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.
It's meant to be wrong. It's pandering for the female vote by creating a system that would lead to endless litigation.
The devil is always in the details in these things. "The title sounds so good, how could anyone be against it?"
And then you read it and think about it and realize it's an election year stunt to make the other party look bad.
Patriot Act
Affordable Care Act
I mean who wants to be labeled unpatriotic or not support affordable care.
All kinds of tyranny could be passed under a "Be Nice to Mom Act".
I have asked this question several times and never got an answer; "Why does not a non-discriminatory employer just hire women and make a tidy profit from what he saves in wages?".
I totally agree with you but our country is in shambles due to these idiots in office and we have let things go too far. The destruction needs to stop , and this country needs to be restored once again to a real AMERICA. The media needs to expose these fools for what they are and hang them high.
I don`t know where you live but the country I live in is not in "shambles". What do you want to be restored to?
I mean who wants to be labeled unpatriotic or not support affordable care.
All kinds of tyranny could be passed under a "Be Nice to Mom Act".
I have asked this question several times and never got an answer; "Why does not a non-discriminatory employer just hire women and make a tidy profit from what he saves in wages?".
This is why we don't need no stinkin' law.
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.
It's meant to be wrong. It's pandering for the female vote by creating a system that would lead to endless litigation.
The devil is always in the details in these things. "The title sounds so good, how could anyone be against it?"
And then you read it and think about it and realize it's an election year stunt to make the other party look bad.
Obama is pandering to woman. I am a woman and I don't need special legislation. I've been treated fairly and been paid the value of my skills all my life.
I don't want to be pandered to. I certainly don't want to be looked at as I have special legislation so therefor I have the job.
I want the job because I can do the job "everyone wins". The employer, myself and the customer wins. And I won't accept the job unless I feel I am being fairly compensated.
I don't want to be pandered to. I certainly don't want to be looked at as I have special legislation so therefor I have the job.
I want the job because I can do the job "everyone wins", the employer, myself and the customer wins.
And legislation like this will put in other co-workers mind that so-and-so only got hired because they are a woman. or black. Or take your pick. People won't admit it but they think it.
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.
That woman, if she's smart, will figure out that company B pays more for the same skills and will job hop.
That's what white collar workers do..job hop to the best paying jobs.
Plenty of that going on when you work in the industry long enough.
Guys do it more than women though.
In Austin alone folks go from IBM to AMD to Apple to Intel to ...etc.
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.
