Equal Pay and Economic Justice Would Reduce Taxes

In conversations with candidates I have held this fall, all of them identify jobs and economic development as a number one issue, with reducing the burden on property tax payers a close second. Yet, few of them talk about paying a living wage, equal pay, or insisting that employers do their part to ease the burden that corporate welfare puts on taxpayers from low wages.

Gender pay inequity and low-wages put the burden of meeting the expenses of employees squarely on the backs of local taxpayers, who make up the difference in the costs of living with social safety net programs.

November 1 marks that last of the several “Pay Equity” days in America. Every class and race of American woman suffers from the pay gap. It took 4 months for white women to catch up with white men’s pay on April 10; mom's equal pay happened on May 30; black women reach parity on August 7; Southeast Asian women caught up on Sept. 12, Native women on Sept. 27, and Latina women waited a full 20 months to catch up on Nov. 1. The Latina woman’s pay gap is 54 cents to a white man’s salary dollar.

The pay gap not only hurts women and their families, but it also hurts the communities they support. That means local businesses are hurt through lost sales, as are local schools and governments that depend up on sales tax and property tax dollars to fund the programs and the infrastructure those communities need to exist.

And it is not just low and unequal wage practices that hurt women and their communities. Low wage workers are all too often the target of wage theft. In April, New York State reported that state investigators recovered more than $35.3 million in stolen wages in 2017, up more than $1.3 million from 2016. Those lost wages were returned to 36,446 workers across New York who weren’t properly compensated for their time on the job.

One example of the societal costs of corporate welfare is the historically high compensation paid to CEOs and stock holders on the backs the real work done by a company’s employees, who all too often are thrown on local social services to make ends meet. Walmart is a case in point:  CEO Doug McMillon earned $22.8 million during the retailer's last fiscal year, which ended on January 31, yet Walmart's median employee earned just $19,177 during the same timeframe. That is 1,188 times as much in compensation for the CEO.

Walmart, the nation's largest private-sector employer, has around 1.5 million US employees, out of about 2.3 million employees worldwide. Even modest income sharing would bring the average Walmart employee up to a living wage and barely impact the bottom line for its CEO or the Walton heirs, who rank among the world’s richest people every year.

Think how far 1.5 million living wage paychecks would go toward boosting local economies and increasing tax revenues coupled with a reduced burden on the social safety net. In New York State, social service costs are paid directly by country governments who then must wait for state and federal reimbursement. Add in what giving equal pay checks to the 76.4 million American women who were working outside the home in 2017 and you can see what it would mean to the overall and to local economies.

We hear a lot these days about low unemployment numbers and overall confidence in the economic recovery, but those numbers don’t translate across the spectrum very well. There are stark difference between men and women in this area:

Men feel better about the economy than they have in over a decade. Women are far more skeptical. And the sharp divide has emerged since President Trump was elected two years ago. Nearly half of men — 47 percent — said their family’s finances had improved in the past year, according to a survey conducted for The New York Times in early October by the online research platform SurveyMonkey. Just 30 percent of women said the same, despite an unemployment rate that is near a five-decade low and economic growth that is on track for its best year since before the recession.

Two possible reasons for this stark difference could just be that women are too often locked into “pink ghetto” jobs and are the victims of systemic pay discrimination.

Consider the huge corporate tax cut delivered late last year by the Trump Administration and Congress that sharply curtailed federal revenues this year. Those cuts will directly lead to reductions in social safety net programs and throw even more stress onto local governments who can’t duck responsibility for their citizens.

Living wages and equal pay start to look like solutions to economic distress, don’t they? What positions do the candidates you’ll be voting for November 6 hold on these key issues? Pay close attention to what you hear. Remember that while all answers are responses, not all responses are answers – to the questions asked. 

One way to change the conversation on these topics is to elect more women to make sure these topics make it to the table after Election Day.

