McCain says women dont have the right to sue for equal pay! (voters, Congress)

[Frenchman]

There is no law requiring private companies to hire women, Gays or African Americans, so this bill will have the exact opposite desired effect. It's going to be a good excuse to favor White heterosexual men.

Why risk litigation over pay or sexual harassment?

[KevK]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

A good employee just starts working OT uncompensated. You work extra because you want the company to succeed. Worrying about whether you'll be compensated fairly is, IMO, childish and self-centered.

You have to be kidding. I ain't working a minute without being paid! The company will suceed whether I am there are not. Nobody is irreplaceable.

[ryneone]

Am I the only one who believes in the capitalist society?

If they don't pay equally then don't work their. Really this is a non-issue. If you don't like what a company is doing do not work their. Why does that give you a right to sue?

[Who?Me?!]

Originally Posted by ryneone

Am I the only one who believes in the capitalist society?

If they don't pay equally then don't work their. Really this is a non-issue. If you don't like what a company is doing do not work their. Why does that give you a right to sue?

"Their " what? What do they own?



AND: equal pay for equal work is the law...you must be republican.


The OP is not about euqal pay for equal work ...it's about a republican who doesn't want women to be able to sue for illegal discrimination.

[ryneone]

Originally Posted by Who?Me?!

"Their " what? What do they own?



AND: equal pay for equal work is the law...you must be republican.


The OP is not about euqal pay for equal work ...it's about a republican who doesn't want women to be able to sue for illegal discrimination.

A&F don't hire fat people should they be sued?

If bank A pays women less and Bank B pays women equal then where would a women apply?

She would not want to apply for Bank A would she?

Then again she could then just sue.

[FireKwame]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

Women, on average, don't commit as much as men. That's why they don't get paid "equally".

The more opportunity to sue you give, the less willing entreprenuers will be to start businesses. It's an example of how government regulation impedes business... But don't worry, if you want to sue people for paying less for an employee who takes off a half-day a week to pick up the kids, that job will be filled over in India or China.

I work with a man who takes more time off for family emergencies/responsibilities than any woman I've ever met.

Maybe employers should just hire people with no children? I mean, really, even if they hire a man who has a stay at home wife to take care of the kids, she could always die and leave him with such responsibilities...right?

Wow.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by ryneone

If bank A pays women less and Bank B pays women equal then where would a women apply?

So should we tell the women who work at Bank A to get over it? Just shut up and get back to work? Please, Im dying to hear what women in this situation should do?

She would not want to apply for Bank A would she?

Then again she could then just sue.

This is what law suits are for-to correct injustice.

Pay them equal in the first place and you wont have to deal with law suits.

[ryneone]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So should we tell the women who work at Bank A to get over it? Just shut up and get back to work? Please, Im dying to hear what women in this situation should do?


This is what law suits are for-to correct injustice.

Pay them equal in the first place and you wont have to deal with law suits.

Im not saying it is right but I am saying this fits with the sue happy nation we live in. Id tell here if she did not like that move on.

What happens when I'm hired with another person and we do the same position but they get paid more. Well when I ask they say the other person has more experience. Our numbers are the same so should I be able to sue under the equal pay for equal work?

[arod0331]

Man or woman, there are always a few lazy workers who make everyone look bad.

There are lazy men who sit back and let their co-workers pick up the slack, also for example there are women who go out on maternity leave and just never return to their places of employment without officially quitting.

Anyways, I say if a person is educated, qualified and works hard pay them equally regardless of gender.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by Who?Me?!

equal pay for equal work is the law...

The problem is that it's impossible to quantify all the attributes that make up an employee. So decision-making is further and further limited... by politicians-- People who are effective at getting elected, not making profits and retaining workers.

This betrays the silliness of the left, IMO. You don't know what it takes for one company to be successful, let alone the next. However, from a standpoint of utter ignorance, you'll dictate how companies should be run.

I think this is why we all start off liberal when we're young: Idealistic and inexperienced we're able to believe that everything has a conscious order. However, once you spend some time out in the real world and have to do what feels right with little regard to what seems right, you realize that no one really knows the "why's" of anything... and then you realize "if I don't know why I'm doing what I'm, but I'm making a success of it, how is that politician supposed to know why I'm making it?"

...it's about a republican who doesn't want women to be able to sue for illegal discrimination.

Isn't the burden of proof in civil cases on the defendant? So, doesn't extending discrimination liability force companies to spend more on guarding against it?

Sounds like a Republican is helping protect America from more anti-business legislation that would reduce jobs and, effectively, advance the socialist agenda of further eliminating the middle-class.

Originally Posted by FireKwame

I work with a man who takes more time off for family emergencies/responsibilities than any woman I've ever met.

Maybe employers should just hire people with no children? I mean, really, even if they hire a man who has a stay at home wife to take care of the kids, she could always die and leave him with such responsibilities...right?

Wow.

Does he get paid like someone who's there all the time? Is there a special reason he's able to work like that like he's the bosses nephew? What are you saying that because my brother's sister-in-law's 2nd removed nieces cousin is a man who doesn't work as hard but gets paid more is justification to put another albatross around the neck of American business, which, if you haven't noticed, isn't doing so hot right now?

It's been my experience that women are less valuable employees than men. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been women who were better or men that were worse. It's a statement about averages.

Being that the subject is about average pay, it kind of makes sense to me that we'd be talking about average people.

In regard to hiring people without kids, sure. I wouldn't complain about a company that preferred employees with or without kids. It's their company, not mine. It's none of my business.

Originally Posted by mont

So should we tell the women who work at Bank A to get over it? Just shut up and get back to work?

Yes... Or if you're as valuable an employee you think you are, get another job.