Murphy’s first exec order does nothing for equal pay

During Gov. Murphy's inaugural address he announced that at 2:30 that same day he would be signing an executive order to promote equal pay for women. Media immediately speculated as to what this would mean. When you phrase it that you'll "promote" equal pay, it gives one the feeling that it would be nothing more than some vague resolution which carries no legal force. If the use of promote was simply awkward wording (highly unlikely given that inaugural addresses are scripted and well thought out ahead of time) it could have meant that he was bypassing the legislature to enact something with teeth.

Neither turned out to be true. Nor was it true that his executive order did anything to help the cause of equal pay for women. The order bars managers in state government from asking a job applicant about previous salary. He went on to say that if the legislature would land a bill on his desk that would do the same for private business he would sign it.

Many have argued the unfairness of prospective employers asking what you earned in your past jobs. In fact so many positions today are by online application only and the question about your past salary is often a required field. Yet how exactly does this translate to narrowing the pay gap between men and women? The theory is once a woman has been underpaid she will continue to be underpaid in subsequent jobs if they’re allowed to ask about past salary. But can’t that apply to men? Are men never underpaid? Perhaps not in comparison to women but underpaid in general? If a manager is inclined to unfairly value men more than women this rule doesn’t do anything to stop that. A move like this is likely to help both genders but does nothing to ensure that a woman will be paid the same as a man for performing the same work. Nice public relations move Phil but not all of us are buying it.

More from New Jersey 101.5