Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Render

Republicans block 'Paycheck Fairness Act'

536 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

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.

People inflate their productivity dishonestly by lying about it you mean? I don't understand what you're saying. Management monitors employees, but if they don't it's their company's own loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Here is the letter I was speaking of in my CYA posts. I did the right thing, right?

To: name removed

A formal letter explaining reasons for your termination.

I am writing this letter to you because it doesn’t seem that you understand why you were let go, even though I tried explaining to you on the phone. You say you called labor relations and that’s fine. I have yet to hear from them myself. However, if I do, I will relay this same letter to them.

First, you were hired in early September right after Labor Day, Tuesday September 6 I believe. On your first day I explained to you that you were on an immediate 90 day probation period. You were fired on Tuesday November 22, 79 days later.

During that time, I reserved the right to evaluate your performance and see if you would make a good asset for the company. If not I reserved the right to terminate you for any reason I saw fit. Now for the reasons…

1. You were late numerous times to jobs on properties you have already been to several times and knew how far and how long it would take to get there. I asked you not to be late especially during probation.

2. You called off at least one time and tried to a couple of different times. You would not call me; instead you would text me to do so. On October 31 you tried to ‘text off’ again at 4:17am. I got back to you at 7:10am and told you I really needed you to make it in that day. Almost a full hour and a half later at 8:36am you texted back that you were leaving your house in a few minutes to make it in. It was nearly 11:00am by time you came in. The job was 40 minutes tops from your house. Once again, instead of firing you right then I showed patience and didn’t. Also, during your girlfriend’s pregnancy I was very patient and understanding and let you take the time off you needed, though I didn’t have to.

3. You spent a lot of time on the phone while at work.

4. Your work was mediocre. I had received more than one complaint from different properties about work you performed. Especially the drywall ceiling repair at property removed and burning a fiberglass sink top with a heat gun at property removed. Both instances cost me about $200 in repair labor and compensation.

5. You had an angry and very loud outburst fueled with profanity at property removed on Thursday November 17. That was shortly after I had to explain to you and name removed how important it was to keep a civil tone and decent volume while working on these properties on Tuesday November 8 at property removed . Luckily your outburst was never reported by a resident. If it had, your actions would have cost me a major account and would’ve put everybody out of work fast. At that point I realized you should be out of chances but was still willing to give you one more.

6. On Tuesday November 22 I had asked for you and the rest of the crew to meet me at 8:30am at property removed , a familiar place for everybody, so that you all may follow me to the job we were going to, which I couldn’t explain directions to easily. You showed up at 8:20, ten minutes early, and said you needed to go use the bathroom. My deadline to leave was exactly 8:30am and you weren’t back. I called you at exactly 8:30am and you did not answer. I had things to do and you were holding up everyone, so I left. You called me back at 8:37am. I did not answer because I wanted to get to the job and discuss things with name removed , my business partner, about what we should do with you. We decided enough was enough and to let you go. I called you back at 8:47am to inform you that you were fired. You did not answer. Even if I was calling to give you directions to the job, you had already decided that you were going home. So I definitely would’ve let you go at that point. And if that is still not enough for you to believe you should be fired you made no attempt to call me back, talk things out or even see if you could work the day after on Wednesday the 23rd. So that would have been another day you blew off work had I not already taken you off the payroll.

7. Other miscellaneous reasons…--You spent a lot of time using the bathroom. Not a big deal, usually, but sometimes several times a day and sometimes for twenty minutes at a time when I’m paying you is a big deal. --I heard you on more than one occasion trying to solicit drugs to my other employees. Since it was discreet and you used certain lingo I didn’t want to jump the gun at the time, even though I was pretty sure what was going on. -- Another time during the course of a conversation, which the premise escapes me, you loudly announced something to the effect that you wanted nothing to do with the DEA or never having the DEA near your house and you said it right in front of a paying customer inside his house. --You spoke openly about your past criminal record to me, my employees and others you don’t even know while on my jobs. --Also, I had received numerous complaints from every other employee about you wasting time on the phone or in the bathroom, taking zero initiative on nearly every job and generally not being comfortable or efficient while working with you.

As for your vacation hours, my policy is to use them or lose them. Since you only had 6 hours vacation time accrued and I overpaid you on your last pay by three hours, all that’s left is three hours vacation time. I don’t have to give them to you but I will, even after you called to yell and curse at me after your termination. It will be in the form of a money order, tax free, for $39. 3 hours X $13 an hour= $39.

