Greg Abbott's Past Court Fight Against Equal Pay

abbott-greg_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg
Equal pay, what?
Abbott World just can't seem to catch a break lately. It began Sunday with his dancing around the question of his support for the Texas Equal Pay Act and some very damaging evidence emerged earlier this week.

State Senator Wendy Davis held a teleconference with Senator Sylvia Garcia and former TXU senior executive Alex Jimenez on new evidence that Greg Abbott has fought against equal pay for Texas families in the courtroom.

Per her press release: "A full day's hard work is worth a full day's pay no matter your gender," said Senator Wendy Davis. "As Attorney General, Greg Abbott actively fought against equal pay for equal work in the courtroom. Greg Abbott has shown that he would be a governor who just doesn't care that there are more families than ever before relying on two incomes, who can't afford to have one of their paychecks unfairly reduced because one of them is a woman. Texas needs a governor who is singularly focused on making sure our state moves into the future with a 21st Century economy. That begins with the principle of equal pay for equal work."

In 2012, Greg Abbott's office actually fought against equal pay in a court case in which he defended Prairie View A&M University in a lawsuit by a professor who faced pay discrimination.

This evidence says what he refused to say on Sunday's WFAA's interview. He does not support the Texas Equal Pay Act and he will continue to work against the philosophy of equal pay for all Texas citizens. And now we know why he didn't answer the question directly.

It's clear that whatever protections women enjoy under the Lilly Ledbetter Act don't apply in Texas. Under state law, a woman has only 180 days after the first instance of discrimination to file a complaint. In most cases, the worker doesn't realize the pay discrepancy until much later. The Ledbetter Act guards against this time lapse.

In Prairie View A&M University vs Chatha, a female professor of Indian origin alleged gender and race-nationality pay discrimination. PVAM argued that the statute of limitations had expired while Chatha contended that the federal Ledbetter law protected her. Abbott argued that the change in federal law didn't affect Texas' state statute of limitations. Diljit Chatha lost. You can read the full case on Prairie View A&M v. Chatha here: http://tinyurl.com/mvbh8r8

Women comprise 50.4 percent of the Texas population. Greg Abbott's refusal to support an equal day's pay for an equal days work means he is working against the needs of one-half of Texas citizens. As of right now, the Abbott campaign hasn't commented on the lawsuit or Wendy Davis' statement.

After all, what could he say? It would only add to the list of his errors, omissions and deceptions.

My Voice Nation Help
2 comments
JimWC
JimWC

Abbott is a turd, and I won't be voting for him.


But it IS his job to not only represent the State of Texas in legal matters, but to give it the best legal defense possible.  Even when it's wrong.  Sorta like lawyers who represent defendants in criminal cases. 


Have you ever heard of a lawyer hired to represent his client that rolls over and plays dead when defending the case doesn't suit his conscience?  Yeah, me neither.

jabbog48152
jabbog48152

Davis seems to have little knowledge of how the gender wage gap is formed.


Here's one of countless examples showing that some of the most sophisticated women in the country choose to earn less while getting paid at the same rate as their male counterparts:


“In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm 


A thousand laws won't close that gap.


In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.... 


That's because women's pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:


Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working outside the home if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman, as illustrated by such titles as this: "Gender wage gap sees women spend 7 weeks working for nothing" http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cwgbaueysnsn/rss2/.) 


As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they're supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)


The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:


-accept low wages

-refuse overtime and promotions

-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The most popular job for American women as of 2010 is still secretary/administrative assistant, which has been a top ten job for women for the last 50 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/gender-wage-gap_n_3424084.html

-take more unpaid days off

-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)

-work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time more often than their male counterparts (as in the above example regarding physicians)


Any one of these job choices lowers women's median pay relative to men's. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay. 


Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well. 


"The more alarming wage gap might be the one between mothers and childless women: One recent paper (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146522483/the-wage-gap-between-moms-other-working-women) found that women with kids make roughly 7 to 14 percent less than women without them." So why do organized feminists and the liberal media focus only on -- and criticize -- the wage gap between men and women? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/the-mommy-track-myth/283557/


In general, women not only live longer than men and enjoy better health, they also control most of consumer spending and control most of the nation's wealth. Soon they will control even more.


"Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband." -http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women


More in "Does the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/


Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...