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

Gromdor

Because there isn't an infinite supply of qualified women to exploit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Because there isn't an infinite supply of qualified women to exploit?

or may be because it is just a myth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

If it were a myth then why block a bill that allows peoples pay to be common knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Why on earth would employers sue employees for discrimination when they're the ones holding all the cards, setting and enforcing policy, hiring & firing, etc.? And you're suggesting that righting a wrong should be delayed until all wrongs can be righted all at the same time, and that by addressing the issue of wage equality it's favoritism? No one wants to punish employers, women just want to be paid fairly based on the contributions they make and not on their gender.

Holding all the cards, and all the risk. Why should they not be able to let a discriminatory employee destroy their business? Conferring equal rights against discrimination for employer and employee both isn't about punishing anyone. It's recognizing that people who write checks are as capable of being victims of discrimination as those who cash them.

On the narrower issue of pay parity for women, there are reasons for why it doesn't exist. Not accepting less pay in the workforce means higher unemployment rates for women. If an employer has a hiring decision to make between two equally qualified candidates, one a man and one a woman, why would he hire the woman instead of the man? She's more expensive, requires more healthcare, and if it isn't written into her employment contract specifically, she can decide she has other interests when it comes time to have children, right after the business grows and there's more work to be done than ever. It has nothing to do with discrimination it has everything to do with the long-term success of the business and the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

If it were a myth then why block a bill that allows peoples pay to be common knowledge?

Because the pay I negotiate with my employer is MY business and what you negotiate with them is YOUR business...

Common knowledge my @ss...what I make is between me and whoever writes the check...how I spend it is also no one's business...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I don't disagree with you on that, nor Yamato's reasoning for women being paid less. I disagree with the claim that pay disparities are a myth. Lets face it, some people are crappy negotiators and apparently women as a gender fall into that category. Either that or we have to admit that some other bias is in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

I think acidhead may be a misnomer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

I don't disagree with you on that, nor Yamato's reasoning for women being paid less. I disagree with the claim that pay disparities are a myth. Lets face it, some people are crappy negotiators and apparently women as a gender fall into that category. Either that or we have to admit that some other bias is in play.

That's the whole point, there is another bias in play. Why some people find that hard to admit, or choose to deny or would prefer to do nothing about it is beyond me. As a single mother of 3 and now a single older woman this is an important economic issue for women. So force us off welfare, cut food stamps, don't pay us what we're worth, then call us lazy or welfare cheaters or leeches. Go figure. 70% of people on welfare are women & children, so for me that is a gender issue, as well. If you haven't read Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickle & Dimed about the working poor, you'll find it an interesting read.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Because the pay I negotiate with my employer is MY business and what you negotiate with them is YOUR business...

Common knowledge my @ss...what I make is between me and whoever writes the check...how I spend it is also no one's business...

Hello, ever heard of benchmark positions? Wages would be adjusted according to benchmarks and salary ranges, where no one's pay becomes public information. It's against the law for HR to reveal someone's wages, anyway, and it's not necessary to wage adjustments. HR may use that information for adjustments, but that information would remain confidential. And yes, what I negotiate is my business, and if I think gender bias is a factor, that's my business, too, the same as if I think there could be an age bias, or sexual orientation bias, or any other kind of bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

it does not impact your job performance, but it impacts your start salary, than after you show how you perform you may get raise, or not, or a boot. all in your hands.

idk about UK, but in USA salaries do not stay same all the time, people get raise, and can negotiate their salary every year, it does not mean they will get raise every year, but it ususaly happens.

One of the things we discovered when doing a pay equity study was that in the county I worked for women did NOT get raises every year, while in the male-dominated departments, the guys DID get annual raises until they topped out at the highest salary step. Without exception, in female-dominated jobs, women never reached the top salary step, and 90% of them never rose above the mid-step. The same mechanism that allowed men to top out was available to women, but it wasn't employed, so they all got stuck at say, the 3rd step and their salaries stagnate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lisaloveslilia

Just curious how many individuals involved in this discussion ARE women???

Ok, well I am. I work as a process technician in the plastics industry. I am highly trained in robot programming and plastics processing. I get grimey, greasy and sweaty on a daily basis. I work my butt of 50-80 hrs a week. I am the only female at my factory that does my job. I work 3rd shift with 1 other process technician (who is a man). He has not received the training I have, infact I've been assigned to train him on robot programming. I have also worked for the company 3 1/2 yrs to his 6 months.

He makes a dollar an hour more than me. When I got this promotion I was already working for the company as a forklift driver. I did not negotiate a contract...I was told what salary they would give me and that was it. Its not fair. The company should not be allowed to underpay ME just because they can! And then to have me basically take the lead over the guy who makes more than me??? I guess I could just quit right. Find something better? No this job I have should pay equally. It should be THE LAW!

