Skip to main content

Hochul says Corwin doesn't support equal pay for women

By Howard B. Owens

Press release from Kathy Hochul's campaign:

ERIE COUNTY – Today marks the 15th anniversary of Equal Pay Day, which began in 1996 as a way to illustrate the wage gap between men and women.
 
Once elected, Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, promises to always fight for equal pay.

“When I first began my career as the only new female associate at a law firm, I was very much aware of the challenges women face in the workplace,” said Hochul.  “And as the mother of a young woman soon heading out into the workforce, I, like many fathers and mothers, hope their daughters' gender will not deny them equal pay for equal work.”

Kathy Hochul is the only woman in this race who supports equal pay for equal work.  In 2009 and, once again in 2010, Jane Corwin was part of the vast minority of Assemblymembers who voted against equal pay for women in New York State.

“My Republican opponent thinks she, myself, and all other women deserve to take a back seat to men when it comes to salary, I do not,” Hochul added.  “Once in Congress, I will fight to ensure women are paid equal wages for the same work they do as men.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women currently make 80 cents to every dollar men make for the same job. 

More information about Kathy Hochul can be found at www.KathyHochul.com <http://www.kathyhochul.com/> .

Background:
In 2009 and 2010, Corwin voted against a bill that made it a discriminatory practice to compensate employees of different sexes differently for work that is of comparable worth. [A2351, New York State Assembly, 4/29/09 and 4/19/10]

UPDATE: Press release from the Jane Corwin campaign:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Matthew Harakal, Communications Director for Jane Corwin for Congress, made the following statement today regarding Kathy Hochul’s latest press release: 

“It’s not surprising that career politician Kathy Hochul thinks bureaucrats are in a better position than small businesses to decide how much their workers should get paid. Jane Corwin believes that small businesses know best how to run their companies, not government bureaucrats.

“Maybe Kathy Hochul should stick to sending out promotional press releases about our local hockey team because she clearly knows nothing about running a small business or creating jobs.” 

George Richardson

Hissss, hissss, aaaaiiiiieeeeeeesssssss! Cat fight! All right, pull some hair! High School fights are the best.

Apr 12, 2011, 3:55pm Permalink
Janice Stenman

The audacity of Corwin. "Jane Corwin believes that small businesses know best how to run their companies, not government bureaucrats." Women deserve the same pay for the same job, period. The days of women suplimenting their husbands' pay is long over.

Shame on Jane Corwin! Hell would have to freeze over before I voted for her antiquated ideals.

Apr 12, 2011, 4:22pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Matthew Harakal and Corwin are living in another dimension. Today's women are heads of households. They are not just working to wile away their time or supplimenting their spouse's income.
They have the education, the training, and the ability to do the job and deserve equal pay for the job done.

Apr 12, 2011, 4:40pm Permalink
George Richardson

Janis, (sorry Janice, I had Joplin on the brain) When my dad would get wound up over some political issue he would sometimes say: "Why the orgassity of some people" my mom would mock him behind his back and it just endeared me to him stronger than ever. At least he was trying to expand his vocabulary and he got close enough that we knew what he meant, if we knew what audacity meant. I do, you do and I would hope everyone does, but they don't. That's the real reason we are in the mess we are in.

Apr 12, 2011, 4:46pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Today is the day that represents how far into the year that women have to work to earn the equivalent of their male counterparts. Four months into 2011.

Businesses should know best and should be paying women equal pay for equal work, but they don't. I guess in Jane Corwin's and Chris Lee's world of trust funds, equal pay just isn't a priority.

Apr 12, 2011, 4:57pm Permalink
George Richardson

My wife has always made more money than I have. If she worked equally as hard as I did/do not I would be mad. But I have always done half as much as she does so it stays fair.
Works for me and she aint bitchin' that much anymore either. I take that as the calm before the storm.

Apr 12, 2011, 5:25pm Permalink
John Roach

Equal pay for the same work, done to the same standard, good.

But equal pay for "comparable worth", what's "comparable worth"? Who determines that?

Apr 12, 2011, 7:39pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

I was first intrigued by Kathy Hochul based on her record as county clerk and her apparent independence from her party. I am disappointed by this type of politics, however. To make the quantum leap in logic that takes Corwins vote from an anti-government intrusion into business to she is anti-equality is what turn many voters off (thus the Kanye West reference). This was a classic example of wording a bill so that opponents could be labled as villains for voting a totally different principle. I was hoping Hochul was above that, and I am still waiting for her platform on social issues, why is this so difficult to get?

Apr 12, 2011, 8:16pm Permalink
kevin kretschmer

I agree that women should receive equal pay for equal work but I believe that the overall discrepancy is skewed by in large because they aren't doing the same work. Other variables are involved in women's selection of career paths such as; flexibility of schedule, regular hours, choosing occupations with fewer risks, etc.

