« Relevant Service | Main | Must See Photo of the Day »

June 30, 2008

Oh, Snap!!!

Oooooooh girl, now you know that's got to hurt:

While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

....On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

The Obama campaign did not respond to written questions submitted on the matter Thursday by Cybercast News Service.

You know, this must be like that whole charity thing. Senator Obama wants tough laws that will force powerful people like him to do the 'right' thing.

Uh-huh. You know what I'm talkin' about.

Posted by Cassandra at June 30, 2008 04:28 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2234

Comments

'force the powerful people to do the right thing?'
FORCE? As in may the FORCE be with you? As in the government enFORCing noblesse oblige?

Since when, and I ax the question needing an answer in spite of it being rhetorical, have Congress and the Senate EVER lived the LAWS they pass for the common myn and womyn?

Posted by: Cricket at June 30, 2008 05:22 PM

But, but , but ....

I heard from Senator Obama that if John McClown were elected, women's rights would be rolled back 50 years.

"You there, with the skirt! Back into the kitchen!!!" - John McCain, or a reasonable fascimile.

There's something screwy going on around here.....

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at June 30, 2008 05:57 PM

Yup. Obie's all about Change.

That's what he's paying the ladies with...

Posted by: BillT at June 30, 2008 06:32 PM

What you talking 'bout, Willis?

Posted by: twolaneflash at June 30, 2008 07:35 PM

McCain's 96 y.o. mother has obviously schooled young Johnny on a woman's right to equal access to respect, opportunity, responsibility, and pay. Obama's mother, oh, never mind...

Posted by: twolaneflash at June 30, 2008 07:49 PM

Obama's grandmother was trying to teach him those things right up till he tossed her under the bus....

Posted by: XBradTC at July 1, 2008 01:25 AM

'You peasants should do what I say, not what I do' The wise and wonderful St. Barack.

Posted by: Schnauzer at July 1, 2008 07:04 AM

There's something screwy going on around here.....
CFR?

Posted by: artfldgr at July 1, 2008 09:54 AM

There's something screwy going on around here.....
CFR?

Nope, Buffalo Springfield.

CFR did "Proud Mary" and "Born on the Bayou"...

What?

Posted by: BillT at July 1, 2008 10:50 AM

heheh... but what it is ain't exactly clear...

Posted by: bt_manwaguninhishand_hun at July 1, 2008 11:04 AM

But, but , but ....

I heard from Senator Obama that if John McClown were elected, women's rights would be rolled back 50 years.

That's because women's rights have somehow become defined as "reproductive rights". In my darker moments, I suspect that's a ploy by The Oppressive Patriarchal Power Structure (TOPPS) to distract women from issues like money and power.

As for Obama, I know his voting record is impeccable by feminist standards and he says all the "right" things about equal pay, but I've always believed he doesn't think much of women. Maybe this pay issue means I'm right. Or maybe it's just that talk is cheap - especially when Obama is talking about forcing *other* people to do the right thing.

Posted by: EliseK at July 1, 2008 11:25 AM

Just an observation, but during my work history I have indeed noticed that when it comes to salary actions, regardless of the gender involved, talk is cheap.

Posted by: bt_YouTakeTheCredit-I'llTakeTheCash_hun at July 1, 2008 11:58 AM

Just an observation:

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

Math Whiz sez:
33 paid males + 1 paid male intern = 34 paid males
Where are the two paid males that would add up to "all 36 male employees on Obama's staff?"

I know this is nitpicking, but isn't that really what this whole exercise entails?

Posted by: Who The Hell Else? at July 1, 2008 02:40 PM

Good catch, Who. And isn't nitpicking just another way of saying, "The Devil is in the details"?

The section Cassandra is quoting is from a June 30 post comparing just Obama and McCain. It's a shortened version of an April 30 post that compared Clinton, Obama, and McCain. The April 30 version explains the methodology more clearly, in particular stating that three different groupings of employees were considered:

Cybercast News Service calculated three different sets of average salaries for the male and female components of each of the three Senate offices: 1) the averages for all male or female employees listed in the Secretary of the Senate's report, 2) the averages for all male and female employees listed in the Secretary of the Senate's report who were not described as "interns," and 3) the averages for all male and female employees who were paid more than $23,000 on annual basis. The analysis also looked at the number of men and women on each staff earning more than $100,000 per year.

The April 30 post goes on to explain that the reason for the "more than $23,000" breakout was because of the presence on Senator's Clinton's staff of part-time employees and the absence on her staff of interns.

In the June 30 post they ripped out all the Clinton stuff which meant ripping out the info about why there are numbers for all employees (the 36) and for the only more than $23,000 employees (33). If I understand this correctly Obama had 36 male employees, 33 of whom made more than $23,000. He also had one male intern who is not counted in either the 33 or the 36.

If you really want to attack this analysis, I suggest you ask why the June 30 post used the April 30 numbers which were based on a report for the six-month period ending September 30, 2007. While the report for the next six-month period (ending March 31, 2008) might well not have been available when the April 30 post was published, I'd be interested to know if it's available now and, if so, what it shows. There have been media reports that Obama increased the number of high-profile women in his campaign staff after June 2. It would be interesting to know if he has done the same in his Congressional office.

Link to June 30 post

Link to April 30 post

Posted by: EliseK at July 1, 2008 03:16 PM

Does it matter?

Womyn should always be paid the same as men, simply because they are Womyn. Anything less is de facto evidence of discrimination. Trying to pull experience, hours worked, statistics, or any of these other bogus arguments into the analysis just proves you are all sexist pigs.

Ppppppppppphhhhhttttthhhh :p

Posted by: Cass Cohosh at July 1, 2008 03:22 PM

Oh. I forgot.

Ooooooooohhhhhhh *snap*!

Posted by: Cass Cohosh at July 1, 2008 03:23 PM

Thanks, Elise, although I must admit to wandering off after something particularly shiny about halfway through your response. That isn't intended as any slight to your excellent analysis, but is quite typical of my sort.

Posted by: spd rdr (who the hell else?) at July 1, 2008 03:44 PM

Ooooooooohhhhhhh *snap*!

Well, what did you *expect* it to do if you yanked it that far?

Posted by: BillT at July 1, 2008 04:05 PM

Oooooooh girlfriend, now you know that's got to hurt :p

Posted by: Deja vu all over again at July 1, 2008 04:10 PM

No problem, spd rdr - I'm used to it. It puzzles me that others aren't as intrigued as I am with questionable statistics and screwy polls but have long since accepted my fate.

Posted by: EliseK at July 1, 2008 05:34 PM

I question most statistics and figure all polls are screwy. I keep dodging my fate, which is to wind up as a horrible example of what happens when Cassie finally gets within range...

Posted by: BillT at July 2, 2008 02:52 AM

Not to mention that if youse all get preggers, 2 months paid vacation? Wassup with that, y'all?

/offensive

I'm all for the notion of equal pay for equal work (and better pay for better work, obviously). One of my colleagues in my office was not so flash at first, but her performance now is nothing short of spectacular. We do recognise merit, which is the good thing.

We also have a serious gender imbalance, which is not so good.

Tell me, just how am I supposed to get any work done with these ladies around?

:)

Posted by: Gregory at July 2, 2008 04:50 AM

"I question most statistics and figure all polls are screwy."
Works for me.

Now back to shiny things. Ahhh yes precious... we ignore monthly statements, DJIA & NASDAQ and instead go play with pry bars, hammers and power tools eh precious?

Posted by: bthun at July 2, 2008 10:45 AM

Pretty much.

It's not that I don't notice screwy math and statistics and go off on a diatribe about them. It's just that I hate doing anything approaching real work to fix them. That's why God made rocks and hammers for me and intelligence for people like Elise.

Posted by: spd rdr at July 2, 2008 11:25 AM

Don't forget:

1. Measure it with a micrometer

2. Mark it with a grease pencil

3. Cut it with an axe...

Posted by: BillT at July 2, 2008 11:26 AM

Are you sure that's how you use det cord, Bill?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 2, 2008 04:48 PM

No, but that's the only way to get it off the roll...

Posted by: BillT at July 2, 2008 05:25 PM

"Don't forget:

1. Measure it with a micrometer

2. Mark it with a grease pencil

3. Cut it with an axe...


That sounds an awful lot like an action plan I seem recall a surgeon reciting as I attempted to decrement a count from 100 to 1... =8^0

Posted by: bthun at July 2, 2008 10:03 PM

Lotta surgeons do that, bthun. If you want to get back at them, wake up on the table and kibbitz their actions-to-date.

Works like a charm, and the scramble to put you back under is right out of the Marx Brothers...

Posted by: BillT at July 3, 2008 02:37 AM

Concerning pigs, let us allude to Animal Farm where all animals are equal. Just some animals are more equal than others, like say the pigs.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 3, 2008 04:47 PM

Well, I dunno where you get to derail this thread with pigs, but...

Can I just point out that pigs put on meat fast, convert their feed more efficiently, and are fairly smart creatures...

Not to mention, BACON!

Happy 4th, guys!

Posted by: Gregory at July 4, 2008 04:38 AM

Okay, Greg, just how *do* you get any work done? And do you need a volunteer to keep a couple of the distractors off your back?

Ummmm -- figuratively speaking, of course...

Posted by: BillT at July 4, 2008 05:28 AM

What work? I love my work. It consists of surfing the Net, having meetings and making phone calls... exactly what I used to think my father the General Manager did all day long. Well, except the surfing the Net bit - he probably read the newspapers or something.

Oh, I have to churn out the occasional bit of paperwork, about once every two weeks or so, but that's hardly a pain...

;P

PS: I was just going through the Naruto fansubs, and I noticed Dattebayo LLC had a shout out to someone in Kirkuk (sp?). Anybody you'd know? :)

As for the distractors... well, I know some girls go gaga over men in uniform, so... you're welcome to try, I guess...

Posted by: Gregory at July 6, 2008 10:32 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)