If this bill ever passes, I can already see a bunch of employers cutting men's pay instead giving women raises. There you go, b*tches! There's your fairness!

Edited by lisaloveslilia
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

The same mechanism that allowed men to top out was available to women, but it wasn't employed, so they all got stuck at say, the 3rd step and their salaries stagnate.

What mechanism? Why wouldn't the women employ that mechanism instead of sitting on 3?

Just curious how many individuals involved in this discussion ARE women???

Ok, well I am. I work as a process technician in the plastics industry. I am highly trained in robot programming and plastics processing. I get grimey, greasy and sweaty on a daily basis. I work my butt of 50-80 hrs a week. I am the only female at my factory that does my job. I work 3rd shift with 1 other process technician (who is a man). He has not received the training I have, infact I've been assigned to train him on robot programming. I have also worked for the company 3 1/2 yrs to his 6 months.

He makes a dollar an hour more than me. When I got this promotion I was already working for the company as a forklift driver. I did not negotiate a contract...I was told what salary they would give me and that was it. Its not fair. The company should not be allowed to underpay ME just because they can! And then to have me basically take the lead over the guy who makes more than me??? I guess I could just quit right. Find something better? No this job I have should pay equally. It should be THE LAW!

If this bill ever passes, I can already see a bunch of employers cutting men's pay instead giving women raises. There you go, b*tches! There's your fairness!

Now that you know his wage you have every right to barge in the office and implore them to give you more.

As for your last sentence, I hadn't considered that but it wouldn't surprise me since laws that grant 'equal' rights usually stomp on the rights of others to achieve success.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

So from what i looked into it seems they get this 77 cents less number by adding up all the men and all the women and taking the average of each. And on average men get 77 cents more.

Do i have to explain to anyone how this is a misleading study? It does not take it work hours, work experience, what your job is, anything. It straight up just ask everyones pay.

And since men have been the majority of the work force for the most time it only makes since they would be in higher positions because of seniority and experience. Now that the work force is half and half as time goes on that will clearly change.

So this bill is just for political gain :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

So you're saying that gender discrimination should stay in place, that employers should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender? It's called equal pay for equal work. I can't see how it would lead to p***ing & moaning by anyone other than employers who cut costs by paying women less. As far as I know, in those places where equal pay for equal work was institute, there was no p***ing & moaning, nor did morale suffer; in fact, quite the opposite. One of the roles of government is to monitor discrimination on a national basis, and I think that's an appropriate role for them. After all, if there weren't discrimination, there would be no need for government intervention, would there?

I am not going to argue with you because you have an honest stake in this that I do not. I see bad things where you see nothing but the good. Had you read closely, I said I knew women in my field that were every bit as well paid as men...their pay was based on their experience level and how well they could actually do the job...it was not some twisted up form of "affirmative action"...

If you want the GOV guard dogs to further get involved in private business, then be prepared to take the bad with the good. Over regulation will just drive more companies out of our borders or reduce their employees. I am self employed...it allows me to work the hours I want to work and as long as I hit deadlines, no one cares. I would never even consider expanding to where i needed employees. I make enough as a solo artist...I don't need the stress of whiny employees to make a few extra bucks...absolutely not worth the stress.

Edited by Jeremiah65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

Yep...equal rights laws are never equal...someone gets a bump and someone gets slapped down.

Affirmative action does not allow for "whoever is best" for a given position...it says you have to hire XX percentage of this or that....oh yeah....way to make a company prosper...just look at the beloved TSA (bad example I know) but how many youtube videos of people asleep on the job or stealing do you need to see to understand the workplace....private corporations...need to be staffd by the best they can find...not percentages.

Bah...it's so silly and people wonder why corporations are fleeing from here and going to places that allow them to do the best they can do. They are in business to make money, not provide humanitarian aid.

If you want to make the big bucks, be the best at what you do and you will. Waiting on the GOV to force businesses to pay a mediocre employee as much as a top notch employee is just crazy...there is a form of Gov that does that...forget what it is called...hmmm....

Edited by Jeremiah65
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Just curious how many individuals involved in this discussion ARE women???

Ok, well I am. I work as a process technician in the plastics industry. I am highly trained in robot programming and plastics processing. I get grimey, greasy and sweaty on a daily basis. I work my butt of 50-80 hrs a week. I am the only female at my factory that does my job. I work 3rd shift with 1 other process technician (who is a man). He has not received the training I have, infact I've been assigned to train him on robot programming. I have also worked for the company 3 1/2 yrs to his 6 months.

