To the editor:
I am writing in response to Pat Kavanagh and her letter headlined "Sen. Brown works for women in the workplace" (the Times, Wednesday, June 27).
First, looking at his website graph of more than 600 votes, Sen. Brown counts himself as a leader on a couple of unnamed Democratic issues. The graphic portrays him as a strong follower on Republican issues.
When I looked at the pattern he established through last year, it did not match his claims of being really bipartisan. When his vote mattered to Republicans, he voted with Republicans. When more than 40 votes would be cast to support Republicans, and the fate of a bill would not be impacted by his vote, he voted Democratic. When more than 60 votes would be cast to support Democrats and his vote could not matter, he voted Democratic.
There might have been some changes recently, but do not forget that he ran as the "41st vote."
Second, if a company has employees whose equal pay for the same work could cause bankruptcy, then we should cheer its demise.
If a company can or will not pay women the same as men, then they should consider these alternatives: the men are overpaid for the value they provide so women are forced to compensate; the men can be reduced in pay so both are equally paid; the company needs different management.
Third, I am embarrassed to say I do not understand how a bill that said that people who did equivalent work should be given equivalent pay would destroy a business. I am further embarrassed to admit that a couple of companies where I worked indulged in such practices. I left when I realized I could not change the "culture." None are still in existence.
Fourth, presenting the record of a sitting public official is not attacking the official.
If Mr. Brown squirms when someone mentions his ads simply present him as a personable guy who changes diapers and takes the kids to school, then I have a big surprise to present:
There are thousands, maybe millions, of Massachusetts parents who qualify and many of them are single and underemployed. We who work to be informed before voting want ideas of substance from him.
When should we question the motives of someone who declines to have a "controlled chat" with an opponent just because there might be a "Kennedy" in the audience? How much courage does that require?
I hope Mr. Brown never travels to Eire or the United Kingdom. He'll likely be in a continual swoon. He might consider avoiding most of Massachusetts as well.
It takes more than changing a diaper or making a sandwich for your children to qualify as "working" for women or being worthy of being a senator.