Republicans block 'Paycheck Fairness Act'

[Guest]

It showed that there was a residual pay disparity after accounting for differences. its one of many such studies.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Let's accept that. Meanwhile there is a huge short question looming over. WHY? Your link even states that the reasons remain unexplained. Why bother to find out when it makes for great political fodder and demonizing.

[Guest]

Let's accept that. Meanwhile there is a huge short question looming over. WHY? Your link even states that the reasons remain unexplained. Why bother to find out when it makes for great political fodder and demonizing.

I think that admitting there is a problem is always the first step to finding a solution. The threat of prosecution for discrimination will help eliminate that last residual - but it would be good if there was binding arbitration rather than forcing the discriminated against to sink their life savings into lawyers. If an employer feels they are justified in paying women less - then let them prove that justification to the employee and society at large, if their case is strong then they can carry on paying less. There is no reason that paying women doing equal jobs less should be tolerated by a civilized society - NONE.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 25, 2014 by Guest

[F3SS]

I think that admitting there is a problem is always the first step to finding a solution. The threat of prosecution for discrimination will hep eliminate that last residual - but it would be good if there was binding arbitration rather than forcing the discriminated against to sink their life savings into lawyers. There is no reason that paying women doing equal jobs less should be tolerated by a civilized society - NONE.

Br Cornelius

The problem is established. We need the why's now. You can't just enact legislation addressing a problem without an understanding of the reasons behind the problem. Further, the administration behind the legislation is guilty of everything they're against on this matter. It's not that we don't want certain aspects of society to be fair it's just that we don't trust the people in charge of its implementation. First, what they say isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Second, not everything can be instantly repaired with sweeping legislation.

[Guest]

The problem is established. We need the why's now. You can't just enact legislation addressing a problem without an understanding of the reasons behind the problem. Further, the administration behind the legislation is guilty of everything they're against on this matter. It's not that we don't want certain aspects of society to be fair it's just that we don't trust the people in charge of its implementation. First, what they say isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Second, not everything can be instantly repaired with sweeping legislation.

Its not necessary to prove causes in the general since the discrimination will be settled on the particular merits of each discrimination case. However I can say with some certainty that its just plain old vanilla discrimination and opportunism in most cases.

So the legal system is not capable of correcting wrongs ?

As I said each case would be judged on its own merits so its up to the individual to prove discrimination and the company to justify it. That how disputes are settled isn't it ?

This is why these things are settled by an independent judiciary - not be Government dictate.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Its not necessary to prove causes in the general since the discrimination will be settled on the particular merits of each discrimination case. However I can say with some certainty that its just plain old vanilla discrimination and opportunism in most cases.

So the legal system is not capable of correcting wrongs ?

As I said each case would be judged on its own merits so its up to the individual to prove discrimination and the company to justify it. That how disputes are settled isn't it ?

This is why these things are settled by an independent judiciary - not be Government dictate.

Br Cornelius

Then what purpose does this reactionary legislation serve? There are already a billion discrimination laws and a billion reasons to sue if discriminated. Nobody is against anti-discrimination laws. Frivolousness is the issue.

[Guest]

You lifted that position straight out of the Republican speech verbatim. The provisions in the bill are fair and reasonable.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

You lifted that position straight out of the Republican speech verbatim. The provisions in the bill are fair and reasonable.

Br Cornelius

Well that came straight from me.

[Guest]

What part of the bill would have caused frivolous cases ?

Br Cornelius

[spartan max2]

What part of the bill would have caused frivolous cases ?

Br Cornelius

All the bill does it make it so that the employer has to prove he/she is innocent instead of the accuser proving he/she is guilty. It is completely counter to how our law system works.

You are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

You can already sue for discrimination and unequal pay

[Guest]

All the bill does it make it so that the employer has to prove he/she is innocent instead of the accuser proving he/she is guilty. It is completely counter to how our law system works.

You are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

You can already sue for discrimination and unequal pay

The terms set out in the original discrimination bills favour employers, the new bill removes that favouritism. It doesn't place the employer in a guilty until proven innocent, it asks them to justify a demonstrable pay differential and equips the employee with provisions of discovery which are immune from retaliation.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

It showed that there was a residual pay disparity after accounting for differences. its one of many such studies.

