Western Brooklyn

State Senate Candidate Andrew Gounardes Joins With Female Community Leaders

Source: Andrew Gounardes

The following is a press release from the State Senate campaign of Andrew Gounardes:

Last week, seven female State Senators called on Senate leadership to consider and pass the New York State Fair Pay Act, an “equal pay for equal work” bill that has repeatedly been passed by the State Assembly, including last month. Attorney and State Senate candidate Andrew Gounardes and several female community leaders from southern Brooklyn gathered in Bay Ridge to demand that the Senate follow the Assembly’s example and adopt the Fair Pay Act immediately.

“Somehow, in the year 2012, there are still women across New York who earn less than men do for the same work. It’s sad. It’s wrong. And it’s time for every one of us to stop looking the other way and to start doing something about it,” Gounardes said.

Fair pay has been a recurring theme in Gounardes’s campaign to unseat State Senator Marty Golden. In 2011, Golden voted against equal pay for equal work, saying simply that it was too costly to adopt. It has since been reintroduced into the Civil Service and Pensions committee, which Senator Golden chairs, but has been stalled there ever since. “If Senator Golden and his buddies in Albany were truly representing their constituents, they would not only have voted for the bill,” Gounardes added, “but would be leading the charge to see it pass!”

According to the National Women’s Law Center, the average woman working full time in New York State earns 83 cents to every dollar that a man makes for the same job. For Hispanic women, that number drops to a shocking 55 cents.

“Mother’s Day is just around the corner, and you’ll hear a lot of politicians making grand statements about the role of women,” Gounardes continued. ” Let’s get serious: there are few better ways to show our respect to the millions  of women who have sacrificed for their families, careers, and communities than to ensure that they get the fair pay that they’ve earned.”

In 1963 and in 2009, the United States Congress passed two bills that made it illegal to discriminate against women by paying them less than men. But loopholes at the state level have prevented fair pay from becoming a reality for many.

Learn more about Andrew’s views on fair pay at: www.andrewgounardes.com/women

Comment policy


  1. Equal pay for equal work:

    Women’s “77 cents to men’s dollar” doesn’t mean, as pay-equity advocates want us to believe, women are paid less than men in the same jobs everywhere in the country. Nor does it mean that, even more incredibly in the vein of the stereotype “men are stronger than women,” every woman earns 23% less than every man, perhaps leading some of the more benighted to think Diane Sawyer of ABC News earns less than the young man walking back and forth on the street wearing a “Pizzas $5” sign.

    The figures are arrived at by comparing the sexes’ median incomes. They refer to the point at which 50% of workers earn above the figures and 50% below (which means that a lot of women earning above their median make more than a lot of men earning below theirs). They don’t account for the number of hours worked each week, experience, seniority, training, education or even the job description itself. They compare all women to all men, not people in the same job with the same experience. So a veteran male software designer’s salary is weighed against a first-year female teacher’s income.

    Strategically ignoring this over the decades has been less than productive:

    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 the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap – http://tinyurl.com/74cooen), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.

    That’s because pay-equity advocates 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 http://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 http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed more women are 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 if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman. Yet, if “greedy, profit-obsessed” employers could get away with paying women less than men for the same work, they would not hire a man – ever.)

    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? Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home.

    The implication of this is probably obvious to 10-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to or is ignored by feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands’ incomes range from moderate to high, are able to:

    -accept low wages
    -refuse overtime and promotions
    -choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do
    -take more unpaid days off
    -avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
    -work part-time instead of full-time (“According to a 2009 UK study for the Centre for Policy Studies, only 12 percent of the 4,690 women surveyed wanted to work full time”: http://bit.ly/ihc0tl See also an Australian report at http://tinyurl.com/862kzes)


    Women are able to make these choices because they are supported — or anticipate being supported — by a husband who must earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Still, 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 pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.

    Afterword: The power in money is not in earning it (there is only responsibility, sweat, and stress in earning money). The power in money is in SPENDING it. And, Warren Farrell says in The Myth of Male Power at http://www.warrenfarrell.org/TheBook/index.html, “Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category.” (Women’s control over spending, adds Farrell, gives women control over TV programs.)

    Excerpted from “Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

    By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. Year 2020 is how far into the future women must work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/04/equal-occupational-fatality-death-day.html


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here