2005 Senate Bill 122 (Mandate “comparable worth” wages )

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on February 1, 2005, to prohibit paying a person a wage or salary that is less than an amount established under a proposed definition of comparable worth, making doing so a violation of the civil rights laws of the state, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. The bill would prohibit different levels of compensation for work of “comparable value,” meaning a “comparable composite skill, responsibility, effort, education or training, and working conditions.” The bill does not specify how different kinds of work would be compared with regard to these various criteria.
- Referred to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee on February 1, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

1) You don't know what you're talking about. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 15, 2005]
First of all, your job is completely different form the others you described as making more money than you. You have to compare people in the same field and job description. Duh! If you don't have the people skills to do what they do, look to yourself as having the problem, not the company. And besides, you may create the service, but if no one sold it, they wouldn't need the service in the first place and you wouldn't have a job much longer now would you? Sales is the highest paid profession out there. Maybe you should switch fields or learn to market yourself better.
Reply

Line

2) No Thanks, I negotiate for myself. [by Yooper_Dave on February 5, 2005]
Noone coerced me to accept my current employment. If I am not pleased with my pay, benefits, work environment...I am free to negotiate for myself and seek other employment. This is the United States of America - not communist China.

Not all employees are equally skilled, and should therefore not be expected to receive equal pay.
Reply

Line

3) This is not great [by Mike Hignite on February 4, 2005]
This law does nothing for you. There is a difference in working conditions, responsibilities, etc. between men taking people to lunch and you providing the real product/service. It would help you if you took people to lunch, but otherwise it does nothing for you. The work is not comparable.

Other than operating the same position on an assembly line on the same shift, I don't see where this law does anyone any good (and most of those jobs have union laws benefiting men with seniority in the union over younger women). Most other jobs are too much a factor of the actual assignments, the actual individual gifts you bring and the individual gifts others bring to have this law make any practical sense.

The bill does allow someone to play the lawsuit roulette game and maybe score big. You might have a dim jury that tries to compare 5 apples with three oranges and a pear decide each is comparable. The bill does raise costs for employers, and increase opportunities for lawyers.

By the way, item C makes it illegal to have life insurance rates different for men and women. It requires a blended rate, which benefits men and harms women. I'm not sure that's fair. It would also make it illegal to offer women pregnancy leave and not offer men paternity leave of comparable length.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation