Republicans block 'Paycheck Fairness Act'

[Render]

Republicans in the US Senate have blocked a Democratic bill aimed at closing the gap between what men and women are paid.

The Paycheck Fairness Act fell seven votes short of the 60 required to advance in the chamber.

Republicans dismiss the bill as an election year ploy that would invite frivolous lawsuits.

But Democrats cite Census Bureau data indicating women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn.

"Republicans in Congress continue to oppose serious efforts to create jobs, grow the economy, and level the playing field for working families," President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said in a statement.

"That's wrong, and it's harmful for our national efforts to rebuild an economy that gives every American who works hard a fair shot to get ahead."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26964278

Maybe this article/reporter isn't telling the whole story, but the way im reading it here is that this is completely ridiculous and a slap in the face for women.

So what is the deal here, cmon?

[Taun]

I don't know the full particulars on this bill, but a lot of times it's not the bill that is protested so much as the "riders" on the bill... They will often attach a totally

un-related proposal on a bill to try and 'sneak it through' ...

This one though, I feel may have been a case of objecting to the wording of the bill rather than the intent...

It is interesting to me that if this has been such a massive problem for so long... why did they wait for an election year to do something about it?... The Republicans are

not the only ones being hypocrites here...

Edited April 10, 2014 by Taun

[Render]

It is interesting to me that if this has been such a massive problem for so long... why did they wait for an election year to do something about it?... The Republicans are

not the only ones being hypocrites here...

True, but shouldn't politicians be able to get past that and their own ego's and just agree that progress for women in the workfield is simply good ? Not every damn thing has to be this transparant game instead of just doing what is right.

Blocking this just sends a horrible message..

[Taun]

True, but shouldn't politicians be able to get past that and their own ego's and just agree that progress for women in the workfield is simply good ? Not every damn thing has to be this transparant game instead of just doing what is right.

Blocking this just sends a horrible message..

That's true as well... but perhaps the wording of the bill DOES open up massive and crippling lawsuits, that in no way help the country, the people or the businesses...

I do think though that if lawsuits was their biggest concern they should have worked in committee to iron out the wording...

As to the 'earning 77 cents to every dollar men do'... perhaps that has a bit to do with the types of jobs women tend to hire on to do... When ever I've worked in a mixed gender office/shop etc, the women

were paid comperably to the men doing the same type job... Perhaps part of the problem is the carear paths young women/girls get steered into (or go into on their own) while in school...

Women (generally speaking) do not go into construction, oil field work, or similar job fields and the number of female technicians is extremely small... Not because no one will hire them, but because they

generally do not train for that field... Women (again generally speaking) tend to go into retail, food service, medical and clerical positions... While the medical field does have respectable earning potential, the

others pretty much do not...

[Agent0range]

How do you even enforce something like that? In all areas of work, you will have pay differences between people holding the same job title. I have to agree that this type of bill only paves the way for stupid lawsuits.

[Taun]

How do you even enforce something like that? In all areas of work, you will have pay differences between people holding the same job title. I have to agree that this type of bill only paves the way for stupid lawsuits.

To a politician, enforcement is not always important... and it is definitly not as important as looking like you are doing something...

[Render]

That's true as well... but perhaps the wording of the bill DOES open up massive and crippling lawsuits, that in no way help the country, the people or the businesses...

I do think though that if lawsuits was their biggest concern they should have worked in committee to iron out the wording...

As to the 'earning 77 cents to every dollar men do'... perhaps that has a bit to do with the types of jobs women tend to hire on to do... When ever I've worked in a mixed gender office/shop etc, the women

were paid comperably to the men doing the same type job... Perhaps part of the problem is the carear paths young women/girls get steered into (or go into on their own) while in school...

Women (generally speaking) do not go into construction, oil field work, or similar job fields and the number of female technicians is extremely small... Not because no one will hire them, but because they

generally do not train for that field... Women (again generally speaking) tend to go into retail, food service, medical and clerical positions... While the medical field does have respectable earning potential, the

others pretty much do not...

Ah ok, so i read the 0.77 to a dollar differently. I read it as : A woman is paid 0,33 cents less than a man , on average, for the same work.

And as you and AgentOrange say , you are right . this bill is vague. So is this a game within a game or what? Meaning that this is more of a set up to let the Republicans look bad , because it would've been expected that they would turn this vague bill down.

To a politician, enforcement is not always important... and it is definitly not as important as looking like you are doing something...

Sadly, o so very true.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Render

[Jeremiah65]

I heard somewhere that there was a component that demanded the right for someone to "check" on the salaries of others to make sure they were being paid the same.

