Article 23- IBHR

I chose Article 23 of the International Bill of Human Rights because it discusses the right to work freely, with a choice of employment and that everyone shall work without discrimination and the right to equal pay for equal work. This is a great interest to me seeing as how for years and years in the workplace women have not had equal pay to men for the same work. Without crossing the border into being a feminist, it is clear that this was an issue as President Obama just signed a law that states, more or less, that people who have the same job title are granted the right to know the salary of their co-workers and must have equal pay to them. The way it works exactly is that if you are handed a "discriminatory paycheck" you may sue for years of due pay. The old law stated that you only had 180 days to sue.

Yet this brings up so many other issues than just gender. People of different races, ethnicities, handicaps and age will also now have the chance to have equal pay and be able to do a little something more about their economic situation.
It is clear that in this economic downturn that anything the President can do to support a healthier economy where people are receiving every penny they earn will add up and be beneficial to the overall economy. The best part about this is that workers will see the difference more directly in their own paychecks and their own quality of life. People are constantly criticizing the government for not being able to affect the people directly, and I feel that this law, which is not perfect, but a good start, will enable the next few generations to progress further and be treated more fairly.

Obama brings up a good point stating, " that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness". This brings to light Article 25 which states " everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family..." This is more securable now that workers will truly have the chance to bring their case proving unfair pay.

Looking back in time through U.S. laws that have been created, the " equal pay act of 1963" was an act that stated men and women get equal pay for equal work in the same environment. Yet the pay only had to be "substantially" equal, not identical. There's a huge problem with this. What's the point of saying the pay is "equal " if it's really not? Equal means dime for dime , penny for penny the same. Even if it's $500 more per year [ and in many cases it is much more than this], if a man and a woman work the same job at the same company for 20 years, that's $10,000 difference that a man has in pocket that the woman will be taking home. Another huge problem with this act is that it was only speaking to gender issues. What about ethinicity issues and race, handicap and age? All of these "minority " issues weren't even addressed! How can an act in itself be so discriminatory? It is clear that words need to be chose very carefully and the definitions of them need to be understood the same across the board from the people of the US to the government that runs it. Equal means the exact same, not " well kinda sorta almost the same". That's not equal, that's simply justification.

Unfortunately, this idea of "equal pay for equal work" does not carry across globally by any means. In places like the middle east, there are still several laws that prohibit women and certain " types " of people from even carrying out basic human rights like marriage or get treated with respect let alone get paid equally at a job as a man.

Another part of Article 23 is the " protection against unemployment." This is an issue that is growing bigger day by day in the United States .With companies trying to cut costs, THOUSANDS of people which equates to MILLIONS of families are being affected in a big way. [ and these statistics are only as of 2 weeks ago].. Microsoft has laid off 5,000 employees, Bank of America 35,000, Las Vegas Sands 11,000, Motorola 4,000, Xerox, PepsiCo, JPMorgan Chase, AT & T.. and countless others. What does this tell us? Is the government doing anything about this "protection against unemployment" that once upon a time agreed was a fundamental human right? Right now, it's tough to tell. Considering it's approximately 275,000 jobs that have been cut in the U.S. since November 2008 alone. The government has not made a clear or precise effort , yet, to prove that they stand behind " protection against unemployment." Perhaps tax cuts and other forms of monetary gain for U.S. citizens will prove to be helpful. It is simply a matter of time to see what the government does to help it's citizens. As for now, in my opinion, the government is not doing enough to help those that are unmployed. I understand that there are many other issues on the table and that everything cannot be handled at once, but timing on major issues that affect the people of the U.S. itself needs to be tightened and shortened.

Sites:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama
http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-signs-equal-pay-bill/297558
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html?em
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html
http://www.getmoneyenergy.com/2009/01/list-of-companies-that-have-laid-off-workers/