LegiStorm: Transparency's Sidekick

The actual article about the discrepancies in pay between men and woman on Obama's staff seems very clear. Here is part of the original article: Obama: Pay Equity For Thee, But Not For Me by Deroy Murdock (more by this author) Posted 09/12/2008 ET “Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: “I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.” Obama’s campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading “Fighting for Pay Equity,” the women’s issues page laments that, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…” Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make. A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. “We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible,” its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm’s official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. The most recent statistics are for the half-year from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Excluding interns focuses attention on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last February 29, extrapolating up to six months’ service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year’s worth of Senate employees’ paychecks should look. Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397. Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average. Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women in Obama’s highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women. Again, on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1.00. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue. Obama responded August 31 to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin “seems like a very engaging person,” Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. “But I’ve got to say, she’s opposed — like John McCain is — to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.” Obama’s criticism notwithstanding, McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams. McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878. On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain. How could this be? One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain’s highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women — much more than men — for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

Lots of talk about equal pay is good. Keep talking! Lets talk about how the Congress of the US gave itself AUTOMATIC PAY RAISES! What a good old boys club. And they didn't even have to work for it. They knew they could get away with it just like they get away with everything else...almost, as there are still enough of us left to give them some trouble. Speak up America! Call these jerks into some acountability. They are taking your country away from you.

Allan, you SO deserve to be underpaid, whatever it is you try to get paid for. Learn to spell and spend less time RANTING IN ALL CAPS and making personal attacks on people who disagree with you and maybe people will respect your opinions more instead of dismissing you as a raving nut.

Allen - you are clearly an idiot. No really stop with the rants because you are making yourself look like a complete fool. I am a professional and male in a Global Fortune 50 company and believe me Jenn is correct....It does happen. As for you, you girlfriend makes more than you because of one thing....a college diploma. You my friend earn less because you dont have one. The Nurse, college diploma do you see a trend here pal. Go fix an outlet.

One last note before I go kiddies..... FAIR PAY IS A JOKE .... ALL EMPLOYEES DO NOT DESERVE FAIR PAY...... FAIR PAY IS A SOCIALSIT PRINCIPAL.... LABOR UNIONS LOVE THIS IDEA.. Trouble is have any of you ever worked in one???????????????????????? I am guessing most of you have not..... Well what happens when you mandate FAIR INTO THE EQUATION is the complete opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.... YOU GET A WORKFORCE THAT BECOMES LAZY..... One person can be an excellent employee while another can be next to useless AND GUESS WHAT .... THE HARD WORKING PERSON GETS THE SAME REWARD AS THE USELESS SLUG.... YOU CALL THAT FAIR???????? THERE BECOMES NO INCENTIVE TO WORK HARD OR REACH FOR THE STARS ...... And like almost ALL LIBERAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS ...... THE RESULTS ARE CATASTROPIC TO THE EMPLOYER THE EMPLOYEE AND THE CUSTOMER ..... JUST LOOK TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL.. LOOK TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IDEA THE LIBERAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROJECT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING JUST BLEW UP AND MIGHT TAKE THE COUNTRY WITH IT... COURTESY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.... CHRIS DODD, BARNY FRANK, FANKLIN RAINES, MAXINE WATERS, JIM JOHNSON AND THE BEAT GOES ON........

Jessica one more thing perhaps you could answer since you seem to know soo much!! How do you explain the fact that today women far outnumber men in college graduates.... Also how do you explain the fact that in the very area I live and in other areas IT SEEMS THAT IN THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD THE WOMAN IS THE ONE WITH THE HIGHER PAYING JOB..... Growing up my mother outearned my fater almost every year.. my neighbor to the right had a steelworker fater and a mother that was a VP of a large credit union.. on the other side we had an auto mecanic father and Nurse mother in ALL THREE HOUSEHOLDS THE WOMEN EARNED MUCH MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do you explain this if there is such gender inequality as the ignorant allege????? My girlfriend a Senior auditor and I an Electrician again I make less!!!!! Of all my friends that I went to high school with and I saw a a 10 yr reunion FAR MORE FEMALES are college grads and current professionals than their male counterparts.... by almost 2 to 1 COME ON JESS TELL ME HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IS GOING ON OUT HERE IN THE REAL WORLD???? LIFE IS NOT A TEXTBOOK.... ALL THOSE FIGURES ARE JUST NUMBERS THEY MEAN NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! TALK TO SOMEONE LIVING IT AND YOU WILL GET THE FACTS... AND I DONT MEAN SOME MILLITANT FEMME NAZI WHO IS PO'd at the world JESSICA!! I MEAN ACTUAL REAL FAMILIES!!! NOT URBANE YUPPIES TRYING TO CLIMB THE CORP LADDER... REAL LIFE DOWNHOME PEOPLE... BECASUE WHAT YOU SAY IS SOO OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REALITY OUT THERE AND THIS COMES FROM A PERSON WHO HAS LIVED IN Many diff places San Diego CA, Yuma AZ, Philidelphia PA, Columbia MD, Toledo OH, Williamsport PA and Allentown PA in my working adult life!!!!!! THE STORY WAS VERY SIMILAR IN ALL THOOSE PLACES.............