That is an invasion of privacy. Everyone is an adult, you negotiate your own salary. I have worked places in the past where one person found out another person made a little more money than them and they acted like a fool over it...this did not help them close the gap by any means.

Just because person A is a better salary negotiator than person B...it does not mean person B can use person A as a scapegoat and a way to recover from being a crappy negotiator.

[Beany]

I participated in a comparable worth study some years ago, and the differences in pay equity were easy to identify, and easy to correct. I'd be happy to briefly share the results of that six month study, it was a real eye opener. Women should be allowed to bring lawsuits against employers who engage in gender bias in the workplace. I imagine if they had the law backing them, which it essentially doesn't right now, there would be less discrimination, due to the consequences of maintaining that bias. Because that's what we're talking about, discrimination, as demonstrated by the lower pay women get for doing the kind of work that men do. And there is no reason why women should be paid less for choosing to work in jobs that are typically filled by more women than men.

[Beany]

I heard somewhere that there was a component that demanded the right for someone to "check" on the salaries of others to make sure they were being paid the same.

That is an invasion of privacy. Everyone is an adult, you negotiate your own salary. I have worked places in the past where one person found out another person made a little more money than them and they acted like a fool over it...this did not help them close the gap by any means.

Just because person A is a better salary negotiator than person B...it does not mean person B can use person A as a scapegoat and a way to recover from being a crappy negotiator.

Salary schedules can be "checked" without revealing the identities of employees, you know. And looking at salary schedules and benchmark positions is a great way to review any possibly gender wage bias. I know, because I've actually done this. Be happy to tell you how it works, if you're interested.

[Beany]

I don't know the full particulars on this bill, but a lot of times it's not the bill that is protested so much as the "riders" on the bill... They will often attach a totally

un-related proposal on a bill to try and 'sneak it through' ...

This one though, I feel may have been a case of objecting to the wording of the bill rather than the intent...

It is interesting to me that if this has been such a massive problem for so long... why did they wait for an election year to do something about it?... The Republicans are

not the only ones being hypocrites here...

Uh, Obama signed a gender equity bill about 4 years ago, don't remember the name of the bill, but it was named after a women who won a lawsuit against her employer, who had been discriminating against women for decades, paying them substantially less for doing the same job as men.

[Beany]

That's true as well... but perhaps the wording of the bill DOES open up massive and crippling lawsuits, that in no way help the country, the people or the businesses...

I do think though that if lawsuits was their biggest concern they should have worked in committee to iron out the wording...

As to the 'earning 77 cents to every dollar men do'... perhaps that has a bit to do with the types of jobs women tend to hire on to do... When ever I've worked in a mixed gender office/shop etc, the women

were paid comperably to the men doing the same type job... Perhaps part of the problem is the carear paths young women/girls get steered into (or go into on their own) while in school...

Women (generally speaking) do not go into construction, oil field work, or similar job fields and the number of female technicians is extremely small... Not because no one will hire them, but because they

generally do not train for that field... Women (again generally speaking) tend to go into retail, food service, medical and clerical positions... While the medical field does have respectable earning potential, the

others pretty much do not...

What the bill addresses is women getting paid for the same work that men do within the same shop. Who would be helped by law suits, besides women? Which is a pretty big "besides?" Children of single moms, the economy, local businesses. If an employer doesn't discriminate, then they would have nothing to worry about, would they?

[BuzzLightYear]

Republicans in Congress continue to oppose serious efforts to create jobs, grow the economy, and level the playing field for working families," President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said in a statement.

http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

40 Jobs Bills Stuck In The Senate

House Republicans have passed 40 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.

Most of these bills have had no action taken on them whatsoever as Harry Reid does not bring them up for a vote.

One must be cautious of any rehotoric spewed by either party.

Edited April 10, 2014 by BuzzLightYear

[Taun]

Uh, Obama signed a gender equity bill about 4 years ago, don't remember the name of the bill, but it was named after a women who won a lawsuit against her employer, who had been discriminating against women for decades, paying them substantially less for doing the same job as men.

So if there was a bill about this 4 years ago... why this extra bill?... I'm not arguing that discrimination doesn't happen... I'm just saying the timing on this one indicates to me a purely political ploy to grab votes...

[Sweetpumper]

ALL kitchen employees should be paid the same.

