Paycheck Fairness Act

[s0me0nesmind1]

People like Eskimospy and DCal430 would probably endorse this approach, even if it were by an indirect means. Somehow they think this would cause employers to suddenly go around bestowing raises on people, which is never, ever going to happen. They completely shut their eyes to shield themselves from the truth that mandating "equal wages" would mean lowering wages of the high earners until they were equal to the worst performers.

I believe there is a proper term for what they are called... what is that again...ahhh, right: Jealousy.

 

[PokerGuy]

Just thought I'd interrupt this argument to point out that this bill has been floated twice in the last few years and shot down both times.

It's not likely this effort will end any differently.

Nor should it, because a bill like that is just complete and utter stupidity. They're trying to mandate equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. They want to put the burden on the employer to try to justify differences, rather than put the burden where it belongs -- with the person who thinks they are being treated illegally. They want to use manipulated statistics (like the supposed gap) to achieve equal outcomes.

There is absolutely no rational basis for this idiotic bill. Not surprising, considering the complete idiots who came up with it. The entire gap has been shown time and again to be a myth once you adjust for things like experience, longevity, education and so forth.

 

[werepossum]

Just thought I'd interrupt this argument to point out that this bill has been floated twice in the last few years and shot down both times.

It's not likely this effort will end any differently.

Probably the most cogent post in the thread. There's an astonishing amount of caca introduced in Congress. Unfortunately we no longer have any faith it won't become law, but odds are still against it.

Again, not a denial. If you disagree with what I implied you said then now is a good time to say so. Would you, or would you not support equal pay if that meant lowering pay for those with higher salaries?

Next, how is a direct quotation of Obama dishonest? I'll include the rest of the exchange (I'll bold what I didn't include previously), but it doesn't fundamentally alter what he said. And given what's actually happened under his watch in the last four years, actually makes him look even worse.


MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don’t propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we’ve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

The progressive definition of a dishonest quote is one that hurts progressives and the progressive agenda. You could publish every sound the Messiah has ever uttered and you'd still get accusations of dishonesty.

Full disclosure - although I do realize that lowering capital gains brings in increased tax revenue, I also support Senator Obama (and maybe two out of three President Obamas - who really knows?) in supporting higher capital gains rates. I do not think morally it is acceptable to tax the man whose labor earns his living at a higher rate than the man whose capital earns his living just because it's good for the economy or tax revenues.

On a side note, how LOL-worthy is it to refer to not cutting taxes without cutting deductions to maintain tax revenue levels as "pay as you go" when government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends? The mind, she is boggled.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nor should it, because a bill like that is just complete and utter stupidity.

I already posted earlier in the thread that I opposed the bill.

 

[pauldun170]

That's a straw man. While there are many factors that go into a salary including individual performance and business value, there are a lot of intangibles as well. The simple fact is men hold a majority of leadership positions in American corporations, and they're making the salary decisions. Those salary decisions are often based in part on who they like, who they went to school with, who they play golf with, etc. It is only natural that other men have a salary advantage. It's not an overwhelming advantage, but it's real and it has some effect.

Take a guy who does not like sports and doesn't follow any teams.
That will have a direct impact on his career.

A woman into football working at a company is more likely to move faster up the executive ladder than a man who doesn't.

A woman who can golf will likely reach a higher status than a man who cannot.

true story

 

[fskimospy]

Probably the most cogent post in the thread. There's an astonishing amount of caca introduced in Congress. Unfortunately we no longer have any faith it won't become law, but odds are still against it.


The progressive definition of a dishonest quote is one that hurts progressives and the progressive agenda. You could publish every sound the Messiah has ever uttered and you'd still get accusations of dishonesty.

Full disclosure - although I do realize that lowering capital gains brings in increased tax revenue, I also support Senator Obama (and maybe two out of three President Obamas - who really knows?) in supporting higher capital gains rates. I do not think morally it is acceptable to tax the man whose labor earns his living at a higher rate than the man whose capital earns his living just because it's good for the economy or tax revenues.

