“It’s unnecessary. It doesn’t add any value to Minnesota workers or to Minnesota government.”

That’s state Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, talking about legislation he’s authored that would eliminate the state law that requires state and local government to pay the same wages regardless of gender.aDrazkowski believes because a similar law is enshrined in federal law, it’s redundant for the North Star State.

We bet there’s at least 1,300 people who feel differently.

We haven’t come so far, baby.

Drazkowski would try to have us believe that gender discrimination, especially in the public sector, isn’t a problem. In other words, government jobs pay the same no matter the gender. Besides, federal law takes care of the issue, so state law is redundant.

Too bad those pesky facts seem to be standing in Drazkowski’s way.

The state of Minnesota reports that nearly 1,300 employees in the course of 14 years (in other words almost 100 per year) have been victims of wage discrimination. That’s cost the government more than $1.2 million in back wages and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

To believe Minnesota doesn’t need the law is at best naive and, at worst, sexist.

It is a sad commentary that we still need an enforcement mechanism in state law to enforce what should be such common sense — the same wage for the same work. Yet, it’s clear that Minnesota probably needs more oversight on this issue, not less.

The law isn’t some gotcha provision. Agencies found to be violating the wage law are given a 90-day notice to correct the action. Action is only taken against the entities that do not heed the state’s warning.

Drazkowski is right in one aspect: It doesn’t add value to the government. In fact, it costs the government more. But costing the government and the taxpayers more also means the government is engaged in discriminatory labor standards.

The law that Drazkowski wants to eliminate ensures that government is actually practicing what it preaches.

It means the state is willing to hold itself accountable for doing the right thing. In other words, it means transparency in the name of doing what’s right.

And if the law is really as useless as Drazkowski seems to believe, then it should do no harm to Minnesotans for it to remain on the books just in case. After all, what’s the harm in that?

Unless, of course, this really has nothing to do with redundancy and everything to do with where Drazkowski and those who would follow him believe women should be.

— Winona Daily News, Feb. 16