The United States is a melting pot of various cultures. People come in different colors, shapes, and sizes. Over the years, the US was perceived as an ideal place to be. It is the land of the free where equality, fairness and justice prevails. It is the land where anything and everything is possible more so if you toil hard to reach your goal, thanks to democracy.
We do not live in a perfect world and prejudices and bias are to be expected, but when you are in the United States, you can expect equality before the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, that as a human being everyone is entitled to be equal opportunities and equal pay. As a matter of fact "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law,” according to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
People from other countries migrate to the US to be with family, for asylum, and other reasons. It was always considered the proverbial land of milk and honey, where the grass is always greener, and for this reason waves of migrations followed. Just like the citizens of America, migrants have always relied on its constitutional provisions that guarantee the right to life, liberty and property and its equal protection clause.
International human rights laws that guarantee equal pay for work of equal value and equal labor rights include the 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention, Convention 100 of the International Labor Organization (a body of the United Nations), Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 4 of the European Social Charter, and Article 15 of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
In 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed by the Federal Government of the United States. The Equal Pay Act states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."
A year later, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed making it unlawful to discriminate based on a person’s race, religion, color, or sex. Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act states an employer cannot deny women equal pay for equal work. It is also unlawful to deny women transfers, promotions, or wage increases; intentionally segregate men and women into jobs according to their gender; to manipulate job evaluations to relegate women’s pay.
In 1981, in the case of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), et al. v. State of Washington et al. [No. C 82-465T (District Court for the Western District of Washington), 1983], the District Court of Washington ruled that it conducted a study on labor discrimination on account of one’s gender and found that there was severe disparities in wages, and had not done anything to ameliorate these disparities, this constituted discrimination under Title VII that was “pervasive and intentional”. It ordered the State to pay 15,500 women back pay from 1979 based on a 1983 study of comparable worth – which amounts to more than $800 million. This court decision was overturned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stating that stating that Washington had always required their employees’ salaries to reflect the free market, “the State did not create the market disparity . . . [and] neither law nor logic deems the free market system a suspect enterprise”. Consequently though, in 2010, the state increased state worker’s pay.
As we can see, laws on the matter are aplenty, but as mentioned earlier, we do not live in a perfect world. Studies show that certain groups of workers are discriminated upon and that minorities with college degrees earn less than whites.
According the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, unequal pay for equal work becomes justifiable when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) ... any other factor other than sex.” In these instances, there is no violation of the convention.
Employers have argued that they own the job and should be allowed to control the situation. For example, they would not want to lose an excellent worker by paying him less, so as an incentive he gets a better pay than the others (Michael Tennant. The Justice of Pay Discrimination, LewRockwell.com, accessed on August 26, 2011). Disparity in pay on account of performance is understandable and logical, but how does one explain the disparity in pay simply because of gender, creed, age, and race?
There will always be a bias and it will never go away. An employer will always argue about his discretion because he has an interest to protect. He has the right to choose whom to hire and whom to compensate more. He will not tell you that you didn’t get the promotion because you are a minority but he will tell you that someone is more qualified. In the eyes of the law, that is legal and within his rights as an employer.
In 2009, a study called An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction was conducted. A black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were featured in a video and customers were asked to watch it. The actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Nineteen percent (19%) of the viewers were more satisfied with the white male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. It is interesting to note that 41 percent of the viewers/customers were not white and that 45 percent were women which shows that minority and female customers prefer white men. They conducted a second study, this time in a medical setting. Results showed that equally well performing female or minority doctors were not rated well as white male doctors whom respondents described to be more approachable and competent. Overall, these studies suggest than an employer is inclined to hire a white person because he is likely to satisfy his customers and get better results. They posited that paying women more won’t solve the problem. Researchers believe that the solution to the wage gap problem is change customer biases.
Over the years legislations about equality regardless of one’s race, age, gender or creed have been passed; the thing is, legislation cannot cure biases. The solution is within ourselves. Looking beyond a person’s race, age, gender or creed is easier said than done, but as long as we have biases, equality is nothing more than a dream that can be attained only in an ideal setting.
This blog is not legal advice, but shares information on the law. We are living in hard times; people lose their jobs and many are struggling to make ends meet. Legalbargain.net gives back to society by sharing it’s knowledge and producing advocacy videos to put justice within the reach of those who believe justice is only for those with money.
Comments