I was more than patient with you. I had every reason nearly right from the start to let you go but patience wears thin. You became more of a liability than an asset and most other employers would not have been so kind. I’m not sure how you can have a labor relations case against me but if you do, this is what I’ll be relaying back to them in my defense.

Sincerely,

name removed , owner/partner company removed , LLC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

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.

There are a lot of women & organizations dedicated to addressing pay inequity, so we are doing something about. And I think by calling pay equity a "fantasy" and referring to an "automatic counter:you are attempting to belittle the issue. If you looked at any of cases I mentioned" earlier, you can plainly see that discrimination exists. As a member of that class, as a woman with a daughter and granddaughters, I support any efforts to bring equity to the workplace. It does seem that you have moved from the statement that no pay inequity exists to, yes, it might exist, but no actions should be taken to address it. Is that an accurate reflection of your views, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. I would say, people, get real, there's a problem here, and let's look for some solutions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You'd think somebody would make a law about this. Geez.

Oh, wait a minute. There is a law! The law under which each of the above was adjudicated.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

You'd think somebody would make a law about this. Geez.

Oh, wait a minute. There is a law! The law under which each of the above was adjudicated.

Harte

The law as it exists has not solved the problem, because the pay differential persists, and places to much of a burden on the employee to make a case. This law balances the scales by allowing freer access to important data which is essential in making a case and give the protection of the law when that data is requested.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

And...

back to square one.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The basic facts don't change Harte, and it seems the rhetoric from the right doesn't either.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

You say employers should be forced to prove their innocence.

Where, exactly, do similar circumstances apply within the Justice system?

Difference of opinion.

You prefer a Justice system vulnerable to the whims of political power.

I prefer an independant system.

As it stands, I have my way. Your way imposes an assumption of guilt. My way is the opposite.

You bad guy. Me good guy.

Live with it.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

You say employers should be forced to prove their innocence.

Where, exactly, do similar circumstances apply within the Justice system?

Difference of opinion.

You prefer a Justice system vulnerable to the whims of political power.

I prefer an independant system.

As it stands, I have my way. Your way imposes an assumption of guilt. My way is the opposite.

You bad guy. Me good guy.

Live with it.

Harte

There is no assumption of guilt in this law - its simply offers the employee a chance to see the data to make his case. You are been hysterical - which I thought you were above.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Employers reserve the right to private negotiations with employees as do employees have the right to privacy between themselves and their employers as to what they make. Payroll records are none of anyone's business except the employer and those he grants permission to view them for strictly necessary reasons such as a dedicated payroll department.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

The exception to the above is when there is a pay scale structure based on tenure and department as detailed in an official company policy statement and is how many larger companies like Walmarts and grocery stores and box stores work anyhow. In those cases negations are either non-existent or very limited such as a quarter or fifty cents an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Employers reserve the right to private negotiations with employees as do employees have the right to privacy between themselves and their employers as to what they make. Payroll records are none of anyone's business except the employer and those he grants permission to view them for strictly necessary reasons such as a dedicated payroll department.

Its essential information in a discrimination case. The discriminated person deserves to be in possession of all the facts.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

If one can show that such facts are indeed essential in the case, then said facts can be subpoenaed under current law.

So, how are they not in possession of essential information? Are companies illegaling witholding court-ordered information?

If so, why wouldn't these companies continue to do so under a different law?

If not, then what else you got?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Its essential information in a discrimination case. The discriminated person deserves to be in possession of all the facts.

Br Cornelius

Sure but the tone I'm hearing is that employees should have the right to snoop anytime, slighted or not. Otherwise, I'm sure that payroll records and court cases are nothing new. So what's the push?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

If one can show that such facts are indeed essential in the case, then said facts can be subpoenaed under current law.

So, how are they not in possession of essential information? Are companies illegaling witholding court-ordered information?

If so, why wouldn't these companies continue to do so under a different law?

If not, then what else you got?

Harte

You have to spend money - money which many haven't got - to subpoenaed a company. The point is it shouldn't be a financial burden to take a discrimination case against an employer, especially when it is frequently the poorest who are most easily discriminated against.

