Fair pay for women (military, high school, biased, retire)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Senate Republicans voted unanimously Wednesday against a bill that would work to ensure fair pay for women, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The vote was 58-41.
Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices.
As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination.
For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.
If you think a bill like this was written to increase women's pay you are smoking the good stuff.
Ya, it seems a shame that women have to be single and childless to earn more than men ....when men don't have to be to earn more than women.
it is reality that an extended absence from the work force reduces ones earnings potential. I have experience with this as I stayed home with my son for 3 years. Oh and I am a man.
Ya, it seems a shame that women have to be single and childless to earn more than men ....when men don't have to be to earn more than women.
oh BS
there is no 'glass ceiling'. there is no 'unequal' pay
its a liberal lie to stir the masses
pay is set by QUALIFICATIONS and needs
do you really think pay should be only set by title???
should a _________(you choose man/woman/it) who has been DOING THE JOB for 1 year be paid the same as a __________ who has been DOING the JOB ( EXPERIENCE )?????
should a woman coming into the shop as a mechanic be paid the same as my lead mechanic, just because the title says mechanic????
should a woman LAWYER just coming out of law school be paid the same as a male lawyer that has been practicing for the last 20 years???
should a woman just coming onto the job, (but has 10 eyars experience) be paid the same as an employee that has been with the COMPANY for the last 10 years ( LONGEVITY on the job)????
pay is set by skill, experience, education, and need...and how you PRESENT YOURSELF on the interview
I note that these figures are still quite popularly bandied about -- nor do I say that they are actually wrong; they're actually kind of close.
However, the 78/100 wage gap and the "women of color" gap figures ARE most definitely misleading and yet still popular for their sensationalistic potential.
Based on the Equal Pat Act of 1963, it is 100 percent illegal -- let's say that one more time: ILLEGAL -- for companies to pay separate HOURLY wages based on gender or color, and illegal for companies to pay separate SET SALARY wages based on those same factors.
That means right up to the point where wages become negotiable women are on a precisely equal footing with men. Zero argument. When it's discovered that separate pays are being handed out for the same job in settings where the scales are hourly or set-salary (which is a schmancy way of raising pay while it can still be broken down hourly), companies are in violation and subject to prosecution and back-wages.
Nobody wants to face that or deal with the hassle; ergo, nobody is really DOING it out there. They're just not.
But we're not after answers or facts; we're after sensationalism, because that's what people respond to. So we gloss over various studies done numerous times demonstrating that there are myriad factors involved in that pay disparity between men and women.
For example:
--- Men show a significantly higher tendency to negotiate for higher pay when entering a new job.
For the woman who has been on that job for quite a while it can be frustrating when the new GUY turns out to be earning the same wages she feels she earned through putting her time in, when the fact is that she had the same opportunity to negotiate that he did.
It also lends itself nicely to that famed 78 cents on the dollar because that figure is broken down over TIME combined with EARNINGS. He WILL earn more in his first six months than she did. THAT is what we'll hold up while we scream about unfairness, and the reason behind it will be nicely swept under the rug.
--- Men are often subject to more physically demanding aspects of what would otherwise be the SAME job, ie., certain positions on a standard conveyor line. Women sometimes hold these positions but are replaced by a man in the event that she proves incapable of handling the increased physical intensity involved.
For a woman on a conveyor line who is picking items in a warehouse this can seem frustrating when it involves a positionary differential, which is relatively common in otherwise hourly-wage settings.
Picking in a warehouse, for example, requires speed and dexterity; it tends to pay the standard hourly wage. Beyond a doubt it's difficult work, physically demanding -- but on a level everyone is expected to maintain.
Loading, on the other hand, requires brute force and while it begins at the standard hourly wage, it typically earns a positionary differential such as an additional quarter or fifty cents on the hour.
Women who are physically capable of holding those positions EARN THE SAME MONEY AS THE MEN ON THOSE POSITIONS. Women who cannot handle those positions are not kept on those positions. Those positions are typically held by -- guess who? Men.
We still hold up the 78 cents placard, brandishing it like a weapon -- but nobody bothers to ask why it's true because that's not politically correct.
--- Women demonstrate greater absences from work settings due to health reasons, often involving pregnancy.
This leads to time off with reduced pay in the event of fluctuating salaries based on production, such as in a corporate setting. A lawyer, for example, will find that her billing falls off during maternity leave, while a man has no such difficulty imposed on him.
I, for one, HATE this aspect of our maternity leave system and wish we had something closer to the standard European maternity leave system. I believe it's absolutely WRONG that in this case women are penalized for something impossible to achieve by a man, and because I believe reproduction is a right (although there are times when I question this) I believe our system is in dire need of repair with regard to this.
On the other hand we're not talking about morals here, we're talking about business -- and companies and corporations are in business. When they hire between men and women they are not only taking capabilities into account, they must take liabilities into account.
All else being exactly equal between a man and a woman who are up for a job, the company MUST take into consideration that the man will NEVER get pregnant and require leave for an extended period.
A popular counter for this argument is that men get sick too, with diseases and injuries and cancers, etc. This counter is legitimate and true -- but when men experience these things AND take the time off, their pay falls as quickly as a woman's would. Further, comparing maladies to something which ultimately IS a CHOICE (a right, absolutely, but also a choice) gets into apples-and-oranges territory. It's possibility vs likelihood.
That part is never mentioned when we scream about 78 cents on the dollar.