Jessica YOU LIE!!!!!! Take you're made up story and go HOME.... GOD YOU LIBERALS ARE SUCH UNDERHANDED LIARS... If you're story is TRUE TELL ME WHO DID YOU SUE AND WHO DID YOU WORK FOR???? AND WHAT DECADE WAS THIS IN???? I AM GONNA CALL YOU PEOPLE OUT EVERY TIME... I CAN SMELL A LIE LIKE A FART IN A CAR JESSICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One more point for all the ONE SIDED LIBERAL PEEPS OUT THERE!!! You talk about equal pay for equal work THE WHOLE PREMIS OF THIS IDEA IS BS FROM THE GET GO.... NO TWO PEOPLE CAN POSSIBLE PREFORM A JOB EQUALLY!!!!! SO THEREFORE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK IS IMPOSSIBLE... ALSO IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STEALLR OR SUBPAR PERFORMANCE WHICH AGAIN MAKES THE IDEA OF JUDGING EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK EVEN MORE IMPOSSIBLE.... JUT BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE DO THE SAME JOB DOES NOT MEAN THE DO IT EQUALLY!!!!!!! GIVE IT UP MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS....

It is rediculos to even debate this issue and that has been the poitn myself and MANY INTELLIGENT CONSERVATIVES have been saying for decades!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT REMEMBER THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN USING THE NUMBERS LIKE THIS FOR A LONG TIME!!!! I say BRAVO to McCain for finally sticking it to them with their OWN B.S. Medicine and as usual when the shoe is on the other foot the LIBERAL whines like the little baby girl or man child they are.... Grow up kiddies....

The above comment belabors the argument to the point of lunacy, and the questions are asked in an over-simplified way that makes them impossible to answer accurately (regardless of how skewed or not you think the argument is). Pay is not bassed simply on level of education or experience, but a number of complex factors that can't be represented by a series of simple yes or no questions, or a spreadsheet where the only information given is the staffer's name, salary, and starting date. These claims made by the McCain campaign are bassed on a small sample of 50 or so employees (which can be easily skewed either way, depending on how you define "equal work"), without any additional insight on how salary decisions were made by the Obama or MaCain campaigns. This is blatant cherry picking. Could it be that at one point McCain - likely to be running a campaign where women's equality issues would be at the forefront - could easliy skew his payroll to make this argument? Their argument that McCain female staffers earn $2000 more than male staffers could just as easily be used to suggest reverse discrimination. I'm not making accusations here, I'm suggesting that the point here is that there is no point, and the information used to construct this argument is not conclusive by any means.

I am a female that works on the Hill and I think it is ludacris to assume that the same title necessarily means the same job. Because salaries are not standardized at all, nor are job titles, roles can be dramatically different between offices AND within offices. There may be two "legislative assistants" in an office- one may handle 3 issues, the other may handle 9 issues. Same title- very different work load. And- just because someone has been "around longer" does not mean they are performing better. Show me an example of a person handling 3 issues with the LA title that is making more than an LA handling 9 issues and I will agree, wholeheartedly, that there may be some bias. There certainly are instances of unfair pay on the Hill, but, the simplistic approach of title/tenure/pay is not a good way to establish unfair treatment.

