To & From Rep. Emmer
Representation without representation?
My call to the Congressman's Otsego office was in response to his Nay vote on Paycheck Fairness Act which would have prevented wage discrimination on the basis of sex. I explained to his staff member that during my career, I had experienced this wage disparity first-hand. Having the same educational background and qualifications as my male counterparts, I was given the "privilege" of training my male counterparts so that they could be promoted. I was even told outright that I could not be paid the same as the men because I was "second income".
My question was how could the Congressmen possibly vote against this bill to secure equal pay women doing the same job as a man. Of course, the immediate response was they would need to check with the Congressman. Of course, I received the standard form letter which told me nothing.
Glennda Dahlman, St. Michael
Glennda Dahlman wrote back:
April 27, 2021
Thank you for responding to my concerns regarding the Paycheck Fairness Act. Would you please explain why you did not support this legislation other than the fact that you continue to vote along party lines? I did not see that point addressed in your letter!
From my perspective, implementing the Young Women in Leadership Program (though I believe a worthwhile program and one I support), does not negate the blatant sex discrimination that continues to occur in the workplace and your vote against HR 7!
From a business person's point of view, the discriminatory paycheck practices would contribute to increasing the bottom line if a business didn't have to pay women at the same pay scale as men for doing the same job.
Knowing that you are a champion of small businesses, it is apparent that your vote against this bill (along with your cohorts) is another opportunity to benefit the businesses who financially support you. However, this does nothing for your female constituents who struggle to pay the bills the same as men, who may be the sole support of their family due to circumstances beyond their control, and who will retire at a lesser pay scale than their male counterparts.
Congressman, enough is enough! Please level the playing field and take your “feet off our neck”! Your continuation of voting against bills that would eliminate discriminatory practices towards women is hypocritical!
-Glennda Dalman, St. Michael
April 24, 2021
Dear Ms. Dalman,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your support for the Paycheck Fairness Act. As your Representative for the Sixth Congressional District of Minnesota, your views are very important to me and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in places of employment based on sex. Discrimination can take on many forms, including hiring, firing, benefits, and compensation. Despite the Civil Rights Act, throughout our nation's history, we have, and continue to see instances of workplace discrimination based on sex.
As you know, the Paycheck Fairness Act would subject employers who discriminate based on sex to compensatory or punitive damages. It also prohibits employer retaliation if an employee inquires, discusses, or discloses their wages, or the wages of another employee, when responding to a charge of discrimination. Finally, it would create a grant program to train girls and women in different styles of negotiation.
While I could not support this legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act narrowly passed through the House of Representative with a vote of 217 - 210. I do not condone discriminatory behavior of any kind, and like you I firmly believe that equal work should be compensated with equal pay. If any legislation regarding America's workforce comes before me in the House of Representatives, rest assured, I will keep your views in mind.
As Representative for the Sixth Congressional District of Minnesota, your opinions on the Paycheck Fairness Act and any other issue are vital to shaping my understanding and work. Thank you for taking the time to contact me, and if I can ever be of assistance in the future, please don’t hesitate to reach out again.
Member of Congress
I met on Zoom with
4 Emmer staff
Letter to the editor, Monticello Times
After the presidential election, Congressman Emmer asked his constituents to seek common ground. We took him up on his offer and several of us requested a meeting with him to discuss the threat of domestic terrorism and the leadership role he could play in addressing this serious threat to our democracy. As he was unavailable to meet with his constituents, we met with four of his staff on zoom. We presented his staff a thoroughly documented presentation about the threat of domestic terrorism including its impact in Minnesota. We asked that Congressman Emmer issue a statement that we believed would help address this issue acknowledging the legitimacy of the presidential election, that there was no evidence to support the “Stop the Steal”, and there is no evidence of a conspiracy to commit voter fraud.
At the end of the meeting, staff committed to share our request with the Congressman and get back to us with a response within two weeks. We waited for a response. We waited for a response. We waited for a response. After multiple phone calls and voicemails, I finally was able to track a staff person down. I was told the Congressman supports the 2nd Amendment. That was it. Congressman Emmer does not seek common ground unless it is the ground he already covers.