Branding Women

That GOP rebranding effort is made all the more difficult by Republicans at various levels of government who are getting in their own way.  The problems are visible in economic issues, as well as social ones.

Home Economics

H.R. 377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is currently stalled in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and there’s a discharge petition to blast it back into consideration on the House Floor.  Representative Dina Titus (D-NV1) and Representative Steven Horsford (D-NV4) have signed the petition, as have another 191 members of Congress as of Thursday, April 25, 2013.  Noticeably absent are the signatures of Nevada Representatives Heck and Amodei, both Republicans.

The bill simply states that wage rate differentials are to be based on experience, education, and training — not merely on gender.  It also provides for collecting statistics on employment and the publication of the data.   The part which usually causes groans, moans, and predictable grimaces from Republicans might be:

Revises the prohibition against employer retaliation for employee complaints. Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer.

Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages.  [CRS]

The standard GOP response to these kinds of provisions is (1) The Trial Lawyers are Coming, The Trial Lawyers are Coming; and, (2) Onerous Government Infringements on Your Liberty! Your Freedom! Both are nonsense.

The problem isn’t anything new; consider this from 2010:

Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones.

This has economic implications for 50.8% of the American population, or 49.5% of the Nevada population — women.  It also has evident connections to Nevada’s median household income ($55,553) in which the female’s contribution to household revenue is, on average, worth about 75 cents of every dollar contributed by the male partner.   IF members of the Republican Party are serious about improving the micro-economics of the average Nevada home, then insuring pay equity would be a good place to start.  The Discharge Petition needs 218 signatures to reach the floor — the ‘John Hancocks’ of Congressmen Heck and Amodei would be helpful.

Home Not-S0-Sweet-Home

Under the convenient rhetoric of “Liberty” and “Big Government,” lie some inconvenient attitudes on display from various levels of Republican leadership.

It’s Big Government if gender pay equity solutions are under discussion. However, it’s perfectly acceptable to allow government intrusion into private family decisions like contraception and birth control.  Heaven Forefend, a family should debate abortion options in private!   The Republican Party seems to have no problems at all when it comes to calling in the Big Government to prohibit abortion procedures.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a Fetal Personhood Bill, S. 583, on March 14, 2013, under the terms of which a fetus would have 14th Amendment rights.  As noted previously, could a fetus decide that the economic circumstances of the family to which it was about to be born were insufficient for its grand plans and sue for emancipation?  Personally, I would like to see a fetus challenge Citizens United.

Anti-Choice bills have also been introduced by Representative Diane Black (R-TN) HR 940 and HR 217;  by Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) HR 447;  Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) HR 732; Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) HR 61; Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) HR 1091; Senator David Vitter (R-LA) S. 138;  Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) HR 1122;  Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) HR 23; Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK) S. 154; Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) S. 356;  and the list goes on.

Anyone operating on the comforting delusion that the newly formed 113th Congress will be less focused on anti-choice legislation and more intent on JOBS and bills to improve the economic situation of American families will be sorely disappointed.

The GOP still hasn’t quite found its footing on Women’s Issues.  Perhaps this could be because it hasn’t quieted those voices within it ranks for whom women are variously mobile wombs, ranting radicals, or irresponsible sows at the public trough.

Leading GOP spokesperson Rush Limbaugh’s memorable misogynistic rants in regard to Sandra Fluke’s testimony on behalf of women who need contraceptive medication to avoid complications of ovarian disorders are echoed by an Albuquerque Republican who called a minimum wage increase advocate “names” on social media — and who later said (a lá Limbaugh) he was “just joking.” [ABJ] [TP]

Opposed to sexual violence, and want to “Take Back The Night?” Then expect some moron, such as the notable example in Arizona, who preaches that “Women Are Asking For It.” [TP] At Dartmouth sexual assault protesters were threatened with rape.  [TP] Or, call for police assistance too often to report domestic violence?  You could be facing a police department pressuring your landlord to evict you.  [TP]  Had enough of hearing about Steubenville, OH? There’s a new example from Michigan. [TP]  There’s a thread running through all these unfortunate incidents.

