Yesterday was Equal Pay DayThis was named in honor of the time when a woman in America must work for the same income as her male counterparts. The occasion was marked by big words and very little substance, as is the tradition of Democratic leaders.
They wanted to restrict the use of past salary histories in job hiring. President Joe Biden gave an executive directive to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council directing them to consider implementing rules which “limit or ban Federal contractors or subcontractors” from seeking out and considering information on job applicants and past compensation for employment decisions. Kamala Harris, vice president of OPM announced that OPM will “begin to address the use of historical salary data in the hiring/pay-setting process of federal employees.”
Careful observers might notice that there is nothing being done. These announcements made merely plans to consider or begin work on addressing the issue. They are actually funny because they don’t have any concrete plans.
The idea that salary history disclosures harm women has become commonplace—the thinking being that if women are financially disadvantaged at their first jobs then their salary history will suggest they can be paid lower wages at their next job and so on, creating a vicious cycle of lower pay from which women can never emerge.
Many states already have laws that prohibit salary history conversations during hiring. There is no evidence to prove that these laws actually help women. Nevertheless, these restrictions could have unexpected consequences.
As an example, employers might not ask for prior salaries and assume that female candidates would take less than men because they make less. The New York TimesAs she has noted previously. A ban on discussing salary history could cause women to be denied job opportunities.
Salary history bans could also cost people—particularly women and younger workers—some job offers. Imagine an employer hiring someone whose requirements are slightly less than those of a more qualified candidate. A prior salary disclosure can make the difference between getting a job and not.
If an employer is strongly interested in a candidate, they may offer them a salary that exceeds the base to attract them. Employers may not be able to determine what salary to offer if they don’t know the applicant’s past salary history. Their offer might be lower than that of the candidate, leaving the candidate with no choice but to turn down a position they could have been great for.
Which is all to say that surely some women may actually benefit from past salary disclosure—especially now that young women are out-earning their male counterparts.
Employers and potential employees should exchange more information than ever before to ensure the greatest matches possible and maximum satisfaction.
Biden’s excitement for prior salary disclosure contrasts with the lack of knowledge (or deliberate misrepresentation), by activists and politicians regarding equal pay.
Feminists fought for equal pay for equal work. Women often received lower wages than men when they did the same job. Outright pay disparities based on gender have been unlawful for a long time. The pay gap between men and women working in the same jobs is very narrow. In 2016, a study that looked at wage data from 33 countries, including the U.S., found that men earned 1.6 percent less than women for the same job.
Today’s rhetoric about wider disparities in male and female incomes tends to 1) rely on research looking at incomes across professions and positions and 2) ignore explanations other than discrimination that might explain pay disparities—things like gender differences in types of work, work schedules, and years in the workforce. The media and politicians then create a distorted picture of the situation to generate outrage and praise themselves for trying to address the problem, even though they can’t actually fix the complex causes.
It may be worth having a wider discussion about the undervaluation of female-dominated industries or whether choosing to have children could have a greater impact on women’s prospects for securing a good salary. The issue is not as simple as many progressives make it seem. In which male-dominated bosses or companies choose to pay women less for similar work, the federal mandates can fix everything.
FREE MINDS
Law “Ag ga” is unconstitutional.Federal court has upheld an Iowa law making it illegal to “access an agricultural production plant by false pretenses”. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose blocked enforcement of the law under First Amendment grounds. The case was on hold while U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose made a decision. Circuit Court of Appeals looked into a challenge against an earlier version of law”, notes the Des Moines Register:
The 8th Circuit partially upheld the first law. However, it found that false speech was not protected under the First Amendment if the language encourages trespass. Rose found Monday that the second law doesn’t meet constitutional standards.
Rose ruled that by criminalizing the use of deception to gain entry to an agricultural plant “with or intent to cause financial harm,” Rose made an impermissible distinction between animal rights activists, and those who might lie in order gain access to other facilities.
“Simply because speech has not been protected doesn’t give the government permission to regulate speech based in viewpoint,” she said, pointing out that “the law seeks only to punish specific people based their views regarding these facilities.”
FREE MARKETS
Massie sued the CDC.Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie is leading a lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for removing masking requirements from airplanes. Massie is joined in the lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kentucky—by 16 other GOP members of Congress, including Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), and Andy Biggs (Ariz.). Their full complaint can be found here.
Massie said in a statement that “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not have the legal authority” to make people wear masks on commercial flights. The Congress has never passed any law that requires commercial plane passengers to use masks. This lawsuit targets the faceless bureaucrats who are behind the CDC’s unscientific regulation so that this illegal mask mandate can be brought to a permanent end.”
QUICK HITS
• President Joe Biden has signed a massive $1.5 trillion government funding bill that includes $13.6 billion in assistance to Ukraine.
• The U.S. Senate unanimously voted to make Daylight Savings Time permanent.
• Idaho’s bill banning abortion around six weeks and allowing family members of pregnant women who get abortions to sue is headed to the state’s governor.
• Pfizer is asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve a second COVID-19 vaccine booster for people ages 65 and up.
• An interesting mice study looks at the effect of body temperature on longevity.
• The Human Rights Defense Center is suing over the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services’ policy of forbidding books to be mailed to inmates unless they come from one specific book wholesaler.
• Former Los Angeles police officer Cheryl Dorsey on why the state should repeal its loitering for prostitution purposes law.
• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine complicates the democracies versus autocracies narrative, writes Daniel R. DePetris at Newsweek.
• How an academic grudge turned into a #MeToo panic.
• Ignoring the EARN IT’s Fourth Amendment problem won’t make it go away.
• New York may not make to-go cocktails permanent after all.
• Idaho hair braiders are suing over occupational licensing requirements.
• Maryland moves to end college degree requirements for many state jobs:
Maryland governor today announces its plan to abolish the requirement of a four year degree for thousands state jobs. https://t.co/VHFadj1Zoc
— Kata Hall Burke (@katadhall) March 15, 2022