That is why I said that it would be better if it were handled through a system of tribunals rather than through the courts. Frivolous cases would soon be spotted and thrown out before either side was out of pocket.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Sure but the tone I'm hearing is that employees should have the right to snoop anytime, slighted or not. Otherwise, I'm sure that payroll records and court cases are nothing new. So what's the push?

Believe the other issue is that people who made enquires have frequently been sacked. As I said to Harte - this type of discrimination hits those who are least able to defend against it - people with poor job security and no reserves of cash to fight the case and little experience in finding pro-bono lawyers.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

You say employers should be forced to prove their innocence.

Where, exactly, do similar circumstances apply within the Justice system?

Difference of opinion.

You prefer a Justice system vulnerable to the whims of political power.

I prefer an independant system.

As it stands, I have my way. Your way imposes an assumption of guilt. My way is the opposite.

You bad guy. Me good guy.

Live with it.

Harte

Please quit putting words into people's mouths that they never said. Everyone here is literate and capable of expressing their thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Please quit putting words into people's mouths that they never said. Everyone here is literate and capable of expressing their thoughts.

It appears, then, that you were not amused.

I was, and that's the important thing.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I have to point out, given the labor union laws in the States, that if things were really as painted here these companies would long ago have been fully unionized. I personally think a union is a bad idea with a lot of surface appeal: maybe the people in these companies think similarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sam12six

Feminists Unite!!

Let's demolish the inequality in the workplace. There are 3 reasons the Patriarchy uses to excuse lower pay for women. Let's eliminate them.

90something% of workplace deaths are men. Let us ensure that far more women are killed at work than has historically been the case - this is crucial before men realize that this constitutes a clear case of discrimination against men and sues the companies for damages, damages that should be going to women for something.

Men are far less likely to take extended time off to have or raise babies. The dirty Patriarchs will pretend that this equates to lower profits for the employer and justifies slightly lower wages for those likely to take this extra time off (some will be crass enough to point out that young women pay lower auto insurance premiums because they have fewer accidents than young men). To pull the rugs out from under their feet, women should all have their tubes tied when entering the workforce.

Lastly, they claim men work longer hours than women. Every woman should be forced to work an hour per day more than she does now.

When we have destroyed their excuses, we'll get that extra 5-15% of unexplained wage difference studies cite.

Who's With Me?!?!

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

Here's the thing Harte's pointed out repeatedly - this is already illegal!!! If it can be shown that a woman is being paid less simply because she's a woman, her lawsuit is a slam dunk.

The bill this thread was started to discuss (which should have been called the Ambulance Chaser Class Action Enhancement Act) would do nothing but result in bigger and easier to win lawsuits. Given that it is already dead simple and costs almost nothing to bring forth a suit, and that winning one if there is merit is already quite easy, what benefit to society (besides the sector composed of lawyers and greedy ex-employees) does this create?

Believe the other issue is that people who made enquires have frequently been sacked. As I said to Harte - this type of discrimination hits those who are least able to defend against it - people with poor job security and no reserves of cash to fight the case and little experience in finding pro-bono lawyers.

Br Cornelius

Y'know, it's always amazed me that anyone suing an employer would want to or expect to continue being employed by that entity.

----------

Beany,

You've been asked a couple of times but haven't answered:

Did your study take a given job (say Janitor) and discover that men progressed through the job's pay structure more quickly than women in the same job, or simply find that Janitors advance more quickly through their seniority ladder than some other jobs?

The reason I ask (and suspect the reason you didn't answer) is that within a given job, I'd bet that there was no gender discrimination. There was simply a difference between jobs and you're assigning it gender discrimination as the cause (the same way Cornelius keeps seeing the wage difference between genders that is unexplained (which could mean a number of factors or combinations of factors) and saying, "See? Gender discrimination!!")

Gender discrimination means we have male and female Janitors and pay the female ones less as a standard practice. It does not mean we have male and female case workers and pay Janitors more than we pay them. It's an arbitrary thing where if there's a checkmark on the "vagina" box, the pay is less with no justification. i've worked with a ton of doctors. They are constantly wined and dined by pharmaceutical reps. You know who makes the most money among those pharmaceutical reps? Cute young women. The fact that they usually make more than less attractive women or men, even though they have the exact identical job, does not call for extra legislation.

The fact that it is likely (statistically) that we will get more work from a male over the course of a career and the slight pay difference reflects this should be no more illegal than the previously mentioned car insurance gender gap.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

It appears, then, that you were not amused.

