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.
If a woman is really being paid less for the exact same work with no difference, the company is breaking the law
We don't need any more laws and inervention
this. there are laws on the books already that require employers to pay everyone equally for the same job.
but there are allowances that need to be made, such as for seniority, why should someone working at a company for ten years get the same pay as someone who just joined the company?
or of someone works ten hours of overtime, why should someone who doesnt work the overtime get them same pay?
and that is the problem with the law that everyone is talking about, it forces everyone to get the same pay regardless of gender, overtime, seniority, etc.
Just looking at hours worked is a stupid measurement. If we each have 50 reports to write per day, I could just be better at it than you and finish faster. Equal amount of time is not the same thing as equal work. If we are both hired to be accountants to do the same work then the pay should be the same.
and to play devil's advocate, if the woman is hired at less of a salary than her male counterpart to do the same job, why should she work harder? If she was given the discount in salary then maybe it is only right for her to give the discount in work.
Regardless of sex, I would pay whoever does 50 reports faster more money. This is how the world works, and its incredibly fair. Are you really arguing that if you are better at your job you shouldn't be paid more than someone who isn't as good at the same job?
Sooo, you didn't read what I wrote? Men are likely paid more because they work longer hours. These are just averages and I'm sure there are individual cases where its wrong, but I'm sure it works the other way too.
Like I said, the "equal work" part of your statement is the fatal flaw in your argument that anything even needs to be done by the federal government.
Yes I did read what you wrote. Now read what I will write in response:
So perhaps, for any individual woman who DOES happen to regularly work whatever degree of lesser hours per week than all her male and female counterparts, then we can PRO-RATE her weekly salary to reflect this . . . and the same can be done for any individual MALES who also happen to regularly work whatever degree of lesser hours per week than all of his male and female counterparts. That is, adjust a pay policy on an INDIVIDUAL basis for each single individual . . . rather than assuming that ALL females across-the-board will, as a rule, work lesser hours per week or month than ALL or NEARLY ALL males and hence penalize ALL women for this presumption. Why penalize ALL women because SOME of them do or may reflect your supplied description?
This question is posted here by a male American citizen (and one who is even a senior now). Over the decades, I've wondered at times about the controversy of "EQUIAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK FOR WOMEN" in the USA (though it certainly can prevail elsewhere as well in the world-at-large outsde the USA). I've at times wondered, even as a male, the following question:
"For those in the U.S. population-at-large who do NOT suppport the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" (believing instead that females should always or nearly always get paid less than males for the same job positions doing the same type and degree of work), what justifications would they give for supporting such a point-of-view?
That is, why is this issue still being fought over to this very day in the USA? I wouldn't normally think that one has to be a liberal or radiclib or leftist or a male or female feminist to support the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work". I would think that, even if I were a conservative or libertarian or moderate on a range of issues, supporting the idea of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law should just be a matter of basic human decency. Is it reaqlly my place, as a male, to tell the entire female half of humanity that, across the board, they are less meritorious and less worthy than me of being paid equially for the same type, level, and degree of work simply because they have female genitalia instead of male genitalia? As competent and gifted as I am, I have worked with and among women in the same type of positions who were as competent as I and sometimes even more competent than I . . . and yet I should still always get paid MORE than they do because I am male rather than female? What kind of common sense and what kind of moral sense does such a position make?
So, to all male Americans (or even non-American males) who are reading this thread and who are opposed to the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law nationally, please explain and justify your position. I'm genuinely curious and intrigued as to what you would say about the matter. And please find it in youself to be intellectually honest here and hence to give a wholly truthful portrayal of what you really think and why you think this way.
And, for that matter, are there any WOMEN here who, even though being a women, you as well do NOT support the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law nationally. If so, please explain & justify your own position of being opposed to the presented concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" being codified into law nationally.
I've never met anyone that doesn't believe women and men that do equal work should get equal pay.
Yes I did read what you wrote. Now read what I will write in response:
So perhaps, for any individual woman who DOES happen to regularly work whatever degree of lesser hours per week than all her male and female counterparts, then we can PRO-RATE her weekly salary to reflect this . . . and the same can be done for any individual MALES who also happen to regularly work whatever degree of lesser hours per week than all of his male and female counterparts. That is, adjust a pay policy on an INDIVIDUAL basis for each single individual . . . rather than assuming that ALL females across-the-board will, as a rule, work lesser hours per week or month than ALL or NEARLY ALL males and hence penalize ALL women for this presumption. Why penalize ALL women because SOME of them do or may reflect your supplied description?
The BLS report is about AVERAGES in terms of hours, the Liberal talking point on pay is about AVERAGES. Your argument to "pro-rate" salaries is already baked in and being done according to these averages being looked at.
If a woman is really being paid less for the exact same work with no difference, the company is breaking the law
We don't need any more laws and inervention
If what you say is, in fact, true, then we need consistent and uniform enforcement across-the-board of said laws . . . and without any persons or parties fighting back at the enforcement of such laws. Then, if what you said is true (saying that we already have laws in place and hence, if a woman is really being paid less for the exact same work with no difference, the employer is breaking the law), then it wouldn't or shouldn't be an issue to be discused anymore in the public forum.
If what you say is, in fact, true, then we need consistent and uniform enforcement across-the-board of said laws . . . and without any persons or parties fighting back at the enforcement of such laws. Then, if wwhat you said is true (saying that we already have laws in place and hence, if a woman is really being paid less for the exact same work with no difference, the employer is breaking the law), then it wouldn't or shouldn't be an issue to be discused anymore in the public forum.
No, we should never have laws that have some strict and absolute restriction on using the legal system to undertake legitimate pushback. No federal law is going to be written 100% perfect, we don't have gods for elected officials, they make mistakes and the miss some loopholes or exceptions that need to be accounted for.
I've never met anyone that doesn't believe women and men that do equal work should get equal pay.
Then why do people, to this very day, STILL talk about this issue in the public realm as though it is still an issue being fought over? Example: Hillary Clinton, for example, has brought it up in speeches during her latest Presideintial run and even after her Presidential run and so have other women and some men to my seeming recollection (unless I am misremembering things, which may be possible).
Then why do people, to this very day, STILL talk about this issue in the public realm as though it is still an issue being fought over? Example: Hillary Clinton, for example, has brought it up in speeches during her latest Presideintial run and even after her Presidential run and so have other women and some men to my seeming recollection (unless I am misremembering things, which may be possible).
Because politicians on both sides play people that they feel they can take advantage of. Democrats are particularly good at using identity politics to paint narratives designed to insight hate.
this. there are laws on the books already that require employers to pay everyone equally for the same job.
but there are allowances that need to be made, such as for seniority, why should someone working at a company for ten years get the same pay as someone who just joined the company?
or of someone works ten hours of overtime, why should someone who doesnt work the overtime get them same pay?
and that is the problem with the law that everyone is talking about, it forces everyone to get the same pay regardless of gender, overtime, seniority, etc.
Now THIS is an explanation of the dimensions involved in this issue that actually EXPLAINS and FLESHES OUT the dynamics of the issue. It helps me to see and perhaps to better understand "the other side" of the issue. You have given me "food for thought" to mull over. Thank you.
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.