On a side note, how LOL-worthy is it to refer to not cutting taxes without cutting deductions to maintain tax revenue levels as "pay as you go" when government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends? The mind, she is boggled.

Cutting capital gains taxes does not bring in increased revenue.

Full stop.

There is a short term spike in revenue as people either cash in sales they were holding back or pull some forward, but the long term result is lower revenue.

I'll just ignore the standard delusional ranting about progressives.

 

[werepossum]

That's a straw man. While there are many factors that go into a salary including individual performance and business value, there are a lot of intangibles as well. The simple fact is men hold a majority of leadership positions in American corporations, and they're making the salary decisions. Those salary decisions are often based in part on who they like, who they went to school with, who they play golf with, etc. It is only natural that other men have a salary advantage. It's not an overwhelming advantage, but it's real and it has some effect.

To some degree, perhaps. But as you say, salary decisions are often based in part on who those in management like, and overwhelmingly, men like women.

 

[PenguinPower]

I took time off "to help sustain humanity" while a female co-worker took the bare minimum time off.
If we both start at equal salaries and then on year 4 of our careers (both on equal track) we take time off for "aternity" leave.
I take 2 months
she takes 2 weeks.
while I was out, she handled some of my work while I was at home bottle feeding + catching up on all the movies I wanted to see over the past couple of years.

When I return I pick up where I left off and take my workload off of her plate.

Later in the year during wage increase + bonus+ performance review time,
Should we both get an equal wage increase+performance review?

Should we get an increase based on my performance throughout the year or her performance?

Assuming your "aternity leave" includes federally protected leave (which it usually does), yes. It's already a violation of federal law to penalize someone for taking off approved FML, and a suit for retaliation could be filed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

To some degree, perhaps. But as you say, salary decisions are often based in part on who those in management like, and overwhelmingly, men like women.

Er... what?!

What do you base this on? This isn't OkCupid, it's choosing peers for top-level management.

 

[Bowfinger]

To some degree, perhaps. But as you say, salary decisions are often based in part on who those in management like, and overwhelmingly, men like women.

Broadly speaking, men like (hot) women as sex partners, a role that usually remains unfilled at the office. (Though certainly, women who sleep with their bosses do tend to make more than those who do not.) Beyond the sexual realm, however, men tend to like other men more as buddies.

 

[PenguinPower]

What I am a fan of is employers not being able to punish employees for releasing their salary information. I've always thought that was bullshit, and I believe those policies are widespread enough that choice has now gone out the window.

It's already a violation of the law to punish employees for discussing their - or other's not learned through confidential means - salary information.

 

[actuarial]

It's already a violation of the law to punish employees for discussing their - or other's not learned through confidential means - salary information.

Not according to the article, though I admit I didn't do a thorough legal review of this information:

Currently, the law allows employers to sue or otherwise punish employees for sharing their salary information and women still make just 77 cents on their male counterpart’s dollar, according to Sen. Mikulski’s office.

 

[nehalem256]

Not according to the article, though I admit I didn't do a thorough legal review of this information:

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/salary_discussions.html

Those same companies would likely be surprised to learn that such policies generally violate federal labor law. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA. Courts have basically uniformly supported that position. Moreover, those particular sections of the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees, so there is no exception made for companies where the employees are non-unionized.

Maybe the Senator should learn some fact before introducing legislation?

But given she apparently believes men make 30% more for the same work should it be any surprise she is such an idiot?

 

[PenguinPower]

Not according to the article, though I admit I didn't do a thorough legal review of this information:

29 U.S.C. § 157 & 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)

 

[pauldun170]

Assuming your "aternity leave" includes federally protected leave (which it usually does), yes. It's already a violation of federal law to penalize someone for taking off approved FML, and a suit for retaliation could be filed.

see below

Unlawful Acts by Employers
FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer to:
• Interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of any right provided under FMLA;
• Discharge or discriminate against any person for opposing any practice made unlawful by FMLA or for involvement in any proceeding under or relating to FMLA.

