Safety Nets

"There’s a lot of talk this week about the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) and its chances for passage as Congress is set to adjourn, and head home for campaign season. The act is a necessary next-step piece of legislation when it comes to protection against gender-based wage disparities, by simply strengthening – and updating - the existing Equal Pay Act. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act, S.182, was introduced by then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2009 as a way to address the limitations in the Equal Pay Act and to act as a companion to the Lily Ledbetter Act.  It’s already passed the House of Representatives and is being shepherded, in the Senate, by Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), integral in the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act, and Chris Dodd (D-CT). To keep up with the times, the act both protects employees from and rewards employers for maintaining a gender-based wage discrimination free workplace by strengthening existing protections.

Women now make up almost 50 percent of the labor force yet still make only 77 cents for every one-dollar a man makes. This sharply decreases for women of color. Two working parents or a working single parent lead 70 percent of families in the United States. Single female-headed households are only on the rise – yet account for the poorest sectors of our society.  Despite the assumption made by some that a pay equity governmental policy is pointless because most women are “opting out” when they have a baby, have a male partner serving their every financial whim, or are simply working less hours at a similar job to their male counterparts, the facts do not bear this out.

Moreover, we do not have enough protections built into current law that allow employees to act, without retaliation from their employers, when they do suspect gender-based pay inequity. Currently, while there is no law that expressly forbids discussion of one's wages, there are very few protections for employees who do."

According to Prudential, the annual average pension for women retiring this year is more than £7,000 less than the average man's, and three in 10 women over the age of 40 admit that they are relying on their partner's pension for income in retirement.It is not just retirement planning that women seem to be failing to take an interest in.

Among Isa investors, men outnumber women by three to one.  Vince Smith-Hughes from the Pru said: 'Relying on someone else's pension and savings and the meagre amount provided by the state to support you in retirement is an extraordinarily risky strategy. It is understandable that many women do not have retirement savings of their own, but while they're still working and have got many years to go before they retire is the time to take control of the situation and their own destiny, and start making retirement savings plans.'

"A recent survey by financial-services company MassMutual found that women's retirement accounts were, on average, just two-thirds the size of men's. The disparity is made worse by demographics: Because they live longer, women need more money than men for a comfortable retirement, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute."

In a recent Boston Consulting Group survey of women investors, respondents said they routinely feel underserved by the financial-services industry, with more than 70% expressing dissatisfaction with the service they're getting. Among the complaints: disrespectful advisers, narrower investment choices based on the assumption that women can't handle risks and patronizing pitches like one from a bank's website that urged women to give their finances a "makeover."  One factor stands out as the bull elephant in the room: Between 70% and 80% of advisers are men, and many veterans have built careers serving a mostly male clientele. Conflicting styles of communication may have a lot to do with why women feel ill-served.

Experts generally agree that women prefer advisers who address their needs holistically, educating them about their choices and explaining how they can reach long-term goals. For brokers accustomed to a hard sell and a fast pace, that's not an easy adjustment. Still, the industry is doing more to take gender differences into account."

"Parda, which is also spelled purdah and means curtain in Urdu, is the practice of shielding women from men they are not directly related to, both through physical segregation and through the custom of modesty, that is, with shape-concealing clothing. It is observed by many women in rural areas of Pakistan, including the majority-Pathan northern belt bordering Afghanistan. In these parts, a family's honor is often tied to the chastity and obedience of its women — and protecting and defending the honor of women from verbal and physical harm is part of an ancient code of honor and revenge. But the code is all too often taken to extremes. Barely a week goes by without a story appearing in the Pakistani media about an enraged male — from across Pakistan's multiethnic spectrum — who has killed a female relative or relatives for some perceived infringement of "honor." For women adhering to parda, it's usually easier and safer for them to simply remain secluded in their homes.
 

"Coverage of people with pre-existing conditions was supposed to help women in particular, who suffer more chronic illness. But as the "high-risk pools" take effect, low-income women may have a harder time paying the premiums.  Indeed, some eligible women may not tap the new insurance pools that have started taking effect for people with pre-existing conditions in the first phase of health reform.

"Uninsured people are difficult to reach," said Kraus, lead organizer with the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, a longstanding advocacy group for low-income and unemployed people. "A single, unemployed woman who lives alone and only seeks medical care when she has a health emergency may be unaware that she could qualify for a policy that would give her access to physician visits, medications and other treatments she needs to stay healthy."

But the problem of accessing the new pools may go beyond public awareness. For many low-income women the insurance may simply cost too much.  During the battles over health care financing overhaul, advocates for women's health strongly supported these "high-risk pools" since they would help people with chronic conditions such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, which afflict more women than men. Their focus, however, was on 2014, when insurance companies will no longer be permitted to deny coverage based on medical history and states would create exchanges where people will shop for coverage and be eligible for financial aid to pay premiums.

Women often have trouble affording premiums because they are more likely to work part-time or be unemployed and have fewer financial assets than do men."

"A bill supporters say is essential to women's health is awaiting a decision by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It would fully restore a program that provides free cancer screenings to low-income women.

The Every Woman Counts Program offers breast and cervical cancer screenings to poor women statewide. More than 6,000 women in San Diego County use the program annually.

Late last year, the governor made some changes to save money. He raised the minimum age for eligibility for mammograms from 40 years old to 50. He also froze enrollment in the program.

The legislature has unanimously approved a bill that would reverse those changes. The governor hasn't said whether he'll sign the bill."

"Groups representing seniors and women are calling on President Obama to replace the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan fiscal commision over his, shall we say, colorful description of Social Secuirty.   

In an e-mail to the head of the Older Women's League, "the voice of midlife and older women," former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson compared the retirement insurance system to "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" It's in financial trouble, he wrote, because of people who "milk it to the last degree."

His comments have been called sexist and offensive as well as show "his disdain for the very program he claims he is trying to protect."

"A new report shows that nearly all women in the U/S. are involved in household financial decisions, yet many women lack confidence in their fiscal management abilities.

Although the Prudential report painted an optimistic picture of women’s financial positions, some key areas for growth were clear. The most striking finding for me was that women lack confidence in financial decision making. I thought it was just me. Only 18 percent of women surveyed feel “very prepared” to make “wise financial decisions.” Not surprisingly, the survey also found that more than half the women would be willing to have decisions about their finances made by others. For six out of 10 women those “others” are friends and family and only 19 percent of women feel comfortable trusting a financial adviser.