samhill wrote:I was under the impression that it was equal pay for equal work ....
That's already a law, the recent ones proposed and enacted increase what women can sue for. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for example increased for how long they collect back wages, as I understand it they could only go back 6 months. This act allowed them go back indefinitely as long as they were still actively empoloyed within the last 6 months. There is some good arguments for both sides but the bottom line is it's open for abuse, if you weren't being paid right for 20 years who's responsibility is that?
The recent legislation struck down by the Republicans would have increased punitive damages. It would have been a windfall for lawyers. The Democrats pushed it knowing full well it wouldn't pass so they could use it for political ammunition which seems to be a more common tactic amongst both parties. Get ready for the "<insert republican politician here> hates women and voted against them" ads.
not averaging anything out
Again when you hear a Democrat claiming 77 cents on the dollar that's exactly what they are referring too. Every article I've read on this has the same 77 cent figure cited. It's just the average wage of women compared to men based on US census data. There is absolutely no adjustment for any variables, it's not an apples to apples comparison where they have compared women and men doing the same job with the same experience.