Reproductive Rights are Economic Rights

Think where you live doesn’t affect how you live? When it comes to women’s reproductive health and rights, where you live is critical to your access to the care and services you need to live a healthy, productive and economically successful life. Women’s health care is not separate from Health Care – it is integral to it.

No single issue is more critical to a women’s economic success – and that of her family – than her ability to control her child-bearing. Making sure parents get to decide when they want to have children is a proven strategy for family well-being. The easier it is for women to obtain birth control, the more able they are to gain education and employment, which is enormously important for the economy and society. 

A study from Child Trends commissioned by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund found that if every woman in the United States had access to the most effective birth control possible, it could save as much as $12 billion a year in health care costs.

The Affordable Care Act finally opened the door to affordable contraception by mandating that contraception was health care and had to be provided, free of charge, to women under most health care plans.

The ACA is still the law of the land, despite the best (or worse) efforts of Congress and the Trump Administration to kill, repeal, or replace it. Access to health care is a top issue on the minds of voters in 2018 because they have seen the attacks on it since the election of 2016. Those attacks have taken the form of proposed and passed legislation and executive action at both the federal and state level.

Who gets elected in 2018 will determine the fate of New York State initiatives like single payer (the New York Health Act) and the Reproductive Health Care Act, to bring NYS law into federal compliance with settled case law.

Under current state law, women seeking abortions have 24 weeks to terminate their pregnancies. Otherwise, they are required to carry their pregnancies to term. The Reproductive Health Act would allow licensed healthcare practitioners to perform abortions outside of that window if there is an absence of fetal viability or if the abortion is necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. It is important to note here that protecting the life and health of the mother in a dangerous pregnancy is and should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Government has no role to play.

Where you live matters in these issues. Last year, the Guttmacher Institute published a report reviewing reproductive health policy trends across states in the U.S. in 2017. The analysis found that 19 states enacted 63 new restrictions on abortion access, while 21 states enacted 58 measures to expand reproductive health access and education.

Those states where women workers have better access to reproductive health care services are also the states that create better conditions for women to have more opportunities in the labor market, including higher-quality job opportunities, better wages, and less occupational segregation. The analysis also found that restriction on abortion access was a key indicator of the likelihood of women also facing job lock – or lack of labor mobility. This correlation suggests that women’s economic empowerment is integrated into an overall climate of women’s equality, including accessible reproductive health care that better enables women to exercise self-determination over their reproduction.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2017/11/21/442653/linking-reproductive-health-care-access-labor-market-opportunities-women

And this isn’t just an issue for state or federal officials. Recognizing that candidates at those levels usually rise from the ranks of the locally elected, you should also be asking your local candidates for their stands on health care and reproduction health.

The election of 2018 will set the stage for 2020, another presidential election and the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which opened universal suffrage to women in the US. Remember, no one gave women the right to vote – it was the results of a seven decades long struggle to change hide-bound, ingrained, “we’ve always done it this way” thinking.

This November, do we elect candidates ready to move us forward in the 21st century or candidates trying to turn back the clock to the 19th? The decisions you make in the voting booth on November 6th will help determine the economic successes for everyone.

Take #MeToo to the Polls to End Violence Against Women

Timing, as they say, is everything. #MeToo spread virally in October 2017 as a hashtag used on social media in an attempt to demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, especially in the workplace. The coming mid-term election should be a moment of opportunity for women all across the country as the #MeToo movement heads to the polls.

Women candidates have responded at every level of government, running for office in local, state and national races in unprecedented numbers. At least 105 women, many first-time candidates, are running for legislative office in New York on the Democratic or Republican ticket. They recognize that they are more than 50 percent of the state’s voters, yet hold less than 25 percent of elected seats. Those numbers are too low to reach the critical threshold needed to get our issues on the table.

Many of these women candidates are facing an all too familiar set of challenges in their bid for elected office. As an August New York Times article pointed out, “the abuse already common in many women’s everyday lives can be amplified in political campaigns, especially if the candidate is also a member of a minority group.” For women candidates, the harassment is frequently sexualized, and it has come to the fore this election cycle, partly because so many women are running and partly because more of them are discussing their experiences. 

