Roberts Calls Equal Pay For Women “A Radical Redistributive Concept”
Roberts Calls Equal Pay For Women “A Radical Redistributive Concept”
President Bush said Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has a “profound respect for…the liberties guaranteed to every citizen.”
But in a 1984 memo, Roberts argued wasn’t anything wrong with the fact that women earned 60 percent of what men did for the same work. He trashed a letter written to Reagan by then-Rep. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), then-Rep. Claudine Schneider (R-RI) and Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT) urging the administration to accept a federal court ruling prohibiting women from being paid less because of their gender:
[The letter] contends that more is required because women still earn only $0.60 for every $1 earned by men, ignoring the factors that explain that apparent disparity, such as seniority, the fact that many women frequently leave the work force for extended periods of time. I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept.
Roberts, then accused the three female member of congress of embracing Marxist dogma:
Their slogan may as well be, “From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.”
Roberts problems with women demanding equal treatment are longstanding. In 1972, in his high school newspaper, he explained why his all-boy academy shouldn’t go co-ed:
I would prefer to discuss Shakespeare’s double entendre and the latus rectum of conic sections without a [b]londe giggling and blushing behind me.
But remember, Roberts’s views are irrelevant. He is really nice guy who mows his own lawn and eats chocolate chip ice cream and that’s all that counts.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
As the facts become public, it seems that Mr. Roberts is another proud member of the American Taliban. The spineless Democrats will feign reluctance and then he’ll be approved with virtual unanimity.
Until the Democrats show some spine, we can’t stop this trainwreck. Step up John Kerry, Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein and John Edwards. Show some fvcking courage for once!
August 16th, 2005 at 11:21 amHe was belittling the concept of “comparable worth,” not equal pay for equal work, which was and is a much much different idea.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:25 amThe 60% figure is obviously based on people doing similar work. It’s clearly not a percentage saying that women who work at McDonalds get paid 60% of what men do as a corporate CEO. I think what he is arguing that women who appear to be doing the same work really aren’t because they have left the workforce before or may leave the workforce in the future.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:31 am#3: No, he’s saying that women don’t advance as far or as quickly in men because they tend to take more time off for familial reasons and because men tend to achieve higher levels of seniority.
Furthermore, he opinion was specifically NOT regarding payment for “the same work”, as this story implies. I love TP, but it would be more persuasive if it didn’t blatantly misrepresent quotes.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:34 amUgh, please explain the difference between “comparable worth” and “equal pay for equal work”.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:35 amI would prefer to discuss Shakespeare’s double entendre and the latus rectum of conic sections without a [b]londe giggling and blushing behind me.
Because we all know how women start giggling when you say “rectum”.
Oh, wait, those aren’t women. Never mind.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:39 am“Comparable worth” attempts to equate different jobs based on some sort of similar responsibility and skills. The idea was created because “equal pay for equal work”, even when implemented, still did not equalize men and women’s pay (for the reasons Roberts points out).
August 16th, 2005 at 11:48 amI don’t think Roberts should be confirmed, and I do think Dems should fight him tooth and nail.
But I DON’T think what he wrote in HS is at all relevant.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:11 pmIf you really see women, gays, and minorities as equal to white hetero men, why do you think they need laws to mandate their places in society and that they can’t negotiate and compete without big brother holding their hands?
