After ACTUALLY READING the Paycheck Fairness Act, I am glad it's being blocked (minimum wage, legal)
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.
I am 100% sure I am the first person on this board to read the entire bill from start to finish. It took 20 minutes, and it is just a load of crock.
First of all, the bill itself is discriminatory. It establishes federal grants for negotiation training programs for women only, and says nothing about negotiation programs for men. Yes, Democrats, some men are actually treated poorly by their employers, are low balled on salaries and could benefit from negotiation training programs.
Secondly, this bill and Democrats continue to vaguely emphasize equal pay for equal work which is WRONG. Do you not understand the factors that go into paying people? If a man and a woman are performing equal work, but the man has a masters degree, the man should make more based on his masters degree. PERIOD. If the woman has the masters, then she should make more. PERIOD.
This bill is nothing more than a government spending program under the guise of a sensationalist name.
This, and a thousand other reasons, is why America wants divided government. Specifically, Americans want the GOP to control the House..... to stop Democrats worthless agenda.
Well, your detailed analysis certainly convinced me!
I wish I could provide more of a detailed analysis. Unfortunately the bill doesn't expound on "equal work for equal pay." In fact, no Democrat can either. All humans are unique, there is no such thing as equal work. This is just another desperate pandering attempt by the Democrats.
The Democrats have the Republicans in a trick bag.
I understand that....
Quote:
Politics is a game of strategy. The goal is to win elections.
The goal should be to serve the American people. The tail is wagging the dog in Washington and that has to some to an end. I don't know what the solution is but if we continue down this path where lawmakers are making easy decisions instead of the the right decision we're never going to get anywhere. It's time to stop pandering to the extremes in both parties.
The figures cited in the first paragraph of this article are basic averages. They do not account for things like women taking time off for work to rear children, women choosing lower paying careers, women that are less likely to take overtime, women that are less likely to be employed in high paying dangerous jobs, etc. There is a pile of variables that are not accounted for.
If the average pay was equal using just basic average like that it should be the men complaining.
The goal should be to serve the American people. The tail is wagging the dog in Washington and that has to some to an end. I don't know what the solution is but if we continue down this path where lawmakers are making easy decisions instead of the the right decision we're never going to get anywhere. It's time to stop pandering to the extremes in both parties.
But you can't "serve the _________ people" if you don't win.
Look at the posters here, many (not mentioning any names) have posted the same "77%" drivel without looking at the reasons for that number, which includes more men in high paying jobs such as engineering or trades, to list two examples.
And having been involved in elective politics at a local level for most of the last 30 years he's smarter than the average voter. I'd never say that out loud, probably (wait a minute, I have), but it's true.
I'm dealing with a situation with an HOA right now. Fairly new development, very high dollar originally for the area. Many of the residents have neglected maintenance or changed the stormwater fixtures on their houses and they now have an erosion issue.
Well, they don't want to fix the problem but "someone has to pay". Meaning the Town or County. Unfortunately many were first time homeowners ($600K townhouses) and thought "someone else" would maintain their houses.
Not only are people not supposed to read the bill, they are supposed to accept the argument that women are paid 77₵ for every $1 men make. Dont' even question what that statistic means, just assume it means under all equal conditions. then the democratic play works best.
So what you are saying is that you think the amount of pay discrimination is wrong, not that pay discrimination isn't real. I get that.
I am 100% sure I am the first person on this board to read the entire bill from start to finish. It took 20 minutes, and it is just a load of crock.
First of all, the bill itself is discriminatory. It establishes federal grants for negotiation training programs for women only, and says nothing about negotiation programs for men. Yes, Democrats, some men are actually treated poorly by their employers, are low balled on salaries and could benefit from negotiation training programs.
Secondly, this bill and Democrats continue to vaguely emphasize equal pay for equal work which is WRONG. Do you not understand the factors that go into paying people? If a man and a woman are performing equal work, but the man has a masters degree, the man should make more based on his masters degree. PERIOD. If the woman has the masters, then she should make more. PERIOD.
This bill is nothing more than a government spending program under the guise of a sensationalist name.
Baloney. If both are doing EQUAL work, the employer is NOT benefiting from the "masters degree" so the employee does not warrant higher pay. There is no value to the employer thus no extra compensation.
I don't care about your masters degree in women's studies. You were hired to do "Job X" which has nothing to do with your degree.
Let's say you and I both own companies and we both need accountants with basically the same skills for basically the same job.
You hire a male at $100,000 and I hire a female for $77,000 (the alleged 77cents on the dollar). You will just fire the male and hire the female for $85,000. You save 15 grand and the woman gets a nice raise for doing the same work. Then I come along and hire her back for 93,000. Then you come back at hire her at 100grand.
Of course, we both know what the going rate is for accountants so we skip all the hiring/firing and just hire the person we think will do the best job at the market wage in the first place. No law needed.
And I want smart employees. If a woman is stupid enough to work for 77 cents on the dollar I don't want her working for me.
If the woman is working for $77K, then that is all the job is worth. If I were the employer, I would make $77K the max and lay off or add job requirements to the guy making $100K until he quit and brought the wage pool back in line with everyone else.
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.