Br Cornelius

it shows no causation,. just correlation, no way this study proves that female pay was smaller for the reason they are females.

however as with every study, it almost always finds what financial backers were looking for.

show me payroll table that has different wages for males and females, for the same job, until you show me that, you have no proof it exists.

Edited May 25, 2014 by aztek

[Beany]

it shows no causation,. just correlation, no way this study proves that female pay was smaller for the reason they are females.

however as with every study, it almost always finds what financial backers were looking for.

show me payroll table that has different wages for males and females, for the same job, until you show me that, you have no proof it exists.

The issue isn't whether men & women get paid the same for the same job, it's whether there is a pay discrepancy between jobs of equal worth or value, it's comparable worth.

From Womenshistory.about.com: Comparable worth systems seek to compensate jobs held primarily by women or men more equitably by comparing the educational and skill requirements, task activities, and responsibility in different jobs, and attempting to compensate each job in relation to such factors rather than the traditional pay history of the jobs. Thus, the job of a licensed practical nurse (held mostly by women) might compare more equally to the job of an electrician (held mostly by men), and compensation adjusted accordingly. In most actual implementations of comparable worth, the pay of the lower-paid group is adjusted upwards, and the pay of the higher-paid group is allowed to grow more slowly than it would have without the comparable worth system in place.

I can't think of any negative outcomes for women or society if women were to receive equal pay for equal worth. The extra money would go back into the market place, more taxes would be paid, more women & families would no longer need welfare assistance, more women would move out of the "working poor" category, households would have more economic stability. What is the downside to supporting something that could lead to more economic security? The case that gender pay discrimination exists has already been proven over and over, and to the satisfaction of the legal system as demonstrated in the 1986 court ruling in the state of Washington, so that's a moot point.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Beany

[acidhead]

The studies are deeply flawed as has been pointed out throughout the thread. It's not as easy as assigning a point system to determine if two completely different types of employment can be compared equally.

Beany... in your last paragraph you tried championing all the extra forced pay as being great for an economy. The use of force would in fact have a negative impact on the market and most importantly overall employment. How could forcefully raising the pay in one industry to match pay in another industry not have a negative impact?

To all the naysayers... do yourself a favor... do a name search and start up your own business. Work independently or hire as many individuals as you want. Put your theories to the test.

Edited May 25, 2014 by acidhead

[Guest]

Here's a simple question - do you not think that a person should have the right to make a claim of discrimination and that they should have full access to the facts in order to establish the case ? That is all this bill is allowing.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

Here's a simple question - do you not think that a person should have the right to make a claim of discrimination and that they should have full access to the facts in order to establish the case ? That is all this bill is allowing.

Br Cornelius

The individual can already dispute any kind of claim of discrimination. To include 'facts' which are deeply flawed actually hurts those the studies claim to be helping.

[Beany]

The studies are deeply flawed as has been pointed out throughout the thread. It's not as easy as assigning a point system to determine if two completely different types of employment can be compared equally.

Beany... in your last paragraph you tried championing all the extra forced pay as being great for an economy. The use of force would in fact have a negative impact on the market and most importantly overall employment. How could forcefully raising the pay in one industry to match pay in another industry not have a negative impact?

To all the naysayers... do yourself a favor... do a name search and start up your own business. Work independently or hire as many individuals as you want. Put your theories to the test.

Please be specific about the flaws in the studies. I can't respond effectively to generalities. I didn't try championing, I did champion. I was a single mom raising 3 kids, with an absent father who's child support was sporadic, at best, and the DA's office never pursued collecting it. I worked with other women in the same boat. FYI, at one time my husband and I did own a business, for 6 years.. We treated all employees equally, and had no problems maintaining a profit. You're right, it's not easy assigning a point system, but it shouldn't be easy, as we are talking about people's wages and economic status, and important outcomes. It should be, and usually is, done slowly, carefully, and with thoughtfulness.