August 16th, 2005 at 12:22 pmRoberts was put up for all the reasons the Connies want, this was guessed when the nomination was put forward. It is classic Connie establish procedure, blur, stall, then ram. Regardless, he will be confirmed. I believe it is a losing cause to go to the mattresses over Roberts. The administration will pack the court with boyscout ultra conservatives that mask their agenda. Opposing these apointments will weaken the case for change in congress. I only hope the leadership is going to come up with a “contract” style construct for Republican Corruption. We have lost the supreme court for the next twenty years, we now need to concentrate on winable solutions by taking back congress by 08.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:30 pmThis piece is diningenuous (something that sadly happens too often at Think Progress — we liberals ought not to engage in the same BS spin as the Bushies). Roberts was, as Ugh pointed out, talking about “comparable worth” — the idea that workers in “predominately female” occupations like nursing are paid less than they “should be” because the occupations are predominately female. So a nurse should get paid the same as people in a “predominately male” occupation that is “comparable” — i.e., takes the same amount of education, etc. But the whole concept ignores the idea that it’s the market setting the compensation rate. Otherwise, I ought to get paid twice what Michael Jordan got paid playing for the NBA, since I have more education and experience in my field than he has in his.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:31 pmIs that not the problem fake? you have an advantage being white. and advantage being male. as you slip down that slope, and lets face it there is plenty of covert racism and sexism alive and well in the US then you get paid less. Progressives, have been advocating that everyone should get paid the same. a black female should get the same pay rate as a white male doing the same job.
However that does not happen, and government has to step in. This is hardly the first labor issue that the government has had to step into. think of 40 work weeks, vacations, etc.
I am unsure if this shows any bit of roberts true character, however I would think that if bush suggested him, he is most likely an extremist who will legislate based upon his personal views, and not the laws passed by congress.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:43 pm“…why do you think they need laws…” – from post #9.
FBA, that has to be the dumbest question you’ve ever asked. Have you ever heard of sexism or racism? The laws are in place to protect them from those who don’t see them as equal. Are you kidding?
August 16th, 2005 at 12:54 pmKrazny, you misinterpret “comparable worth.” It is NOT that women in the same job as men should get paid the same — absolutely, that’s true. “Comparable worth” suggests that people (men and women) in certain jobs should get paid the same as (women and men) in totally different jobs that are — someone decides — “comparable,” simply because most workers in one are women while most workers in the other are men. But then you might as well say that burger flippers should get the same as taxi drivers who should get the same as college professors and whaddya know, no more capitalism. That’s an OK argument if you want to make it, but it’s got nothing to do with gender equality.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:59 pmSo then it should be mandated that all people get the same pay for the same position? Not all white hetro men get the same pay for the same position. Not all people in the same position do the same amount of work. Some produce more than others. Some put more into their jobs than others. Some are never late or miss days. Should those that do a better job get paid the same as those who don’t care about their job? It is a free country, if you don’t think you are getting paid enough then ask for a raise or find a new job. Maybe women should learn more about negotiating and less about being victims. If you are worth more money, and your boss will not pay you what you are worth, than you can find another job and your boss will suffer from your leaving. If you are worth more money, demand it, then if you are correct you will get your raise. Face it, you don’t think women are equal or you would trust they could handle their own negotiations.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:15 pmNo wonder Bush wanted to keep everything secret.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:24 pmas usual you are incorrect Fake nothing new there. I did not make up the laws, that have tried to eliminate bias in industry.
Traven thank you for a pretty good explantion of comparable worth. without knowing what criteria they use to determine comparable worth it is worthless.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:26 pmFace it, you don’t think women are equal or you would trust they could handle their own negotiations.
In terms of the economic and political power they wield, they are certainly not equal. The vast majority of the executives who decide who gets a raise and who gets fired are men. In an objective competition in which everybody starts on equal footing, women will on average do just as well as men. But this competition isn’t objective, being judged completely subjectively by mostly men, and not everybody starts equal, since gender discrimination permeates education as well as the workplace.
And please don’t try telling us that employers will have to reward good performance because they can’t afford to lose their good employees. If that’s what you think, then you need to get out into the real world more. Inter-company politics — “good ol’ boy” networks and one hand washing the other — have far more effect on promotions and raises than merit does. And no worker is indispensible.
I should mention, so the above isn’t misinterpreted, that I’m quite satisfied with my own employment situation.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:51 pmI think a woman belongs in the home so I can steal money from her purse when she’s taking care of the babies.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:15 pmSo I’m wrong. That means all white males get the same pay for the same work, then exclude women and minorities from this pay bracket. So Gary all your white male peers make the exact same as you? If management promotes based on non performance based criteria then the company suffers. Face it you people don’t want a free market and you expect equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. So under the law you guys want, would I as a white hetro man be protected from bias from a lesbian boss who I had a personality conflict with?