Last year, Wharton School of Business researchers observed that since Donald Trump’s election there had been a marked “increase in men acting more aggressively toward women.” British scholar Mary Beard writes in her book, Women & Power: A Manifesto, women who seek power are viewed as “taking something to which they are not quite entitled."

We need women’s voices in the corridors of power to finally take seriously the violence that American women face every day. Need proof? More than 20,000 calls are placed to domestic violence hotlines every day nationwide. A recent report identified the 50 policing agencies in New York State that reported the highest rates of domestic abuse victims in 2017. Those 50 communities include rural, suburban and urban places all across our state.

Violent crimes against women are often under-reported to police for exactly the reasons we saw play out on the national stage in the recent Supreme Court nomination hearings. The down-stream consequences for the privileged and the powerless victim alike of failing to report can echo just as long as for those who find the courage to report and are not believed.

The consequences of sexual assault fall overwhelmingly on the victims. About 0.7 percent of rapes and attempted rapes end with a felony conviction for the perpetrator, according to an estimate based on the best of the imperfect measures available. On the other side of the incident, at least 89 percent of victims report some level of distress, including high rates of physical injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and substance abuse. There has been much wringing of hands about the damage done to American men by accusations of sexual assault, but any fretting on behalf of those accused of assault should take into account research that shows that millions of victims of sexual assault have paid a serious, measurable price, physically and mentally. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences

The American Psychological Association says that the majority of U.S. workplaces still aren’t taking steps to address sexual harassment the #MeToo stories brought to light. In 2016, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a comprehensive study of workplace harassment in the United States, which concluded that “anywhere from 25% to 85% of women report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.” The EEOC cited a 2003 study found that 75% of employees who spoke out against workplace mistreatment faced some form of retaliation.

There are signs of positive change here in New York, but we need the state legislature to take up these issues in a comprehensive way to end violence against women in the home, in school and the workplace. It is not enough to pass a law. A law without a regulatory framework, a safe reporting mechanism, and meaningful penalties will not accomplish the change we need to make New York a safe place for all its citizenry.

Earlier this year Mayor Bill de Blasio signed in New York City a paid "safe" leave bill, expanding the city's paid sick leave law to allow workers to use their time off to address safety and get services connected with certain criminal offenses. The law covers leave for uses like filing a police report, attending a court appearance, meeting with a civil legal attorney and seeing a social worker. That is a good start, but it does not cover everyone who needs those protections who lives outside of NYC or are not city workers.

These are issues on the minds of New York voters. A Sienna poll last January found that 74 percent of voters believe workplace sexual harassment is at least a somewhat significant problem, while 36 percent say they’re aware of harassment somewhere they’ve worked. Ask your candidates for state office what they plan to do to make New York a safer place.

What Real LeadHERship Could Mean for 2019 – IF Women Get Elected in 2018

The two years since the 2016 election have been an object lesson in what happens when a country takes several giant steps backwards on the road to 21st century political leadership. It feels far more like the late 19th century than it does the first quarter of the 21st, these days.

But there is renewed hope for change in 2018 IF voters turn out in high numbers. There certainly have been plenty of reasons to get motivated about the sorry state of “leadership” in this country. We’ve seen turn backs on civility, the environment, on education, on equity, on ethics and a host of other issues.

So far, electing the same old, same old to office has gotten us the same old thing – power concentrated in the hand of the privileged few who feel entitled to do as they damn well please and woe unto anyone who says, “Wait just a minute!”

The Women’s March 1.0 in January 2017 unleashed something that has yet to be squashed – or completely realized. The momentum carried on in 2017 and Women’s March 3.0 is already in the planning stages for January 19, 2019. What could turn the tide is a host of newly elected women into local, state and federal office as the results of November 6, 2018 are tallied.