Women are undeserving of full consideration as human beings.  They are responsible for the exercise of male transgressions.  They are prey for the predators and it’s the woman’s fault if…if almost anything.  It’s a woman’s fault if a man is unsatisfied…in nearly all realms of human endeavor.   Can’t establish a meaningful long term relationship with the fair sex? Blame the Femi-Nazis?  Can’t get and hold a job? Blame the radical feminists for demanding employment?  Can’t understand the point a person is making about medical conditions or employment situations?  Call names! Like, “Radical Bitch.”  Want a simplistic solution to the complex personal issues involved in family planning? Just rail about abortion.

So long as Congress turns its attention to abortion more often than it does to women’s health, as long as radio ranters validate the misogyny of the disgruntled, so long as corporate interests can insert their anti-labor message into the parlance of economic discussions of wage rate equity — we will have trouble addressing the problems facing American families.  The GOP is still branding women, instead of rebranding their own party.

Management Prerogatives and Workplace Equity: A Small Argument Illustrating Bigger Questions (Update)

The life-long hope of liberals is that if the opponents will just listen to facts and logic correct conclusions can be reached on questions of national policy. The apparent abiding hope of modern day conservatives appears to be that if the liberals would just shut up life would march on toward a replication of some golden era.  Both are dead wrong.  The 2012 election will be about the economy, but there’s far more to it than that.

Consider for a moment the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is supported by Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) and opposed by incumbent appointed Senator Dean Heller (R-NV).   The act itself is fairly simple.  [C&L] [OpenCongress] [CRS summary]  Here’s the essence of the bill:

“Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.

States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question, and (3) is consistent with business necessity. Avers that such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential, and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

Revises the prohibition against employer retaliation for employee complaints. Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer.”

Simple enough really, there will be equal pay for equal work, the employer must not discriminate, and an employer cannot retaliate if an employee complains about lesser pay for the same work done by male counterparts.

What enlightened components of our society, during the 21st century, could have a problem with these requirements?  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Note how the issue is framed:

“Several business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and associations representing bankers, construction firms and retailers, issued a statement opposing the legislation, saying it would result in “unprecedented government control over how employees are paid at even the nation’s smallest employers.”  [WaPo]

“Unprecedented government control?”  This framing allows the opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act to mouth “I love my (wife, mother, aunt, sister) and want them to be paid fairly BUT I hate guv’amint control.”  And here we have the crux of the matter.  For the conservative Republicans in the halls of the Congress, this is a matter of preserving the prerogatives of management even at the expense of equity in the workplace.

When we start talking about preserving prerogatives we’ve stopped discussing economic issues and started another discussion about power.   Liberals and centrist Democrats focus on the equity in the workplace, no one with any credibility is attempting to argue that the average woman isn’t getting shortchanged by some 25¢ for every dollar earned by the average male employee.  Conservative Republicans are arguing that this situation is really too bad, a regular hand wringer, BUT to do something about it would be to encroach on the prerogatives of management.

The Conservative thinking is that all enterprises should be as free as possible from any and all incursions into the realm of management.  Businesses should not be humiliated by having the Consumer Product Safety Commission publish information about product recalls.   Businesses should not be subjected to rules and regulations regarding clean air, clean water, and the disposal of toxic waste.  Businesses should not be required to comply with regulations regarding their financial transactions.  Those topics, in the ideal world of the Financialist conservatives, are management decisions, and not the proper subjects of polite conversation around the kitchen tables of the employees.

There are a thousand ways to tell liberals and Democrats to “shut up,” and the behavior of conservative, financialist, management oriented representatives in the 112th Congress has demonstrated several categories  of these.

Opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the Dodd-Frank Act are predicated on the “unprecedented government interference” theme.  There’s really very little new in these acts, the Paycheck Fairness Act extends and modifies legislation already on the books.  The Affordable Care Act sees its beginnings in the Romney Care system in Massachusetts, itself generated by a plan for the individual mandate from the Heritage Foundation.  The Dodd-Frank Act tentatively moves back to a system of regulation familiar to anyone who even vaguely remembers the New Deal.

Opposition to the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, which primarily benefit the ethereal upper reaches of the management class, is framed as preserving the capital of the job creators.  Likewise, any suggestion that the capital gains tax should be increased brings wails beseeching the deliberative bodies not to consider any measure which might restrict the financialist endeavors.

Few examples of the orientation toward the upper echelons of income earners and the needs of average small business owners have been so clear as when Republicans oppose capital gains tax increases citing the impact on small business — that would be hedge funds and lobby shops with fewer than 500 employees.  Discussion of the estate tax brings on cries that “farms, ranches, and small businesses, will be left bereft of assets — conveniently omitting the part where  the new rules will benefit only the top one-quarter of one percent of all estates since those are the ones eligible under the 2009 rules. [CBPP] Republicans all but ignore additional tax cuts enacted during the Obama Administration which now have federal tax liabilities as low as they’ve been since 1955.

When the choice comes down to one between management prerogatives and workplace (or national) equity, conservative Republicans have demonstrated a definite preference for management prerogatives.   If all attempts to construct an equitable or sustainable system can be caricatured as “unprecedented” government encroachment then the peril is that what has been categorized as freedom can easily devolve into license.

Should executives have the power to decide that it is more profitable to manufacture ladders with just a few rivets or bolts less than ideal for each rung? Should a manager have the power to  decide that dumping toxic contaminants into the local water supply is a good thing because it is cost effective?  Should a financier have the latitude to make London Whale like trades even if those endanger the very existence of his or her bank?  Should a banker be free to keep from view positions which could create another disaster like the credit meltdown in 2008?  Should an employer feel perfectly “free” to pay female employees 25% less than their male counterparts for the same work?

Finally, there’s a predictable argument from Republicans in D.C., and the argument offers that any modification of legislation regarding equity will “open the floodgates of litigation.”  Note that Senator Heller uses this contention in his response to Rep. Berkley in the video clip below.  The same arguments were made against the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act — if the flood gates were open, it seems there was precious little water behind them.  Funny thing, the business insurance sector which watches these kinds of things,  reports:

“The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has kept lawsuits alive that otherwise would have been dismissed and revived others, but it has not generated the significant increase in litigation that some observers had feared.

Furthermore, federal courts generally have been conservative in interpreting the law, observers say.”  [...]

“The sky hasn’t fallen,” said Martha J. Zackin, of counsel with law firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C. in Boston.

“Some people got more excited” than the situation justified, said Thomas H. Christopher, a partner with law firm Kilpatrick Stockton L.L.P. in Atlanta. The legislation “applies only to a very limited situation and those kind of situations come up sometimes in the courts, but not as much as I think some people would think.”  [BusIns.com]

In short, the old “floodgates” argument as applied to paycheck equity has produced a trickle rather than any sort of deluge.  So, when Senate candidate Shelley Berkley asks incumbent Dean Heller to drop his opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, is she asking that he desist from continually supporting the demands of corporate management that they be allowed to progress without any encumbrance from questions of equity?

Update: The Senate Republicans blocked consideration of S. 3220 today on a 52-47 vote.  60 votes were needed to break the Republican filibuster.   Senator Heller voted to sustain the filibuster and block the bill from getting an up or down vote on the Senate floor. [vote 115]

Coffee and the Papers

Breaking News: Yucca Mountain is still dead. [Las Vegas Sun] The Clark County, NV Republicans are still in disarray. [KTVN] [Las Vegas Sun] [WaPo] [KOLO] and [LVRJ]  The Ron Paul supporters are seeking “genuine conservatives.” [LVRJ]  And, do click over to NVProgressive for a description of what’s happening in NV-04.

