September 15, 2014 … the fourth time the Republicans in the United States Senate have voted to continue their filibuster of S. 2199, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The vote was 52 yes, 40 no, and 8 not voting.
Every one of the 40 “no” votes on the cloture motion were Republicans, including Senator Dean Heller (R-NV). [rc 262]
“The legislation punishes employers for retaliating against workers who share wage information, puts the justification burden on employers as to why someone is paid less and allows workers to sue for punitive damages of wage discrimination.” [TheHill]
There’s a little trick in here. On September 10, 2014 the Republicans voted to advance the bill to the Senate floor, agreeing to a cloture motion  in a 73-25 vote during which Senator Heller voted “yes.” However, that was insufficient to prevent the Republicans from voting down a September 15th cloture motion on the same measure. Watch out for mailings suggesting Republican Incumbent X voted “in favor” of the Equal Pay Act, especially if vote number 260 is referenced.
Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) complained the Democrats were taking up time with “political show votes.” Additionally, the GOP objects to the bill as a “giveaway to trial lawyers,” a constant complaint whenever worker’s rights are under consideration, and would remove caps on punitive damages for businesses found in violation of the law. [TheHill]
Ladies are free to cite the EEOC regarding the number of filings alleging pay discrimination. Such filings constituted 1.0% of all EEOC charges in FY 2010, 0.9% in FY 2011, 1.1% in FY 2012, and 1.1% in FY 2013. This is hardly a situation in which anyone could reasonably contend there is a Giveaway to Trial lawyers involved.
Nor is this some form of Show Vote, unless, of course, we want to show precisely how adamant the GOP is in its opposition to requiring equal pay for equal work.
S. 2199 may also be considered a bill to protect middle class working families in which both spouses are employed. For example, the median annual wage in Nevada for an accountant working in the financial services sector is $61,710. Assume for the sake of this example that both spouses are accountants, doing the same work, during the same year. If they both earn $61,710 then the family has annual resources of $123,420. If she is only earning 75% of his salary, then she’s making $46,282, and that would add up to a total family income of $107,992. In other words the family is missing out on $15,428 annually. That’s $15,428 not being spent on household goods, clothing, groceries, transportation, or being saved for health related issues, education, or retirement. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the Republicans seem satisfied with a system in which family incomes are reduced by the differential between pay for men and women, without regard to the economic impact this has on aggregate demand for goods and services.
For a party claiming to be “pro-business” this is certainly not evidence of even a modicum of basic economic comprehension. Senator Heller may offer excuses – like the phantom litigation specter – but his vote on September 15, 2014 is actually one which removes spending capacity from consumers, and that’s not “pro-business” in a consumer driven national economy.