I was, and that's the important thing.

Harte

In the future, can you provide an amusement alert? I hate to miss a good time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

In the future, can you provide an amusement alert? I hate to miss a good time.

Really?

"You bad guy. Me good guy" wasn't enough of an alert?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Feminists Unite!!

Let's demolish the inequality in the workplace. There are 3 reasons the Patriarchy uses to excuse lower pay for women. Let's eliminate them.

90something% of workplace deaths are men. Let us ensure that far more women are killed at work than has historically been the case - this is crucial before men realize that this constitutes a clear case of discrimination against men and sues the companies for damages, damages that should be going to women for something.

Men are far less likely to take extended time off to have or raise babies. The dirty Patriarchs will pretend that this equates to lower profits for the employer and justifies slightly lower wages for those likely to take this extra time off (some will be crass enough to point out that young women pay lower auto insurance premiums because they have fewer accidents than young men). To pull the rugs out from under their feet, women should all have their tubes tied when entering the workforce.

Lastly, they claim men work longer hours than women. Every woman should be forced to work an hour per day more than she does now.

When we have destroyed their excuses, we'll get that extra 5-15% of unexplained wage difference studies cite.

Who's With Me?!?!

Here's the thing Harte's pointed out repeatedly - this is already illegal!!! If it can be shown that a woman is being paid less simply because she's a woman, her lawsuit is a slam dunk.

The bill this thread was started to discuss (which should have been called the Ambulance Chaser Class Action Enhancement Act) would do nothing but result in bigger and easier to win lawsuits. Given that it is already dead simple and costs almost nothing to bring forth a suit, and that winning one if there is merit is already quite easy, what benefit to society (besides the sector composed of lawyers and greedy ex-employees) does this create?

Y'know, it's always amazed me that anyone suing an employer would want to or expect to continue being employed by that entity.

----------

Beany,

You've been asked a couple of times but haven't answered:

Did your study take a given job (say Janitor) and discover that men progressed through the job's pay structure more quickly than women in the same job, or simply find that Janitors advance more quickly through their seniority ladder than some other jobs?

The reason I ask (and suspect the reason you didn't answer) is that within a given job, I'd bet that there was no gender discrimination. There was simply a difference between jobs and you're assigning it gender discrimination as the cause (the same way Cornelius keeps seeing the wage difference between genders that is unexplained (which could mean a number of factors or combinations of factors) and saying, "See? Gender discrimination!!")

Gender discrimination means we have male and female Janitors and pay the female ones less as a standard practice. It does not mean we have male and female case workers and pay Janitors more than we pay them. It's an arbitrary thing where if there's a checkmark on the "vagina" box, the pay is less with no justification. i've worked with a ton of doctors. They are constantly wined and dined by pharmaceutical reps. You know who makes the most money among those pharmaceutical reps? Cute young women. The fact that they usually make more than less attractive women or men, even though they have the exact identical job, does not call for extra legislation.

The fact that it is likely (statistically) that we will get more work from a male over the course of a career and the slight pay difference reflects this should be no more illegal than the previously mentioned car insurance gender gap.

The answer to your first question is yes, men in male-dominated positions, including janitors, -progressed more quickly in regard to wages & career ladder, i.e. went from Job Title I to Job Title VIII, with benchmark positions being in the upper ranges, whereas the benchmark positions for female-dominated jobs were all in the mid to low range, with a smaller range of job titles. For instance, in the welfare department, there were no Case Worker IV & higher positions at all, and the benchmark was Case Worker II.

Does this answer your questions? As you probably know by now, this is a much more complicated issue than can readily be explained in sound bytes, or that can be understood in just a few minutes. Do you think it would be awful if, say, the county extended the career range for case workers so that it matched that of janitors or greens keepers? Is that the same as equal pay for equal work, do you think, giving women the same opportunities as men to advance up the career ladder without even worrying about job descriptions? Because really, that alone would solve a lot of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Really?

"You bad guy. Me good guy" wasn't enough of an alert?

Harte

Well, if the amusing part is you bad guy, somewhat amusing. But in order to be really amusing with me bad guy, you need to add more adjectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Tonto, Tarzan and Frankenstien no need adjectives!

EDIT: Amusement alert! Amusement alert!

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.