Recently in Worker Rights

Rep. Marcia Fudge: We Must Commit to Achieving Equal Pay for All Americans

(This is a guest blog post by Rep. Marcia Fudge, Education and Labor Committee Member.)

fudge-square.jpgOn this Equal Pay Day 2009, we must commit to achieving equal pay for all Americans.  Today, April 28, marks the point in 2009 when the average woman's wages will finally catch up with the wages paid to the average man in 2008.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law. Progress has been slow during the forty-six years since passage of the Act.  After four decades, Americans continue to be unfairly compensated for the work they perform every day of their lives.
When the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, women working full-time and year-round earned an average of 59 cents for every dollar earned by men.  In 2007, women made 78 cents for every dollar earned by men. Today, the wage gap has only narrowed by less than half a cent per year.

The impact of income disparity is communal.  Equal pay is not just a women’s issue, it’s a family issue.  The current wage gap hurts everyone.  It lowers family income for essentials such as groceries, doctors’ visits, and child care.  When women earn more, families benefit.  Closing the wage gap is an integral part of strengthening American families and providing hope for a better future.

On January 29, 2009, President Obama took the first step by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law to restore employee rights to challenge unlawful pay discrimination.  

The Paycheck Fairness Act, passed by the House on January 9, 2009, would take further steps to ensure that gender-based pay discrimination does not occur in the first place by closing the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.  A comprehensive update to the 46-year-old Equal Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination, such as race, disability or age. It creates a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.  And it creates strong incentives for employers to equally compensate workers while strengthening correlating federal enforcement efforts.

I stand in support of equal pay for all.  I look forward to the day when equal pay is a firm reality and not a tenuous goal. 

Today Show Gets It Wrong on the Employee Free Choice Act

| Comments (4)
Earlier this morning, Matt Lauer, co-host of the Today Show, interviewed Mike Duke, the new CEO of Wal-Mart, and they talked about the Employee Free Choice Act. Unfortunately, Mr. Lauer led his question with a mischaracterization of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Watch the video and read the transcript.


Matt Lauer: With 1.4 million associate employees that earn an average wage of $10.83 an hour, Wal-Mart now faces a threat to its corporate model. There's proposed legislation on Capitol Hill that would make it easier for unions to organize employees, the Employee Free Choice Act, doing away with secret ballots. Unions say it will make it easier for American workers to earn a fair salary. Others, like the guy who runs Home Depot, the co-founder, says it's going to cripple American business. What's the truth?
 
Mike Duke: Well, of course, we are opposed to that. We have a unique relationship with our associates. Of all of our managers across America, 3 out of 4 started with the company as an hourly associate. 95% of our associates across America have health care insurance in some fashion. It's really one of those bills that would be damaging to the American economy long-term.
Mr. Lauer is incorrect to say that the Employee Free Choice Act would get get rid of the secret ballot for workers. Contrary to misleading statements being pushed by opponents of the bill, the Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot election process. That process, also known as a National Labor Relations Board election would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers, not corporate executives, to make that decision.

Asking the CEO of Wal-Mart about the Employee Free Choice Act is like asking the fox about the hen house. To read Human Rights Watch's 2007 report on "Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association" please click here. (pdf)

News of the Day: Janitors, science center battle over unionization

In today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, they highlight the trouble with the current process for forming a union.

If the story of the janitors and groundskeepers at the Carnegie Science Center weren't true, it would seem as if the advocates of the Employee Free Choice Act were making it up.

Those 10 people work for the same employer as the 50 people who clean the Carnegie Museums of Art and Natural History and the Carnegie Libraries. Yet, because of a quirk of history dating to a time when the individual museums were run as if they were separate organizations, the janitorial staffs at the museums and libraries are unionized. The cleaners at the Science Center are not….

The pay is $7.85 an hour. He is without medical insurance and is not granted days off with pay for sick time or vacation….

The janitors at the Oakland museums and the Carnegie Libraries of Pittsburgh make $10 to $14 an hour and are awarded full benefits, including health insurance, vacation time and sick days, according to Gabe Morgan from the union that represents them.

The Employee Free Choice Act would help those 10 workers get the same wages and benefits as the other 50 janitors within the same organization.

Learn more about the Employee Free Choice Act and how it will benefit workers.

