Walker thinks women don't need money

[sophyturtle]

Linky

My understanding: they are rolling back the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which is something trying to protect against discrimination in the workplace.

Which is pretty disgusting, but not surprising coming from Wisconsin. How could this be constitutional?

[Bubbles McCoy]

Which is pretty disgusting, but not surprising coming from Wisconsin. How could this be constitutional?

Would even ERA would have prevented this? There's not much by ways of a constitutional mandate to have the government enforce pay regulations.



edit - phrasing

[CorruptUser]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

[Heisenberg]

Women can still sue for discrimination, but only through the federal courts, not the state courts, which were up until now an option.

Pretty shitty, but I'm sure Scott Walker just saved a few bucks in next year's budget, which is more important to him than silly things like civil rights.

[Bubbles McCoy]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

I believe I ran across a study recently that said like degrees/grades resulted in 95 cents on the dollar after graduation, but gradually expanded with time. I'll see what I can do about dredging it up.

EDIT - No luck on finding it, so please just disregard this post.

[Dream]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

None of that matters in the slightest here. If an actual, individual woman is paid 70 or 80% of her male colleague's salary for a lifetime of work, she can't sue her employer for the difference. That statistically the gender imbalance might be less than that is immaterial.

[CorruptUser]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

None of that matters in the slightest here. If an actual, individual woman is paid 70 or 80% of her male colleague's salary for a lifetime of work, she can't sue her employer for the difference. That statistically the gender imbalance might be less than that is immaterial.

You are missing the point. The pay imbalance may come from more factors than just being female.

[Ghostbear]

I think it's worth noting that the Wisconsin Restaurant Association and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce group backed the repeal. So it'd seem they at least want to pay women less, regardless of if they already are.

Isn't this a really dumb thing for someone to do when facing a close recall election though? I can't imagine many swing voters seeing this and saying "Yeah, I want to vote for Walker now!", while I can easily see many wanting to vote against him now. This man seems to hate any form of employee rights.

[emceng]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

None of that matters in the slightest here. If an actual, individual woman is paid 70 or 80% of her male colleague's salary for a lifetime of work, she can't sue her employer for the difference. That statistically the gender imbalance might be less than that is immaterial.

You are missing the point. The pay imbalance may come from more factors than just being female.

I think Dream's point is that this bill/law only addresses where you can sue over pay discrimination. Talking about reasons for a pay gap over x amount of time doesn't apply. This only really matters if a person is being discriminated against, and can't sue in federal court for some reason. Or, if this were a threaded discussion, the wage gap discussion is a branch off not wholely related to the original article.

[Krealr]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

I believe I ran across a study recently that said like degrees/grades resulted in 95 cents on the dollar after graduation, but gradually expanded with time. I'll see what I can do about dredging it up.

EDIT - No luck on finding it, so please just disregard this post.

You're probably thinking of this one http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf It states that when you control for other factors the pay gap is 5% 1 year after graduation and increase to 12% 10 years after graduation.

Theres a decent summary and analysis of it here http://minorthoughts.com/economics/war-on-women-equal-pay-edition/

[Silknor]

Which is pretty disgusting, but not surprising coming from Wisconsin. How could this be constitutional?

Would even ERA would have prevented this? There's not much by ways of a constitutional mandate to have the government enforce pay regulations.

Yeah, nothing in the 14th amendment or the proposed Equal Rights Amendment requires that private companies don't discriminate, they apply to actions by the States and the Federal Government. I don't even think the 14th amendment, under current Supreme Court interpretation, gives the federal government the ability to pass an equal pay law that applies to private as opposed to public employees. I believe the constitutional basis for those laws is the Commerce Clause at the federal level and state's inherent police powers, not anything stemming from a right to equal protection under the law.

[Bubbles McCoy]

Your Probably thinking of this one http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf It states that when you control for other factors the pay gap is 5% 1 year after graduation and increase to 12% 10 years after graduation.

Theres a decent summary and analysis of it here http://minorthoughts.com/economics/war-on-women-equal-pay-edition/

I must be some sort of idiot, I looked right at that study and didn't find the education section. Thanks!