Women all across the country who previously showed little appetite for political office have stepped up to the plate this year. That sentiment was ably expressed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, who last week said,

“I watched as Brett Kavanaugh acted like he was entitled to that position and angry at anyone who would question him. I watched powerful men helping a powerful man make it to an even more powerful position. … I watched that and I thought, ‘Time’s up. Time’s up. It’s time for women to go to Washington and fix our broken government and that includes a woman at the top.’”

It not just the record number of women who have been nominated for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that is helping to turn 2018 into the Year of the Women Candidates. In the US Senate, there are six states where the choice is between two women for office. (We’ll know after Nov. 6 if 2019 is going to be the Year of the Women Office Holders.)

Here in New York State, there are five state-wide Senate races where women are running for office against a woman incumbent. And we need those choices. Women make up just about 20 percent of Congress and about 25 percent of state legislators, on average. In New York, just under 23 percent of state senators are women. Will 2018 be the last year where two women candidates for the same office are seen as a news-worthy novelty?

Even more heartening, we’re seeing young women managing election campaigns for office. About 40 percent of the campaign managers for Democratic congressional candidates are women, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That is a massive jump in campaign leadHERship just since the beginning of this decade. Helping a candidate to run for office is great training for running in your own right down the road.

It is hard to break the political glass ceiling, but the bottom line is, you can’t win if you don’t run. Many women candidates this year are making their first bid for elected office, rejecting the old school idea that you have to work your way up after years of paying your dues.

And women candidates bring a lot to the table. (As the old saw goes, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu!) In a recent Pew survey, women fared better on most leadership traits than men.  

Of the nine leadership qualities listed for political leaders, men fared better than women on only one (being willing to take risks); men and women were equally favored on working well under pressure. And of the 12 traits listed for business leaders, women fared better on all but three (risk-taking, being persuasive and making profitable deals).

Thirty-one percent said women were better at being honest and ethical — a leadership trait 91 percent said was essential for political leadership jobs — while 4 percent said men were better. Forty-two percent said women were better at working out compromises, compared with 8 percent who favored men, for a quality 78 percent said was essential in politics. (The remainder said they saw no difference.)  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/24/pew-survey-women-fare-better-most-leadership-traits

Another change this year:  more women candidates are looking at their motherhood as a leadership strength, not as a liability they have to overcome. This NPR story looks at what candidate moms who are combat veterans bring to the campaign:

"Instead of trying to fit into an outdated template of what a candidate looks like, this year, women are really running unapologetically as themselves," said Amanda Hunter at the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, noting a shift in strategy for women candidates. "So, really using their entire life experience and that includes motherhood [and] time served in combat."

Amy McGrath, who is one of 12 women veterans have secured nominations for the U.S. House, with still more in the Senate, saw it as a smart choice to bring her own motherhood into her campaign. "Look, there might not be a whole lot of people that really can relate to being a fighter pilot. Let's just be honest," she said. "But there's a ton of people that can relate to being a mom, because I am doing it right along with them."

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/04/651950621/women-veterans-show-off-fighter-jets-in-campaign-ads-but-also-their-minivans

Want to know if electing more women really makes a difference? While it is too early to say here in America, there’s plenty of evidence from around the world that women’s leadHERship is good for civic, economic and political life. 

When Iceland elected a female president in 1980, it set off a domino effect that turned it into one of the most egalitarian countries. In this small nation, there is a near-unquestioned conviction based on decades of evidence that electing women to positions of power benefits women and families. And at a time when American women, galvanized by the election of Donald Trump, are showing unprecedented interest in entering the political arena themselves, Iceland can provide both a roadmap and a promise for what’s possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/06/iceland-women-government-better-for-mothers-america-lessons

The only question you have to ask yourself is, “What do we have to lose by electing more women?” If you like where this state and this country are heading, by all means walk into the voting booth on November 6 and vote for the same old, same old. If you think we can do better, use your ballot to be an agent of change. Give women’s leadHERship a chance.