Here is another story worth reading. It highlights how workers in Indiana would be helped by the Employee Free Choice Act.

News of the Day: Unions, good for workers and business

The Akron Beacon Journal had an op-ed from Larry Thompson, owner of Thompson Electric, about how the Employee Free Choice Act is good for business and good for workers.

Thompson Electric is proof that unions are good for workers and good for business. Our positive, long-term partnership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is one of the main reasons that I, as an entrepreneur and business owner, support passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. More workers across the United States should be given a free and fair chance to form a union, just like our employees.

Our union workers receive the most cutting-edge job training available, and it pays off through lower injury rates, increased productivity and a strengthened ability to serve the people of Ohio. The union difference is not only impressive, but a valuable commodity in our line of work.
Mr. Thompson makes a fine argument that businesses and communities benefit with higher paid and higher skilled workers and, thus, the Employee Free Choice Act is needed to reform current law. We encourage you to read the entire op-ed.
WASHINGTON, DC – Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) issued the following statement today after the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in the U.S. House and Senate:
 
“Today, Chairman Miller and Senators Kennedy and Harkin introduced legislation to give hard-working Americans the tools they need to secure fair wages and treatment at their jobs.
“The right to organize and bargain for better wages, benefits and policies in the workplace is a valued American freedom made possible through the struggles of workers to ensure the prosperity of future generations.
 
“The Employee Free Choice Act seeks to preserve that right by putting the decision of how to form a union back in the hands of workers, instead of their employers'. Whether employees choose to unionize by election or majority sign-up, this bill will make both options viable. 
 
“Employees deserve a fair choice, not a false choice, when it comes to their rights in the workplace and on matters that affect their livelihoods and their futures. Restoring employee choice is an important priority for this Congress and one we will look to act on quickly.”

Majority Leader Hoyer's website »


House and Senate Introduce Employee Free Choice Act

| Comments (2)
Leading members of the U.S. Senate and House today introduced legislation that would help enable workers to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions by restoring their rights to form unions.

“The current crisis has shown us the dangers of an economy that leaves working families behind. The people who work in our factories, build our roads, and care for our children are the backbone of this great nation. The Employee Free Choice Act will give these hardworking men and women a greater voice in the decisions that affect their families and their futures. It’s a critical step toward putting our economy back on track, and I hope that we can act quickly to send it to the President’s desk," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

“Just as the National Labor Relations Act, the 40 hour week and the minimum wage helped to pull us out of the Great Depression and into a period of unprecedented prosperity, so too will the Employee Free Choice Act help reinvigorate our economy,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.  “Today is one of those defining moments in history as we introduce legislation that puts power back into the hands of the people who are truly the backbone of this economy.”

 “Americans’ wages have been stagnating or falling for the past decade. For far too long, we have seen corporate CEOs take care of themselves and shareholders at the expense of workers,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. “If we want a fair and sustainable recovery from this economic crisis, we must give workers the ability to stand up for themselves and once again share in the prosperity they help to create.”
About the Employee Free Choice Act »
Strengthening America's Middle Class by Helping Workers Bargain for a Better Life »
Myth vs. Fact »
Worker After Worker Explains Why EFCA Is So Important »
Worker Rights Under Attack »

Employee Free Choice Act To Be Introduced Today

In today's USA Today, Sandra Block highlights some of the important provisions regarding ensuring continued access to health care for unemployed workers in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

The economic stimulus package signed into law last month seeks to address the high costs by subsidizing COBRA premiums for unemployed workers. Under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, laid-off workers can continue their former employer's health coverage for up to 18 months, but only if they pay the entire premium, plus a 2% administrative fee. Average COBRA premiums exceed $400 a month for individuals, and more than $1,000 a month for families.

The stimulus package will subsidize 65% of COBRA premiums for employees who were laid off between Sept. 1 and the end of this year. If you delayed signing up for COBRA coverage when you lost your job, you have 60 days to re-enroll after you receive a notice from your employer.
Read the rest of the article for additional important information about eligibility and COBRA expiry.

Rep. Phil Hare: Addressing Colombia's Workers' Rights Epidemic

(This is a guest blog post by Rep. Phil Hare, a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.)

hare 2007.06.12 hearing.jpgIf one thing was made clear by today’s hearing it is this: violence against workers in Colombia continues to rage at unacceptable levels.

