SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
barack obama
'A True Hero': Pay Equity Crusader Lilly Ledbetter Dies at 86
"Let's honor her by continuing to challenge discrimination in all forms—and finally closing the wage gap."
Oct 14, 2024
Labor unions and women's advocacy groups on Monday paid tribute to Lilly Ledbetter, the former Goodyear employee whose fight for equal pay made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, after her death at the age of 86—with economic justice advocates hailing Ledbetter as "an icon."
"Lilly Ledbetter simply wanted to be paid the same as her male Goodyear co-workers," said the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) on social media. But to workers who have benefited from the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, added the union, "she was a true hero."
Ledbetter began working at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama in 1979, and was initially paid equally to her male counterparts.
But in 1998 she discovered that her compensation had dropped "way out of line" with that of the men who worked alongside her, after someone sent her an anonymous note.
"I felt humiliated. I felt degraded. I had to sort of get my composure back to go ahead to perform my job and then, the first day off, I went to Birmingham, Alabama and filed a charge with the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]," Ledbetter toldNPR in 2009.
In 1999, she filed a lawsuit against her employer, and four years later a federal court in Alabama awarded her $3.8 million—a sum that was reduced to a $300,000 cap and $60,000 in back pay.
The case was later appealed and proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Goodyear in 2007, with five of the nine justices agreeing that Ledbetter had filed her lawsuit too late after Goodyear's initial decision to pay her less than her male colleagues.
But in 2009, Ledbetter stood with then-President Barack Obama as he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which gives people more time to file charges regarding unfair pay and affirms that each inequitable paycheck is a violation of the law, an assertion the Supreme Court had rejected.
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called on Americans to "honor her legacy by never ceasing in our pursuit of equality and justice for all."
Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, noted that after Ledbetter's legal case concluded, "she never gave up the fight to push for equal pay and fairness for everyone who came after her."
"It would have been easy for Lilly to quietly ease into retirement in Alabama after the Supreme Court held that there was no remedy to the decades of pay discrimination that she faced," said Goss Graves. "But Lilly was not built for the easy road. She shared her story because she knew that her experience of being undervalued and shortchanged on the job was the same story that working women of all ages across America shared, whether they had ever heard of the wage gap or not."
"Even into her 80s, Lilly never hesitated to hop on planes to speak to women across the country about why they must actively fight for wage equality," Goss Graves added.
Ledbetter also stood with Obama in the White House in 2014 when he signed two fair pay executive orders, one barring federal contractors from retaliating against workers who discuss their salaries and one instructing the Labor Department to collect data on pay for men and women who work for federal contractors.
Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), said Ledbetter "leaves behind a legacy that fuels our ongoing fight against pay discrimination, exploitation, and those who would delay progress towards wage justice for all."
Farrell added that with women—particularly women of color—still earning an average of 82 cents for every dollar men earn in the U.S., "the fight for pay equity is far from over."
"We urge the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and the implementation of comprehensive pay transparency measures at the federal level," said Farrell.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would add protections to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to eliminate gender-based wage disparities.
"Lilly Ledbetter's courageous fight for fair pay made history and opened a new future for millions of women," said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.). "Let's honor her by continuing to challenge discrimination in all forms—and finally closing the wage gap."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All Advocates Welcome Obama DNC Remarks as 'New Opening for Reform'
The former president said Democratic nominee Kamala Harris "knows we can't stop" at the Affordable Care Act.
Aug 21, 2024
A brief aside in former President Barack Obama's 35-minute speech at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night provided a glimmer of hope that a Kamala Harris victory in November could be a catalyst for transformational change to the United States' disastrous for-profit healthcare system.
Obama—who before becoming president described himself as a "proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program"—told Democratic delegates, leaders, and activists gathered inside the United Center in Chicago that the party should be "proud of the enormous progress that we've made through the Affordable Care Act," the 2010 law commonly known as Obamacare.
"But," the former president added, "Kamala knows we can't stop there, which is why she'll keep working to limit out-of-pocket costs."
Obama's remarks were far from an explicit endorsement of Medicare for All, a longstanding progressive goal that Harris backed as a senator and continued to support—at least in name—as a 2020 presidential candidate.
