September 25, 2025

3 thoughts on “Congresswoman Elaine Luria Votes for Paycheck Fairness Act and Praises Its Passage in the House

  1. HERE HERE ! What fair minded individual wouldn’t support that idea ? It’s sad that someone had to write this into law.

  2. The Paycheck Fairness Act is not about equal pay for equal work. That’s already the law of the land under both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Since pay discrimination is already illegal, the Paycheck Fairness Act is actually about rigid pay scales, hiring discrimination, lower wages, lower productivity, increased business and consumer costs and, of course, lawyers and judges second-guessing employers’ evaluations.( If you’re an employer, won’t THAT be fun?)

    That ‘s a lot of consequences in the name of reducing the so-called “pay gap” between men and women. A pay gap that in today’s world is negligible.

    You see, the “pay gap” that some folks go on about in meant to enhance the victim mentality and thus gather votes.

    It is an apples-to-oranges comparison presented as if women make about 20 cents less on the dollar than men. It completely ignores factors that employers consider when setting pay, such as occupation, education, experience and hours.

    When such measurable factors are taken into account, the “gap” all but disappears. The small differences that remains aren’t the result of discrimination. Harder-to-measure factors such as differences in workplace flexibility and benefits account for most of the remaining gap.

    Those harder-to-measure factors would be the first to go under the Paycheck Fairness Act. Losing the option of flexible work schedules, teleworking and family-friendly benefits would disproportionately hurt working mothers, who place a higher value on those factors.

    The aim of proponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act are pay scales similar to those established for the federal workforce or in union contracts.

    Pay scales are not amenable to today’s labor market. Unlike a 1950 assembly line where workers clocked in from 9 to 5 and everyone produced the same number of products a day, few jobs today have exactly equal functions or outputs.

    Moreover, fixed-pay regimes don’t let employers offer flexibility or rewards for extra effort. Instead, they create less productive and frustrating work environments.

    The federal pay system is a perfect example of the problem. It is based almost entirely on title and tenure.

    The last Federal Employee survey showed that only one in four non-supervisory employees believed that pay raises depended on how well people do their jobs.

    That’s a problem for workers who reap little benefit for excelling in their work and it’s terrible for overall productivity and workers’ wages. It’s also a problem for the rest of us when we have to deal with the government in any capacity.

    In addition, survey after survey indicates that most workers just want to be paid based on the work they perform. The best way to achieve that is to let workers negotiate directly with their employers instead of having the government, lawyers and judges scrutinize and second-guess the agreements that employers and workers make with each other.

    The whole thing reminds me of the old saying:

    What are the most terrifying words an American ever hears?

    I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Leave a Reply to Ray Otton Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *