Opening excerpt.
In
a narrow vote this week, the Senate politely smothered the Paycheck
Fairness Act, which would have protected workers’ rights to compare and
discuss their wages at work. Aimed at dismantling workplace “pay
secrecy” policies, the legislation built on the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair
Pay Act, which strengthens safeguards for women and other protected
groups against wage discrimination.
| ||
Asking someone at a party how
much they make in a year might get you a weird look. Asking someone
about their salary at work might get you fired. Seem unfair? Don’t
bother complaining: Washington just once again reaffirmed the boss’s
inalienable right to punish workers for talking about whether they’re
being treated fairly.
In a narrow vote this week, the Senate politely smothered the Paycheck Fairness Act,
which would have protected workers’ rights to compare and discuss their
wages at work. Aimed at dismantling workplace “pay secrecy” policies,
the legislation built on the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
which strengthens safeguards for women and other protected groups
against wage discrimination. Both measures aim to fill gaps in the
enforcement of longstanding civil rights laws, which, half a century on,
are still failing to combat the most insidious forms of
discrimination—the subtle labor violations that grease the gears of economic inequality.
Wage discrimination has persisted in large part because workers are
routinely discouraged or outright banned from discussing compensation
levels with coworkers.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would
have shielded workers from retaliation if they discuss their salaries
with coworkers. Employers would have had to “prove that pay disparities
exist for legitimate, job-related reasons,” according to the National Partnership for Women & Families. In addition, the bill would have closed disparities in the legal remedies available for violations of the Equal Pay Act,
so workers could claim the same kinds of damages provided under other
wage discrimination laws. And overall, workers would have had an easier
time seeking compensation in federal court, rather than the bureaucracy of the National Labor Relations Board, which tends to yield weaker penalties.
The bill would also have
directed the Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to proactively gather data and investigate wage
discrimination on a broader scale.
To partially offset the Senate defeat, President Obama signed two executive orders
that placed similar mandates on federal contractors, but while that
would cover a substantial chunk of the workforce, many millions of
workers may remain effectively gagged at work.Yet making pay fair is not just a matter of correcting payrolls. Despite all the handwringing on Capitol Hill around the oft-cited seventy-seven-cents-to-a-dollar figure, the restrictions of speech in the workplace attest to a more systemic power imbalance.
According to a 2003 study,
“Over one-third of private sector employers…recently surveyed admitted
to having specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay
with coworkers. In contrast, only about 1 in 14 employers have actively
adopted a ‘pay openness’ policy,” which explicitly protects workplace
discussion of wages. A 2011 survey
estimated that 50 percent of workers are subject to some kind of
restriction on discussing their pay with coworkers—slightly more women
than men, with the largest concentration among private sector workers
(about 60 percent, compared to less than 20 percent of public workers).
The gaps vary along demographic lines: women workers, single parents and
married childless women tend to face higher rates of these secrecy
controls than do married mothers. And although civil servants generally
had far lower rates of pay secrecy, the practice was more prevalent
among women in the public sector.
Many of these workers will never
even know that they’ve unfairly benefited from or suffered from unequal
pay. Ultimately, the big winner in this game of secrecy is the boss,
who profits directly from the ignorance and pliability of workers who
don’t grasp their own economic situation.
So there’s a gap between what’s
fair and what’s legal. Discussing wages in a private workplace isn’t
technically covered by any First Amendment guarantee against censorship,
but the issue of pay secrecy raises crucial questions about workers’
freedom to learn and communicate about their labor conditions.
In unionized workplaces, where
there is additional protection for organizing-related activities, the
National Labor Relations Board and the civil courts have consistently sided with workers,
ruling that under the National Labor Relations Act, wage discussions
should be considered “concerted activity for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
. . . .
Read the rest of the article at The Nation.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription to The Nation for just $9.50!
|
No comments:
Post a Comment