Congress doesn't need to pass a law that only favors lawyers
by James Simpson

Potomac News
Friday, May 16, 2003

Read the following quotes and see if you can find much of a difference in their sentiment:

"In Virginia, for instance, women make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes doing the same job … This amounts to an individual being penalized with a 30 percent reduction in wages just because of her gender."

And, "Young women are super exploited by the capitalists and the economic, political and social structures they control … You go to work and make only 72 cents while your working brother makes $1 for the same labor."

Sound awful similar, don't they? Well, the first quote is in a press release by Jim Moran calling for equal pay for women and passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2003 (http://moran.house.gov/issues2.cfm?id=5543). The second quote is from a Speech given by Anita Wheeler at the Women's Equality Conference, posted on the "Young Women and the Struggle for Equality" web page of the Communist Party of the USA (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/139/1/58/).

Jim Moran should be proud of himself, he is following in the footsteps of some pretty famous people. According to Socialism Today Magazine; Alexandra Kollantai, described as the first woman elected as a full member of the Bolshevik central committee as well as the first female commissar elected after the October 1917 revolution, drew up government legislation based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. (http://www.socialismtoday.org/73/kollontai.html)

Mr. Moran seems to be reaching out to one of the only groups he hasn't (yet) alienated - women. Of course he is doing so by suggesting that they are still victims and need his help in order to be fairly and justly compensated. The fact is, women are doing quite well in the United States.

While my personal libertarian beliefs oppose legislation limiting an individuals right to hire, or not hire, any particular individual, for any reason, sufficient laws against discrimination already exist. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. While the Fairness in Paycheck Act of 2003 would not do anything to benefit women, it would benefit one group significantly - trial lawyers.

Lawsuits are draining our country of billions of dollars. Not just in settlements, which frequently benefit lawyers more then those who they represent, but in lost productivity and added costs consumers pay for products and services to cover the insurance and legal fees of corporations.

Differences in pay should be judged subjectively, according to differences that each individual brings to the table. Jobs do not have an intrinsic value and should not have pay set according to some artificial scale.

Women who make less then their male counterparts usually do so because of choices they have made in their careers. If one compares women and men who have the same level of education, experience and consecutive years on the job, then the differential in pay is generally less then 5 percent.

For a true comparison one needs to consider many factors to come up with a reasonable determination of why there is a difference in pay. Issues such as: age, the number of hours worked per week, time taken off to start a family, and the risks involved in certain jobs must all be considered. This is not done by those who support such ill conceived legislation as the Fairness in Paycheck Act of 2003.

Fathers work on average longer hours then mothers. Men tend to have seniority due to the number of consecutive years at a job, and men tend to work in more dangerous fields then women. But the statistics (used by those interested in correcting a wrong that doesn't exist) group workers together without any of these considerations.

If women who had the exact same experience, education, knowledge, skills, and abilities as men, wanted to apply for the same jobs as men, and were willing to accept 70% of the pay that men do, wouldn't companies be better off hiring all women? In fact, there would be no unemployed women right now; but that is not the case.

We don't live in the Orwellian society that Jim Moran envisions. The difference in pay is due to personal choices and not an ongoing conspiracy of nationwide discrimination and male chauvinism. When discrimination does occur in this country, and it is very rare these days, the laws that are already on the books are used successfully in prosecuting those guilty and compensating the victim.

We don't need another law that costs taxpayers millions of dollars to administer and ultimately only benefits trial lawyers.

James Simpson lives in Lake Ridge, Virginia and welcomes reader feedback. He can be reached at JamesSimpson@aol.com.