4/19/05. Equal Pay Day. Wear Red.
Chuck Sheketoff
Download equalpay.pdf
The website.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 18, '05
this link might be a bit more helpful
7:00 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Call me overly picky, but this statement from the website makes no damn sense:
Equal Pay Day is observed in April to indicate how far into each year a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned in the previous year.
So.... So in just four months, a woman earns as much as a man does in an entire year?
Methinks not.
Apr 18, '05
Kari, I think what they mean is that a woman has to work 16 months (4 months into the next year) to earn what a man does in 12. Which, if a woman only makes 76 cents on the dollar, makes sense.
But yeah, it's pretty confusing, or at least counter-intuitive. Especially when we already have "tax freedom day" or whatever it's called where they mark how many days into a year the average taxpayer has to work to pay his (or her) taxes for the year. People will naturally try to draw the analogy and it won't work out.
Then they talk about the significance of Tuesday (gotta work 2 days into the next week to make as much as the guys did in the previous week). It's a bit muddled, I think.
7:20 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
It's horribly worded, but I think (based on the next sentence: Tuesday symbolizes the day when women's wages catch up to men's wages from the previous week.) they mean the previous year plus 3.66 months. I think. So 12:15.66 months.
I think.
Does that make more sense? Not that I actually thought you didn't figure that out, Kari. ;-) I just want to make sure I got it. lol. Whoever wrote that shoulda worded it better... or included a graph. A graph would be good.
7:26 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Especially when we already have "tax freedom day" or whatever it's called where they mark how many days into a year the average taxpayer has to work to pay his (or her) taxes for the year.
There's also national take back your time day - observed in mid-October (I think) because the remainder of the year shows how many more days off the rest of the world gets compared to us - on average, of course. So that one uses the balance of the year.
Apparently the tax people, the equity people, and the time people should get together to figure all this out. Or just word their websites better. And add graphs.
Apr 18, '05
You have to dig around to find the information, but there's some great links to studies, facts, and yes! charts! through the site.
In the end, the facts are there, and Oregon is pretty well darn near the bottom of the list. We make .68 to the dollar made by men. I'm thankful, though, to not live in Wyoming and only make .63.
I love campaigns likes this, but unfortunately, their site and kit are messy and hard to use.
Apr 19, '05
Interesting info on the web site. Obviously, there are very real and legitimate complaints about pay equity.
It's unfortunate, though, that legitimate complaints are masked by blanket statements about discrepancies in median salaries among the general male and female populations. There are any number of entirely legitimate reasons why some of that discrepancy exists (differing education levels, years of service, etc.) It's interesting that when factoring out those legitimate issues, there still remains a substantial difference. But the difference is not as great as the numbers that are touted.
Which is not to say that this isn't a problem or that it doesn't need to be addressed. But it's too easy for people to dismiss these claims as being overblown (which to some extent they are) and thus ignore the real problems that do exist.
It's a more complicated message, but I'd like to see the legitimate "hard" numbers for pure discriminatory wages used, rather than the median numbers which are not entirely discriminatory. Sure, 80 cents on the dollar doesn't sound as bad as 72 cents or 68 cents or what have you, but it's (apparently) an accurate reflection of the general pay inequity that is truly the result of gender difference and nothing else -- not due to "women having babies" or "lower education" or "less experience". Explained that way, it's a whole heck of a lot harder to dismiss.
Just a thought.
Apr 21, '05
Equal pay for equal work. If you don't like the company's policy. Don't buy the products or services.