Paycheck fairness dies in Senate

christiefan915 said:
This bill wouldn't be needed if women were treated equally from square one.

Almost 50 years ago Congress passed The Equal Pay Act of 1963. It began "To prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. June 10, 1963 [S. 1409]". The point of the Lilly Ledbetter Act was to close the loopholes in that first law, which wasn't being adhered to strictly.

Why do we even have to pass a law for paycheck fairness? This should be a given. Nothing in the law is taking anything away from men. The fact that this is even on the agenda is a disgrace. It doesn't speak well for a country that calls itself the greatest country on earth.
Click to expand...

So what are the logistics of the bill? It was to create a new bureaucracy that would somehow track the salaries of all/most businesses in the country to make sure they pay men and women the same for the same positions?
 
bravo said:
Thats not the point....you KNOW the wage you are being offered....if you don't like it, don't take the job....if you're satisfied with the level of compensation, STFU.
We all worked and made that decision more than once in our lives...you want the government to make it for you....
Click to expand...

Again. You DON'T know that the wage you're being offered is the same wage a man would be making for the same job description. Lilly Ledbetter didn't know either, until she got an anonymous tip.

You simply do not have a clue.

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire in Atlanta for almost 20 years. When she retired, she was, according to Ginsburg, "the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236."

She was expressly barred by her employer from discussing her salary with her co-workers who were racking up raises and bonuses she didn't even know about. She found out about the disparity between her pay and her male colleagues' earnings only because someone finally left her an anonymous tip.

There is plenty of evidence that all this had nothing to do with her job performance. Quoting Ginsburg again, "Ledbetter's former supervisor, for example, admitted to the jury that Ledbetter's pay, during a particular one-year period, fell below Goodyear's minimum threshold for her position." The jury also heard evidence that "another supervisor—who evaluated Ledbetter in 1997 and whose evaluation led to her most recent raise denial—was openly biased against women" and that "two women who had previously worked as managers at the plant told the jury they had been subject to pervasive discrimination and were paid less than their male counterparts. One was paid less than the men she supervised." Ledbetter was told directly by the plant manager that the "plant did not need women, that [women] didn't help it, [and] caused problems."

Stop me when you're convinced that maybe her gender was the issue here …

http://www.slate.com/id/2189983
 
bravo said:
Thats not the point....you KNOW the wage you are being offered....if you don't like it, don't take the job....if you're satisfied with the level of compensation, STFU.
We all worked and made that decision more than once in our lives...you want the government to make it for you....
Click to expand...

Again. You DON'T know that the wage you're being offered is the same wage a man would be making for the same job description. Lilly Ledbetter didn't know either, until she got an anonymous tip.

You simply do not have a clue.

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire in Atlanta for almost 20 years. When she retired, she was, according to Ginsburg, "the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236."

She was expressly barred by her employer from discussing her salary with her co-workers who were racking up raises and bonuses she didn't even know about. She found out about the disparity between her pay and her male colleagues' earnings only because someone finally left her an anonymous tip.

There is plenty of evidence that all this had nothing to do with her job performance. Quoting Ginsburg again, "Ledbetter's former supervisor, for example, admitted to the jury that Ledbetter's pay, during a particular one-year period, fell below Goodyear's minimum threshold for her position." The jury also heard evidence that "another supervisor—who evaluated Ledbetter in 1997 and whose evaluation led to her most recent raise denial—was openly biased against women" and that "two women who had previously worked as managers at the plant told the jury they had been subject to pervasive discrimination and were paid less than their male counterparts. One was paid less than the men she supervised." Ledbetter was told directly by the plant manager that the "plant did not need women, that [women] didn't help it, [and] caused problems."

Stop me when you're convinced that maybe her gender was the issue here …

http://www.slate.com/id/2189983
 
I fully support equal pay for equal work. However, there are better ways to achieve it than the ways this bill would have gone about it. Panels for this, studies for that,k bureaucracy for another thing. I thought, just MAYBE, the democrats would have figured out that more federal expenses and more federal spending is whaat is costing them. Seems they are still bent on proving themselves to be the walking definition of insanity.

That is the problem with the modern democratic party - they have, for the most part, decent ideals regarding the basic structures of society. But the methods they prescribe for achieving their visions of a better society almost invariably do little to actually address the issues they claim to be addressing while creating more power for an already bloated and overly intrusive federal government. I have concluded this cannot be by accident, and like the accusations against the republicans in the abortion thread last night, the reality is they are simply using their pet issues to gain themselves power while (lying) claiming to be working for the little guy.
 
there is no such thing as equal pay

whitman and fiorina didn't need government intervention to get them unequal pay, that is, a shitload more than most men and women
 
Yurt said:
in other news...it is claimed taller people make more than shorter folk....

do we need a short people paycheck fairness act?
Click to expand...

Ask your wife what she thinks and then get back to me.

"While the pay gap between men and women has been slowly shrinking over the decades, it still exists, and it is still significant. According to the most recent Bureau of Labor statistics, "Women who usually worked full time had median weekly earnings of $662, or 81.4 percent of the $813 median for men, in the third quarter of 2010." A recent GAO report similarly found that women in management positions made 81 cents to their male counterparts' dollar in 2007, adjusting for "age, hours worked beyond full time, and education."
 
