[econjack]

This has so many problems. I don't know if this is still true or not, but a letter carrier for the USPS had to be able to lift 75lbs from the floor to the top of a loading dock. Women were allowed a lesser weight. The cost of hiring women of child-rearing age is also more costly than for males, even if they do the same work, plus women have a looser attachment to the labor force and are more likely to quit their jobs than men. Male teachers in public schools often make more, but that seems to be a supply/demand issue.

Any law that tries to overthrow real supply and demand simply doesn't work and I'd be very surprised if this one works the way they think it will.

[roadcat]

This has so many problems. I don't know if this is still true or not, but a letter carrier for the USPS had to be able to lift 75lbs from the floor to the top of a loading dock. Women were allowed a lesser weight.

Agree. For the last 50 years I've seen women getting male co-workers to carry weight for them, while they act as equals to men. I say "act" because they are definitely not carrying their weight. Equal pay for equal work is politically correct nonsense, because of so many exceptions. Not saying all women are that way, but enough are to make such a bill to close a wage gap ridiculous.

For instance, in various jobs as an I.T. systems engineer, a stipulated requirement for employment is to be able to lift 50 pounds (which is really nothing). I have had women with the same job classification ask me to lift servers into position into racks. Disgusted me because I had far more experience, as well as doing five times as much work and was usually busy with my own work at hand, while they had much free time and no repercussions. These gals couldn't lift monitors into position. Yet they demanded the pay and perks, getting by on other co-workers efforts. Some jobs are meant for men to do, what with having more upper-body strength. If that's not the case, it shouldn't be in the job requirements, or women should be let go.