Remember when Obama said, "now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons?" It was in the big speech, just for the record.
Um, awkward then to read this afternoon that apparently in Obama's own office, he pays his female staffers, on average, 78 percent of the amount he pays men working for him. Of the top 10 highest paid positions, in Obama's office women hold five of the positions, and Obama pays all his female staffers an average of $12,472 less than the average male salary.
Meanwhile over in the McCain camp seven women occupy the top 10 wage-earning slots and make, on average, 101 percent of the male salary. The women working for McCain earn 24 percent more than those working for Obama, interesting given the controversial position McCain took earlier this year to oppose legislation expanding the ability to sue for equal pay. For what it's worth, women outnumber men on both staffs, and all numbers came from the Report of the Secretary to the Senate.
To see what NOW has to say about the situation, read more.
President of NOW Kim Gandy said this of her feelings on the apparent disparity:
It depends on what positions they’re in. Certain positions are paid more than other positions. I do know quite a number of women very high up in his staff and in his campaign who are extraordinarily strong supporters of women’s rights. We don’t advocate people be hired because of their gender. We advocated people be hired and paid without regard to their gender.
Well that's an entirely fair position, my question is this: given that one of Obama's own campaign ads makes the claim, "Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy," while he's only paying 78 cents on the dollar, does it make the claim less credible?
Free People
Lancaster
Beyond The Valley
Well since you asked for opinions Citizen, here's my two cents (on the dollar)
Equal pay means paying a woman the same amount as you pay a man doing the same job. IMO, overall averages aren't really comparable because a couple more men serving in higher-responsibility, and higher-paid, positions can offset the numbers. A bunch of other factors can influence that number, too.
Nice to see women have a prominent role in both campaigns!
1I'm much more inclined to pay attention to the average pay overall than to the top ten jobs, because ten people in a campaign of thousands is not a good sample.
Curious, does this count only salaried employees or hourly workers as well?
2
Here's to practicing what you preach! 
3CNSnews.com is pretty much the same as Fox News - created as an alternative to biased liberal media, so nothing it says can be accepted on face value. A quick check on the internet found this response to the story when it came out last spring:
"If you actually go to CNS' data breakdown, you see how McCain hires a ton of interns (making just under $6,500/year!), and on average, McCain's female interns are paid less than their male interns. The upshot:
By one measure, however, women did do better in Obama’s office than in McCain’s. When the average salary was calculated for all people on the office payroll, including interns, Clinton paid women an average of $51,948, Obama paid women an average of $48,729, and McCain paid women an average of $47,898. (Clinton’s and Obama’s average salaries are relatively unaffected by adding the interns because Obama employed only one intern, while Clinton employed none. McCain, by contrast, employed 23 interns during the period, including 15 men and 8 women.)
4So, that "one measure" in which women did better in Obama's office than in McCain's? They got paid more, on average."
And liberty. That is the case across the board with employers. By that logic no stats that we see, other than straight down job description lines, are accurate.
5GS, how is this article showing anyone practicing what they preach?
6I don't know what this says about Obama (possibly nothing), but it does give a lot of credit to McCain's opposing that "equal pay" legistlation. Obviously, he doesn't need a law to tell him that women can be highly valuable employees. And running mates.
7Steph, those seem to be a year old. Citizens are new. I don't hear any complaints when the source is Daily kos or Huffpo from you either. Just sayin'!
8Are you kidding torg?
9Although I obviously think men and women should be paid the same, I have always thought the 77 cents on the dollar statistic to be very misleading. It ignores the fact that women often choose to take a break in their careers to have and raise children, which can set them back as far as growing their earning potential.
10No, I'm not following your logic...sorry...
And Mich, I don't need a law to tell me, say, not to beat my boyfriend. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law. Just because I would do it based on my own morals doesn't mean everyone would.
11I'm opposed to the law myself. It's not because I don't believe in equal pay for equal work, it's because I think it devalues women in the work place. I read over and over again that women are not as assertive as men in asking to be paid what they are worth. Obviously that does not apply to everyone, but I know of very few bosses who will just give you a higher salary, you usually have to ask for it and argue why you deserve it. Furthermore, I know there are companies out there who do not feel that women should earn what men earn, but by and large most people will be compensated on what they bring to the company. I just feel like the law is completely unnecessary and I even find it a bit insulting.
I can't speak to whether Obama is undervaluing his female employees without knowing what exactly it is they do. If they just happen to hold lower paying positions, it is hardly fair to dock him for that. On the other hand (and possibly contradicting my previous point) it is nice to hear the top women in the McCain campaign earn so much.
12I'm not sure doing physical violence on another person is really an apt comparison.
13MM, I totally agree with the first part of what you said. Passing laws that dictate pay scales for a certain group of people says to me that you think they can't fight for it themselves.
14"Equal pay means paying a woman the same amount as you pay a man doing the same job. IMO, overall averages aren't really comparable because a couple more men serving in higher-responsibility, and higher-paid, positions can offset the numbers. A bunch of other factors can influence that number, too." -Liberty
Exactly. I would need to know more about the job descriptions before I make judgements on either camp. The men making 12 grand more may have a lot more responsibility.
15Okay. I don't need a law to tell me not to cheat on my taxes. The point is, not every one is a good guy, and McCain paying his workers equally does not mean he is correct in opposing a law to require everyone to do the same.
