Helen Mirren Stands Up for Women

Ohio Male Cheerleader Beaten by Bullies

This is another example of why people need to be concerned about sexism. Tyler Wilson expected some teasing, what he didn't expect was a broken shoulder and bruises. Here is a little boy who is planning ahead. He wants to get into college, and cheerleading could provide that avenue. At a nearby university, the University of Toledo, half of the 40 cheerleaders are male.

Sexism not only hurts women and girls, but also men and boys. It's time for society in general to stand up to the bullies and say "no more!"

Challenging the Glass Proscenium

Playwrights like the sound of 'standing room only' -- even when talking about challenging the status quo Off Broadway. The New York Times reports:

Frustrated by what they describe as difficulty in getting their work produced, enough female playwrights to make a standing-room-only crowd are planning to attend a town hall meeting on Monday night to air their grievances with representatives of New York’s leading Off Broadway and nonprofit theaters.

The gathering was organized by the playwrights Sarah Schulman and Julia Jordan, who have rallied their colleagues to the cause, contending that their male counterparts in the 2008-9 season are being produced at 14 of the largest Off Broadway institutions at four times the rate that women are. More than 150 playwrights appeared at a meeting last month to discuss the issue, and all 90 seats at New Dramatists, the playwriting center where Monday night’s meeting is scheduled, are already spoken for, and there is a long waiting list.

“I personally don’t think playwriting is a gene on a Y chromosome,” said Theresa Rebeck, a playwright whose work (“Omnium Gatherum,” “Mauritius,” “The Scene”) has been produced frequently on New York stages, including on Broadway. She added that there has been a reluctance to confront the issue: “Many of our male peers find the debate intolerable. Men in the community seem to think that everything is fine.”

Of course the men think everything is fine ... it is for them!

“It’s harder for women playwrights and directors,” said Oskar Eustis, artistic director at the nonprofit Public Theater, because “it’s harder for professional women in the United States.”

One possible explanation for the imbalance is that most artistic directors, who have a large say in what shows are produced, are men. The men say they "don't relate or connect with women as much as men." This same explanation could probably be used to describe MOST discrimination in the workplace. White men are more comfortable working with other white men -- which leaves women and people of color out.

Ms. Rebeck said that male friends “in the system say to me I have to keep my mouth shut; don’t be part of the problem, don’t be a whiner.” But Ms. Rebeck, who has written on the subject in the London newspaper The Guardian and attended the last meeting, has disregarded their advice.

“I think it puts in question excellence,” she said. “Whether it’s cronyism or bias,” she added, the result was that a message is sent that what is put onstage is “not about excellence.”

You go grrl! Keeping quiet is never the answer.

.

Woman of Courage Lilly Ledbetter

One of the things I've always enjoyed about being involved with NOW is the opportunity to meet courageous women who are working to make a difference for all of us. One of those women is Lilly Ledbetter.

For 19 years Lilly worked at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber production plant in Alabama. She was hired as a supervisor in 1979, received excellent employment evaluations over the years and was even selected to take on a special task for the company.

When she discovered that men doing her same job were earning much more, some as much as 40% more, she took her employer to court. A jury agreed that she was paid unfairly, and awarded her $223,776 in back pay, and more than $3 million in punitive damages, but a judge cut that to only $300,000 because of a 1991 law that limits a company's liability for damages.

Goodyear took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against her, taking away every cent of the damages and back pay. In a decision written by Bush nominee Justice Samuel Alito, the Court told Ledbetter that she should have filed a complaint of pay discrimination within 180 days of her first unfair paycheck, even though she had no knowledge of the disparity.

Lilly Ledbetter may never recover the pay she rightly earned. But federal legislation has been introduced in her name in an effort to restore the true intention of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and protect other women from wage discrimination.

The House has passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but the bill fell four votes short in the Senate. Republicans, who have used the filibuster at an alarming rate (up more than 150%) blocked the bill from even coming to the floor for consideration.

Ledbetter said she was surprised to receive a personal call from Sen. Hillary Clinton when the Supreme Court decision was announced. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama interrupted their campaigning last April to fly back to Washington for the Senate vote.

NOW presented Ledbetter a Woman of Courage award today, and she truly deserves it. She not only stood up to Goodyear, but to family and friends who thought she should just leave well enough alone.

But the question remains: Why should women settle for less than what men are paid? And as I have said before, when women are paid less than men EVERYONE suffers. The additional $223,776 in back pay Lilly EARNED could have paid off a mortgage, paid college tuition, or could have been invested to insure her retirement.

When women are discriminated against, everyone in the family suffers.

Lilly Ledbetter will probably never recover the pay she rightly earned, but the federal legislation in her name could restore the true intention of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and protect other women from wage discrimination.

We must make this a priority of our new Congress ... and president.