[sophyturtle]

Our current Supreme Court cannot be counted on for much. They are kinda 5/9ths assholes.

I guess I was being hopeful that we were protected against discrimination like this. My bad.

[buddy431]

Why single out Walker for this? The legislature is the one that repealed the bill - he just signed it (along with about 50 other bills that afternoon). And it's incredibly disingenuous to say that he (or even the people who actually did repeal the law) doesn't "think women don't need money". He, and moreso the Republican controlled legislature, believe that it is unnecessary for people who believe they are being discriminated against, or who are having unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing, be able to pursue their grievances in a state circuit court (Text of Act 20 2009). If you start from what actually happened (vs. what you would like to believe), you can draw more accurate conclusions.

[Save Point]

I could never get real statistics on just how much the difference in wages between genders actually is; the 77 cents on the dollar statistic does not take into account years experience, education, and most importantly marital status. I remember a report a while back that when just looking at unmarried men/women, women in the US earned 98 cents on the dollar, British 97, Sweden 102, and Germany 85, or something like that.

Grothman - the legislator who was actually quoted saying men, as presumed breadwinners, need/pursue the money more than women - made a similar claim. Similarly, the study you've cited is the first thing that sprang to my mind and one to which I am sympathetic. However, what galls me is this: he was presented with a study that controlled for such variables and dismissed it as coming from an institution (American Association of University Women) that is "pretty liberal." Now, for a dude citing Ann Coulter to dismiss a prima facie case against his claim on the grounds that it is partisan is pretty absurd, and I think it's an indication that Grothman and his ilk are less concerned about what accounts for these wage gaps and more about legislation that conforms to the status quo of when they were growing up.

[sourmìlk]

I don't see on what grounds a person would veto this bill. That is, on what ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? grounds. Politicians can't just say "I don't like women, they're inferior, so they don't deserve the money", right?

[lutzj]

Linky

My understanding: they are rolling back the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which is something trying to protect against discrimination in the workplace.

Which is pretty disgusting, but not surprising coming from Wisconsin. How could this be constitutional?

It doesn't actually change the laws against discrimination; it just makes it somewhat more expensive for employees to sue over unequal pay by, among other things, forcing them to use federal courts rather than state courts, which, as somebody else mentioned, probably takes pressure off of a cash-strapped and busy state court system.

People who have a strong case that they are being discriminated against aren't really affected by this change (because they will be able to recoup part or all of their legal costs in court anyway).

I don't see on what grounds a person would veto this bill. That is, on what ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? grounds. Politicians can't just say "I don't like women, they're inferior, so they don't deserve the money", right?

Walker didn't veto anything; he signed a resolution overturning an earlier bill. Small but important difference.

[Silknor]

Our current Supreme Court cannot be counted on for much. They are kinda 5/9ths assholes.

I guess I was being hopeful that we were protected against discrimination like this. My bad.

In general just about every protection you have against discrimination by employers is statutory instead of Constitutional (at least at the federal level, state constitutions may have more protections, and I know some do). It's really not the Supreme Court's fault—the Constitution was meant to define the powers and limits of government, not private enterprise. I don't think that the liberal wing of the court disagrees with the rest of the Court on whether the Constitution bans most forms of discrimination by private employers.

[Dark567]

In general just about every protection you have against discrimination by employers is statutory instead of Constitutional (at least at the federal level, state constitutions may have more protections, and I know some do). It's really not the Supreme Court's fault—the Constitution was meant to define the powers and limits of government, not private enterprise. I don't think that the liberal wing of the court disagrees with the rest of the Court on whether the Constitution bans most forms of discrimination by private employers.

Yeah, I would be willing to bet a SCOTUS decision on this would be a much larger than 5v4. Probably a 7v2 or 8v1.

[Vaniver]

Theres a decent summary and analysis of it here http://minorthoughts.com/economics/war-on-women-equal-pay-edition/

I recommend reading this article.