I am a woman who sued a former employer for sex discrimination based on wage disparity and also for pregnancy discrimination (and won after 4 years of a hellacious process -- and please note that it is almost impossible for a woman to win a lawsuit based on wage disparity for many of the reasons stated here). Employers try to combat wage complaints like mine with arguments like "experience or education does not make them a better employee by default. I have employees, and pay them based on their value to my organization..." These are great when you want to stiff an employee based on gender or race etc. I had more education and more experience AND I had the best employee reviews possible until I became pregnant (and they decided that I would someone become ineffective in my job for some reason -- without any decrease in my work production or quality -- the top boss just didn't like pregnant woman on the job. When the EEOC came to investigate, they were the ones who discovered that the other females and I were making far less money than our counterparts (same job - same job description etc.) The EEOC finds "cause" in less than 5% of the cases it looks into... "Cause" is really hard to prove. But when I'm looking at the data on the way the McCain and Obama are paying their respective staff members -- there are lots of red flags for Obama. (Please note that I really, really want to believe in Obama. I'm just starting to doubt him. It is starting to look like Obama IS all talk.) Obama's campaign needs to come out with something to END this rumor. It is starting to affect those of us who care about fair pay and fair treatment for all employees, regardless of gender, race, age, etc.

The scenarios ask us to base our assessment on 2 discerning criteria: a)education; and b)time of service (hereafter: "experience"). No assessment can be made relating experience to a subjective concept of "value to the organization". By default we would have to consider that if there was a greater value for someone of less experience due to demonstrated or perceived abilities as an additional discriminator then that individual would be provided a different title. With that said, the only scenario that I consider to be unfair is found in #6. Specifically, two essential areas of unfairnes: 1) Within "candidate X" person (A) is treated unfairly compared to (B). Reason: A has more seniority than B yet earns less than B. 2) If we are to consider comparisons between candidates and not just pay within a candidate's staff then both A and B are treated unfairly as compared to C and D. Same reason, A and B earn less than C and D yet A and B have more experience than C and D. Why are they paid less? .... Therefore, I find by this example alone no substantiation to the allegation that Obama compensates women unfairly. Beyond that, by the example portrayed in #6, Obama compensates better than McCain, when you look at C vs. A. End of Comment.

SammyB raises an excellent point. How in gods name could we be sure the same tasks are being performed? Further, because someone has more experience or education does not make them a better employee by default. I have employees, and pay them based on their value to my organization. It is simple as an employer to determine what to pay the help, however for those looking in from the outside it should be nearly improbable to determine the whole of the picture. Having said that, when looking at entire demographics, or the picture as a whole it MAY suggest a pattern in the methodology used to determine pay levels, but it may also suggest alternatively that whole demographics are assigned different tasks while under the same title. Another good reason for Government to stay the hell out of PRIVATE equal work equal pay concepts. Just my 2 cents.

Have any of the candidates been unfair in their wage practices? Take the 6 questions below to find out. The questions are six actual scenarios taken straight from Legistorm. I grouped based on workers having the same job title where the job title suggested a very specific role ("Intern" and "Staff Assistant" were left out since it is impossible with the information available to determine whether any two staff assistants or interns do similar work). In lay terms, pay equality means the same organization should pay the same rate for the same work with reasonable differences permitted based on seniority, merit, or performance. In each question, I've taken out the names and who they work for, replacing it with Person A, Person B, etc... Use your own commonsense and a pad of paper to keep score. At the end, I'll provide the key for who is who and whom it is they work for. You can then claim that your opinion is not biased by your party beliefs, but by a true interest in fairness! Are you ready?

[Question 1] Person A receives $7,833.32 per month, they were hired within days of Person B who earns $6,916.66 but has the same job title for purposes of public disclosure (legislative counsel). Person A went to both Yale and Harvard Law School and was Associate Dean and a professor of Yale University School of Law (The official title for Person A is Legislative Counsel). Person B went to University of Virginia, School of law in Charlottesville, and Yale. Their official job title is Legislative Assistant. If you think this pay demonstrates unfairness in pay mark this as YES.

[Question 2] Two Legislative Directors, Person A makes $10,833 per month and was hired January 2004. Person B makes $10,000 per month and started the job in February of 2005. If you believe that this shows unfair wages then write down "Person _ is receiving unfairly low wages".

[Question 3] Two "Special Assistants" work for the same employer. Person A recieves $3,166.66 per month and has a year and a half of additional experience than Person B who earns $3,015 per month. If you believe that this shows unfair wages then write down "Person _ is receiving unfairly low wages".

[Question 4 - Legislative Correspondent] Candidate X hires Person A at $3,335 (this person has been at the job for 4 years, 3 months) Candidate X hires Persons B at an average of $3,170 these persons have been working for an average 2 years, 10 months) Candidate Y hires Persons C at an average of $2,889 (these persons have been working for an average 2 years, 4 months) Candidate Y hires Person D at $2,699 (this person has been at the job for 1 years, 1 month) Write down A, B, C, and/or D if you feel a person or group of people have been treated unfairly.