Why We Need 60

It's the magic number -- 60. You need 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster. You need 60 votes to override a presidential veto. You need 60 votes to GET ANYTHING DONE in the Senate. The Democrats don't have 60 votes. So what we have is the most obstructionist Senate in history.

The National Women's Law Center reports:

On Wednesday, the Senate voted on a motion to advance the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a key bill that would have a major impact on the lives of women who’ve been subject to pay discrimination. While we didn’t get the 60 votes necessary to move to the next big step — scheduling a debate and vote on the bill itself — the fight isn’t over. Tell your Senators the bill deserves fair consideration on the Senate floor.

Women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. For women of color, the numbers are even worse - African American women earn 63 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men.

Equal Pay Day - the point in 2008 when the average woman's wages finally catch up with what the average man earned in 2007 - was Tuesday, April 22. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would have given all employees a better shot at a fair workplace, making it easier to ensure justice for those who have been discriminated against based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, and age.

The New York Times wrote:

...[T]he bill would re-establish that the deadline for making a charge of pay discrimination under Title VII runs from when a worker receives unequal pay, not from the day a company first decided to discriminate, as the Supreme Court wrongly insisted.

Many employers keep salaries and raises confidential, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg aptly noted in her dissent in the Ledbetter case. By making it clear that the 180-day clock restarts with each discriminatory paycheck, the act avoids rewarding employers that obscure lower raises given on the basis of such considerations as gender or race.

Far from eliminating the current statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination claims, as some opponents claim, it merely restores a reasonable notion of when the clock starts running. The House approved the same measure in July, but it remains to be seen whether enough Republican votes can be mustered to overcome a filibuster threat in the Senate.

The act’s defeat would please the Bush White House and the United States Chamber of Commerce. It would be a significant civil rights setback.

Take a look at how the Senate voted, and you will see why we need more Democrats in Congress. If you are not working on a campaign, sign up to do so TODAY.

Blog for Fair Pay Day - April 18

I have been asked to help spread the word about an upcoming blog event -- the Blog for Fair Pay Day. It's certainly something I can support!

The National Women's Law Center would like you to know that:

Women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts.

And for women of color, the numbers are even worse. African-American women earn 63 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men.*

It’s time to take action.


A bill awaiting a vote in Congress would help women fight for fair pay. Advocates are pushing for the Senate to vote by the end of April, to commemorate Equal Pay Day on April 18.

Raise your voice in support! Sign up to blog on Friday, April 18, about the importance of fair pay for women. Please also ask your readers to urge to their Senators to support the Fair Pay Restoration Act. We’ll send you a reminder as the date gets closer.

You can also download a graphic to let your readers know you’ll be participating and learn more about the Fair Pay Restoration Act.

We hope you’ll join us in supporting fair pay for women!

*Note: These statistics are for full-time, year-round workers.

Hey, who couldn't use a few more $$$ every pay day!

Take Action NOW

from a NOW action alert:

Oppose Change Limiting Federal Contracts for Women-Owned Businesses

They're at it again! The Bush administration is moving to further limit equal economic opportunity for women through a critical change in the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations [Proposed Rule, 13 CFR Parts 121, 125, 127 and 134, Dec. 27, 2007] relating to the Women's Procurement Program.

Action Needed:

Please send comments to the SBA opposing this regulatory change that would virtually eliminate the "set-aside" program in federal contracts for women-owned businesses.

Take action NOW -- comments are due by Monday, Feb. 25! Comments should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal and identified by 3245-AF40. (The middle box on the main page, cut and paste 3245-AF40, and then click "go".) You may use our sample message or compose your own statement.

_____________________

For Background go here
_____________________

Sample Message:

Robert C. Taylor
Office of Contract Assistance
Office of Government Contracting
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20416

RE: 3245-AF40 - Proposed Rule, 13 CFR Parts 121, 125, 127 and 134 - RIN 3245-4F40 [Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Assistance Procedures, 72 Fed. Reg. 73,295 (Dec. 27, 2007)]

Dear Mr. Taylor:

I oppose a change in the Small Business Administration's Women's Procurement Program that would limit women-owned businesses' eligibility to only four relatively narrow industry sectors and to further limit the contract amounts to no more than $5 million for manufacturing and $3 million for other areas. There is no evidence to support SBA's assertion that only those industries (intelligence; engraving and metalworking; furniture and kitchen cabinet manufacturing; and motor vehicle dealers) are underrepresented in women-owned businesses.. Instead, the agency's determination of underrepresented industries should be based upon National Research Council findings that 87 percent of business and industry is not adequately represented with women-owned businesses. An additional study, by RAND Corp., came to the same conclusion about widespread underrepresentation. Clearly, the SBA is attempting to substantiate its case for the rule change on a set of false assertions.