Raising wages isn't done by industry, you know. Yeah, I get your concerns about a negative impact in the market place, but I'm not seeing you address in any way the negative impact the status quo has on women and their families. But can you provide any proof of a possible negative effect to the economy? 75% of the poor in this country are women & children, we can help them by giving them welfare benefits or by providing some wage equity. Do you see any other choices for these families? I don't. And please remember that the wages women earn will affect their retirement & social security pensions, as well, so it has some very long term effects.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Beany

[Beany]

The individual can already dispute any kind of claim of discrimination. To include 'facts' which are deeply flawed actually hurts those the studies claim to be helping.

Your response didn't answer the question posed. How come my "facts" are in quotes, and yours aren't? Especially since there has been no proof presented of deep flaws in the studies, only allegations with no specifics. As I said, the courts looked at the methodology and the conclusions drawn, and found it acceptable.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Beany

[Frank Merton]

When you think about it, any disparity in pay between anyone is "unfair." Why should the architect be paid more than the carpenter, when they both have indispensable skills and the carpenter works a lot harder?

[acidhead]

It all come down to circumstance.

[Guest]

The individual can already dispute any kind of claim of discrimination. To include 'facts' which are deeply flawed actually hurts those the studies claim to be helping.

The facts I was referring to were the payroll records of the company - which this bill allows the claimant to see before making a case.

The fact you are referring to is the 77% figure which is the discrepancy which is present before accounting for other factors. When the other factors are accounted for there is still a 7% difference in wages - which is what this bill is designed to address.

Br Cornelius

[Harte]

Please be specific about the flaws in the studies. I can't respond effectively to generalities. I didn't try championing, I did champion. I was a single mom raising 3 kids, with an absent father who's child support was sporadic, at best, and the DA's office never pursued collecting it.

Similar to this new superflous law, we should then create another new (and supefluous) law to address sporadic child support payments.

Obvio0usly, a new law would have solved your child support problem.

Raising wages isn't done by industry, you know.

Who is it done by then? That is, it's obvious that the entire population doesn'teke out a living on the Federally mandated (or State mandated) minimum wage, right? So, how did they get their higher salaries? These higher wages, not having been created by industry, simply evolved on their own? Obama created them by fiat? What?

Harte

[Beany]

The facts I was referring to were the payroll records of the company - which this bill allows the claimant to see before making a case.

The fact you are referring to is the 77% figure which is the discrepancy which is present before accounting for other factors. When the other factors are accounted for there is still a 7% difference in wages - which is what this bill is designed to address.

Br Cornelius

A comparable worth study requires much more than looking at just payroll records. Do you have any information about how the 7% figure was arrived at?

[Beany]

Similar to this new superflous law, we should then create another new (and supefluous) law to address sporadic child support payments.

Obvio0usly, a new law would have solved your child support problem.

Who is it done by then? That is, it's obvious that the entire population doesn'teke out a living on the Federally mandated (or State mandated) minimum wage, right? So, how did they get their higher salaries? These higher wages, not having been created by industry, simply evolved on their own? Obama created them by fiat? What?

Harte

Studies are done within an organization, i.e. state of Washington, cities of Pismo Beach & San Jose, etc. Sorry, I'm not getting the thrust of the rest of the questions in the last paragraph.

[Guest]

A comparable worth study requires much more than looking at just payroll records. Do you have any information about how the 7% figure was arrived at?

It is a figure I have seen used on all discussions of wage disparity and I first came across it in reference to the Wiki article in testament to congress standing committee. Any serious discussion admits that the 77% is highly misleading and rather dishonest, but when all confounding factors (such as time out for childbirth etc) are accounted for there is always a residual 7% wage disparity.

The payroll figure been available to an employee - is a means of discovery to decide whether there is a case to take to court. It would take expert analysis to assess whether discrimination had taken place - but without it the employee has a very difficult time proving the discrimination took place.

Really that is all this bill seeks to do - give the employee a chance to prove their case by allowing maximum access to information and protection from sacking for attempting to bring the case in the first place.

Br Cornelius