[EXCLUSIVE]:Not so fast, Brunner...
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 1:51pm.
Jennifer Brunner is also out swinging today accusing Fisher of not putting his actions where his mouth is when it comes to equal pay for women. As reported at OhioDaily Blog and the Columbus Dispatch, Brunner is attacking the fact that Mark Barbash, who resigned as Interim Director of the Ohio Department of Development returned to a lower position making over $120k while the womyn who replaced him as Interim Director is only making $88k.
I had heard this line of attack was coming, so I did a little digging to find out why. (But Connie said bloggers can't be trusted with original source reporting, Modern...)
According to an e-mail I received from Kelly Schlissberg, the News Bureau Manager of the Communication and Marketing Division of the Ohio Department of Development (got all that?):
"Traditionally, what the Administration has done is ask our interim directors to keep their current salaries (the salaries they had when they were appointed) while they serve as interim agency director."When a director is appointed, that person will be compensated according to the salary parameters of that position.
"Also, Lisa’s salary is within the parameters of what other Division Directors in the Ohio Department of Development make.
I hope that helps to give a little more context."
That was an e-mail I received on June 30th when the Columbus Dispatch first reported on the salary issue. I didn't run with it because at the time it didn't appear that anyone particularly cared about the Dispatch story.
So, the case that this situation is somehow a violation of equal pay is not as strong as it seems. Barbash was the Chief Economic Devleoper, which may be higher than a Division Director. That I'm not sure, but that's my understanding as to why his pay pre-promotion was higher than the now Interim Director's pay was before her interim promotion. Regardless whatever pay inquity exists between these employees, it existed before either of them were elevated to Interim Director.
I guess the feeling is that an Interim Director is not expected to be in a position so long that it makes sense changing their payroll back and forth.
Apparently, none of the media has gotten this statement from Ohio D.o.D. explaining the reason, yet. So, I'm claiming a 24-hour exclusive. :P
And while I was initially upset when I read the Dispatch's reporting of the salary difference, I have to admit that this explanation made sense to me, so I think Brunner went too far here.
What do you think?
I agree with Jeff
Submitted by AmberCat on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 9:41pm.
Anastasia here — also outmoded user name from back when I was hiding from thugs in Sherrod Brown's campaign. This is exactly the line of argument that keeps women making less forever. It was always technicalities — things about job titles and classifications and so on, all artfully arranged so that women could never catch up, no matter how much work they did. Maybe it's legal, maybe it's strictly according to established procedure, but it is WRONG, and since Lee has decided he is the spokesperson for women, he should at very LEAST have spoken up and said she is doing a job worth a lot more, at least verbally espressing his support for the idea even if there's nothing he could have done about it.
Hardly a technicality
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 8:13am.
As a former judge who surely has experience with employment discrimination cases and a fierce advocate of the new equal pay law, she should know that the explanation above demonstrates that the inequity is the result of a gender neutral policy that exists because her promotion is not permanent, and she will eventually return to her old position at the same rate of pay.
Your "technicality" is why I am confident that any court that would try this case would find no violation of gender discrimination laws UNLESS the current interim director could prove that her pre-interim promotion salary as a division head was unlawfully inequal to Barbash's salary as the Chief Economic Developer for the agency.
I *do* understand what Brunner is trying to do here: she's suggesting that Fisher is a hypocrite who plays lip service to womyn issues but does another thing in office. But you can't take your "principle" argument without considering the main premise of it: does this arrangement violate gender pay anti-discrimination laws as Brunner CLEARLY suggested? The answer is no.
And therefore, I relunctantly have to call out my own candidate for what I believe is an unfair attack.
He makes more money as her subordinate because she made less money than him before her temporary promotion. I'd agree that if the plan was to keep her in the position long-term it would be unjust, but when the Governor appoints a new Director, she'll return to her old position at the same pay and no such inequity will exists because she'll return to being subordinate to Barbash.
What you're now arguing is that in order to avoid the perception of pay inequity that State has to treat its female interim directors differently than the male interim directors and give them raises that the male interim directors didn't receive. That, too, is gender pay discrimination!
Agree w/ the disagree
Submitted by conservacratgal on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 3:21pm.
Strickland is veering into dangerous, "old boys' club" territory and needs to steer out!
Brunner raises a legitimate point
Submitted by BuckeyeNation on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 5:13pm.
As a guy, I might conclude like modern did it's no big deal, but if I were a woman, I would be incensed and not impressed at all with the so-called explanation. It's not like gender pay inequity is something rare or uncommon.