I can think of numerous careers where the pay is identical and just as many where the overwhelming percentage of workers are men. How many women long to be out on the Bering Sea, fishing for crab? There is also the matter of lowering standards in order to allow women access to specific career opportunities to begin with; a civil service physical agility test to become a firefighter, for example.

Apr 12, 2011, 8:57pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

So lets talk about comparable worth.

What's wrong with a point system?

If a truck driver (traditionally male) and an office assistant (traditionally female) score the same points in worth to a company, why shouldn't they be paid equally? This is about evaluating worth of employee's and setting fair pay scales to match that worth.

Apr 12, 2011, 10:21pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Why should an office assistant make the same as a truck driver or vise versa? Now If you were to say that a male truck driver and a female truck driver who are equally important to the company they work for and are equally as productive then yeah they absolutely deserve equal pay.
Same thing for the office assistant.
Maybe I misunderstood your post Lorie but I'm all for equality across the board. Just as long as were are comparing equal jobs.

Apr 12, 2011, 11:11pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
Who would set your point system? That's the issue. If the company thinks both are of equal value, they would already be paid the same.

So, will it be the government that sets the points? Is that what this is about, a big brother approach? Is this what Hochul thinks?

Apr 13, 2011, 6:54am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Jeremiah Pedro on April 12, 2011 - 11:11pm
Why should an office assistant make the same as a truck driver or vise versa? Now If you were to say that a male truck driver and a female truck driver who are equally important to the company they work for and are equally as productive then yeah they absolutely deserve equal pay.
Same thing for the office assistant.
Maybe I misunderstood your post Lorie but I'm all for equality across the board. Just as long as were are comparing equal jobs.

I agree. Sadly, it doesn't always work that way.
Women are still battling that glass ceiling.

Apr 13, 2011, 7:09am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

I think the obvious point here is that Corwin stands for keeping that glass ceiling in place, or she needs to jerk the chain of her Communications Director and have him stop making press releases on her behalf

Apr 13, 2011, 7:29am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Not really John....

If you are filling a job position, then the pay should be the same. Point systems and lowering expectations for positions is all bs to me you either can or cant do the job.

The only difference in pay for the same job should come from merit bonuses or seniority bonuses where applicable.

Apr 13, 2011, 7:42am Permalink
JoAnne Rock

What's wrong with a point system?

For starters, it may offer an end run around the Governor's wage freeze for State employees because it will effectively raise State employees wages.(the list of those lobbying for this bill might lead one to believe that this was the real purpose of the bill)

Secondly, not all pay inequities are male vs female. Anyone that has ever worked within the Civil Service system can attest that not all employees within the same job title are created equal and seniority doesn't necessarily mean a higher "value" employee. Not only does this bill does not address that inequity; it expressly excludes it.

This bill would force small businesses, at considerable expense, to implement seniority or merit-based pay systems, similar to the civil service system, so they could adequately comply with the statute or risk non-compliance with a less formal system.

Small businesses would also be forced to determine the "value" of their employees based upon an arbitrary set of government standards rather than based on their own personal observation, requirements and unique business needs.

The bill, as an unintended consequence, may also supress wages. If an employer knows that he has to hire a new secretary, he may have to forgo giving the truck driver a raise in order to start the secretary out at a lower entry level salary.

I would have to agree with Jeff's comment:

This was a classic example of wording a bill so that opponents could be labled as villains for voting a totally different principle.

I too am disappointed that Kathy Hochul went there.

Apr 13, 2011, 8:42am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Sorry JoAnn as the past has proven, sometimes you have to keep the system simple. The more complex it is then the more chance to twist it into somthing it's not. Small businesses know their business better than the Govt. Look at it this way how would you like it if the state dictated to you how to run your household, who is gonna know the nuances of your household needs, a beaurcat in the state capital or you yourself?

Same thing has happened with children nowadays, we eliminated competion, because of a few abusers some kids get away with doing whatever they want becuse the State and counties can tell you how to discipline your child. In schools and instruction instead of learning to deal with skills that are lacking or with difficulties in class or social situation we "homogenize" things so then every one is treated equally which leads to feelings of inequity or downright anger cause of frustration, but thats the way beaurcats want it.

Life isnt like this you make everything too easy or to generalized then when they grow up and get out of college the world beats the hell out of them because as much as we would like it to be that isn't how reality is. And our children really dont know how to deal with it.

Some things Govt is better left on the outside of.

Apr 13, 2011, 9:07am Permalink
Lorie Longhany

In 1979, women earned 59.7 cents for every dollar men earned. In 1996, women were earning 72 cents for every dollar men earned. Things haven't improved much since then, with women's earnings hovering around 76-77 percent of men's.

http://www.pay-equity.org/info-Q&A.html
Will the wages of white men be reduced if pay equity is implemented?