Here in the United States, we will soon consider legislation intended to make the system for joining unions fairer. But I know people on both sides of that debate would shudder to think that in some places in the world exercising your fundamental right to organize could cost you your life. 
The statistics speak for themselves. Colombia has the highest rate of union homicides in the world.  According to the National Labor School (Escuela Nacional Sindical or ENS), 2,694 unionists have been killed since 1986, the year the ENS started recording the rate of killings. An additional 4,200 unionists have reported receiving threats.

According to ENS statistics, after dropping to 39 unionist assassinations in 2007, the number of killings increased once again to 49 in 2008.  This represents a 25% increase. Ironically, 2008 was also the year that both President Bush and President Uribe claimed that the situation on the ground was improving as they lobbied Congress to pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.  As I said at the hearing, 49 assassinations of trade unionists would never be tolerated in the U.S. Why would we allow it in a country with whom we are considering a free trade agreement?  Despite the numbers and claims about progress being made in this area, these are people’s lives.  Those killed are mothers, fathers, sons and daughters; they are not just statistics.  Even one person killed for exercising his or her fundamental rights should not be tolerated or boasted as improvement.

At today’s hearing, Yessika Hoyos detailed the tragic murder of her father, a well-known Colombian Labor leader. After years of threats and an attempted kidnapping, he was gunned-down by two young assassins in March 2001.  He left behind a wife and two young daughters, who were ages 14 and 17 at the time.  The two assailants were quickly arrested and convicted. But Hoyos says she possesses evidence of involvement by the Colombian military. So far no charges have been filed, a common theme in Colombia. In 2006, Hoyos and ten other children of victims decided to form a new advocacy organization: “Sons and Daughters Against Impunity.”   The founders have travelled all over Colombia meeting with families of victims, and the organization now has hundreds of members in seven major cities where it organizes public education events. I commend Hoyos for her courage.

Today, we also heard from Maria McFarland, a Latin America specialist for Human Rights Watch. She detailed the links between union violence and the Colombian government. Specifically, she highlighted the case of Colombian Intelligence Chief Jorge Noguera, who allegedly passed lists of protected union members to paramilitaries so they could be targeted.

Overall, I found today’s hearing to be disturbing, but not surprising. Colombia’s despicable labor rights record is unmatched by any nation in the world. We should continue to work with the Colombian government to help put an end to this violence and bring past perpetrators to justice.  

Watch Chairman Miller Discuss the Signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Into Law

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Gets Final Approval From House

| Comments (1)
The House gave final approval to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today by a vote of 250-177. The measure will be the first bill sent to President Obama's desk for his signature.  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will reverse a Supreme Court ruling that has made it more difficult for Americans to pursue pay discrimination claims.  It clarifies that every paycheck or other compensation resulting from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges would be considered timely. This was the law prior to the Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

"The Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling was a painful step backwards for civil rights in this country. Today, the House will correct this injustice, and send President Obama his first bill to sign into law," Chairman George Miller said today.

Watch Chairman Miller's January 9, 2009 statement about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on the House floor:



















Watch Lilly Ledbetter's 2007 testimony before the Committee:

“What happened to me is not only an insult to my dignity, but it had real consequences for my ability to care for my family. Every paycheck I received, I got less than what I was entitled to under the law.

“The Supreme Court said that this didn’t count as illegal discrimination, but it sure feels like discrimination when you are on the receiving end of that smaller paycheck and trying to support your family with less money than the men are getting for doing the same job.

“And according to the Court, if you don’t figure things out right away, the company can treat you like a second-class citizen for the rest of your career. That isn’t right.” -- Lilly Ledbetter.

Final House Passage of Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Expected Today

Thumbnail image for GM_Ledbetter1.jpgThe Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is expected to be considered on the House floor today, January 27, for final approval before being sent to President Obama's desk for signature into law.

After the Senate passed the measure on January 22 by a vote of 61-36, Chairman Miller said:

“I applaud the Senate’s swift approval of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Our nation is one step closer to correcting a disastrous Supreme Court decision that allows bad employers to engage in illegal employment discrimination so long as they keep it hidden for 180 days. Illegal employment discrimination in any form is an attack on all working Americans and must be stamped out.

