What qualifies as discrimination under the aforementioned bill? Are items such as education, skills, length of time employed, and locale considered before determining that wage discrimination exists?

For example, my wife earned 35,000 at her previous job. The other person in her position (there were two of them), a woman, earned 70,000. Management's argument was that the other woman lived in San Francisco and needed more money; however, because of the sheer mass of Californians escaping to Phoenix, the cost of living here necessitated more money. Would our wage inequality be considered wage discrimination?

As a deaf man, if I do not earn as much as my hearing cohorts, could I sue as well?

I used to work in many blue-collar factory jobs. Everyone knew everyone's else's wages. In the union shops, they were in the contract. Sometimes a company suck-up would get extra money 'under the table' and, well, we didn't stop that, and that was the only exception to knowing how much peoople made. Everything was clear, aboveboard, and not about 'you.'

Switch to white-collar workers, who have very little collectivity. It is all about them, as individuals. Everyone's pay is a secret, because, of course, pay is a 'favor' you get from management, based on how much they like you. So if you make more than someone, you don't want to embarass them by telling them. And if you make less, and you are overly sensitive, you don't want to say anything either. The 'class' factor is extremely active.

I remember asking people in part of the brokerage that I work in what raise they got. We had heard they got an extraordinary raise of something like $10,000.00+. I was reported to management for asking around by several overly- private whiners.

Upshot? Without the collectivity of a union, white-collar workers are at a huge disadvantage in just learning the basic facts of employment. Blue-collar workers without a union generally do not have the same cultural 'private life' mentality, and also feel more oppressed, so they don't mind saying what they make in comparison.

...let's drop all the congresswomen's $169,300 salaries by 23%. That should be a huge hit to Pelosi who makes $212,000...for doing nothing. And this proves it.

To arrive at the 23-cent difference, you have to exclude certain factors about the jobs that women typically work and those than men typically work. For example, if you run a regression analysis that also controls for whether the job involves manufacturing (a field where men outnumber women), the difference in wages decreases to about 14 cents. It is likely not the case that women who work in manufacturing earn less than men who do, although there are doubtlessly forms of discrimination that limit women's involvement in particular industries.

I suspect that, among white-collar workers, these differences will vanish in the future. If I'm not mistaken, women outnumber men in college. I believe that women also now outnumber men in medical school. At my MBA program, women constitute roughly 1/3 of the student body--certainly more than they did 15 or 20 years ago! Although it will take a generation or two for these changes to be felt, I feel optimistic about the advancements made by women in the arena of professional work.

The differences between wages at the blue-collar level, however, are a concern. Increased involvement of women in the high-paying sectors can only be achieved by increased scrutiny of hiring practices and a steadfast commitment to ensuring that women have a safe, harassment-free work environment.

But mostly, I'm just writing this to note that the 23-cent difference is a canard.

The bill would make it easier for employees to sue companies for discriminatory pay practices

This is a terrible summary of the bill. The Senate vote was for a Fair Pay Restoration Act to reverse the precedent-defying decision of the Supreme Court last year. If passed, it would only restore the law to its interpretation before the Supreme Court ruling.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, complainants had 180 days to file. They still have 180 days to file. The difference is that now the 180 starts at the first discriminatory paycheck whereas before you could sue from your most recent discriminatory paycheck.

Do you think employees are just twiddling their thumbs, too lazy to sue for pay discrimination? It usually takes longer than 180 days to suspect you're being underpaid, let alone find proof! How many of us even know what our counterparts are being paid? Some companies even forbid talking about it!

As for the notion that "those who voted against the bill feared that eliminating this statute of limitations would bring a crippling onslaught of discrimination cases," I call bullsh-t.

If Ledbetter had passed, it would only return litigation to its pre-Supreme Court decision levels. No, this is simply a sloppy, wet kiss to big business, a slap in the face for pay equity and a great big f--k you to those nasty trial lawyers who are often a person's last chance for justice.

The Republicans who voted against this bill should be ashamed of themselves. Not that they are.

There was a study in 2003 which found a gap in pay between heterosexual women and lesbians, with the gap favoring lesbians by 30%

Furthermore, there's a similar gap in pay between married men and unmarried men, with the gap favoring married men.

Furthermore, there's a gap in pay between self-employed women and self-employed men which roughly mirrors the gap in pay between women and men generally (you kind of wonder why self-employed women would make less, seeing as how there's no evil male patriarch lording it over her, right?)

Why, maybe-- just maybe-- lifestyle choices are the overriding factor in a lot of these wage gaps and not necessarily discrimination? Hmm...

Nahh, that can't be it. That patriarchy sure works in mysterious ways.

I’m going to admit it – I never really have understood this. I think it might be because I think of myself as messing up the curve.

If I wanted to I could be making more money. If I decided I wanted a corporate, Wall Street job I could easily increase my salary by half. But I don’t want the hours, I don’t want to have to keep the wardrobe up (women can’t get away with 2 suits and a few nice shirts) and I don’t want the pressure of $20 lunches and $15 after work cocktails. After keeping up with all my co-workers I doubt I’d be taking much extra home. Plus the people can be awful douches.

I like working with artists and going home at 5:30. And working for a small company has made me really know my business since my hands are in every aspect of the running of things. I’m extremely employable and you can’t say the same regarding my corporate counter-part who is too specialized. And it would be so easy for me to take a few years off with a kid and then go back to work slowly by picking up an increasing number of small business clients – I’ve been planning it this way for years!

So I’ve rejected my 23 cents. And I do realize I’m lucky to have had the choice. But I wonder how many other women have done the same thing when I see this figure being tossed around.