He makes a dollar an hour more than me. When I got this promotion I was already working for the company as a forklift driver. I did not negotiate a contract...I was told what salary they would give me and that was it. Its not fair. The company should not be allowed to underpay ME just because they can! And then to have me basically take the lead over the guy who makes more than me??? I guess I could just quit right. Find something better? No this job I have should pay equally. It should be THE LAW!

If this bill ever passes, I can already see a bunch of employers cutting men's pay instead giving women raises. There you go, b*tches! There's your fairness!

If they were overpaying you, I bet they could do that. And you wouldn't mind.

From the way you work, you deserve an extra dollar an hour at least. If I was a manager of my own company and I heard an employee of mine saying what you just said, I wouldn't want to lose that worker, I'd want to make sure I keep them.

You didn't negotiate a contract; I think that's yet another legitimate reason for disparity in pay. If it can be shown in that women negotiate less for their salaries than men do, and I've heard this claim being made in articles before, then whose fault is that? You can negotiate and they can pay you less; what is wrong with that arrangement? How can anyone come from a position where they don't even negotiate for themselves but here comes the government to take all the work out of getting a raise? When government makes employment more expensive for employers, employees lose their jobs. Nobody makes less than those who make zero.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Back in the late '90s I got a bachelor's degree the same year as my college sweetheart (I took two semesters off so we could graduate together) and so we went off into the market to find employment together (which was a great motivator for me I took somewhat for granted at the time) and she was coming back with something called "Mommy Tracks" in her employment contracts. I had never seen or heard anything about that and I'd been to nearly the same number of interviews already. But women at the time were given two different life tracks that they could go on. If they were fully committed to the company and could assure they wouldn't take leaves for maternity or any other child/family issues, and I think in those days it was also an assurance that she wouldn't get pregnant period, then she could make the same salary and have the same advancement opportunities as the male.

So this distinction wasn't exactly being hidden from view in shame, as if this antiquated and racist practice was secretly arranged in the dark corridors and backrooms of corporameria. As if it's this implied ugliness in our society we're not addressing with fed govt force! The ones hiding it from view seem to be the ones blowing their horns that there's sexism in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

What mechanism? Why wouldn't the women employ that mechanism instead of sitting on 3?

Now that you know his wage you have every right to barge in the office and implore them to give you more.

As for your last sentence, I hadn't considered that but it wouldn't surprise me since laws that grant 'equal' rights usually stomp on the rights of others to achieve success.

Each position in the county has a step range, from 1 to say 8. In the male dominated positions men moved up a step every year, so that the benchmark position, the one that has the most employees, is step 8. In female dominated jobs, women are not automatically moved up the steps from 1 to 8, instead they are all clustered at step 3, which is the benchmark position. So that's the mechanism that is used to increase salaries, the step range. Employees can't move themselves up a step, that has to be done and approved by management.

This is a bias inherent in the system. Then there's the problem of a say, a greens keeper, making substantially more than women who work in Social Services reviewing and approving applications to public welfare programs, even though the Social Services position requires more education, constant public contact, proficiency with computers, good math skills, interviewing skills, independent decision-making skills, the ability to read, understand and interpret policies, procedures, and regulation manuals from the county, state, and feds. Who are, by the way, eligibility worker 2's, while the guy at the golf course is a greens keeper 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Back in the late '90s I got a bachelor's degree the same year as my college sweetheart (I took two semesters off so we could graduate together) and so we went off into the market to find employment together (which was a great motivator for me I took somewhat for granted at the time) and she was coming back with something called "Mommy Tracks" in her employment contracts. I had never seen or heard anything about that and I'd been to nearly the same number of interviews already. But women at the time were given two different life tracks that they could go on. If they were fully committed to the company and could assure they wouldn't take leaves for maternity or any other child/family issues, and I think in those days it was also an assurance that she wouldn't get pregnant period, then she could make the same salary and have the same advancement opportunities as the male.

So this distinction wasn't exactly being hidden from view in shame, as if this antiquated and racist practice was secretly arranged in the dark corridors and backrooms of corporameria. As if it's this implied ugliness in our society we're not addressing with fed govt force! The ones hiding it from view seem to be the ones blowing their horns that there's sexism in the system.

There is sexism in the system, whether it's covert or overt. That the sexism is either covert or overt has no bearing on the problem, and no one claimed that it is, in your words, an "antiquated and racist practice secretly arranged in the dark corridors...". That's a mis-characterization of what's been said, hopefully, not a deliberate choice on your part. While I'm sure someone benefits from paying women less, I think society would be better off generally if women had the same earnings capabilities as men, as they would be able to make a greater contribution to the economy, provide better for their kids, contribute more to taxes, purchase goods and services, and not be reliant on welfare programs to support their families. If wages were increased to move people out of the "working poor" category, we would be spending less on social welfare programs, and that's a good thing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

What is this fixation on 'negotiations' for wages?