“The 2007 Ledbetter Supreme Court decision has already had a chilling impact on hundreds of discrimination claims. It wasn’t Lilly Ledbetter’s fault that Goodyear decided to pay her less because she was a woman. But a narrowly divided, ideological Supreme Court said that even though her company had engaged in illegal pay discrimination in secret for decades, she would have to live with a smaller pension and Social Security benefit for the rest of her life. This isn’t just or fair by any measure.

“It is well past time to reset the law to where it was before the ruling. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will do just that. I expect the House will quickly pass the Senate’s version and send it to President Obama for his signature.”

House Passes Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and Paycheck Fairness Act

On January 9, the House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 247-171, and the Paycheck Fairness Act by a vote of 256-163.

“The Supreme Court’s misguided decision is already having very harmful consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter’s case and must not stand.  This issue is about basic fairness for our nation’s workers. Americans shouldn’t be treated differently based on the color of their skin, gender, disability or faith.” -- Chairman George Miller



“In this economy, families are struggling to make ends meet. Not one of them deserves to be shortchanged, but because women still earn 78 cents for every dollar men earn, many unfortunately are. But this does not need to be.  Today, by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, we send a strong message that gender discrimination is unacceptable and women will have the tools they need to combat it. We are standing up for working women and their families. It is our moment to fight for economic freedom and eliminate the systemic discrimination faced by women workers. With this legislation, we begin the change, make history, and change lives.” -- Rep. Rosa DeLauro, sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act

House to Vote on Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and Paycheck Fairness Act TODAY

The House is scheduled to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act today, January 9.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

GMLedbetterRA2007.JPGOn May 29, 2007, in its 5-4 Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision, the Supreme Court severely restricted the rights of employees to challenge unlawful pay discrimination. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores employee rights to challenge pay discrimination.

The Court’s misguided decision is already having very harmful consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter’s case. According to The New York Times, the Ledbetter decision was cited in at least 300 cases in the 19 months after the Supreme Court's ruling. Not only have pay discrimination cases been adversely impacted, but Fair Housing, Title IX, and even the Eighth Amendment also have been affected. More on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act »

Paycheck Fairness Act:

The Paycheck Fairness Act would help end the discriminatory practice of paying men and women unequally for performing the same job. The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.

Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem for women in the U.S. workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The Institute of Women’s Policy Research found that this wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages. More on the Paycheck Fairness Act »

House Votes Again to Protect Americans with Disabilities from Discrimination

The House of Representatives gave final approval today for legislation to stop discrimination against individuals with disabilities by restoring the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act.   By a voice vote, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act (S. 3406) to reverse several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since the ADA’s enactment nearly two decades ago, courts have dramatically reduced the numbers of workers who are protected from employment discrimination under the law. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
In a series of rulings beginning in 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the definition of who is protected under the ADA. The court held that workers with disabilities who are able to mitigate their impairments, such as by wearing hearing aids or taking medication, should not be considered disabled. In such cases, these workers would have no remedy under the law when they are discriminated against on the basis of disability. In other words, an employer could fire or refuse to hire a fully qualified worker simply on the basis of a physical or mental impairment, while contending in court that the worker is not “disabled enough” to qualify for protection under the law.

The ADA Amendments Act will reverse these court decisions and restore the original Congressional intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act by:
  • Prohibiting the consideration of measures that reduce or mitigate the impact of impairment – such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology – in determining whether an individual has a disability.
  • Covering workers whose employers discriminate against them based on a perception that the worker is impaired, regardless of whether the worker has a disability.
  • Making it clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act provides broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.
A similar House bill, H.R. 3195, introduced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), passed the House in June.

 “The Americans with Disabilities Act guaranteed that workers with disabilities would be judged on their merits and not on an employer’s prejudices. But, court rulings since the law’s enactment have dramatically limited the ability of people with disabilities to seek justice under the law.  Today we make it absolutely clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of a disability.”  -- Chairman George Miller

“This victory today will restore the commonsense, meaningful definition of disability and overturn the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of our Congressional intent.” -- Rep. Rob Andrews, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions
 
Chairman George Miller sent a letter Friday to Colombia’s President Álvaro Uribe, asking his government to address concerns that Colombia has failed to adequately address the nearly 2,700 murders of labor union leaders in his country. President Uribe will meet with Miller and other members of Congress this week in Washington.
“Our two ally nations should work together to help Colombia improve its labor laws, decrease the ongoing violence, and finally put an end to the impunity enjoyed by those who have perpetrated thousands of anti-labor killings,” Chairman Miller wrote. “These challenges have taken on heightened significance this year as the violence in Colombia has escalated over 2007 levels.”

