SOTU 2015: Why didn't Republicans applaud equal pay for women?

President Obama's remarks on equal pay resulted in a standing ovation . . . except from Republicans. What's the issue?

|
Mandel Ngan/AP
President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015, in Washington, as Vice President Joe Biden applauds and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, listens.

When President Barack Obama addressed equal-pay laws for women, while also calling for a rise in minimum wage, during Tuesday's State of the Union address, the chamber rose for a standing ovation. Some Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), did not.

“Of course, nothing helps families make ends meet like higher wages. That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time," Mr. Obama said during the speech.

But not everyone agrees. Since 2011, the House of Representatives has twice rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would require employers to show that any wage differences among employees are not gender-related. It would also bar retaliation against employees who discuss their pay and would require federal contractors to report pay and demographic data about their employees to the Labor Department.

Why have Republicans resisted the bill?

One reason given by Republican opponents to a bill legislating equal pay for women is the belief that it would effectively discourage employers from hiring women and push up overall labor and administrative costs, and it would prompt more lawsuits over unsatisfactory wages.

"At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers," then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky said before the last vote on the bill, reported the Huffington Post. "In other words, it's just another Democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help."

Republicans say that they agree with equal pay for equal work, and that it’s illegal to discriminate based on gender. But they add that the Paycheck Fairness Act is not the solution because it would cut flexibility in the workplace for working mothers and end merit-based pay. 

A number that Democrats consistently mention is that on average, women make 77 cents to every dollar made by men. While this is accurate, White House economist Betsey Stevenson cautioned against misinterpretation in a previous interview with The Monitor.

“Seventy-seven cents captures the annual earnings of full-time, full-year women divided by the annual earnings of full-time, full-year men,” Stevenson said. “There are a lot of things that go into that 77-cents figure, there are a lot of things that contribute and no one’s trying to say that it’s all about discrimination, but I don’t think there’s a better figure.”

Many took to Twitter to share their feelings. From pointing out to hypocrisy to cheering, #EqualPay remains a topic up for discussion.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to SOTU 2015: Why didn't Republicans applaud equal pay for women?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0121/SOTU-2015-Why-didn-t-Republicans-applaud-equal-pay-for-women
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe