The 1992 election. Bill Clinton vs. Bush Sr. The campaign issue commanding the attention of America: maternity leave. Amazingly, it took until the early 1990s for this country to realize that new children, sick family members and the actual process of birth require some time away from the job. And employers could not hold that against you.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Clinton - was most certainly a "women's issue" that made national attention and garnered national support and opposition.
And, with another Clinton currently vying for the White House, another women's issue is gaining steam as a topic for this election cycle - pay discrimination.
We say America is the land of equality, that everyone has a fair shot. We idealize what we have grown up believing is true: No one in America should be treated any differently than another.
Yet women still get paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Women are often punished financially for maternity leave, as they must take more time off from work when they have children, and they are therefore less likely to fill management positions. The jobs women tend to fill, such as teaching and nursing, have significantly lower salaries than those that are predominantly male. Even on a subjective basis, some employers are likely to pay a man more because he will produce "higher-quality" work.
But America is still the land of opportunity, and we like to think our government attempts to rectify such disparities. Our government disappoints me.
In fact, it began with a disappointment at the Supreme Court last year - Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The case was simple: Lilly Ledbetter realized years into her employment at Goodyear Tire she was being paid less than her male equivalents, and she filed suit claiming sex discrimination. The court ruled she no longer had the right to sue since she did not file within six months of the first discriminatory paycheck.
This decision has catastrophic implications for the American worker. Pay discrimination cannot be disputed - as long as no one says anything in the first six months. Women, minorities, or anyone can receive a lower wage without a justifiable explanation, and there is nothing the victim can do if it was not clear within 180 days.
The chance an employer will reveal the salaries of other employees is incredibly slim. "Yes, Ms. Smith, we are going to pay you $7,000 less then Mr. Johnson here, but we would like you join the company anyway. Sign here please." Moreover, pay discrimination is more likely in the promotion process, not in the initial hiring. What about the chances of promotion within those first six months? Just as slim as your boss telling you that you are not worth as much as the guy in the next cubicle over.
Some of our elected representatives were just as appalled by the court's decision to effectively legalize pay discrimination; they introduced the Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2007, which would designate each new paycheck as an act of discrimination, not the first one. The House passed it this past week, and on Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked the bill and President Bush vowed to veto. Claiming the bill would flood the courts with men and women wanting to rectify pay discrepancies long since past, Senate Republicans reminded me - and hopefully, the rest of America - what is at stake in this election.
This "women's issue" should be more than that. Yes, we are in a war that divides the country, we are in a - gasp - recession, and we are battling international opposition on several fronts, but we should also make sure that the Fair Pay Restoration Act is the first bill signed into law in 2009, even if it is not a Clinton who signs it.
Lisa Petak is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and the College of Arts and Sciences and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