In general, I am suspicious of appeals that begin with "this is bad for Group X!" or "this is good for Group X!". Surely there should be more reasons to advocate for or against a policy?

[Dark567]

In general, I am suspicious of appeals that begin with "this is bad for Group X!" or "this is good for Group X!". Surely there should be more reasons to advocate for or against a policy?

I am relatively certain the reasoning was to shift the financial burden of these cases from Wisconsin, to the federal government. I don't think Walker is doing this out of spite for women.

[Bassoon]

[snip]

Which is pretty disgusting, but not surprising coming from Wisconsin. How could this be constitutional?

Hey, don't take cheap shots at my state just because our governor is an ass. We're not all backwards. We have a successful recall petition going through, and we also had an equal pay enforcement act to repeal, which is better than some places. We really are trying, and I'd say that it's not fair to completely discount our state just because psychos get the power seat once in a while. There are genuinely good people here, and they are trying hard to keep the state moving forward.

[Griffin]

But the fact is that, for the moment, you still have the governor and legislature you have.

So none of this is at all surprising.

You've got a proud history though, so hopefully you can kick these guys out and do something to take the state back from the whackos...

[Proginoskes]

[snip]

Which is pretty disgusting, but not surprising coming from Wisconsin. How could this be constitutional?

Hey, don't take cheap shots at my state just because our governor is an ass. We're not all backwards. We have a successful recall petition going through, and we also had an equal pay enforcement act to repeal, which is better than some places. We really are trying, and I'd say that it's not fair to completely discount our state just because psychos get the power seat once in a while. There are genuinely good people here, and they are trying hard to keep the state moving forward.

And stop picking on Arizona for most of the same reasons!

What I want to know, though, is why Walker *secretly* signed the bill into law. If there was an actual reason for it, he wouldn't have to sneak around. ("The innocent have nothing to fear" --- remember?)

[lutzj]

What I want to know, though, is why Walker *secretly* signed the bill into law. If there was an actual reason for it, he wouldn't have to sneak around. ("The innocent have nothing to fear" --- remember?)

It wasn't secret; I'm pretty sure you can't "secretly" change laws in any jurisdiction. Apparently he didn't proclaim it to a degree that would satisfy the author of that article.

[Xeio]

What I want to know, though, is why Walker *secretly* signed the bill into law. If there was an actual reason for it, he wouldn't have to sneak around. ("The innocent have nothing to fear" --- remember?)

Probably because there is no real positive way to spin this. Sure, you might be saving some state funds (I'm sorta curious what the numbers are, actually), but repealing equality laws even if they're essentially redundant is never going to look pretty.

[Tirian]

I'm not sure how the word "secret" entered the analysis of the story. The linked article says that Governor Walker signed the bill *quietly*, I suppose meaning that it happened without a public ceremony.

[buddy431]

I'm not sure how the word "secret" entered the analysis of the story. The linked article says that Governor Walker signed the bill *quietly*, I suppose meaning that it happened without a public ceremony.

Probably the way that the vast majority of bills are signed. He probably didn't even think this would be an issue (and lets be honest, there may be a few upset people, but for most it really isn't an issue). I don't get the beef with Walker in this case. The legislature (controlled by his party) passed a bill, and he signed it. It would have been ridiculous for him to veto a bill passed by his own party. The beef should be with the legislators, if indeed there is any beef to be had.

[Ghostbear]

It would have been ridiculous for him to veto a bill passed by his own party.

Why? It only seems ridiculous because governors are usually involved in the crafting of bills, which ensures that the one that lands on their desk is one that won't get vetoed. There's no polite rule that says that because you're in the same political party as the people that wrote a bill, that you can't veto it. You have it the wrong way around: expecting someone to be unwilling to veto in that case is the ridiculous view.

[lutzj]

It would have been ridiculous for him to veto a bill passed by his own party.

Why? It only seems ridiculous because governors are usually involved in the crafting of bills, which ensures that the one that lands on their desk is one that won't get vetoed. There's no polite rule that says that because you're in the same political party as the people that wrote a bill, that you can't veto it. You have it the wrong way around: expecting someone to be unwilling to veto in that case is the ridiculous view.

