Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Jun 5, 2012.
The war on workers, women in particular, continues.
I'm still waiting for the deluge of news articles about how firms everywhere are laying off the men en masse so they can hire women to do the same jobs at 77¢ on the dollar, thus increasing company profits.
That's interesting. I'm still waiting for you to post something relevant to an OP.
My wife works at an elementary school where about 90% of the employees are child-bearing age women. In a building of about 50 women, There is constantly about 4-5 of them who are on maternity leave. Does this get factored into the calculations of 'unequal pay?'
As a business owners, I'm all for 'equal pay for equal work', but the problem is that there's no way in the world that a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington D.C. know better than I do what a particular employee is worth.
I imagine sometimes if that school was a business, and that I was responsible for meeting payroll, and responsible for paying hundreds of thousands of dollars every year towards long-term substitutes, etc. Or if I was running a contracting crew w/ half women and half men... I'd pay them as INDIVIDUALS based on their productivity and value to the crew... not equally just to prove to someone that there's no sexism going on.
I don't know all the details of this bill, so I can't comment on the actual components... but I would approach it with great skepticism. At some point, you have to leave the fantasy land that every human being is created equal and provide equal value. If the average woman spends a higher percentage of their lives away from work on parental leave, if the average woman employee in the trades usually won't choose the highest paying most dangerous positions in the field, how can they be expected to be compensated the same?
Personally, I see little evidence that bureaucrats in Washington would be more capable of determining an individual's worth than the actual business owners employing them. If business owners were the 'greedy bastards' some make them out to be, wouldn't they be flocking to take advantage of the relatively low priced female labor?
So give fathers the option to have equal paternity leave which they share with their partner as they do in Scandinavia.
You'll have an even longer wait than the folks waiting for the G5 Powerbook
Yes, that would be my solution as well.
There have been a lot of economic and sociological studies that show that women often self-select lower paying jobs. Either by career path or by specific working arrangements (say, for mothers who want more work hour flexibility or don't want to put in 60 hours a week). I'm not sure actual facts are welcome in this thread so I won't dig up the links unless someone is sincerely interested.
I don't buy into the BS that women are less motivated or anything like that. That's not what I'm saying. People are motivated by different things and in aggregate women are motivated by different things then men (again, supported by psychological and sociological studies).
I would like to see those stats. I wouldn't be surprised if they are 100% true, as that has been my experience. Women in general, where I live, tend to place a heightened value on caring for the family unit and child rearing. As a consequence, they often seek out jobs which are part time, or when negotiating a position, they seek out more vacation/family time in exchange for lower salaries.
I guess this is sort of the crux of my concern... like most economic matters, there are virtually innumerable variations and special circumstances to be accounted for and the idea that bureaucrats in Washington being able to plan better than business owners seems to me to be a fatal conceit... and on that note...
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." -F.A. Hayek
Yes, and after those factors are taken into account, there is still a pay disparity. The $0.77 is an average over the whole, while the number on an apples to apples comparison is less eggregious, there is no reason why women who feel aggrieved should face firing for asking, or have recourse if disparity exists.
Republicans love to yell about democrats who vote against their issues when they hold show votes. Well, guess what. Republicans who vote against this are sexist pigs who want to take away everything women have fought years for. Next thing you know, they will try to force women to wear burkas.
The alternative is they could have voted for this. There was NO reason not to.
Nothing more than election year politics.
LOL. How did you get an advanced script of the MSNBC primetime lineup this early?
So true, both sides do this every chance they get.
If you want to see a preview for what her response would likely be, watch this:
So it's OK to pay women less because they might have a baby and might need to take maternity leave? What about women who are infertile, too old to have kids, or just plain don't want kids? What do they have to do to get equal pay? Get an exam by a company doctor to verify their infertility? Sign a waiver waiving all rights to maternity leave pay in the event a condom breaks or the man pulls out too late and she decides to keep the baby? Ridiculous.
....... and pay individuals who choose not to pro-create, who are at work, a bonus equal to the paid leave of those not at work .......
It's a common mistake to jump to the conclusion that just because someone doesn't want government to do something, that they don't want it done.
Take me for instance, I run a small business, and I pay employees based on one thing and one thing alone... performance. In my opinion, this is the fairest way possible as the employee's gender, race, background is completely irrelevant. It's all about the value they can produce over a specific amount of time.
Assume for a second that I have 2 employees, one male and one female. For one reason or another, be it competence, skill, effort, time-at-work, etc. the male employee produces twice as much product as the female. Would you suggest that since they have the same job description, hours, and and are doing the same task, that the female should get 'paid equally' instead of based on merit/performance? Would that be more fair?
What are your thoughts to an Equal Pay for Blacks or Latinos, or Homosexuals, etc. bill? Perhaps every 'group' should be covered under a similar Equal Pay for "humans" bill? That way, anybody can sue at any time if they think a colleague is getting paid better than they are?
It's not that hard, Lee. If there really were a "wage gap", which this bill is purportedly aiming at combating, any half-intelligent employer would get rid of as many men as possible, hire women to replace them, and be able to pocket the savings. Since this hasn't happened, we can conclude that either employers everywhere are really bad at math, or maybe the "wage gap" is about as real as the bubblegum fairy. Since the second option is more likely, there's little, if any, need for a bill of this kind. Since there's no need for this bill, it's not much more than political grandstanding.
Keep in mind that many of the stats on pay, job prestige, etc. are not quite right because today, because education statistics are seeing a 180. Enrollment and graduation rates for women is increasing while decreasing for men. This is even more pronounced with advanced degrees. So in a few years, it will be interesting to see how this change affects equality in the workplace. At the rate it is going, women may wind up making more than men down the road due to them filling the highest prestige positions. Furthermore, there may not be enough men to fill high level positions and so that would give women a ton of bargaining power.
Ahh so you're denying the very existence of the wage gap?
I feel like I'm listening to Sarah Palin speak (or whatever it is she does) in reading some of these posts.
So...now facts don't exist? Umm...wow.
I know I should be surprised, but I'm just not anymore.
Yes, there is a statistical wage gap but the wage gap is not because of gender or discrimination rather the life choices one makes.
Here is a great article on the "issue"
Like I said, nothing more than election year politics and the Democrats trying to gin up support by attempting to divide the nation with this faux "war on women".
Then again, its a lot easier for the Democrats to run on ginned up headlines that the GOP is voting against women
How many women are taking a few years off to manage kids or taking a part time job to care for their kids? My wife is a preschool teacher and almost all of the moms are part time so they can come pick up the kids and not have to worry about work interfering.
How many women are asking for raises?
Truth is, it doesn't matter what bills they approve.
Businesses will adapt and eventually, no one would be willing to sue their boss for "unequal wage". See it like this, when you sue your boss/work/etc because you think they are paying you unfairly, you might get your immediate reward, but forget about any recommendations in future jobs and obviously say goodbye to any promotions.
This kind of laws that force a business to hire and pay according to certain "government standards" are not always good. I agree, you shouldn't pay someone else less for the sole reason of race/religion/gender/sexual orientation. But you shouldn't feel pressured to hire women just to make your business look good with the government and avoid being sued.
Why should a business prove anything if they decide to pay differently to different employees? Who's going to decide what is fair to pay each employee? How would they do it? These kind of laws just gets us to very difficult processes that eventually just end in laws that don't achieve anything and just cost both, the government and the employer, money.
Spoken like a true republican male....
Tell me, is ignorance bliss?
Po, po, Mo .....