Issue of the Week: Women Lose In Walker's Budget
Plus Hero of the Week
And Gov. Scott Walker's new budget bills—and bills introduced by Republicans in the state Legislature—definitely harm women.
Stripping collective bargaining rights from public employees will unfairly impact women, who comprise more than half of the membership of the largest public employee and health care workers' union, AFSCME. Not only did Walker exempt unions that are predominantly male—police, firefighters and state troopers—but he's busting unions that are predominantly female, such as teachers, nurses, librarians and clerical staff. Family day care providers—the vast majority of whom are women—will lose their ability to bargain altogether.
The result, of course, is more economic vulnerability for women—especially black women—who have joined unions to achieve economic stability and equality. While women still earn only 77 cents to their male peers' dollar, female union members earn higher wages than non-represented women. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings of full-time unionized women over the age of 25 is $851, while the median weekly earnings for their non-union female peers is $659.
The advantages of joining a union, of course, go beyond wages and benefits. Patty Yunk, director of public policy at AFSCME District Council 48, said that union protections have allowed women to be fully equal in the workplace, even in nontraditional occupations. "When you're unionized, you're equalized," Yunk said. Unions protect women against sexual harassment, unfair job assignments and pay discrimination. While women will still have some workplace protections, filing a complaint and coming to a resolution is more difficult when you're on your own, without union representation.
Walker and his Republican allies will do harm to women in other ways as well. Walker's budget strips out state funding for family planning services for lower-income women, even though the state only chips in 10% to the federal government's 90%. That the program ultimately saves the state hundreds of millions of dollars by preventing unintended pregnancies seems to have been lost on Walker.
Walker has also proposed to end the requirement that insurance policies that cover prescriptions include contraceptives. Once again, women will lose vital health and economic protections unfairly.
Walker's budget repair bill—approved by the Republican-controlled state Legislature—would also cut $500 million from Medicaid programs and allow his politically appointed secretary of the Department of Health Services to make sweeping changes to the programs without public oversight. Again, who is more likely to rely on programs such as BadgerCare, SeniorCare and Family Care? Women and children, of course.
Walker has also proposed to give Wisconsin Works (W-2) participants a $20 per month pay cut, even though their wages have been frozen since 1997, and he's attempting to decrease the pay of child-care providers in the Wisconsin Shares program.
The state Legislature is joining in Walker's attack on women. Earlier this month, the 19 Senate Republicans passed a bill that would overturn Milwaukee's Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, which was approved by 69% of voters in a 2008 referendum but hasn't been implemented. Again, low-wage working women—especially those who are the head of the household—would benefit most from paid sick days.
But Republicans have voted to overturn this workplace protection. And who led the charge? State Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), who once was seen as a moderate Republican on women's issues. No wonder why voters in her district are so fired up about recalling her.
Republicans are also trying to gut Wisconsin's Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), in part by prohibiting some part-time workers from using the act to take time off to care for an ill relative. Once again, women stand to lose more, since they are more likely to work a part-time job than men.
State Rep. Sandy Pasch (D-Whitefish Bay) said that the proposed Republican legislation would create haves and have-nots. "The have-nots will be women and children," Pasch said, "while the haves will be men and big business."
Hero of the Week
River
Revitalization Foundation
The stated mission of the River Revitalization
Foundation (RRF), a nonprofit urban rivers land trust established by concerned
local citizens, is "to establish a parkway for public access, walkways,
recreation and education, bordering the Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
rivers; to use the rivers to revitalize surrounding neighborhoods; and to
improve water quality."
The group works with area youth in educational and
volunteer activities, regularly donning boots and gloves to plant native trees
along riverbanks and remove invasive species. The RRF is one of six finalists
for a $30,000 grant from MillerCoors. The grant would be used to create a rain
garden, improve the boat landing, install paths and plant trees at the 2.8-acre
Wheelhouse site on the Milwaukee River. To help the RRF in its efforts to
improve our local waterways, visit www.rivernetwork.org and fill out the short
online ballot.
Readers wishing to volunteer their time either in
the offices or outside getting their hands in the earth are directed to call
414-271-8000 or visit the group's website at www.milwaukeerrf.org.
I agree with the author that women do stand to lose more. My suggestion would be for women to start making better choices in selecting partners. Hook up with men (in most cases) who have better income producing abilities. This will make up for much of the losses resulting from the budget repair bill. Choose better candidate for fornicating. Since the beginning of time women have chosen men who can provide protection and income. Government began providing welfare and suddenly women lowered their standards, often fornicating with men who are poor or unemployed.
We also need to change the child custody laws where we have mandetory paternal custody. Men should be required by law to take full time custody of their children. With this law in affect, men will most likley take in the mother as well providing her with more financial security.
I no I'm no prize, being short and unattractive, yet I find when I stand on my wallet and health insurance policy, I'm in the same league as George Clooney.
I think some women really have it made. Met a waitress recently who was laid off of her $60k year job. She got a job as a waitress and makes $13k per year. She now qualifies for BadgerCare and Food Stamps. She said the same kind of health insurance would cost her $13k if she got it on her own. So this brings her real wage up to $26k. By the way she doesn't report the $30k she made in tips so now she's up to $56k. She is getting about $4k in food stamps and another $4k in earn income credit on her taxes. Now she is back up to $64k. On top of that she only pays social security taxes on her $13k instead of the whole $60k she had at her previous job. This saves her nearly $3k per year. Sometimes her old boss comes around and leaves a few bucks on the nightstand. So she could go whine about how bad women have it, being underpaid and all. But she has it all figured out and is doing quite nicely.
When women complain about not being paid as much as a man what they are not telling you is that when the work day ends at 5pm, most of the women go home. Men tend to stick around working to get ahead. Men tend not to get pregnant and don't have gaps in their careers. Men tend to pay for dates. Most women I know would not consider going out with a man unless he picked up the tab. I think overall if women counted their wages plus add on all the expenses that men pay for them, they probably make more. If men counted their wages and subtracted what they pay to women for their company, women certainly appear to be ahead.
Also noted is her kids now qualify for free lunch at school. I'm sure this is a big money saver. People with reportable similar incomes have no shot at getting free lunches. I supose you could say she is a part time sex worker which is a valid option for work. She's quite a looker and its and all cash, tax-free job. I just want to agree with the writer below.
I did look up Warren Farrell - thank you. Women are in a good position to out-earn men. I agree with the dating thing, thats where a lot of women make up for the lack of earnings on the job. Dating can be expensive when you fork out $$$ for dinners, plane tickets, hotels. I don't mind, I just want to be a gentlemen. I do think if I asked a women to pay for a date, it would be a huge turnoff. Its just I was brought up to be a gentlemen, pay for dates, open doors, and listen to what they are saying.
Work wise - where I see women fall behind is when they start having kids. Time off for family seems to be the culprit in falling behind. Guys just don't want to deal with it as much. While Janie Q is hauling kids to soccer, Mr Executive is schmooziing clients at Hooters. Do the math. I know that sounds just horrible but am I wrong?
I am a woman and I am struggling financially, emotionally, physically, and spiritually. I am ashamed to say that I believe that this is due to my lack of intelligence and lack of experience with life. It has never occured to me that I may have been causing the strife that I go through, but I want to thank the men who have commented so thoughtfully on options that would clearly benefit me that I have been too blind to see. I should increase my standards in men by choosing a better candidate in which to fornicate with. DUH! I do need to be taken care of! After all, I pretty much have the brain power of a toddler. Most women do- let's be honest! My fornication habits have been a mistake. I need to find a better sexual candidate, not a better political one!! That way, I can blame the man that takes care of me and wipes the drool from my face when he loses his job and can no longer support my recent shopping addiction!! BTW, I love shopping! Love, love, love shopping! Oh, but where was I? Oh, yeah, better fornication possibilities. Well, Mr. Djresearch, I may be a bit vapid, get the icky PMS (if that's even REAL), and I probably will never amount to much in way of being a productive member of society, but I make a mean tuna casserole and I'll pretty much do ANYTHING you ask (anything). And when we don't work out, you can take care of our little nuggets forever and ME! Perfect. I really don't see ANY flaws to this. Well played, sir.