A: No, Federal law prohibits reducing pay for any employee to remedy discrimination. Furthermore, male workers in female-dominated jobs benefit when sex discrimination is eliminated, as do white workers in minority-dominated jobs. Pay equity means equal treatment for all workers.

Will achieving pay equity require a national wage-setting system?

A: No, pay equity does not mandate across-the-board salaries for any occupation, nor does it tamper with supply and demand. It merely means that wages must be based on job requirements like skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions without consideration of race, sex, or ethnicity.

The fact remains that women make 20%+ less than men. I want pay equity for my daughter and granddaughter.

Apr 13, 2011, 12:11pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
Then where does this "comparable worth" come in? Who decides what "like skill" is, the government? Some government imposed point system?

Again, I support equal pay for the same job, in the same place and done to the same standard. But do I want Hochul to decide what a job is worth, I don't think so.

Apr 13, 2011, 12:25pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Lorie, your Q & A is for the federal statute, not the NYS statute. NYS added the "comparable value" component which attempts to mathematically equalize apples and oranges(2 different jobs).

As long as men and women have an equal opportunity to apply for the same job at the same starting salary, I see no basis for discrimination.

Apr 13, 2011, 12:37pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

John, here is my own personal example:

In the early 80's I worked in a high tech job in the semi conductor industry. My job was high skill and the pay was living wage with good benefits. No complaints there. I was part of the electrical department -- mostly women. The mechanical department, made up of men (heavy lifting), paid a rate of about .30 an hour more. The electrical department was just as important to the manufacturing of the product as the mechanical department. The job titles were electrical assembly and mechanical assembly. There should not have been inequity in pay, but there was.

Apr 13, 2011, 12:48pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Lorie, let me ask this, if The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits unequal pay for equal or "substantially equal" work performed by men and women and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits wage discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin, why do we need another costly debate and enactment of a statute to enforce two similar laws that are already in place?
I am all for pay equality, but I just can't see the expense of enacting more legislation that is redundant. Just to offer a counter to your example, while the electrical department may have been just as valuable to the end product, the mechanical jobs with, as you said, heavy lifting carry more inherent risk for injury and shortened career longevity than technical. It does not diminish the importance of technical, it simply recognizes and compensates the liability of the mechanical position. That is coming from someone with enough hardware in their back to know the value and liability of risk.

Apr 13, 2011, 1:05pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
I understand you wanted more money. But because you think your department was just as important does not mean management did. Who makes that decision?

Again, are you suggesting that the government step in and tell private enterprise what jobs are equal to each other and what they are worth?

Apr 13, 2011, 1:06pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Would you have accepted .30 more per hour if the heavy lifting became part of your job duties? I don't think it's fair that women want to claim equality, then expect the men to still do all the heavy lifting.

Heavy lifting, in my opinion, is enough of a job differential that should warrant an extra .30 per hour due to the inherent risks of injury and possible disability.

Apr 13, 2011, 1:13pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Part of my job was climbing into a large chamber to hook up the road map of wires that ran to each assembly. I was very nimble and much thinner than I am now so the awkward positions were easiest for me out of everyone in the department. Other people in my department had a skill set with small components. Both these jobs would have been difficult for the men. So which skill set deserved the higher pay? Or should pay have been equal for both departments since each of us brought our own unique skill sets.

Actually Joanne, I did incur one job related injury due to lifting a heavy power supply that needed to be secured to the chassis in the large chamber that I wired up. Needed a little chiropractic care for a few months and went out on comp for a couple of weeks. Have had trouble with my lower back ever since.

Apr 13, 2011, 1:37pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Joanne, lol!

We were in one very large, open space (we built semi conductor crystal growing chambers) and the two departments worked side by side. In hindsight, I should have called over for help, as I had done many other times. The guys were accustomed to calling us over for assistance, as well.

It was highly specialized so our manufacturing department was a small tight knit group of never more than twelve men and women total. We continue to keep in touch to this day.

Apr 13, 2011, 1:56pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Lorie, I don't think anybody is against equal pay in principle, but just how does it implemented in a manner that is fair to job creators? That is the number 1 question.

Playing devil's advocate, here's a hypothetical.

Let's say somehow I become fortunate to hire two staff writers at the same time. The two applicants I decide upon, Harry and Sally, are both fresh-faced college kids, graduates of Brockport with the same GPA, both had interned at the Buffalo News, both worked on the school paper. At the start, equal in every way.

So I hire them both and both start out at the same hourly rate.

Over the course of the next year, Sally does a fine job. Her reporting is solid and writing clear and understandable. She meets all of her deadlines, gets a some scoops here and there, makes few mistakes -- a fine, dependable employee. At the end of the year, when I review her performance, I would be happy to continue her in her job.

