Republicans block 'Paycheck Fairness Act'

[aztek]

A comparable worth study requires much more than looking at just payroll records.

really?? and what shows better pay inequality than pay roll record.?? it is like saying to study how temp fluctuates requires more that thermometer reading.

looks like your studies do nothing, and only exist for the sake of the doing study. may be you should just split the funds your study wasted and add a pay to those you think paid unfairly, and be done with it.

[Guest]

Here is a particularly telling passage from a study of wage disparity which can only be accounted for in light of systematic discrimination;

In our report, Behind the Pay Gap, AAUW found that just one year after college graduation,women earn only 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Even women who make the same choices as men in terms of major and occupation earn less than their male counterparts.

Ten years after graduation, women fall further behind, earning only 69 percent of what men earn.

After controlling for factors known to affect earnings, a portion of these pay gaps remains unexplained and is likely due to discrimination.

http://www.jec.senat...1f-8232fe70a45c

So discrimination is systemic even at the highest level of qualified labour and after a time frame where no difference in career path could account for it.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 26, 2014 by Guest

[aztek]

again no payroll data, no names no numbers, you can read anything into it, devil is in details. if anything pregnancy would affect you yearly salary, man do not take pregnancy leave, and no one pays 100% for pregnancy leave, some sure could use that to make it look like they get less.

[Guest]

again no payroll data, no names no numbers, you can read anything into it, devil is in details. if anything pregnancy would affect you yearly salary, man do not take pregnancy leave, and no one pays 100% for pregnancy leave, some sure could use that to make it look like they get less.

the devil is not in the detail - the detail is in the bigger picture - the statistical analysis of the overall trend. Laws made on individual cases are bad laws.

And if you actually read what it said - the discrepancy was at start of career - not after career breaks.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

laws almost never made on individual cases, but you need lots of individual cases to see pattern, and every one of those cases has details, where is the raw data that was used in the study?

discrepancy at the start shows really nothing, may be they did not negotiate their salary aggressive enough.

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

laws almost never made on individual cases, but you need lots of individual cases to see pattern, and every one of those cases has details, where is the raw data that was used in the study?

discrepancy at the start shows really nothing, may be they did not negotiate their salary aggressive enough.

Systematically paying women less because they are less "aggressive" is exactly what this law is all about.

And the other point about this law is it allows the individual to test the validity of their individual case rather than assuming that they have been treated fairly.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 26, 2014 by Guest

[aztek]

so basically you want laws that would give you a green light to sue for your shortcoming, wow, ok. keep waiting.

may be they should include salary negotiation class in schools, or colleges, instead of useless cores, that i would back up, 100%,

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

so basically you want laws that would give you a green light to sue for your shortcoming, wow, ok. keep waiting.

may be they should include salary negotiation class in schools, or colleges, instead of useless cores, that i would back up, 100%,

Most companies start you on a standard starting salary until you have proven your worth - you excuse just doesn't cut it as an explanation.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

Most companies start you on a standard starting salary until you have proven your worth - you excuse just doesn't cut it as an explanation.

Br Cornelius

so do you have a data that shows females starting salary is lower that males??? official HR document , not hersay

something new for you, since you never been on an interview in a us company in usa, there is always room to negotiate , it may not work out, but it never hurts to try.

you will always miss 100% shots you do not take.

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

so do you have a data that shows females starting salary is lower that males??? official HR document , not hersay

something new for you, since you never been on an interview in a us company in usa, there is always room to negotiate , it may not work out, but it never hurts to try.

you will always miss 100% shots you do not take.

i pointed you to a study where that was demonstrated - I can do no more for you. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

i do not want study, i want data

[Harte]

Systematically paying women less because they are less "aggressive" is exactly what this law is all about.

Br Cornelius

The above is a ridiculous statement.

Does government set the price for flat-screen TV's?

Did you know that, if you are "agressive," it is possible to obtain a lower price for a flat-screen?

Similarly with automobiles.

Will we now suffer a spate of federal legislation setting retail prices in order to abolish such "discrimination" in pricing?

Harte

Edited May 26, 2014 by Harte

[Guest]

I always thought you were paid for the work you did. I must have been mistaken.

Br Cornelius

[Beany]

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

Whether a woman takes time out for kids isn't always a factor. If a woman who left the labor market for a few years to have children returned to the labor market, as say, a Caseworker II because of her skills, knowledge & experience, the issue would be whether she was paid less than someone in a male dominated position of equal value, say a Weights & Measures Inspector or Greens Keeper. If all three positions are determined to be of equal worth then the pay should in the same ball park.

[Guest]

Whether a woman takes time out for kids isn't always a factor. If a woman who left the labor market for a few years to have children returned to the labor market, as say, a Caseworker II because of her skills, knowledge & experience, the issue would be whether she was paid less than someone in a male dominated position of equal value, say a Weights & Measures Inspector or Greens Keeper. If all three positions are determined to be of equal worth then the pay should in the same ball park.