[Question 5 - Constituent Services Agent] Candidate X hires Person A at $2,333 (this person has been at the job for 1 year, 5 months) Candidate X hires Person B at $3,000 (this person has been at the job for 3 years, 1 month) Candidate X hires Person C at $3,094 (this person has been at the job for 3 years, 2 months) Candidate X hires Person D at $3,500 (this person has been at the job for 3 years, with a prior 2 1/2 years as a staff assistant) Write down A, B, C, and/or D if you feel there are unfair wages.

[Question 6 - Legislative Assistant] Candidate X hires Person A at $5,952 (this person has been at the job for 6 years, 6 months) Candidate X hires Persons B at an average of $6,027 these persons have been working for an average 5 years, 8 months) Candidate Y hires Person C at $6,917 (this person has been at the job for 3 years, 5 month) Candidate Y hires Persons D at an average of $6,192 (these persons have been working for an average 2 years, 2 months) Write down A, B, C, and/or D if you feel a person or group of people have been treated unfairly.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@ ANSWERS @@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Now for the answers. If you found a case that suggests inappropriate wage disparity then please reply with the number of the question and your thoughts on what makes it inappropriate. Please digg this up so others can see how their "partyline" beliefs may differ from their beliefs when not having the benefit of knowing who the parties involved are.

[Answer 1] Person A is I. Solomon and he works for Obama Person B is R. Bhowmik and she works for Obama

[Answer 2] Person A is A. Begeman and she works for McCain Person B is C. Lu and he works for Obama

[Answer 3] Person A is J. Currie-Leonard and she works for Obama (started work in January 2005) Person B is N. Colvin and he works for Obama (started work in June 2005)

[Answer 4] Person A is K. Rossi and she works for McCain Persons B are two males who work for McCain (A. Barker and B. Ashley) Persons C are three females who work for Obama (L. Alvarado, C. Martinez and E. Olson) Person D is A. Mehra and he works for Obama

[Answer 5] Person A is S. Hussain and she works for Obama Persons B is J. Pilat and she works for Obama Persons C is M. Sutton-Vereen and she works for Obama Person D is S. Hooks and he works for Obama

[Answer 6] Person A is R. Tallent and she works for McCain Persons B are four males who work for McCain (R. Fontaine, T. Mir, N. Matiella, and J. Donoghue) Person C is D. Hughes and she works for Obama Persons D are five males who work for Obama (H. Atkinson, A. Cohn, E. Ramos, S. Robinson, and D. Sepulveda)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@ FINAL COMMENTS @@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

These are the links used for both Senators, but don't go to them until you taken the test. Trust me you'll have more fun that way.

http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/48.html

http://www.legistorm.com/member/69/Sen_John_McCain/48.html

If anyone can see how I've skewed a result to favor one party or another please use the "reply" feature and describe the problem as you see it and I'll fix it and repost it ASAP.

I've grouped all people working under the same job title. Since it's ridiculous to compare the male Outreach Coordinator for Obama with the female Systems Administrator for McCain, I have taken people out whose roles can't be matched up. Remember that I am looking for Equal Pay for Equal Work, not the fact that two completely different roles pay differently. Additionally, I've calculated the monthly amounts for purpose of comparison.

Again, I skipped Legal Interns and regular Interns as the numbers are completely all over the place (only one Obama Intern and 6 McCain Interns - 2 legal). Some of the work periods are only a month long and they get paid peanuts. If I get any feedback requesting it, I'll put the information in a reply, but trust me when I say there is no reason. I also didn't put in Staff Assistants because the job title is too broad. The wages go from $433 per month (McCain male) all the way up to $5,112 (McCain female). clearly not the same job being done here and short of phoning the campaigns for specific job descriptions, there is no way to know who I should be pairing up for review. It should be noted that of the 27 staffers there are some case on both sides of men and women getting hired on the same date and with no prior experience, in each of these cases both parties paid the same wage.

Now that you finished the test, please digg it up (or down) so that others can have the chance to come to their own conclusion without simply falling prey to their partyline...

It is too bad we do not have accurate information on whether or not the jobs were "equal." You provided a loaded gun but the fact you didn't shoot anyone is outside the scope of your responsiblity obviously.