But Harry, over the course of the year, really busts his butt to become better, studies journalism books, participates in online forum to understand online journalism better, participates in Twitter and Facebook, and his writing and reporting improve substantially over the year. Readers stop me in the street and at restaurants to praise his work. He wins awards. He's exceptional in every way.

At the end of the year, two employees who started equal are no longer equal in my eyes. I like Sally, see no reason to fire her or encourage her to leave, but Harry, well Harry, I want to be sure I can retain him for a long time.

So Sally doesn't get a raise, but Harry does. I give him a $1 an hour raise. Am I now to be sued for pay inequality? Do I have to fear some government agency saying, by our standards and rules, Harry and Sally are equal employees, doing the same work and we have no measure for your subjective view that Harry is more valuable to you?

What happens then?

That's my concern about the government getting involved in issues like this. Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned.

Apr 13, 2011, 2:03pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Do you see how problematic it becomes when we have to start judging an employee's value by the size of their fingers in relation to their ability to handle nimble tasks, body size in relation to ability to fit into tight spaces?

What would that formula look like?

Skinny woman+Slender fingers=ability to bench press 100lbs

Is that really how you want to judge equality?

Apr 13, 2011, 2:15pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
Who is more valuable to a business, the receptionist or the custodian? Who decides? That's the problem with "comparable worth" supported by Hochul.

Apr 13, 2011, 2:16pm Permalink
Bea McManis

You all can parse about point systems all you want, but in the big picture, each job is unique and a part of the whole. The final product doesn't happen without the input of many. Stating that one's job is less essential than another may stroke the ego, but in fact without ALL of the jobs the final product would never happen.

Howard,
Your female, who didn't even get a cost of living raise, will probably find work elsewhere. Not to acknowledge any growth on the job after a year is certainly an invitation to walk away.

By the way, a few years ago, after working on a project for almost two years at a rate of pay negotiated between myself and my department head, I received an email from the new department head (a male). It stated that he realized that my rate of pay was "out of step" with others in the project (I was the only female). I was the first person on that project (senority); I had the most responsibility - working on both the east coast and west coast feeds; I, with the original department head, wrote the protocol for the project.
I watched the new supervisor dismiss all of that in favor of his belief that a man is entitled to a better wage.
Three months later, the men all received substantial raises.
That glass ceiling is a real barrier.

Apr 13, 2011, 2:42pm Permalink
Bea McManis

John,
Whenever I started a new project, the first people I would put on my team was the custodian/maintenance. The second was the office assistant.
The custodian/maintenance because it is that staff that will first notice something out of place during the hours when no one is a lab or in the offices. You would be surprised at how many good ideas, regarding security or placement of equipment the custodian can offer. Keeping the custodian in the loop can save a project money and time.
The office assistant/receptionist because he/she is the first face those involved in the project, either internal or external, see. The office assistant is the key to getting meetings scheduled; contacts made; maintain the security of the project and who juggles the myriad of every day tasks that need to be done.
So, a custodian and an office assistant are vital to a project and considered an equal team partner.

Apr 13, 2011, 3:03pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Jeff, good point. When I was a legislative aide in California, two of the women who were clerks in our office sued my boss. One cause of action in the suit was that I made more money than they did.

I was a legislative aide and press secretary with about 10 more years work experience (they were both right out of college), but that didn't stop them from making the claim of discrimination. They thought since we all worked in the same building and did some overlapping job duties (I also handled constituent cases, as they did), they should get the same pay I did.

The case, which they brought when they learned that they were about to get fired, was settled out of court for "wrongful termination" and they each got $100K. (The Assembly Rules Committee made the strategic decision to settle with the two young women and let their former supervisor, also one of the original plaintiffs, take her case to court, which she did, and lost.)

Apr 13, 2011, 3:05pm Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
Did you make sure they both get the same pay based on "comparable worth"? Since you did the hiring, should you have been the one to make pay decisions or should it have been up to the government?

Based on comparable worth, should you have ever been paid more than your male coworkers? And if you deserved more money, should the government be able to say no, that's not fair that you make more? Of course, the males also might have said you only were paid more because you were female.

Apr 13, 2011, 3:06pm Permalink
kevin kretschmer

All of your hypothetical situations and "what if's" are easily resolved as an employer by writing/utilizing an Employee Handbook with clearly defined roles, duties, expectations, and compensation. I never look at any of my staff as men or women. They are River Guides first and foremost. Those that choose to take on added responsibilities and training are compensated accordingly. The ones that don't, aren't.

Apr 13, 2011, 4:16pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

That would work Kevin, if all of your staff share the same job title. The guidelines allow for a seniority and merit pay system. No one is disputing that point.

How would your Employee Handbook ensure pay equity, based on the NYS guidelines, between your River Guides and your other employees?

Would you be okay with letting the State decide what constitutes a valued employee for you and determining their wages?

Apr 13, 2011, 7:13pm Permalink

Authentically Local