Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(36,966 posts)
5. That's the "what". I always like the "why".
Sat May 2, 2020, 11:32 AM
May 2020
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/02/849492863/federal-judge-dismisses-u-s-womens-soccer-team-s-equal-pay-claim

In dismissing the women's claim that they are paid less for the same work, Klausner pointed to differences in the structure of the men's and women's contracts — contracts to which they agreed in collective bargaining.

"The WNT [ Women's National Team ] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [Men's National Team] and ... the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," Klausner wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."

The judge said the women's contract guarantees players will be paid regardless of whether they play. The men are paid if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match. On this point, Klausner said, the plaintiff's statements "were insufficient to establish a genuine dispute."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge rules against women...»Reply #5