August 16th, 2005 at 2:22 pmI would bet that all of Gary’s co-workers are within a bracket of how much he makes.
and actually if you felt that you had been discriminated against you are allowed to bring a lawsuit. and I can definitly see Fake as having personality conflicts with most supervisors.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:38 pmSo I’m wrong. That means all white males get the same pay for the same work, then exclude women and minorities from this pay bracket.
Um, no, but thanks for playing. The fact that there’s discrimination against certain races and genders doesn’t mean that there aren’t unfair inequalities within any given race and gender group. But this sort of thing is much more difficult to prove than any sort of systematic discrimination.
If management promotes based on non performance based criteria then the company suffers.
Maybe so, but companies frequently do it anyway. Because the individual making the promotion decision has first and foremost his own interests in mind, which may not, and often do not, coincide with the interests of the company as a whole.
So under the law you guys want, would I as a white hetro man be protected from bias from a lesbian boss who I had a personality conflict with?
If you can prove systematic discrimination, yes. Lotsa luck. Lesbians do not wield the majority of economic and political power in this country, contrary to any delusions you might have to that effect.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:51 pmFBA, why aren’t you gettin this? We’re not talking about the same pay for the same work. The intent is that gender, race and sexual preference are NOT to be a factor in deciding pay. If someone deserves a raise, give it to them based on merit (or union rules if applicable), but the person’s sex or color or sexual preference should not be part of the equation. I don’t know how to explain it any more plain than that. That is equal opportunity. Furthermore, equal opportunity is already a law and has been on the books for years.
If this law wasn’t in place, there would be employers that would chose to a)promote men over women, or b) promote straight people over gays, or c) promote whites over blacks. They would do this because they either a)felt that women should stay at home, b)didn’t agree with homosexuality, or c)didn’t like the color of their skin. I don’t know what world you live in, but from where I sit, those backwards employers are still out there.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:52 pmWomen now are able to bring suit if they feel they are being discriminated against, why is present law not enough protection for women? If all Garys coworkers are in the same bracket then what’s the problem? Do your personal attacks and fantasies about me help your arguments, is that more effective than logic and facts?
August 16th, 2005 at 3:04 pmYou want laws mandating criteria for promotions and raises? For everyone?
August 16th, 2005 at 3:13 pmWomen now are able to bring suit if they feel they are being discriminated against, why is present law not enough protection for women?
For one thing, because of judges like Roberts who are doing their best to defeat any enforcement of said present law.
If all Garys coworkers are in the same bracket then what’s the problem?
Assuming that to be true (and I have no idea if it is — the only salary figure I have any knowledge of is my own) then there is no problem at my company for those of us in my particular role. That however doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem for anyone anywhere.
August 16th, 2005 at 3:14 pm“The women had said that the concept of “equal pay for equal work” had not sufficiently boosted women’s wages because women were not in many of the same fields as men. The three were promoting the notion of equal pay for different jobs of comparable value, based on factors such as skills and responsibility.”
Roberts was right, this is a stupid idea. How would you calculate something like this?
Gary you hit on a good point, because like most people you don’t know how much your coworkers make, most people don’t, they negotiate the best they can for themselves. If women can’t negotiate as well as men, who’s fault is that? If they are willing to accept less than men, who’s fault is that? Gary show where Roberts has failed to apply the law as written in the area of equal rights?
August 16th, 2005 at 3:39 pm[...] Judd at the Think Progress blog says, “…in a 1984 memo, Roberts argued wasn’t anything wrong with the fact that women earned 60 percent of what men did for the same work.” [...]
August 16th, 2005 at 4:39 pmRoberts was right, this is a stupid idea. How would you calculate something like this?
You can’t calculate it as such, no. The best you can do is to look for places where it is obviously way off.
