Paycheck Fairness Act

[nehalem256]

Possible, but the quote wasn't addressing that. It was basically saying that women can make as much money as men if they just never have children. Considering these people are likely to be among our best and brightest and that children are pretty important to our society continuing to exist, this hardly seems like something we want to encourage.

It was saying they can make the same amount of money as men if they *gasp* make the same choices as men.

Perhaps they should consider having a house-husband to empower their career? :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

Arguing for equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with hatred of anyone.

You are butt-hurt that your liberal agenda has been exposed for a lie. Deal with it.

Good job at avoiding my point.

This is my last response to you, you are so overcome with hatred of women that you are attracted to every topic involving them where you blindly fight for pages and pages. Instead of spending all this time hating them I suggest you find one to date. You might like it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This looks ripe for abuse, costly litigation, and paperwork out the ass. Perfect for big govt types who like to stimulate demand by hiring lawyers to sort out the laws they enact. For business and the rest of us? A nightmare waiting to happen.

Agreed. Pointless overregulation that will accomplish nothing.

 

[Phokus]

I may have gone off on tangent...dont mind me.
But to respond

Salary information is confidential\proprietary information.
It is not in the employers best interest if its employees go around blabbing salary information.
Its gives competitors an advantage, it disrupts the work environment.
On the grand scale companies will share employment info because its required by law but if employee A spills the beans to employee B that they earn a different amount then it creates a problem.

The first instinct of many is to call the discrimination card and then that opens up legal nonsense.

You end up spending millions in the courts all because one employee asked for a bigger raise one year and got it while the other just sat quietly and accepted what was offered.

I don't see what the problem with this is. Everyone who works the same job should be paid the same wage or salary. The only difference in pay should come from performance bonuses.

 

[Atreus21]

Possible, but the quote wasn't addressing that. It was basically saying that women can make as much money as men if they just never have children. Considering these people are likely to be among our best and brightest and that children are pretty important to our society continuing to exist, this hardly seems like something we want to encourage.

Maybe, but forcing employers to compensate for that? Women of child-bearing age are costly because they require lots of maternity leave and such for children. That's simply a fact. It's not a penalty any more than having a disability (not that being a pregnant woman is a disability) is a penalty.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't see what the problem with this is. Everyone who works the same job should be paid the same wage or salary. The only difference in pay should come from performance bonuses.

Then start a company and implement your own policy.

 

[DCal430]

When you normalize the data for years on the job, experience, job type,... the pay gap for the most part vanishes.

No it doesn't, it is still there by around 15%.

 

[pauldun170]

It was saying they can make the same amount of money as men if they *gasp* make the same choices as men.

Perhaps they should consider having a house-husband to empower their career? :awe:

I'm a man
I took paternity leave twice in my career (2 months for each child)
I have no problem with my peers getting a larger wage increase during the years I took leave, hence I have no problem if my peers now earn more than me now because of that.
If my home life impacts my work life I fully expect my peers who are able commit 100 percent the job to make more. Its up to me to make up the work effort and earn leverage during performance reviews\salary time.

 

[Atreus21]

No it doesn't, it is still there by around 15%.

Uh, link?

 

[Atreus21]

I'm a man.

Are you 40?

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe, but forcing employers to compensate for that? Women of child-bearing age are costly because they require lots of maternity leave and such for children. That's simply a fact. It's not a penalty any more than having a disability (not that being a pregnant woman is a disability) is a penalty.

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

I don't support a heavy handed method of wage regulation like this, but I do believe that federal standards for maternity leave, etc would be very helpful.

 

[pauldun170]

I don't see what the problem with this is. Everyone who works the same job should be paid the same wage or salary. The only difference in pay should come from performance bonuses.

So you support eliminating the salary negotiation process?

 

[charrison]

No it doesn't, it is still there by around 15%.

Actually it goes down to a few percent.

 

[pauldun170]

Are you 40?

Pretty close to it

 

[charrison]

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

I don't support a heavy handed method of wage regulation like this, but I do believe that federal standards for maternity leave, etc would be very helpful.

But here is the problem, you can work and gain experience or you can raise kids.

You cant do both and the data shows, that men and women takes similar salary hits for taking time off work to raise kids.

 

[Atreus21]

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

But I don't see that as penalizing. Companies don't hire people for their contribution to the human race. They hire them for their contribution to the company. Is it right to expect employers to be so ridiculously forward thinking? Are employees themselves so forward thinking? Do we see that kind of thing in resumes (I'm useful for the propogation of humanity)?

On second thought, depending on the job, I might hire a woman for precisely that purp- my wife may be watching so I'm not going to finish this.

I don't support a heavy handed method of wage regulation like this, but I do believe that federal standards for maternity leave, etc would be very helpful.

There aren't regulations already? I'd be surprised if there aren't.

 

[zsdersw]

 

[Atreus21]

Pretty close to it

Aw, you missed the joke. I guess you're unfamiliar with Mike Gundy.

 

[Atreus21]

I've always wondered if the motivational posters by which images like this were single handedly responsible for the creation of all internet memes.

 

[chucky2]

Why would it be a companies problem to deal with private life choices women make as it relates to their professional lives? A company should now reward a woman for getting knocked up and leaving the company for periods of time? Yeah...No...

EDIT: And LOL at nehalem for getting right to the root of the issue. Kudos to you, your comments are spot on. :thumbsup:

 

[pauldun170]

Aw, you missed the joke. I guess you're unfamiliar with Mike Gundy.

I missed it because I had a "Oh shit...this is someone who knows me and is going to bust my balls"
Lack of sleep induced paranoia

 

[Atreus21]

I missed it because I had a "Oh shit...this is someone who knows me and is going to bust my balls"
Lack of sleep induced paranoia

Bust your balls for what? Posting at work? I'm doing the same thing.

 

[nehalem256]

Right. Children are also requires to sustain humanity and only women can give them to us. That is also a fact. Penalizing high achieving women who elect to perpetuate the species (and who are more likely to produce high achieving children) seems penny wise and pound foolish.

Only women can bear children. But there is no reason that after giving birth the father cannot stay home with them.

I don't support a heavy handed method of wage regulation like this, but I do believe that federal standards for maternity leave, etc would be very helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMLA

You mean like the law they passed in 1993?

 

[Gunslinger08]

It would probably be simpler for the government to just tell employers how much they have to pay everyone. Then nobody would get butthurt that somebody else is making $5k more. When everyone is equal, nobody has a reason to be unhappy.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why would it be a companies problem to deal with private life choices women make as it relates to their professional lives? A company should now reward a woman for getting knocked up and leaving the company for periods of time? Yeah...No...

EDIT: And LOL at nehalem for getting right to the root of the issue. Kudos to you, your comments are spot on. :thumbsup:

Good point, Men and women make differrent choices, The government has no right to subsidize those choices and needs to just stay out of the way. The big government supporters need to use some common sense