The employer sets the wage. The employees ability to negotiate does not generally suggest a greater capacity to do the job.

It is known that men are more aggressive than women, thus they will 'negotiate' (read, demand) a higher wage. Again, aggressiveness does not indicate a greater capacity to to a particular job any better than someone who is less aggressive.

"Equal work for equal pay" has nothing to do with 'negotiations'. That argument is a red-herring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Yep...equal rights laws are never equal...someone gets a bump and someone gets slapped down.

Affirmative action does not allow for "whoever is best" for a given position...it says you have to hire XX percentage of this or that....oh yeah....way to make a company prosper...just look at the beloved TSA (bad example I know) but how many youtube videos of people asleep on the job or stealing do you need to see to understand the workplace....private corporations...need to be staffd by the best they can find...not percentages.

Bah...it's so silly and people wonder why corporations are fleeing from here and going to places that allow them to do the best they can do. They are in business to make money, not provide humanitarian aid.

If you want to make the big bucks, be the best at what you do and you will. Waiting on the GOV to force businesses to pay a mediocre employee as much as a top notch employee is just crazy...there is a form of Gov that does that...forget what it is called...hmmm....

Affirmative action allows for the minority to be considered equally, it doesn't guarantee anyone a job. It levels the playing field, that's all, by allowing employers to consider only an applicant's job qualifications, education, skills, experience, and not the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their disability, etc. There will always be jerks who discriminate against minorities, but affirmative action put in to place some consequences for doing so. And an employer doesn't have to pay a mediocre employee as much as a top notch employee. Anyone who's ever been fired for poor job performance will tell you that, most employment these days is "at will", which means exactly that, one retains their job at the will of the employer. To characterize a pay equity or civil rights bills as coercing employers is inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

The 77 cents myth has been regurgitated to death.

If if were true, why would any company continue to hire men?

Could you site your reasons, if any, for believing it to be a myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

I don't understand why you would not support women's pay equity, because we're talking about your moms, sisters, aunts, wives, who would all benefit. It exists, there are tested ways to deal with it, and little down side. Except, of course, it might mean supporting something that's on the Democratic agenda. Is that the problem?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lisaloveslilia

You didn't negotiate a contract; I think that's yet another legitimate reason for disparity in pay. If it can be shown in that women negotiate less for their salaries than men do, and I've heard this claim being made in articles before, then whose fault is that? You can negotiate and they can pay you less; what is wrong with that arrangement? How can anyone come from a position where they don't even negotiate for themselves but here comes the government to take all the work out of getting a raise? When government makes employment more expensive for employers, employees lose their jobs. Nobody makes less than those who make zero.

Neither I nor my male counterpart negotiated any pay. We were simply told what the going rate for the position was.

If the companies can't bring themselves to pay equally qualified men and women the same...you betcha I want the government to step in and do something about it! Part of what government should always be responsible that all laws are fair and upheld and as times change, by golly, us ladies are putting our 2 cents in to the mix. It's time! Companies are never going to step up and do anything that might cause them to have to dip into their bonus money. Absolutely...The government should play a part so employers have to curtail their greedy practices. Instead of being able to say "hey, it may not be right. ..but it's not illegal! Heeheehee!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

There is sexism in the system, whether it's covert or overt. That the sexism is either covert or overt has no bearing on the problem, and no one claimed that it is, in your words, an "antiquated and racist practice secretly arranged in the dark corridors...". That's a mis-characterization of what's been said, hopefully, not a deliberate choice on your part. While I'm sure someone benefits from paying women less, I think society would be better off generally if women had the same earnings capabilities as men, as they would be able to make a greater contribution to the economy, provide better for their kids, contribute more to taxes, purchase goods and services, and not be reliant on welfare programs to support their families. If wages were increased to move people out of the "working poor" category, we would be spending less on social welfare programs, and that's a good thing, right?

It was my own characterization and deliberate choice on my part because that's what I'd have to believe in order to support these laws. Sexism is a problem in our country; however it transcends far beyond salary. That's not even trimming the verge. And ignoring the real reasons why women get paid less than men to boot. Sexism should be prosecuted not just along the lines of women, and not just along the lines of employment, and certainly not so narrowly confined as to deal specifically with pay. It's a bandaid on a body with a hundred sores. You know what's unfair to women? Sex slavery. There are so, so many problems in our society, nation and world that are so far beyond this; ignoring those and focusing on this means more mismanaged handouts for the entitled. Moving the money into another basket and saying it's not welfare doesn't impress me. It's the market's job to determine value...of everything. Women's work too, alas.

Aren't women owners and officers of employers these days? If they can't even see this alleged sexism in the system, thank you, but no thanks.

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.