Good Luck said:
I fully support equal pay for equal work. However, there are better ways to achieve it than the ways this bill would have gone about it. Panels for this, studies for that,k bureaucracy for another thing. I thought, just MAYBE, the democrats would have figured out that more federal expenses and more federal spending is whaat is costing them. Seems they are still bent on proving themselves to be the walking definition of insanity.

That is the problem with the modern democratic party - they have, for the most part, decent ideals regarding the basic structures of society. But the methods they prescribe for achieving their visions of a better society almost invariably do little to actually address the issues they claim to be addressing while creating more power for an already bloated and overly intrusive federal government. I have concluded this cannot be by accident, and like the accusations against the republicans in the abortion thread last night, the reality is they are simply using their pet issues to gain themselves power while (lying) claiming to be working for the little guy.
Click to expand...

Then lets see the repub plans for correcting these inequities. The plan that repubs are so eager to implement but couldn't because the dems would have slapped it down.
 
christiefan915 said:
Ask your wife what she thinks and then get back to me.

"While the pay gap between men and women has been slowly shrinking over the decades, it still exists, and it is still significant. According to the most recent Bureau of Labor statistics, "Women who usually worked full time had median weekly earnings of $662, or 81.4 percent of the $813 median for men, in the third quarter of 2010." A recent GAO report similarly found that women in management positions made 81 cents to their male counterparts' dollar in 2007, adjusting for "age, hours worked beyond full time, and education."
Click to expand...

she makes great money and doesn't want to talk to you

why are you afraid to talk about the short people paycheck fairness act....they're people too!!!!!
 
Yurt said:
she makes great money and doesn't want to talk to you

why are you afraid to talk about the short people paycheck fairness act....they're people too!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'll bet if her male counterpart was making more than her for the same job she'd have plenty to say about it.

If short people can prove discrimination based on height, they can do what Lilly Ledbetter, bring a lawsuit.

You know, it's really weird to see a lawyer making fun of gender discrimination. Maybe not so weird from a conservative hack like you, but still strange.
 
Yurt said:
she makes great money and doesn't want to talk to you

why are you afraid to talk about the short people paycheck fairness act....they're people too!!!!!
Click to expand...

You really have to ask why she avoids questions?

I think we ought to ask her why her husband is a registered-GASP- republican!
 
Ice Dancer said:
You really have to ask why she avoids questions?

I think we ought to ask her why her husband is a registered-GASP- republican!
Click to expand...

I wonder if she talks to him like he's a piece of shit like she does with the Republican men here?

Maybe she secretly hates him and she comes here to:

"All out, Feel Good"?
 
christiefan915 said:
Then lets see the repub plans for correcting these inequities. The plan that repubs are so eager to implement but couldn't because the dems would have slapped it down.
Click to expand...
Is this the "a bad plan is better than no plan" argument?

Well, a bad plan is, more often than not, WORSE than no plan - especially when the bad plan involves spending more money we do not have, and growing more government bureaucracy we cannot afford.
 
Good Luck said:
Is this the "a bad plan is better than no plan" argument?

Well, a bad plan is, more often than not, WORSE than no plan - especially when the bad plan involves spending more money we do not have, and growing more government bureaucracy we cannot afford.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the argument you want to make, but from here it looks like conservatives are prepared to deny equity and fairness to a huge segment of the working population because there's a cost to plan implementation.

None of this would be an issue if women had been treated fairly in the workplace from jump street.

Now, I'll eat my words if conservatives come up with a viable alternative to S. 3772 but we both know that's improbable.
 
Good Luck said:
Is this the "a bad plan is better than no plan" argument?

Well, a bad plan is, more often than not, WORSE than no plan - especially when the bad plan involves spending more money we do not have, and growing more government bureaucracy we cannot afford.
Click to expand...


Like I said, the only thing Republicans hate more than discrimination is passing laws to address discrimination. Apparently, the objection to this law is that existing government agencies will just do a little more stuff and that the bill calls for an increasing the budget by 0.00046875%. That's not really a whole heck of a lot if you think discrimination is actually a problem.
 
cawacko said:
Study for pay by height.


http://articles.cnn.com/2007-02-02/...ristina-paxson-anne-case-tall-people?_s=PM:US
Click to expand...


I've read these studies. I think a short person would have a hard time arguing his case for this when, as the article states, choosing by height may be due to a hiring manager's evolutionary perception rather than a conscious decision. Which is not to say it's any less wrong than gender bias.

Choosing to pay women less than men for the same job is discrimination, pure and simple.
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe that's the argument you want to make, but from here it looks like conservatives are prepared to deny equity and fairness to a huge segment of the working population because there's a cost to plan implementation.

None of this would be an issue if women had been treated fairly in the workplace from jump street.

Now, I'll eat my words if conservatives come up with a viable alternative to S. 3772 but we both know that's improbable.
Click to expand...

That's assuming of course this epensive new government bureaucracy would actually accomplish that.

Just for my knowledge what are jobs or industries today where there is blatant male/female pay discrimination for the same position?
 
cawacko said:
That's assuming of course this epensive new government bureaucracy would actually accomplish that.

Just for my knowledge what are jobs or industries today where there is blatant male/female pay discrimination for the same position?
Click to expand...


There is no new bureaucracy and, as I said, it implementing the bill isn't expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top