and penalizing employers that are disobey the law, it will be successful. In contrast, if they are lenient and forgiving, employers will surely take advantage of this, as was the case of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
ReplyDeleteThe bill seems like it would work, but if employers take advantage of their ability to pay women and men unequally as long as they have a reason, then the law would not be effective. The effectiveness of a law lies in the quality to which it is implemented and enforced, so if the government continues to take it seriously, the law will be effective. On the flip side, this law could easily be disregarded.
ReplyDeleteAs compared to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, this new Equal Pay Act now provides a clearer definition of how the system will integrate the equality of men and women in the workforce. Employers will now have to provide equal wages in terms of the amount of work each person puts in rather than the gender they were born with. Also, this new Act makes it so that employers now have to give a reason if they were to ever give any gender a lower/higher wage than their counterpart thus this bill should be, and will be, more effective than its predecessor.
ReplyDelete