[aztek]

i do not get how fairness has anything to do with pay?? you negotiate your salary before you get hired, if you think you do not get pay you deserve find someone that will pay as much, that is if you actually deserve it, and not being buthurt when you find out somneone gets paid more. i used to have my own buissnes, hired people, no 2 people are same, even if they do same job, there will be one that wil take his job more seriosly, come on time every day, and not bringt his problems to work, and for that he\she deserves more than someone that does same job, but is not as reliable and responcible.

no 2 people are equal when it comes to work performance, why should they get equal pay?? lately these "women rights" activists, i assocate with al shapron.

[Tiggs]

Uh, Obama signed a gender equity bill about 4 years ago, don't remember the name of the bill, but it was named after a women who won a lawsuit against her employer, who had been discriminating against women for decades, paying them substantially less for doing the same job as men.

Lilly Ledbetter. First bill that Obama signed. Wiki link, here.

[questionmark]

yeh, right... as I always say: why should women get the same pay if they have smaller hands?

Now, back to the theme: as in the last 8 years, when the Reps finally have a chance to win they sabotage themselves... The war on women back on the agenda and credible.

[aztek]

The war on women back on the agenda and credible.

oo, that is pricelss, " war on women" ??? are you high on your meds or something, or losing it? i wonder what war you gonna imagine next?

[RavenHawk]

Anytime you see a bill with something like “fairness” in the title, it usually isn’t. It’s an attempt to get more government control in people’s lives which is the wrong way to go. It vilifies those that are pro Constitution. Because “how can anyone be against *FAIRNESS*”. It doesn’t matter what else is in the bill. Bills are notorious for signing away freedoms.

Martin Luther King said “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant”

I think he was saying that the trappings of government (void of truth and love) would not bring fairness or equality to the people, only people interacting with each other and becoming active and aware in politics will the evil be defeated. We can’t renege on our responsibilities to each other and let government do everything for us. If we were engaged with each other, then men and women would all be fairly treated.

[Yamato]

I participated in a comparable worth study some years ago, and the differences in pay equity were easy to identify, and easy to correct. I'd be happy to briefly share the results of that six month study, it was a real eye opener. Women should be allowed to bring lawsuits against employers who engage in gender bias in the workplace. I imagine if they had the law backing them, which it essentially doesn't right now, there would be less discrimination, due to the consequences of maintaining that bias. Because that's what we're talking about, discrimination, as demonstrated by the lower pay women get for doing the kind of work that men do. And there is no reason why women should be paid less for choosing to work in jobs that are typically filled by more women than men.

Okay, and no reason minority men should be paid less than white women.

But employees can sue employers for discrimination; employers cannot sue employees for discrimination. Employers are already taking all the risk. And employers are the ones writing the checks while the employees are the ones cashing them. Something's wrong there. That we can play favoritism like this and then do one more thing for women and call it good?

Discrimination should be punished, period, not dolled out to the protective classes of ees and ies and women.

[Jeremiah65]

I work in an engineering field. I have been doing this around 30 years. I happen to be self employed and have been for years, but I do remember the times working "in house".

I knew a few women in our trade that were every bit as well paid as men of the same experience level. It wouldn't be right to pay someone with 15 years experience as much as someone with 20 years exp...so on and so forth...regardless what age, sex or race they are.

There has to be a system of actually paying people what they are worth. Perhaps discrimination is rampant in some fields, but not the ones I have been exposed to throughout my professional career.

This is a big iron fist in a silk glove...it will ruin some companies...it will ruin workplace morale with people p!ssing and moaning about who makes what...it will stop some people from going into business, why bother when you can't even control your own payroll....Kinda hard to get equal pay when no one wants to run a business anymore because of government interference.

People bark for things all the time and act like it's a gigantic behemoth that requires the dragonslaying power of the gov to intervene...when it's really not that bad, the records show this and it's getting better. But once you invite the GOV in...there is no getting rid of them.

[Yamato]

A system for paying people what they're worth....the market. If a company isn't hiring the most qualified individual because of her private parts, that's their loss and it will be reflected on their bottom line.

[Beany]

Uh, Obama signed a gender equity bill about 4 years ago, don't remember the name of the bill, but it was named after a women who won a lawsuit against her employer, who had been discriminating against women for decades, paying them substantially less for doing the same job as men.

So if there was a bill about this 4 years ago... why this extra bill?... I'm not arguing that discrimination doesn't happen... I'm just saying the timing on this one indicates to me a purely political ploy to grab votes...

So what time would you suggest this happen, then?

[Beany]

A system for paying people what they're worth....the market. If a company isn't hiring the most qualified individual because of her private parts, that's their loss and it will be reflected on their bottom line.

It's not about hiring the most qualified, it's about paying one person more than the other, when both are equally qualified, based on their gender.