Gary you hit on a good point, because like most people you don’t know how much your coworkers make, most people don’t, they negotiate the best they can for themselves. If women can’t negotiate as well as men, who’s [sic] fault is that?
Already asked and answered. Comment #18 in this thread. Scroll up. Read.
If they are willing to accept less than men, who’s [sic] fault is that?
That depends whether “willing” really means “willing” or means “forced into”. For lack of God’s sake, NOBODY turns down extra money when it is offered. Your salary isn’t a matter of what you’re willing to accept, it’s a matter of what employers are willing to pay you.
Gary show where Roberts has failed to apply the law as written in the area of equal rights?
Try reading the original post in this thread.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:40 pmFor lack of God’s sake, NOBODY turns down extra money when it is offered. Your salary isn’t a matter of what you’re willing to accept, it’s a matter of what employers are willing to pay you.
So now it’s up to employers to offer women more money, it’s not up to women to ask for it, lol. Like that’s going to happen. I set my salary, no one else, but I don’t see myself as a victim waiting for a wrong. I don’t accept your assertion that women are victims of discrimination unless that discrimination can be proven. You seem to think it is an absolute, but that’s what your indoctrination told you. By the way you didn’t show were Roberts failed to apply the law as a judge and you admited the idea was flawed, so then Roberts was correct. “As an assistant White House counsel in 1984, John Roberts …” He wasn’t a judge, he was a lawyer who stated his opinion of someone else’s opinion, maybe you need to read it yourself. “A three-judge federal appeals court panel later reversed the decision…” The court agreed with Roberts.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:17 pmSo he’s good looking, smart and amiable — that doesn’t mean he is a good judge. Women’s rights? He favors the taliban.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:26 am[...] When it came out, for instance, that in the 1908s John Roberts had called the “equal pay for equal work” movement Marxist, and so on, that information confirmed he was the type of justice conservatives were interested in, even though at first his thin paper trail was initially cause for worry. [...]
October 13th, 2005 at 4:19 pmI hate women, i am a sheep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa
owwwww
October 16th, 2005 at 8:48 pmI hate women, i am a sheep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa
owwwww
October 16th, 2005 at 8:48 pmI hate women, i am a sheep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa
owwwww
October 16th, 2005 at 8:48 pmI hate women, i am a sheep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa
owwwww
October 16th, 2005 at 8:48 pmIt seems that a lot of people are not certain of the difference between “equal pay” and “comparable worth”. Hopefully I can explain the difference without arguing for or against either of the two concepts.
“Equal pay for equal work.” This concept, currently enforced by law, prevents a company from paying women differently from men who are in the same position. That is to say, two engineers of equivalent training doing the same work should be paid approximately the same. If a women can prove she is being paid significantly less than her male counter-parts she can sue. Justice Roberts was not in anyway arguing against that.
“Comparable Worth.” Judge Roberts was vehemently against this concept. The basic reason for wanting to institute a comparable worth law is that the average per person income of men is substantially higher than that of women. (This is where the sixty cents to the dollar statistic comes from.) This calculated by adding up the all incomes earned by men and dividing it by the number of men working and comparing it to the total income earned by all women divided by the number of women working. This is the case several years after the enactment of equal pay for equal worth. The question you might ask is, How can the difference be so large if equal pay for equal work is enforced? This is how; Imagine two different professions, one 80% male and 20% female, and the other 80$ female and 20% male. Everyone in the same profession gets the same pay, but if the first profession is paid more than the second, the men’s average income will be higher than the women’s average income and vice versa. There are many professions dominated by one gender over the other: nursing(women), computer engineering (men), elementary school teachers (women), university professors (men). Comparable worth is an attempt to account for this difference and make the average income for each gender more equivalent. What it does is it takes two different professions that require comparable skill, effort, and training and enforce equal pay between the two professions. So nursing and computer engineering might be said to be comparable in the skill and training required, so both professions should be paid the same. This is not currently in effect, it was deemed unconstitutional by the Courts. Roberts was not involved in the court decision, he was in the Reagan administration at that time.
October 17th, 2005 at 8:21 pm