In theory, the veto is be reserved for proposals that are egregiously badly-written, illegal, or imprudent, as a check on the activities of the legislature. This bill doesn't really meet that threshold. It is also common in modern times to veto bills passed by political rivals, even if they aren't terribly objectionable, in order to preserve one's own policy goals or deplete the opposing party's political capital. That doesn't apply here either since Walker is politically allied with the legislature. If he is anywhere on the spectrum from ambivalent to eagerly supportive of this bill, and there aren't any major legal/ethical/practical problems with it (I don't see any), then it would be ridiculous for him to veto it after it had been passed by his own party.

[Ghostbear]

In theory, the veto is be reserved for proposals that are egregiously badly-written, illegal, or imprudent, as a check on the activities of the legislature. This bill doesn't really meet that threshold. It is also common in modern times to veto bills passed by political rivals, even if they aren't terribly objectionable, in order to preserve one's own policy goals or deplete the opposing party's political capital. That doesn't apply here either since Walker is politically allied with the legislature. If he is anywhere on the spectrum from ambivalent to eagerly supportive of this bill, and there aren't any major legal/ethical/practical problems with it (I don't see any), then it would be ridiculous for him to veto it after it had been passed by his own party.

In practice, the veto is a check "Am I OK with this bill becoming law? If no, am I more OK with it becoming law than I am with the political ramifications for myself?". Nothing about it being passed by people from the same party as yourself makes the answer to that question automatically be "yes" -- it just makes it more likely. People from the same party think different things all the time (it's what happens when elected officials are almost universally members of one of two possible parties), it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me to expect that a governor would veto something if they didn't like it, regardless of if their own party passed it through the legislature. In NH, governor Lynch was speculated to be likely to veto the legislature's attempt at a same sex marriage law, despite both him and the majority being democrats (they amended the bill to have some additions he wanted to ensure he didn't veto it).

Thinking it ridiculous that someone would refuse to veto something solely because their own party passed it is far more ridiculous to me, because it treats members of a political party as monolithic in their views and beliefs, instead of as individuals with their own agendas and their own political concerns to worry about. I could easily see Walker of vetoing it if he became convinced that it would sufficiently hurt his chances in the recall election, for instance, while that isn't going to be a concern of the legislature at all.

[lutzj]

I could easily see Walker of vetoing it if he became convinced that it would sufficiently hurt his chances in the recall election, for instance, while that isn't going to be a concern of the legislature at all.

Perhaps, but if he was wise he'd head off the whole situation by convincing his allies in the legislature not to pass the bill in the first place. Only when dealing with a hostile legislature must an executive resort to formal powers such as threatening to veto, let alone actually veto laws that make it to their desk. In theory, legislators and executives from the same party have a strong interest in getting each other elected. A party that can't square away internal conflicts and is forced to battle between different branches of government that they control is messing up badly in my book.

[Ghostbear]

Perhaps, but if he was wise he'd head off the whole situation by convincing his allies in the legislature not to pass the bill in the first place. Only when dealing with a hostile legislature must an executive resort to formal powers such as threatening to veto, let alone actually veto laws that make it to their desk. In theory, legislators and executives from the same party have a strong interest in getting each other elected. A party that can't square away internal conflicts and is forced to battle between different branches of government that they control is messing up badly in my book.

Of course, their interests are going to align more often than not. Far more often. That doesn't mean that we won't see situations where the legislature sees a gain for themselves in passing a bill, while the governor sees a gain of their own in vetoing it. A veto threat or working with them will prevent many of those, but sometimes, each party will decide that they have something to gain and go ahead with it anyway. I fully expect a governor to veto a bill that reaches their desk if they see enough gain in doing so (or, hopefully, see it as sufficiently bad of a law), regardless of the makeup of the legislature that created it; the legislature being in the same party only makes it less likely to happen. When it does happen, being of the same party doesn't reduce the plausibility enough on the governor's end to make it a ridiculous notion.