enlightened: i can only hope that you are joking & that you are actually a "bot" of some woman-bashing a-hole. i cannot believe that any woman would write something so degrading about herself.
i'm pretty sure you ARE a FAKE because of your "well played, sir"... your comment seemed like a bro hi-five.
YEAH BRAH! I'M TOTALLY GONNA PUT THESE WEAK, DUMB WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE BY FRONTING ON BEING A DUMB BROAD, TOO! RIGHTEOUS!
for the love of god, stop the woman-blaming, woman-bashing b.s!
i am absolutely DISGUSTED by the comments & "opinions" of the majority of these replies. y'all need to go back to the 1950s. or better yet, just crawl in a hole until you get your brains together.
everyone's entitled to their own opinion, i get that. but stop pushing your misogynist agenda on the rest of the world. sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia. you're uninformed comments breed those problems.
not that you care. you're big, strong, men. ain't that cute...
Elightened - thank you for bringing up the shopping situation. Women due tend to dominate retail purchases. This results in more commercials being geared towards women and therefore women control what we watch on TV. This is a great deal of power given to women.
Don't be too hard on yourself. Poor choices in fornication affects the lives of men too. Most of the dispair in my life has been a result in letting the little head override the big head. Instead choosing strong intelligent women I've often lowered my standard and ended up rescuing strays looking for a meal ticket.
Perhaps my exposure to women has been too limited. Monday through Friday I'm mostly exposed to the Republican trophy wives that come to my gym between 9am and noon. Sundays its the Republican religious right wives. I guess I don't know but a couple of women who have been able to accumulate wealth on their own. When I read about women in the top news stories, its pretty much limited to beautiful celebs. The self employed women in my support staff are 100% Republican and they have no sympathy for women who feel held down by society. If you think I'm a radical right winger - you should see some of the women in my support staff. They think Walker is too liberal.
I really hope you are being sarcastic. I REALLY hope this is sarcasm. You are basically suggesting that it is more important for a woman to be a gold-digger than say, getting a better education? Trying herself to be the bread winner? You understand that with community support women can do these things as well- if they are stuck raising a child with an absentee father. It takes a man and a woman to make a baby, and it's far easier for the man to just walk away from the responsibility. Even if you thought they would stay by you when you "selected" that mate.
Do you understand that we don't just line men up and we get to "select" which one we want to marry? Real life doesn't work that way... and I have to say this is the most ludicrous "solutions" to an issue I have ever seen posted -anywhere-.
JBaalen, if we had mandetory paternal custody, there would be fewer absentee fathers. I support both the education and golddigging methods of advancement. There is no reason that a combination of both would not be appropriate. Hillary Clinton is a good example - well educated and latched on to Bill. It has worked well for her.
I realize you cannot just line men up and select a mate. It takes work, you need to "spread your feathers" in order to attract what you want. Same with men.
Historically women have chosen men who can provide and protect. Money is very important to women. When I go to Las Vegas and sit at the casino bar, even a Geek like has to constantly try to repel a steady stream of women interested in what is in my wallet. They all claim to be educated. I don't know how many times I heard the "I'm a school teacher from L.A., just here to find a man" story.
Mr L I hear you. I am late 50s and have more money that God. Twenty five years ago with I was a struggling middle manager, I never got a second look. I never dreamed I'd be late 50s and dating 19 year olds. And its all about the money.
Mandetory paternal custoday - very intriguing. I checked that out and that has pretty much been the norm until about 80 years ago. Maybe we should go back to that.
Yes sir, look on TV. What men are on the 6 o clock news? - presidents, governors, athletes. What women? - Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton. Maybe Sarah Palen but if she wansn't a MILF, no one would care.