JOB RESTORATION
Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be restored to the employee’s original job, or to an equivalent job with equivalent pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. An employee’s use of FMLA leave cannot result in the loss of any employment benefit that the employee earned or was entitled to before using FMLA leave, nor be counted against the employee under a “no fault” attendance policy. If a bonus or other payment, however, is based on the achievement of a specified goal such as hours worked, products sold, or perfect attendance, and the employee has not met the goal due to FMLA leave, payment may be denied unless it is paid to an employee on equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.
An employee has no greater right to restoration or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28.htm

I am not entitled to the same increases as someone who did not take the equivalent time off for leave.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/salary_discussions.html



Maybe the Senator should learn some fact before introducing legislation?

But given she apparently believes men make 30% more for the same work should it be any surprise she is such an idiot?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that the senator is just as wrong about the ability of the employer to forbid discussing compensation with others as she is about the wage gap itself.

What a complete tool, how can people keep putting these kinds of idiots in office?

 

[Atreus21]

If you consider pay disparity a myth, just what is your problem with people sharing their pay ranges without fear of management reprisal?

I don't consider it a myth. It is a myth.

Frankly, I don't have any issue with people discussing their pay ranges. But we should allow companies to make their own policies regarding whether or not it's permissable.

 

[Atreus21]

Just thought I'd interrupt this argument to point out that this bill has been floated twice in the last few years and shot down both times.

It's not likely this effort will end any differently.

That's good to know.

 

[Atreus21]

Cutting capital gains taxes does not bring in increased revenue.

Full stop.

There is a short term spike in revenue as people either cash in sales they were holding back or pull some forward, but the long term result is lower revenue.

I'll just ignore the standard delusional ranting about progressives.

NTN.

(New Thread Needed).

 

[pauldun170]

29 U.S.C. § 157 & 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)

Before I dig into the National Labor Relations act and relevant court cases, are you saying that under this act it is illegal for employers to classify payroll information as proprietary and confidential?

Could you highlight the section?

Not arguing or debating, I'm actually curious to see if that's true.

 

[pauldun170]

Frankly, I don't have any issue with people discussing their pay ranges. But we should allow companies to make their own policies regarding whether or not it's permissable.

I agree in due to the competitive impacts pay disclosure can have in some cases.

 

[Atreus21]

this isn't okcupid.

thank.

Fucking.

Goodness.

 

[glenn1]

Cutting capital gains taxes does not bring in increased revenue.

Full stop.

There is a short term spike in revenue as people either cash in sales they were holding back or pull some forward, but the long term result is lower revenue.

I'll just ignore the standard delusional ranting about progressives.

You're contradicting yourself. The only time a capital gain is due is when something is sold, so "cashing in sales" or "pulling some forward" are by definition increasing revenue. Even if you're arguing that cannibalizes a potential future sale subject to capital gains at a higher rate, I'd argue that it's still likely to raise higher revenue due to the time value of money. The government is better off getting 15% of a $1MM capital gain now, rather than 25% of the same $1MM gain twenty years from now. And since lower rates can result in improved capital efficiency, you might even get 15% of $1MM now and 15% of another million later instead of 25% of a single $1MM later.

 

[PenguinPower]

see below

I am not entitled to the same increases as someone who did not take the equivalent time off for leave.

Ah...if only it were that simple.

If your pay increase is based on a performance review, you cannot be penalized for taking protected leave. If an employee ended up with a smaller increase based on a negative review due to use of protected leave, that's an adverse action. Of course, there are some policy language workarounds, but you can increase your exposure even with those.

Even in the case of bonus or other incentives, you can only dock someone for taking protected leave if you are consistent with all other types of leave per your policy.

 

[PenguinPower]

Before I dig into the National Labor Relations act and relevant court cases, are you saying that under this act it is illegal for employers to classify payroll information as proprietary and confidential?

Could you highlight the section?

Not arguing or debating, I'm actually curious to see if that's true.

You can, and should make it confidential information. If I were a payroll department employee and had access to everyone's salary information, I could not share that information with anyone if the company told me not to. I could share my own with other employees, and they with me. I could then share those other employees information with other employees and so on and so on.