Good post. While I agree with the statement that women are likely paid 78 cents on the dollar when compared to men it isn't the whole story. In this day and age employers are not LITERALLY paying women less than men for doing the same job.
If a company is found to be intentionally paying someone less soley based on sex (or religion or race or sexual preference) then that company should face stiff penalties.
There is a big difference between intentionally paying someone less based on these reasons as company policy and a woman earning less because she took maternity leave to have a child (or children). Is it fair that women often face a choice between continuing to advance their career or having kids? No, probably not, but what solution is there to this really? Create kids in a lab?
Say a man and a woman both graduate from say.... Harvard with pretty much the same grades and intern experience. Both a good negotiators and both get a job with the same company doing the same work. The man works hard for the next ten years and advances several times while the woman has three children during that time. It stands to reason that she might not advance as far because of (completely appropriate) time off for maternity leave. Does that make the company they both work for discriminatory? Should the man NOT get to advance?
Perhaps as technology allows more and more people to work from home this will be less of an issue in the future. Changing attitudes towards gender roles would also change things as well. It would be nice as a man to have the option to stay home with my kid and allow my wife to go back to work if that was what we felt was best for the family.
If you think a bill like this was written to increase women's pay you are smoking the good stuff.
Yep, if something like this were passed my boss would just curtail any more raises for me. It's possible they would cut my salary if nessecary so that there wasn't a discrepancy between my salary and any women with my job title.
If this bill is passed employers are NOT going to say "hey, raises for all women". They will simply cut men's salaries in order to get into compliance.
it is reality that an extended absence from the work force reduces ones earnings potential. I have experience with this as I stayed home with my son for 3 years. Oh and I am a man.
And I have no idea what that has to do with the post of mine you quoted.........????
there is no 'glass ceiling'. there is no 'unequal' pay
its a liberal lie to stir the masses
pay is set by QUALIFICATIONS and needs""""
And subtle, and not so subtle, sexism.
"""do you really think pay should be only set by title???""""
No, and I never said so.
""""should a _________(you choose man/woman/it) who has been DOING THE JOB for 1 year be paid the same as a __________ who has been DOING the JOB ( EXPERIENCE )?????""""
That decision is up to the company's policy and has nothing to do with sex discrimination.
"""should a woman coming into the shop as a mechanic be paid the same as my lead mechanic, just because the title says mechanic????"""
No, and I never said so....should a man coming into the shop be paid the same as your female lead mechanic??
"""should a woman LAWYER just coming out of law school be paid the same as a male lawyer that has been practicing for the last 20 years???""""
Should a male lawyer just coming out of law school be paid the same or more than a female lawyer that has been practicing for the last 20 years?? It has happened in many fields.
"""should a woman just coming onto the job, (but has 10 eyars experience) be paid the same as an employee that has been with the COMPANY for the last 10 years ( LONGEVITY on the job)????"""
Again, whatever is company policy....that hasn't anything to do with sex.
pay is set by skill, experience, education, and need...and how you PRESENT YOURSELF on the interview
Yup, and pay should never be set on gender....we agree on that.
Yep, if something like this were passed my boss would just curtail any more raises for me. It's possible they would cut my salary if nessecary so that there wasn't a discrepancy between my salary and any women with my job title.
If this bill is passed employers are NOT going to say "hey, raises for all women". They will simply cut men's salaries in order to get into compliance.
No, although women haters would love people to believe that, it won't happen (unless you're company is so poorly run that it feels it has to)
Employers could just use all the money they saved by paying women less......
Senate Republicans voted unanimously Wednesday against a bill that would work to ensure fair pay for women, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The vote was 58-41.
Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices.
As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination.
For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.
They didn't vote for it because it is anti-individual liberty. It goes against everything that this country was founded upon.
We can not implement such regulations without dictating to individuals what they should do. This is not the place of the government OR society to dictate. A policy as such would place the control into governments hands and take it out of the individuals.
Everyone is free to accept the terms of their employment. If they do not wish to be paid as such, they can refuse to work for these companies and choose ones that pay better. In the end, how much another gets paid compared to you is none of your business, none of your concern.
You have no right to dictate how much another should be paid or how much you should be paid in relation. You only have the right to negoiate with a company as to which you believe the value of your talent is and they have the right to refuse or accept those terms based on their opinion of such.
It is a very simple concept and if you are not happy with individual liberty because you wish to dictate how society should function right down to how much someone should get paid, then you need to move to a country that does not care about individual rights and sees people as simply pawns that exist for busy bodies to dictate their will to.
Senate Republicans voted unanimously Wednesday against a bill that would work to ensure fair pay for women, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The vote was 58-41.
Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices.
As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination.
For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.
This is another bad law.
Gone will be raises and compensation based upon a new employee,s previous employment compensation and bargaining , gone will be compensation based upon merit and performance.
As it works now, a person interviewing for a job uses their prior level of experience, education, accomplishments and compensation, as a part of the negotiation process for how much the new employer is willing to pay them.
If one employee does not negotiate at all, and simply accepts whatever is first offered, and another employee negotiates more vacation and pay, based upon their previous compensation and accomplishments, this law would make that illegal. It would also be illegal to give out raises to one employee, even if they made a compelling case to justify increased pay or compensation.
This would be a big win for corporations and big business, they could offer lower pay and compensation across the board, and claim they cannot negotiate higher pay, because it would violate the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Besides, there already is a law against discrimination in the work place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(unless you're company is so poorly run that it feels it has to)
