Republicans block 'Paycheck Fairness Act'

[aztek]

what makes you think i trust your analysis ? studies are never unbiased, who paid for your study?

.

[aztek]

at this point it really irrelevant what your study finds, in private sector in usa you are paid as much as your boss thinks you worth, that is all there is to it, and no laws will change that,. you can either improve yourself, find another job, and get paid more, or complain and get nowhere, which is basically what complainers generally achieve 0. it is your choice.

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Guest]

When the law passes, as it will eventually, employers will think long and hard about paying their female staff less than the men doing the same job. I predict the studies will show the pay differential start to close and then the job will be done.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

Ok

[F3SS]

IF this law passes and produces the desired employer introspect towards their payroll, as if they don't already know what's best in most cases, you'll find little change in pay disparity. What you might find however is employers keeping more detailed notes and written contracts as to the circumstances that determine wages. Verbal agreements and general acts of good faith will dissipate. It'll result in loss of productivity from the employer as does every regulation and law that affects business due to the extra paperwork. Most large companies already keep details and most times an employee sues for discrimination or wrongful termination they are greeted with egg on their face as their past behaviors are presented to the judge. This'll mostly affect smaller businesses like myself where all departments run through one person and organization and details are often, but not completely, overlooked in favor of productivity. The more you screw with employers the more they'll cover their asses and welcome the dispute if challenged.

Edited May 26, 2014 by F3SS

[F3SS]

A few years back I was doing pretty good at keeping daily details especially for one employee who I regretted hiring immediately. He barely lasted a couple months before I let him go but I'm glad I kept details because I knew he'd try and make trouble. And he did. When I let him go it was instant threats of reporting me to whatever agency. So I said go ahead and proceeded to type and mail a very detailed letter of termination to him. If I can find the file I'll post the letter, names removed as I was quite proud of the case I made. Nothing ever came of it of course. This isn't a pay disparity story but a personal CYA story that goes in hand with my post above.

Edited May 26, 2014 by F3SS

[aztek]

When the law passes, as it will eventually, employers will think long and hard about paying their female staff less than the men doing the same job. I predict the studies will show the pay differential start to close and then the job will be done.

Br Cornelius

so as long as studies show all is good, your job is done? lol, got it.

[Beany]

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.

Certainly it's more cut & dried in the public sector, as they are usually more rigid structures, and the skills one would need to succeed in the private sector are not always valued or encouraged in the public sector, especially since there's no competition with another company or organization. In what specifics ways do you think it's flawed or designed to garner certain results? Are you saying that there is no gender pay bias, or that the studies are flawed? We used the Hay Study methodology employed by the City of San Jose, which is very similar to the methodology used for the State of Washington and the city of Pismo Beach, so if you're saying our study was flawed because of the methodology, that would cast doubt on all the studies conducted by various businesses & governments.

[Gummug]

There is consistent evidence that there is a residual pay difference when exactly like for like jobs are compared. This has been studied to death and it always comes to the same conclusion. Again I could produce such evidence if I thought you were interested in reading evidence.

Br Cornelius

This may be true but what seems weird to me is most of the women I've met all make or have made higher salaries than I...admittedly I'm not the highest paid person on the planet, duh, but still.....

[Beany]

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.

In fact, there have been a number of studies conducted that reached just that conclusion, and proved it statistically, that there is a pay bias based on gender, and least in the public sector., so it has been proven, even to the satisfaction of the courts. I haven't seen any studies done in the private sector, so what is true for the public sector can't be taken as fact for the private sector. I think there are so many more variables in the private sector that it would be very difficult to apply the same methodology.

And no, one female making more than men wouldn't skew the stats. The stats are based on bench mark positions, from Wisegeek.org, here's a working definition of bench mark positions: "A benchmark job is a job that tends to remain consistent across diverse organizations, allowing employers in various companies and even different industries to use it as a basis for evaluation and comparison. Data about such positions is readily available so that employers have information that they can use in the development of job descriptions and salaries. People may also refer to them as key jobs."

See where it refers to evaluation and comparison across industries, and how that information can be used to develop job descriptions and salaries?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Beany

[Harte]

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

The market determines the pay range. If over time a great many people decide to become greenskeepers, then the best and most experienced greenskeepers will find they have a job that pays less than it used to.

You pay what you have to pay to hire employees. That's all there is too it, other than "agressiveness," which would allow one to negotiate within a range set by the labor market.

Harte

[Beany]

The market determines the pay range. If over time a great many people decide to become greenskeepers, then the best and most experienced greenskeepers will find they have a job that pays less than it used to.

You pay what you have to pay to hire employees. That's all there is too it, other than "agressiveness," which would allow one to negotiate within a range set by the labor market.

Harte

Yes, the market does determine the pay range, and sometimes the marketplace is biased. Coca Cola comes to mind, with its discriminatory pay practices for minorities, of Lilly Ledbetter and Goodyear, or Betty Dukes and Walmart, or Shores vs Publix.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Beany

[Frank Merton]

Marx proposed we should be paid according to our need. At least his Utopian fantasy envisioned that. I get the feeling a lot of people have similar fantasies.

Maybe everyone should have an automatic counter attached to them to see how much work they do and pay them accordingly.

Please people get real. The world is not fair and if you are treated unfairly you either do something about it or you adjust. I think passing laws only changes the unfairness to favor those who have better lawyers.

[newbloodmoon]

It's business as usual with the Republocrats and Democins.

Edited May 27, 2014 by newbloodmoon

[Yamato]

Maybe everyone should have an automatic counter attached to them to see how much work they do and pay them accordingly.

You just described a clock. We see how much work people do in time, and pay them accordingly.

[Guest]

IF this law passes and produces the desired employer introspect towards their payroll, as if they don't already know what's best in most cases, you'll find little change in pay disparity. What you might find however is employers keeping more detailed notes and written contracts as to the circumstances that determine wages. Verbal agreements and general acts of good faith will dissipate. It'll result in loss of productivity from the employer as does every regulation and law that affects business due to the extra paperwork. Most large companies already keep details and most times an employee sues for discrimination or wrongful termination they are greeted with egg on their face as their past behaviors are presented to the judge. This'll mostly affect smaller businesses like myself where all departments run through one person and organization and details are often, but not completely, overlooked in favor of productivity. The more you screw with employers the more they'll cover their asses and welcome the dispute if challenged.

Most employers are not mom and pop outfits where everything is done on goodwill, most employers are large organizations and do what save's them a few bucks. No tears will be shed for them when their discriminatory practices are outed. And yes it will be the employee ending with egg on their faces if they can't make their case - but this law will not change that one bit since the case will still be decided on its own merits by a Judge.

If you, as an employer, can show that you are not discriminating then this law will not hurt you one little bit, but if you as an employer have generated so little good will and sense of honesty that you end up in court - you deserve it.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 27, 2014 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

You just described a clock. We see how much work people do in time, and pay them accordingly.

Oh there are people great at spending lots of time doing very little work.

[Frank Merton]

Most employers are not mom and pop outfits where everything is done on goodwill, most employers are large organizations and do what save's them a few bucks. No tears will be shed for them when their discriminatory practices are outed. And yes it will be the employee ending with egg on their faces if they can't make their case - but this law will not change that one bit since the case will still be decided on its own merits by a Judge.

If you, as an employer, can show that you are not discriminating then this law will not hurt you one little bit, but if you as an employer have generated so little good will and sense of honesty that you end up in court - you deserve it.

Br Cornelius

I fear that is not what will happen: there are too many lawyers around (at least in the US) who make their living finding greedy or disenchanted employees to make accusations and then collect a fat piece of the out-of-settlement they blackmail them for, since no company in the States wants to risk such a thing actually put in the hands of a jury.

[Guest]

Oh there are people great at spending lots of time doing very little work.

Thats why you have performance appraisals and records to show that if you do nothing/little then the employer is more than justified in paying less. An employer should be documenting its decisions - such as paying the "aggressive" employees more.

Br Cornelius

[Gummug]

You just described a clock. We see how much work people do in time, and pay them accordingly.

The problem with the clock, imo, is sometimes people "milk" it, if you know what I mean....

eta: Sorry, Frank, I posted this before I read your post #492. You make the point adequately there.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Gummug

[Guest]

I fear that is not what will happen: there are too many lawyers around (at least in the US) who make their living finding greedy or disenchanted employees to make accusations and then collect a fat piece of the out-of-settlement they blackmail them for, since no company in the States wants to risk such a thing actually put in the hands of a jury.

Thats what costs are designed to prevent. If the case is poor and unprovable then the employee and lawyer will end up out of pocket - which is the employers protection.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

I dunno; I spent most of my career on airplanes and in airports, before the time of laptops, so I did very little real work. Of course I got commissions and bonuses in addition to a small salary. My work was not the issue; my ability to solve problems the customers were having was the issue.

The point I am trying to make is that the question of fair compensation is so damn complicated with so many variables that trying to handle it in courts and with rules just will distort things and end up with a worse situation.

[Frank Merton]

I think you have British courts in mind where the Judges have no trouble dismissing trivial cases and don't have to deal with the American legal system. If you lose you are out nothing unless the other party can bring a false persecution case, and they are impossible to win.

[Guest]

I dunno; I spent most of my career on airplanes and in airports, before the time of laptops, so I did very little real work. Of course I got commissions and bonuses in addition to a small salary. My work was not the issue; my ability to solve problems the customers were having was the issue.

The point I am trying to make is that the question of fair compensation is so damn complicated with so many variables that trying to handle it in courts and with rules just will distort things and end up with a worse situation.

In many cases its not that complex. In many cases you can stand two employees side by side doing the same job and ask them what they are paid. If there is a difference there is a reason, its either because they had poor appraisals or they are been discriminated against. Simple.

Bad employees generally develop a paper trail since employers want to cover their backs if they have to sack them.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 27, 2014 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

Generally how much one is making as opposed to the other is a matter of their pay history. To hire them they have to start them at a higher pay than their previous job and then salaries are never reduced, just held back when performance is poor, so it can take a long time for this to show up.

Also performance reviews are hardly perfect measures. Some people are great at praising the boss and telling him how lucky they are to work there. In my case all they did was look at my revenues brought in. They couldn't care less about anything else, and those who didn't were soon out the door. No discrimination there.