Well, John McCain said
Submitted by AmberCat on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 9:43pm.
that women just need moretraining to be as qualified as men, and you know how important that "training" is to him — just look at his VP choice! Training, education, skills, experience — yup, John McCain chose the most QUALIFIED person.
Was I thinking with my penis and not my mind?
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 12:11pm.
Then if not, what the hell does me being a guy have to do with this.
It's insulting and incredibly small-minded for you to simply dismiss my legal opinion because I have a penis and just "don't get it" as a result.
Despite you thinking you can speak for me because you, too, have a penis, I do think gender pay inequity is a big deal. But I simply don't think THIS is gender pay inequity.
you were when you spelled it "womyn"
Submitted by RMC2000 on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 4:11pm.
though it appears you were thinking with your mind in the first sentence of the post.
WTF?
Submitted by BuckeyeNation on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 6:57pm.
Where did I ever say that I was speaking for you?
If you were talking legal opinion, then I was talking politics.
It's called the simple art of role-playing, and it involves looking at something from someone else's viewpoint.
A woman has a different perspective than a man on certain subjects, and pay equity, or lack thereof, is one of them.
Brunner was absolutely spot on for making this point.
So instead of putting myself in your shoes which for some reason feel offended by, I'll just say you are full of shit on this particular point and call it a day.
Moreover, don't write a story, and close it by asking people "what do you think," and then get your pants in a twist with a crude response when someone challenges or differs with your opinion.
Speaking of tennis, even
Submitted by ytownboy3 on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 10:08pm.
Speaking of tennis, even Wimbledon and the US Open pay the woman champion the same as they pay the men's champ. It is a no brainer. Whether Fisher, who as I understand it, gave up control of Developmentis worthy of blame is not for me to decide. Hopefully JBru has more to offer than that distinguisher to separate her from Fisher. If she is truly to be viable, she must have raised a credible amount of campaign cash to keep her afloat, period. She still has not provided a response to the Darrell Rowland piece so far as I know. She can surely survive this hiccup with her son's property taxes. But those Emily dollars will not flow unless she has shown other campaign musculature.............to date she hasn't, but there remains time. Meanwhile, the storm clouds continue to gather for what now amounts to a divided Dem ticket.......things are not looking up and the state will suffer for it.........GO BUCKS!
Modern Is Right. This Is A Non-Issue
Submitted by William Michael... on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 11:03am.
As former counsel to the Ohio Civil Right Commission, who I do not speak for here, and as a former Judge, I agree with Modern. By definition, an "acting" Director, without regard to gender, retains their old salary unless, and until, they become a Director. Any attempt to somehow paint Lee Fisher into a negative light on this issue is disingenuous at best.
Bill O'Neill,
A Known Supporter of Lee Fisher,
a known male.
Has the Brunner campaign retracted and apologized yet?
Submitted by ratdg1 on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 6:10pm.
Given the above, it looks like her communications staff either knowingly made false accusations, or else they're utterly incompetent and failed to do even basic research on the issue.
I dunno, has Fisher?
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 6:35pm.
Well, first, communication staff people aren't lawyers, so saying they KNOWINGLY made false accusation is thin gruel.
I think they acted on incomplete information and didn't understand that it was a result of a policy and that any such inequity existed before either had been promoted.
Despite my disagreement with the Brunner campaign above, though, I should point out that I haven't exactly ruled out that the pre-promotion salary rates might have been discriminatory since I'm not sure what the pecking order is at the Ohio Department of Development.
Has Lee Fisher condemned Mark Naymik for attacking his opponent's child? Has he stated that if he finds that anyone in his campaign or any consultant for his campaign has been feeding "dirt" on Brunner's son or husband that they're history?
A candidate's young adult child is being used to attack a candidate. And it's a pretty pathetic line of attack, too. That's worse than not knowing key facts behind a policy charge you've made about your opponent.
Disagree - it's about principle, not technicalities
I kind of think you're missing the point. It's not really about the technicalities of interim vs. non-interim and salary amount in a prior position, but about the principle that women should receive equivalent pay for equivalent work.
There's just no question that Ms. Patt-McDaniel is doing the work of the director of the Ohio Department of Development, and that she's making WAY less than the men who preceded her. There is a huge difference between her salary of $88,379 and Lee Fisher's salary of $142,500, or even Mark Barbash's salary of $128,356.
If she's qualified (as she certainly seems to be) and she's doing the work, then under the principle of pay equity she ought to be making a comparable salary. Saying "well, she's interim" or "she made less than them doing other work before" doesn't feel like a justification for the inequity at all, nor an explanation that makes sense, especially given the bizarre circumstance that the guy who couldn't keep his financial house in order now makes more money than she does as her subordinate!