There are at least two aspects to sex discrimination and what you describe is somewhat different to the aspect I have described where the jobs are directly equal in every aspect.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

say a Weights & Measures Inspector or Greens Keeper. If all three positions are determined to be of equal worth then the pay should in the same ball park.

who determines those 3 position are equal worth???? again, show us HR payroll table that separates males and females as far as salary goes.

see, the thing is, it is not gvmt that pays you,. but business owners, and they (and i know firsthand) have many ways to go around laws, i may just hire 1 female to meet quota, and never hire a female again, so I'm not a target for lawsuit. either way, law or no law, you will not get paid more than owner thinks you worth, may be instead of complaining the guy next cube gets more, you find another job that pays more, and you actually will get paid more.

btw there are trades where females earn more than males. do your studies account for that?

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

who determines those 3 position are equal worth???? again, show us HR payroll table that separates males and females as far as salary goes.

You can ask as many times as you like, but it wont trump a study of multiple payrolls which you already have at your disposal.

Surprising as it may sound one payroll wont prove a thing because some companies might not actually be discriminating.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Whether a woman takes time out for kids isn't always a factor. If a woman who left the labor market for a few years to have children returned to the labor market, as say, a Caseworker II because of her skills, knowledge & experience, the issue would be whether she was paid less than someone in a male dominated position of equal value, say a Weights & Measures Inspector or Greens Keeper. If all three positions are determined to be of equal worth then the pay should in the same ball park.

Beany, the biggest flaw I find in this study of yours is the determination of worth. Perhaps it could be a cut and dry situation with government jobs. I'm not real sure but in the private sector it is absolutely impossible to determine the worth of employees in two different industries or even the same industry but differing companies. For example, I'm in the general contracting business but for simplicity let's just say I'm in the construction industry. There might be another company in my area that does the same things and has the same exact amount of employees and let's say roughly the same gross sales. Now what I pay my laborers might be completely different than what the other guy pays his even though his employees are using the same skills, doing the same jobs and working the same amount of hours. A good reason might be that the other company successfully charges more money per job, has newer trucks and more high end equipment. Therefore his overhead costs are more and his employees, in a study, would be considered more valuable in that they generate more income per job due to his prices and therefore they may get paid more than my guys. Same industry, same skills different pay for different reasons. I simply don't see the reasoning behind assigning worth unless you run a business and each is different. Yes, I know you've laid out all the details, how's and why's of your study but it seems flawed and certainly seemed designed to garner certain results even though you said it would be a surprise result in the end.

Edited May 26, 2014 by F3SS

[aztek]

I always thought you were paid for the work you did. I must have been mistaken.

Br Cornelius

absolutely, your performance, now who sees better how a certain employee performs?? does study grades their performance? or manager? do your studies reflect managers evaluation, on some common universal scale? i'm pretty sure they do not.

just because 2 people have same job does not mean they do it the same.

pretty much same thing as grades in school, some percent's are class participation, some percent attendance, some, extra work, .... same with job.

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

absolutely, your performance, now who sees better how a certain employee performs?? does study grades their performance? or manager? do your studies reflect managers evaluation, on some common universal scale? i'm pretty sure they do not.

just because 2 people have same job does not mean they do it the same.

pretty much same thing as grades in school, some percent's are class participation, some percent attendance, some, extra work, .... same with job.

You are assuming that women are consistently worse than men, which would have to be the case to explain the consistent pay differential. Is that what you believe ??

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

You are assuming that women are consistently worse than men, which would have to be the case to explain the consistent pay differential. Is that what you believe ??

Br Cornelius

I'm not going to say that's true but would you accept it if that were proven to be true?

[aztek]

You are assuming that women are consistently worse than men, which would have to be the case to explain the consistent pay differential. Is that what you believe ??

Br Cornelius

i do not believe there is consistent pay differential due to gender alone, can you prove that?

you do realize that even if you could find 1 company that did consistently pay less to females, and within that company you find 1 female that pays as much or more than men, all your house of card falls apart.

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

I'm not going to say that's true but would you accept it if that were proven to be true?

in the unlikely event that proof were offered then yes.

i do not believe there is consistent pay differential due to gender alone, can you prove that?

I pointed you to the evidence - but you obstinately refuse to accept it. As I said you can take the mule to water - but you can't make him drink.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

I pointed you to the evidence - but you obstinately refuse to accept it. As I said you can take the mule to water - but you can't make him drink.

Br Cornelius

just because you think it is an evidence does not make it so, data is evidence, study is twisting numbers to fit your agenda.

[Guest]

just because you think it is an evidence does not make it so, data is evidence, study is twisting numbers to fit your agenda.

data is nothing without analysis - when it becomes information. That takes expertise and skill not just a quick eyeball .

Br Cornelius