Hearts and Flowers:  If you can read the President’s remarks at the graduation ceremony for Joplin High School graduates without tearing up just a bit, check your empathy chip and replace if necessary.

Breaking the News:  The typical CEO in the United States was paid $9.6 million in 2011, that’s up 6% from 2010.  Or, to put it another way, the CEO’s were paid what it would take the typical American worker 3,489 years to earn.  [RGJ]  Not to get all attacky on the capitalists or anything, but the worker’s earnings aren’t keeping up with worker’s productivity:

“Manufacturing sector productivity rose 5.9 percent in the first quarter of  2012, as output grew 10.8 percent and hours worked increased 4.6 percent.  The increases in productivity and output were the largest since the second  quarter of 2010. Over the last four quarters, manufacturing sector productivity increased 2.5 percent. Unit labor costs in manufacturing fell  4.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 and decreased 1.3 percent from the same quarter a year ago.” [BLS]

Productivity is a nicer way to say “working harder and longer to make more stuff” and in this case for the same pay or less for doing so.  In this case “unit labor costs” (wages and benefits) declined while production numbers increased.  Declining “unit labor costs” usually mean declining spending power; declining spending power usually means decreasing demand.

Meanwhile in Xenophobia:  Noted citizen of Xenophobia, Representative Steve King (R-IA), drew criticism for equating immigrants to dogs during a recent town hall meeting. [Politico] This might help to explain why President Obama holds a 61% to 27% advantage with Hispanic/Latino heritage voters?  [The Hill]

The Romney Plan student loan plan “By The Bankers and For The Bankers:”  Here’s the former MA Governor: “Reverse President Obama’s nationalization of the student loan market and welcome private sector participation in providing information, financing, and the education itself.”  Here’s a critique.   And here’s a problem for the defenders of free market capitalism:

One of the nicer features of free market capitalism is the notion that he who takes the risk shall be he who gets the rewards.  That’s why some loans have higher interest rates than others.  The greater the risk taken the more interest should be earned to compensate for taking that risk.  However, the old Bush new Romney version stands that principle on its head.

Under the Bush/Romney plan the banks got a subsidy for making student loans, and then the federal government (using taxpayer funds) guaranteed the loans, so that the Banks earned the interest without actually taking any risk!  What the Obama Administration did was remove the Middlemen.  Since the taxpayers (government) were the ones taking the risks, the taxpayers (government) should be the ones earning the interest.  Interesting how the bankers are now bellowing about losing their “privatized earnings” on the “socialized risks?”  And by the way, there’s no “nationalizing” involved, private banks still make student loans and are perfectly free to do so — they just can’t expect taxpayers to subsidize them and guarantee their collection of interest earnings.

There’s more over at the Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus blog.

Dispatches from the War on Women:  “Five female Democratic senators pressed for legislation Wednesday aimed at closing the wage gap between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act would bring up to date the Equal Pay Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson nearly 50 years ago.” [Politico] What you should know about the Paycheck Fairness Act here.   Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will bring the measure up for a cloture vote (Yes, the Republicans are filibustering it) during the week of June 4, 2012.

Dispatches on the Despicable:  One so-called charity on behalf of American veterans has already been revealed as fraudulent. [HuffPo] Worse still, almost half of the 39 veterans charities received failing grades from the American Institute of Philanthropy. [HuffPo] The AIP has a web site Charity Watch which will assist donors who want to make certain their contributions are not misused or squandered. The organization advises donors to beware of organizations which use as much as 80% of their donations for more fundraising. [CW] Charity Navigator also has a ratings guide for organizations.

About that Federal Spending Mythology: Two handy charts –

Bloggy Mountain Breakdown:   H/T to The Sin City Siren for the link to this nifty graphic of the War On Women.   Have you been checking in on The Nevada View lately.  (highly recommended)   If you missed this piece on small businesses and the battle with the Big Box stores at Blue Lyon, click over there now.