But longtime single-payer advocate Michael Lighty told Common Dreams on Wednesday that Obama's acknowledgment that the ACA has not been nearly enough to rein in the nation's out-of-control healthcare costs and crack down on the rampant abuses of the for-profit insurance industry "signals a new opening for reform" if Harris defeats Republican nominee Donald Trump.
"I was struck by the juxtaposition of 'access to affordable coverage,' which is the usual centrist frame for healthcare reform, and this reference to going beyond the ACA," Lighty said in response to Obama's comments. "It recognizes that rising costs overall and out-of-pocket costs especially are unsustainable."
"The cost frame is good for Medicare for All advocates," he added, "if we 'prosecute' the argument for the savings generated by Medicare for All."
Research has repeatedly shown that a Medicare for All system of the kind envisioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—the leading single-payer advocates in Congress—would cost less than the status quo while providing everyone in the U.S. with comprehensive insurance coverage for free at the point of service.
Under the nation's current for-profit system—which leaves tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured and struggling to afford their out-of-pocket costs—annual healthcare spending is projected to rise to $7.7 trillion by 2032, according to federal estimates.
"It is clear that the North Star of a Harris-Walz administration is consistent with what Senator Bernie Sanders said from the DNC stage last night: guaranteeing healthcare to every person in this country."
Despite co-sponsoring Sanders' Medicare for All bill in the Senate in 2017 and campaigning on a proposal that donned the "Medicare for All" label during the 2020 Democratic primary, Harris has not made the popular progressive idea part of her 2024 platform.
A Harris campaign official toldPolitico earlier this week that Medicare for All is "no longer part of" the vice president's healthcare policy agenda, which has thus far focused largely on slashing prescription drug costs and relieving the burden of medical debt.
But Medicare for All advocates, who have seen support for the proposal surge at the state and local levels amid federal inaction, are not disheartened by the vice president's decision to sideline single-payer in her 2024 campaign.
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, pointed to the newly unveiled Democratic platform's support for expanding Medicare benefits to include dental, vision, and hearing services as part of a viable "path forward."
"It is clear that the North Star of a Harris-Walz administration is consistent with what Senator Bernie Sanders said from the DNC stage last night: guaranteeing healthcare to every person in this country, so if you get sick you get the care you need," Lawson told Common Dreams. (The Democratic platform states that "healthcare should be a right in America, not a privilege"—a line popularized by Sanders.)
"As president," said Lawson, "it is clear that Kamala Harris would use every tool at her disposal to rein in the corporate greed, delays, and denials of the current system and continue building step by step towards a goal of universal guaranteed healthcare."
Rose Roach, national coordinator of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer, offered a similar assessment, telling Common Dreams in an email on Wednesday that while President Joe Biden "was clear that he did not support Medicare for All," he "supported important improvements to traditional Medicare that begins to build the public infrastructure we'll need for Medicare for All when it does pass"—specifically the drug price negotiation program and new constraints on corporate-run Medicare Advantage plans.
"The Labor Campaign for Single Payer believes VP Harris is equally committed to securing and protecting traditional Medicare and will work with the movement to continue the work of stabilizing our public Medicare program," said Roach. "Improving and expanding traditional Medicare, protecting it from the privatizers who are overbilling Medicare while inflicting obstacles for enrollees to access care via onerous prior authorizations and outright claims denials, is job one."
"Doing so not only offers the infrastructure building we need on the pathway to Medicare for All," Roach added, "but it also makes traditional Medicare affordable for enrollees, unions who negotiate retiree health benefits, and even for employers who offer retiree benefits. It's a win-win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Democrats Need a Both/And Approach to Voter Outreach
Because the interests of white working-class voters are more aligned with the economic and governmental policies espoused by Democrats, the party never should have lost their support; but it did.
May 28, 2024
After Barack Obama’s decisive victory in 2008, Democratic Party strategists fell under the sway of the notion that the future of their party’s dominance was insured because, as they put it, “demographics are destiny.”
Obama had performed well among a wide range of groups, but what captured the strategists’ attention was that he had won decisively among young voters, Black, Latino, and Asian American voters, and college educated women. Because these groups were growing in their percentage of the overall electorate, the strategists decided that Democrats would continue to win elections well into the future if they focused on the issues they determined would most appeal to these voters. Hence the phrase “demographics are destiny.”