According to the Escuela Nacional Sindical, an independent Colombian think-tank, nearly 2,700 Colombian union leaders or union members have been murdered since 1986.  The overwhelming majority of these killings remain uninvestigated by the Colombian Attorney General’s Office.  In addition, ENS statistics show that so far this year, more union leaders have been assassinated than during all of 2007.

Last year Congress approved $39 million to assist the Colombian government in improving the rule of law and human rights. This funding included $5 million for Colombian prosecutors to address the backlog of murder investigations. However, the Bush administration has delayed the distribution of these funds.

“Many members of Congress are very disappointed that the Bush administration has not transferred the funds that we appropriated last year to the Colombian Attorney General’s Office,” said Chairman Miller. “If the Bush administration had not created these inexplicable delays, the Government of Colombia could have already hired even more investigators and prosecutors, and Colombia might by now be several steps closer to creating an effective and sustainable system of justice to address the grave problem of anti-labor violence.” 

Chairman Miller traveled to Bogotá earlier this year to meet with Colombian government officials, judges, prosecutors, human rights advocates and labor union leaders. Since then the committee’s staff have continued to conduct additional fact-finding on Colombia’s efforts to improve its judicial system and the need for further labor law reforms.

“One advantage stemming from our Congress’ decision to postpone the vote regarding the proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement is that it has given my colleagues and me additional time needed to assess whether or not Colombia has in fact created an effective and sustainable system of justice to combat anti-labor violence,” wrote Chairman Miller. “I hope that this ongoing fact-finding work will allow Congress to provide helpful recommendations to the next administration in the United States over how we can further strengthen our nation’s relationship with Colombia in such a way that promotes increased trade and higher labor standards.”  

Congress delayed the consideration of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in April.

House Passes Paycheck Fairness Act

The House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act today, by a vote of 247-178.  This bill will help end the discriminatory practice of paying a woman less than a man for performing the same job by strengthening the landmark Equal Pay Act and closing the loopholes that have allowed some employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.
This action comes a year after the House addressed another discriminatory pay issue with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  The House approved that measure last year to rectify a Supreme Court decision that made it harder for workers to pursue pay discrimination claims.

 
On Wednesday, July 30, the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the proposed merger of Delta and Northwest Airlines and the merger’s potential impact on workers of those airlines.

"The Proposed Delta/Northwest Airlines Merger: The Impact on Workers”
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 10:30 a.m. EDT

Committee Passes Bill to Help Close Gender Wage Gap

The Committee passed the Paycheck Fairness Act today to help end the discriminatory practice of paying men and women unequally for performing the same job, by a 26 to 17 vote.  The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.  Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, gender-based wage discrimination remains a significant problem for women in the U.S. workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The Institute of Women’s Policy Research concluded that this wage disparity will cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over her lifetime in lost wages.
“This is a historic day in the fight for equal rights for women. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under current law.  Any wage gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these tough economic times. By allowing wage discrimination to continue, we hold down women and their families while harming the American economy as a whole.” -- Chairman George Miller

“It’s completely unacceptable that women continue to be discriminated against in the workplace, receiving a fraction of the pay of men.  We must confront such discrimination head on and ensure that all Americans, regardless of gender, receive an equal paycheck for equal pay for equal work.” -- Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

Upcoming Markup: Committee to Vote on Paycheck Fairness Act

On Thursday, July 24, the Committee will vote on legislation to help end the discriminatory practice of paying men and women differently for performing the same job.  The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338), introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility of discriminatory pay.  Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem for women in the U.S. workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The Institute of Women’s Policy Research found that this wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages.

Markup on "H.R. 1338, Paycheck Fairness Act"
Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:00 p.m. EDT
 
2181 Rayburn House Office Building | Washington, DC 20515 | 202-225-3725
Plugins | Privacy Policy | Republican Views