Further, businesses in the SBA's four named industry sectors have not been attributed small business size standards, thus making them ineligible for the Women's Procurement Program. The cruel result is that no industry will be eligible for the Women's Procurement Program - unless governmental agencies undertake special studies to determine whether there has been government discrimination. The likelihood of such future study initiatives is low.

This rule change is unnecessary and flies against what federal statutes require of the agency. The proposed alteration is wholly contrary to Congress' intention that more federal contracts -- not fewer-- be awarded to qualified women-owned businesses across a broad spectrum of industries. Discouraging discrimination against women-owned businesses is in the fundamental interest of the federal government, as well as enhancing equal opportunities for women business owners and preventing their annual loss of millions of dollars. I urge you to withdraw this unfortunate and damaging regulatory change.

Sincerely,

Act NOW -- comments are due Monday, Feb. 25!

What's Your Salary?

How many of you know what the person working next to you earns? Aren't you just a little bit curious? Salaries have traditionally been a secret, something you don't talk about in polite company. I mean really, how would you react if I walked up and ask, so tell me ... how much DO you make? We just don't talk about it.

That is what makes the Ledbetter Supreme Court decision so egregious. Lilly Ledbetter worked at Goodyear Tire & Rubber for 19 years. She was a good employee, got to work on time, did her job day in and day out, and only learned after she retired that she earned considerably less than the men she worked with who were doing the same job.

This should be of interest to men and women, because when women earn less than men it hurts their entire family. It's lost income for everyone living under that roof.

Ledbetter filed a lawsuit, and initially was awarded $3 million in damages. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where by a decision of 5-4 the Justices reversed the lower court ruling.

In a sharply worded dissent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court ignored the "real-world characteristics of pay discrimination."

Ginsburg said it was unreasonable to expect Ledbetter and other women to know immediately that their pay was out of line ... [and] that an employee may "have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of" the pay disparity with her male colleagues.

Women are fighting back, and included below is a message I received today from the National Women's Law Center:

Dear BAC,

I’m a former employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. For close to two decades, I was paid less than my male co-workers — even though I was doing the same work they were, and doing it well. The company kept the discrimination quiet and I didn't know about the pay gap until I got an anonymous note about it. Seeking to rectify this injustice, I brought Goodyear to court.

A jury found that Goodyear had discriminated and awarded me more than $3 million in damages. But Goodyear appealed my case all the way to the Supreme Court and got a reversal of the jury verdict by one vote. The Court said I should have filed my complaint within six months of the original act of discrimination — even though at the time I didn't know the discrimination was happening, let alone have enough evidence to complain.

My case set a new and dangerous precedent. According to the Court, if pay discrimination isn't challenged within six months, a company can pay a woman less than a man for the rest of the woman's career. I wonder what other forms of discrimination the Supreme Court will permit in the future.

Fortunately, the Senate is now considering the Fair Pay Restoration Act. If it passes, this bill would tell the Supreme Court it got it wrong. The bill would give all employees a better shot at a fair workplace, making it easier to ensure justice for those who have been discriminated against based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, and age.

My court case is over, but thanks to the National Women’s Law Center and dedicated individuals like you, the fight against pay discrimination continues. Please join us by signing the Fair Pay Campaign Pledge. Help ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have a shot at a fair workplace and a better future.

Sincerely,
Lilly Ledbetter

Take action! Sign the Fair Play Campaign Pledge, and urge others to do so as well.

File Under: 'It's About Time" - Changes at Wal-Mart

It's about time that Wal-Mart addressed lack of health care coverage for its employees.

For much of the last decade, the retailing behemoth Wal-Mart Stores has been associated with stingy health care as much as low prices.

Across the country, politicians and labor groups derided the company’s health plans for their high expense and bare-bones coverage. Two states, California and Maryland, even passed laws demanding, in effect, that the company spend more on employee health benefits.

“We want this giant to behave itself,” one Maryland legislator, Anne Healey, said at the time.

The giant, it turns out, was listening. All the criticism was hurting its reputation and its ability to expand. So now, after spending two years seeking advice from everyone from Bill Clinton to executives at Starbucks, Wal-Mart is overhauling its health plans.

The company, according to data available for the first time, is offering better coverage to a greater number of workers. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, provides insurance to 100,000 more workers than it did just three years ago — and it is now easier for many to sign up for health care at Wal-Mart than at its rival, Target, whose reputation glows in comparison.

Wal-Mart has hardly become a standard-bearer for corporate America: it still insures fewer than half its 1.4 million employees in the United States.

Better, but not good enough! How many Walton billionaires does one family need before it will begin to offer health coverage for ALL its employees?

And while we are on the subject of Wal-Mart ... what about the sex discrimination and sexual harassment claims?

Baby steps just won't cut it anymore.