They referred to their winning cohort as “the Obama coalition,” and in the years that followed the issues they elevated and their extensive voter outreach efforts were directed largely at cultivating and keeping that coalition together. In the process, they appeared to abandon outreach to a substantial number of other constituencies, especially white working-class voters, leaving the field wide open to their Republican opponents.
By viewing Black, Latino, and Asian American voters as monoliths, Democrats may be ignoring the complex composition of these groups.
Back in 2008-2009, the U.S. was reeling from the trauma of the Great Recession. Republicans, in an effort to deflect from their responsibility for the economic collapse, sought instead to exploit white voters’ feelings of unease and abandonment. The GOP preyed on their resentment and fears using racism and xenophobia as their weapons of choice. This strategy was embodied in the “birther movement” (Obama’s not one of us) and the “Tea Party” (“Democrats’ ideas about government don’t work for you. They only benefit ‘them’”—meaning Blacks, the poor, and immigrants).
In the next three elections, Democrats, relying on their new strategy of mobilizing their “Obama coalition” base, lost over 1,400 state and federal seats, giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the majority of governorships and state legislatures. One might have thought that Democrats would have learned from this comeuppance. Sadly, they did not.
Shortly after the 2014 midterms, I was at a meeting of the Democratic Party’s executive committee when the party’s pollster gave an upbeat presentation of what had been a stunning number of nationwide defeats. He claimed that there was good news from 2014: Democrats had kept their coalition together, winning the youth, Black, Latino, Asian, and educated women’s votes. Adding that “we just didn’t win enough of them,” he recommended that the party commit more resources to getting more of these groups out to vote in future elections.
At one point, I objected saying that he was ignoring white ethnic voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These working-class voters had always been Democrats and their rights, prosperity, and futures were being damaged by Republicans. Because Democrats had always had their interests at heart and they had been central to our victories. I argued that we needed to pay attention to their needs. His response startled me. “We’re not going to throw money away on people who are never going to vote for us.” I replied that it’s not “either/or.” We can be both attentive to the concerns of our new coalition, while also keeping in mind the needs of our old coalition partners. When that “both/and” approach was dismissed, I countered that if that was how we would operate we would never be a majoritarian party and we were going to be handing these voters to Republicans on a silver platter. Enter Donald Trump in 2016.
As a candidate, Joe Biden understood the idea of both/and, directing his efforts to winning back these voters. But the apparatus of the party and its paid consultants have not followed suit, with little or no resources being devoted to outreach to white working-class voters and even less to understanding their values and needs.
We have polled these communities and in 2001, my brother John and I published a book based on our findings, What Ethnic Americans Really Think. We found that white ethnic voters were largely progressive in their attitudes toward government and economic policy, but had more nuanced feelings about what are called social issues. They supported federal funding for education, healthcare, and job creation; these were their priority issues. And they were pro-union and for racial equality. They were, however, conflicted about abortion and gay rights. A generation earlier, then President Bill Clinton had captured the general values of these white working-class voters with his slogan “family, community, and opportunity.”
Because the interests of white working-class voters are more aligned with the economic and governmental policies espoused by Democrats, the party never should have lost their support. But it did. Democrats fell into the trap Republicans set for them by focusing their electioneering almost exclusively on combating the bigoted and intolerant Republican messages and ignoring the economic angst and feelings of abandonment of white voters. When Democrats should be attending to both.
Now polls are showing that Democrats may be at risk of losing even some components of the “Obama coalition.” By viewing Black, Latino, and Asian American voters as monoliths, Democrats may be ignoring the complex composition of these groups. For example, studies show that upwards of 15% of Black voters are African immigrants and a large number of Latino voters are more recent immigrants are as well. They are from Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republican, Nigeria, or East Africa. Their attitudes and values are more in line with those of the ethnic immigrants who came from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Democratic strategists need to adjust their focus or else risk losing their support.
One more thought: My generation grew up with a strong attachment to party ID. Political parties were organizations to which you belonged. Today, given the weaknesses of the party organizations, being a Democrat or a Republican means nothing more than being on an email or phone-banking list. And the only time one hears from either party is when they call or write for money or urge you to vote. As a result, party ID has suffered—and this is especially true for young voters and recent immigrants. That’s why the numbers of independents and swing voters have increased. It’s why Donald Trump found it so easy to topple the Republican Party leadership and why Democrats may have trouble winning elections holding onto their “demographics are destiny” mantra.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular