May an employer base an employee pay decision solely on her gender? In the United States, this has been illegal since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This statute requires charges to be filed "within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." In May 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. Goodyear that "unlawful employment practice" refers only to the initial discriminatory pay decision.¹ Unfortunately for plaintiffs, that decision is likely to have been made much more than 180 days before an employee becomes aware of any pay disparity.

In an article in Time magazine,² Lisa Takeuchi Cullen remarked on Americans' reluctance to share their own salary information. She suggested that we might all be better served by openly sharing the details of our compensation with others.

The trouble with this plan is that many workers fear their employers will disapprove of their sharing — even retaliate against them. In fact, in some workplaces, employees are expressly forbidden to discuss their own compensation terms with coworkers.

A new website, Glassdoor.com,³ has the potential to become a useful weapon in the fight for pay equality. Members are encouraged to "contribute an employer review or salary report," "save [their] information to a free and anonymous account," and "get full access to the reviews and salaries shared by our community." A site like this could be useful in shedding light not just on illegal discrimination, but also on legal but unfair policies practiced by some companies.

A bill to allow employees to bring suit within 180 days on their most recent discriminatory paycheck (rather than the initial one, which may have been issued years before), passed in the House of Representatives but failed to pass in the Senate in April 2008.⁴ (Had it passed, the Bush White House had promised to veto it anyway.) Taking advantage of every opportunity, such as that offered by Glassdoor.com, to share salary information may be the only way for employees to guard against unfair compensation.

Notes

1. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. See the complete text of the decision (PDF).
2. May 5, 2008. "Coming Clean on Workers' Salaries.
3. The author has no affiliation with Glassdoor.com and is receiving no compensation for this post.
4. Results of Senate vote reported in IPMA-HR Washington Update, May 2008.
   

Thanks to commenter Matt for information on Ace Hardware, which has declared it is not a sponsor of "The Baby Borrowers." And kudos to Ace for refusing to sponsor this program.

NBC's website has a poll asking when people are best prepared for parenthood: teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, or later. This show reeks of a major trend in American culture: Becoming a parent has become just one more thing you do in order to "have it all." The view that children are gifts has given way to family planning in which births had better be planned — or you are not a good parent.

In our household, there is a lot of debt. This makes us normal.

I don't want to be normal, at least not in this way. So I have done an eccentric thing: I named all our debts after villains. Shoestringing the budget to get out of debt is not especially fun, but killing bad guys is!

Here is the rogue gallery, in order from the petty to the truly depraved:

1. Moriarty, a credit card debt.
2. Vader, a vehicle loan.
3. Saruman, an unsecured line of credit (basically, a credit card without the plastic).
   
4. Sylar, an enormous student loan.

Not included is our mortage. Already slain is Voldemort, which was the name both of a house we just couldn't get rid of and the mortgage attached to it. It finally sold early this year, but at a price less than what we bought it for, which made it a painful demon to slay.

Stay tuned for a chronicle of our battles with these villains!

A quick note: The child welfare group Zero to Three has issued an official statement against "The Baby Borrowers." They join the list compiled here.

Here is a list of child advocates and child welfare groups which have officially protested, spoken out against, or otherwise denounced "The Baby Borrowers." This post is updated as necessary.

• The Natural Child has issued an open letter of protest, February 27, 2008.
• Attachment Parenting International has formally issued a strong objection to NBC Studios, June 21, 2008.
• The Texas Association for Infant Mental Health has "released an opinion denouncing" the program, June 26, 2008.
  
• Zero to Three has issued a sharply critical statement, no date.
• The Connecticut State Child Advocate has reportedly protested the show in a letter to NBC, although I was not able to confirm this from their website.
• The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology has issued a call to NBC to pull the program, July 2, 2008.
  

Do you know of any other groups protesting this program? Leave your tip in the comments below or visit my profile for my e-mail address.

Attachment Parenting International (API) has issued a press release to draw attention to their letter of protest (PDF) sent to NBC Studios.

API makes reference to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959. More recently, the U.N.'s 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child reiterates a key point: "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration" (Article 3). NBC's role with regard to the "borrowed" children is closest to that of "a private social welfare institution." It has utterly failed to take the best interests of the "borrowed" children into consideration.

I have used the provocative epithet "The Baby Kidnappers" to highlight the effects of the experience from the child's point of view. From the point of view of the parents, who have given permission and who are right next door, there is no kidnapping involved. To these parents, who obviously love their children, the arrangement is no different that hiring a babysitter — safer, even, since they can supervise and intervene at any time. But young children are not able to understand any of that. They don't know their parents are nearby. They only know that their parents have disappeared and that suddenly they are in the care of total strangers. To a baby, this is exactly the same as being kidnapped.

The "borrowed" babies have no choice in the matter. Their lives are being manipulated by adults, who are placing them in a terrifying situation — a situation that does these children no good. NBC has created a situation uniformly harmful to young children, placing their interests last.

API rightfully protests this program, and so should the rest of the informed public.

A famous American aphorism, variously attributed to Abraham Lincoln, P.T. Barnum, and Bob Dylan, observes:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

With "The Baby Borrowers," NBC has fooled some of the people by gravely asserting, "It's not TV, it's birth control." In promoting this program, NBC weeps crocodile tears over teen pregnancy, and successfully has fooled many, many people, among them Sandy Maple of Parent Dish; a nameless rumor blogger, and even, astonishingly, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (PDF).

Let me be very clear about this. "The Baby Borrowers" is not about preventing teen pregnancy.

This program has teens live together, which is a recipe for teen pregnancy. When young couples live together, we all know they are having sex; let's not beat around the bush. Sex leads to pregnancy. Birth control has never been 100% effective, especially when used by inexperienced, impulsive youths. Therefore, "The Baby Borrowers" is not about preventing teen pregnancy. Q.E.D.

The show does not even focus exclusively on teens having babies. Why on earth would a show about teen pregnancy show how difficult it is to take care of an elderly person? It wouldn't. But it is already established that "The Baby Borrowers" is not about preventing teen pregnancy.

Do not let NBC's marketing fool you. "The Baby Borrowers" is not about helping teens. When someone says "The Baby Borrowers" will help teenagers, they are either lying, or they have been fooled by a liar.