16Well, that's not the sole piece of evidence proving the stance correct. Surely, anybody's stance on this issue is just an opion. However, I do think that the number of highly paid women on his staff should dispell any ideas that he opposed the legislation because he is a sexist, or because he doesn't think women should be paid equally.
17I'm so tired of politicians being hypocritical.
18opion should be 'opinion'
19opion should be 'opinion'
20Double post
21I'm not saying he might not be right about the law. I was saying that your comment, "...it does give a lot of credit to McCain's opposing that "equal pay" legistlation..." is a line of logic I find to be faulty.
22And Vespa, unless you can show me something that indicates he has a man and a woman doing the same job for different pay, I don't see how Obama is being a hypocrite.
23making laws about equal pay are ridiculous. Shouldn't factors like education and experiance factor in??? if they do then the only fair comparison is a man and a woman, who went to the same school, got the same grades, did the same internships ect, and are now working the same job, doing equally as well at the same company... which would never happen... more factors into these things than just gender...
24esk, Equal Pay laws would not require equal pay for employees with different levels of education and experience.
25Hm, I think you misinterpreted my comment. I didn't mean that it gives credit to the legistlation itself, I meant it gives an insight into the real reasons he voted against the legislation.
26When he says that we need to change the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar when that statistic is the same for the women working in his own campaign, he is being a hypocrite.
27I think Esk just meant that it's hard to say that anybody's work is "equal" because everybody is so extremely different.
28I didn't think you mean that it gives credit to the legislation. I thought you were saying see, McCain doesn't need a law to pay women equally, so he is right to oppose the law.
29If you're paying workers differently, there should be a reason. Most employers don't draw salaries out of a hat. If there's not a good reason, then why are you paying them differently?
30Well, it's sort of two separate thoughts. Yes, I'm glad he doesn't need a law to tell him that. And yes, I think he was right to oppose that legislation. But one doesn't beget the other. I think it might just clear up any speculation about his reasoning. Sorry if that was unclear.
31Torg, I think a lot of times the "good reason" is that the employee hasn't asked for more. Why would a company pay more money to an employee when they didn't have to? Even if the employee was doing a great job. If the person asks for more, and the company thinks it's worth that extra pay to keep that work, they should give them the raise.
I think part of the pay gap comes from the fact that women are often less likely to ask for a raise. That might speak to their own self-worth.
32"I'm so tired of politicians being hypocritical. "
I know -- McCain being the biggest one of them all.
33Wonderful argument.
34Hypocritical how, dream?
35You know, I do think it's funny that most people never question the 77 cents on the dollar thing until it's pointed out that Obama is doing it. Then we wonder about the methodology, and whether it's really an accurate representation of gender fairness. I think we should always question these sort of things (polls and statistics in general) before we form opinions.
36But in that case the employer has a good reason. If questioned, I assume the employer could produce evidence of a request for a raise (I know I always submit mine in writing).
37Exactly Mich, that is what I was saying earlier.
38Torg, and I though I was painfully clear when stating practice what you preach for obama given the opening lines of the post were from his speech.
39GS, I thought you were saying, like, "Yay! Someone is practicing what they preach!" The cheers made me think you were exciting about the practicing and the preaching. But now I get that you were cheering because someone pointed out a flaw in the candidate you don't support. Sorry, honest mistake.
40Michelin, how do you know we don't question how the 77 cents on the dollar is calculated?
I think statistics can often be misleading and I always like to know where the numbers actually come from.
In this case, it's hard to know if there is equal pay or not because there is no data behind the stats provided.
If 75% of the women are admin assistants, and 75% of the men are policy analysts, then the figures don't bother me.
If Obama is shortchanging women and he's paying 78 cents on the dollar for the SAME position, then it would bug me and I'd have no problem calling him out.
But in the interest of good math, I refuse to make a judgment based on what we have provided.
I would do the same for McCain. Of all the issues we debate something like this is at least empirical no?
41Torg, I just don't think the whole 77 cents on the dollar thing really proves that there is a big enough sexism problem to warrant legislation. I think a great deal of it comes from women not asking for more money, when more men will. I'm pretty sure there are already ways for a woman to sue when she has been denied a raise or promotion where equally (or less) qualified men have been given those advantages.
42Mich, I don't either. I said earlier the 77/100 thing always seemed fishy to me.
43Pop, I didn't mean anybody specifically, but I've seen that number brought up as evidence, and I haven't really seen it questioned.
44Well, Pop and Torg, you guys are ahead of the pack, then
So I think you'll both
agree with the point I was actually making, which is that people should always question numbers and statistics.
45Not the candidate I don't support, but the candidate that it is impossible to find their errors reported.
46YOU SUPPORT OBAMA?!?!?!
47Can we keep this discussion productive?
48Hey everybody, it's Friday!!!
If you're doing an equal job and working equal hours everyone should get equal pay regardless of gender, race, etc. I think experience comes into play and that is the only way anyome should make more/less money in the SAME position. If it's people in different departments then there's no way to compare.
I work for a website. I take the pictures. I have a specialized talent but the IT guys keep us online, ultimately making money... which is more important and who should get paid more become irrelevant then. If another, male photographer was heired though, depending on his experience, we should get paid very similar figures.
49hired not heired. LOL
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.