Buried in the coverage of John Walker Lindh and Enron, yesterday, was a Washington Post story by Shannon Henry which had the following lead:
Female managers are not only making less money than men in many industries, but the wage gap has also deepened during the economic boom of 1995 to 2000, a congressional study � reports."
That women make less than men is not exactly stop-the-presses news. It is often pointed out that more women hold entry-level receptionist and clerk type jobs, and so that drags down the average.
It might not be shocking news that women managers make less than their male counterparts. There are not as many women at the senior manager level. First, there is an unfortunate but real "glass ceiling." Second, there have not been as many women on the executive track for as long as their male colleagues.
As people move up the management pyramid, salaries increase at an increasing rate so fewer women at the highest levels would create a widening gap.
Not fair. But there you are.
According to this study which was conducted by the General Accounting Office - Congress' own Arthur Andersen - in 1995 female managers made 85 cents for every dollar a male made in a given industry - a 17% difference. By 2000, that same woman was paid only 73 cents for every dollar paid by a male - a whopping 36% difference.
If you add up that difference in pay for all the women managers in all the industries across the country during those six years, the scale of this income gap makes the Enron scandal look like parking meter money.
The news in this story - what got my attention - was that date range: 1995 to 2000.
Am I wrong or was Bill Clinton President during those years? And didn't the Democratic President appoint the Secretary of Labor?
According to the Department of Labor's web site, Robert B. Reich was Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997 and Alexis Herman succeeded him for the remainder of the Second Clinton Administration from 1997 to 2001.
Robert Reich is running for Governor of Massachusetts. On his web site he says, "I have always stood up for average working people and for those who have been left behind."
Um, Bob? No. You haven't.
I seem to remember that during the worst of the Clinton scandals involving women - and we don't need to recount them now - the hear-no-evil-see-no-evil leaders of the feminist movement spent an enormous amount of time and energy defending Mr. Clinton.
I also seem to remember that, after reproductive rights, the next biggest deal for these same feminist leaders was the whole matter of equal pay for equal work.
Where was the outrage? Where were the marches on the White House or the Labor Department? Where was the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission?
Can you imagine the white-hot rhetoric which would be spewing from your TV set this very minute if this study had been conducted during a boom period with a Republican as President?
Can you imagine the parade of feminists wagging their finger under the nose of a Republican Administration which not only allowed this condition to exist, but allowed it to get worse?
And the headlines? The Editorials? The demands of Democrats in Congress that the President and his Cabinet be held responsible? The howls of outrage from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney?
What did we hear? Do the words: "Hello darkness, my old friend" strike a familiar note?
Business is Business Department:
Starting today and continuing every day for the rest of your life, Mullings is becoming a semi-subscriber-based column. Mullings is a business - albeit a small business - in the media space, and as such suffers from down-turns in advertising just as any other publication or media outlet.
Last year we ran a half-in-fun subscription drive. This year it is serious.
No one will HAVE to pay to get Mullings. But if you can afford it, and you want to help keep Mullings strong and independent, you should give it serious consideration.
� 