I agree that the successful women tend to be right wingers. All the ladies down at the wealth management offices, country clubs, health clubs, ones I meet in fisrt class all are pretty far right. I think its genetic, just like with men. You have either be bred to be right or left, kind of born that way. Perhaps allowing more abortions would reduce the number of left wingers being born. Oddly right wingers are against that. Watch the Freakanomics movie, they explain how that works.
I think businesses try to be fair, giving women a fair shake, but I agree, taking time off for family tends to be more of a woman thing, and they fall behind. Men take advantage of this and are not about to back off and let women catch up, they speed right ahead with the competition out of the way. Women in management often fall behind and give up, finding its just easier to be soccer mom than CEO. I agree, men making more money is just a way of showing off to get attention from women. If I wan't so into "buying" women's attention I'd probably join the Peace Corp. Maybe if I got gelded, I'd relax and not be obsessed with making money. or become a Democrat. I'd wager than typical (not the Kennedy/Clinton type men but the school teacher and goverment worker types) Democrat men have less testosterone levels. Wonder if anyone has studied that?
i cannot believe the woman blaming that is going on in these two comments. better choices in choosing partners? women get to leave at 5pm & not take their work home with them?
it's thoughts like this that make me fear the future of our state.
welfare causing women to lower their standards? really? that is just sexist b.s. and hooking up with men who have better income? wow. thanks for making it known that all women need is a big strong man to take care of them. which is crap.
and what the eff? men tend to not get pregnant and have gaps in their careers? MEN CAN'T GET PREGNANT! don't be such a know-it-all about the lives of women.
both of your comments are an embarrassment to men. your old-school beliefs about women & where their place is in society are shameful.
the worst thing: Sometimes her old boss comes around and leaves a few bucks on the nightstand.
thanks for the implication of her former boss paying her for sex. that is ridiculous. but then again, you probably wouldn't think that sex work would be a valid option for making money. it is. & god forbid either of you would ever seek the services of a sex worker. i fear for her safety considering your already low opinions of women i can only imagine how you feel about sex workers.
women DO have it less than great because of men like you who think such sexist thoughts about women.
yup, neither of you are prizes & i worry about the women who may end up anywhere even remotely near you.
R-wing male aholes. Aren't republicants all about regression, oppression & obsession?
Men will always make more than women. Making money is a way for men to show off. Kind of like when a 13 year old boy shows off for the girls with his skateboard. When men get older, they still show off, by making money. Sure not all of them, but most of them. Women show off by trying to be pretty and sexy. Not all of them, just most of them. There are always going to be women who are competitive and do what it takes to make the big bucks. Just like their are going to be less than ambitious men who choose a less dominant role.
Bottom line is men make more because the want to. Men typically have more expenses and are driven to earn more. Men must often pay support for children that don't live in their homes. They typically pay for dates. They often must support ex wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters, and other women in their lives. I don't think there is a conspiracy to pay women less. Women often choose lower paying jobs that better suit their lifestyle. Senior exectutive jobs, dangerous jobs such as offshore oil rigs, construction jobs in Iraq, etc, men will typically choose this kind of higher paying work. I suggest reading the books written by Warren Farrell, who I think is the only man ever elected to the board of directors of the National Organization of Women. He explains how women actually make more than men. The best way to gauge the value of men and women is to look at the self employment incomes of identical jobs. My guess is women make slightly less than men in similar self employment jobs. I pretty much hire all women for my support fuctions. From a cost/benefit point of view my experience is women do a better job and are willing to do it for less money. I don't mean to put down men but in my case, women have proven to be the better option.
OMG I can't believe what I am reading here. Wake up woman.....!!!! This is absolutely scary. If you had a brain in your head you would PAY ATTENTION. I have seen kids saved time and time again with school brkf/lunches as their only meals of the day! I have known school social workers taking kids (on their own time/money) to food pantrys for food. WAKE UP PEOPLE!