As Congress wrapped up for the month-long summer recess last week, Democrats and Republicans squeaked out debate over one last age-old question: a woman's worth.

Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, Democrats contend that that legal loopholes have allowed too many employers to avoid liability for engaging in gender-based pay discrimination.

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.

Many industry experts believe the pay gap stems not just from old fashion views that men, as the primary family bread winners, should earn more than women, but also from the fact that women are less likely to barter for higher salaries.  Any man coming home late without an explanation for his wife might seriously question the latter, but nonetheless, it is commonly referenced as one precursor to the pay gap.

In response to the female pay disparity, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced H.R. 1338, The Paycheck Fairness Act.  Among many things, the act would: 

• Require employers seeking to justify unequal pay to bear the burden of proving that their actions are job-related and consistent with a business necessity.
• Allow women to sue employers for compensatory and punitive damages stemming from unequal pay.  
• Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Proponents of the bill, which will head to the Senate following the August break, warn that the wage disparity between men and women can be even worse for minority women.  According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, African American women earn 66 cents to the dollar compared to men; Latina women earn 55 cents to the dollar; and Asian-American women earn slightly more than 80 cents to the dollar. 

Clouding the debate over pay disparity is a series of confounding variables - bits of information that prevent definitive conclusions about pay disparities.  For instance, similar pay disparities among male minority groups also exist, where blacks and Hispanics earn less than white males.  And if height and looks are included in the analysis, data reveals that taller and better looking individuals - male or female - are paid more than shorter, less attractive people.  Are we to legislate against favoring taller, better-looking people next? Is it even possible?

Those opposed to the pay disparity bill don't believe that legislation is the answer. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), Senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, contends that "The cause of paycheck fairness will not be advanced - and may even be set back - by creating litigation traps for employers who wish to hire and promote women." 

The Bush Administration agrees. Threatening to veto the bill should it pass in the Senate, the White House said in a statement:

"The bill would unjustifiably amend the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to allow for, among other things, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even when a disparity in pay was unintentional. It also would encourage discrimination claims to be made based on factors unrelated to actual pay discrimination by allowing pay comparisons between potentially different labor markets."


Also Interesting:

The War on Marijuana
FDA: Saving the world, one inhaler at a time...
NEED TO KNOW: House Supports New Fed Sick Leave Measure
Boring but important: Senate passes 3.9 percent civilian pay raise