Texas Republicans Claim Pay Equity Bill Would Change Nothing. So Why Not Just Pass It?

What Women Really Think
March 27 2014 10:00 AM

Texas Republicans Claim Pay Equity Bill Would Change Nothing. So Why Not Just Pass It?

476664719-republican-candidate-for-governor-texas-attorney
Greg Abbott says he's against pay discrimination, so why does he defend vetoing a bill to help end it?

Photo by Erich Schlegel/Getty Images

Abortion rights isn't the only woman-centric issue that Democrat Wendy Davis is highlighting in her campaign to be the next governor of Texas. Davis introduced a bill that would grant women suing in state court for pay discrimination the same rights that women suing in federal court have. Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill in 2013, even though 42 other states had already passed similar legislation. Davis's opponent, Republican Greg Abbott, has publicly supported Perry's veto. Abbott also successfully defended Prairie View A&M University against a pay discrimination lawsuit in 2012. Davis has been going hard against Abbott on this issue, and the attempts by Texas Republicans to defend him, and Perry's veto, are falling flat. 

The problem is that no one can explain what, exactly, they oppose in a bill that would have employed a minor fix to the current anti-discrimination legislation. Right now, you can only sue for pay discrimination 180 days after your first unfair paycheck, even if the plaintiff finds out she is being paid less than her colleagues after that window closed. Davis' bill would have fixed that, making the window 180 days after your last unfair paycheck. 

Advertisement

The reasons Republicans are giving for opposing this bill don't make a lot of sense. The talking point seems to be that there was no reason to pass this law because it won't fix anything. Cari Cristman of the Republican PAC RedState Women dismissed the need for the law, blaming women's schedules for pay inequity. "We lead busy lives, whether working professionally, whether working from home, and times are extremely busy. It's a busy cycle for women, and we've got a lot to juggle." Beth Cubriel, the executive director of the Texas Republican Party, echoed the idea that state legal changes are pointless, saying that the problem is that women need to be "better negotiators." On MSNBC, Rick Perry got irritated at being asked about the bill and implored Democrats to focus on "substantive issues." Perry then went on to claim that "we already have laws that protect" women from pay discrimination. 

But all this begs the question: If Davis' proposed bill wasn't substantive and would have had no real impact on women's pay inequality, then why did Republicans put time and resources into fighting it? If this bill would have no more impact, for good or ill, than renaming the local post office, then why not rubber-stamp it like legislatures generally do with fluffy or symbolic legislation? If Perry had signed it in 2013, then this would have become a political nonissue, and Davis would be casting around, looking for other ways to accuse Republicans of general sexism beyond just opposition to reproductive rights. Unless you are protecting employers who wish to discriminate—which Republicans swear up and down they are not doing—there is no reason on God's green Earth to be against this bill. There's no one besides discriminatory employers that could be hurt by this. 

Of course, it's simply untrue that this small tweak to anti-discrimination laws would be a waste of time. The reason Greg Abbott was successful in his defense of Prairie View A&M was that the plaintiff sued more than 180 days after receiving her first unfair paycheck, so the window of opportunity had closed. If Davis' bill had been law then, it's far more likely that Prairie View A&M would have lost. But if Republicans are so rock certain that this legislation wouldn't make a bit of difference when it comes to the problem of pay inequality, then the swiftest way to get Wendy Davis to shut up about it is to pass her pointless bill into law. 

Amanda Marcotte is a Brooklyn-based writer and DoubleX contributor. She also writes regularly for the Daily Beast, AlterNet, and USA Today. Follow her on Twitter.

TODAY IN SLATE

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

Why Do Some People See the Virgin Mary in Grilled Cheese?

The science that explains the human need to find meaning in coincidences.

Jurisprudence

Happy Constitution Day!

Too bad it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

Is It Worth Paying Full Price for the iPhone 6 to Keep Your Unlimited Data Plan? We Crunch the Numbers.

What to Do if You Literally Get a Bug in Your Ear

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 16 2014 7:03 PM Kansas Secretary of State Loses Battle to Protect Senator From Tough Race
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 16 2014 2:35 PM Germany’s Nationwide Ban on Uber Lasted All of Two Weeks
  Life
The Vault
Sept. 16 2014 12:15 PM “Human Life Is Frightfully Cheap”: A 1900 Petition to Make Lynching a Federal Offense
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 8:43 PM This 17-Minute Tribute to David Fincher Is the Perfect Preparation for Gone Girl
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 6:40 PM This iPhone 6 Feature Will Change Weather Forecasting
  Health & Science
Science
Sept. 16 2014 1:39 PM The Case of the Missing Cerebellum How did a Chinese woman live 24 years missing part of her brain?
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 8:41 PM You’re Cut, Adrian Peterson Why fantasy football owners should release the Minnesota Vikings star.