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 think bills like this and Affirmative Action are demeaning to women. I, as a woman, am doing quite well and do not need government intervention to perform equally with my peers, male or female. I pursued a career in a male dominated industry and have outpaced my male counterparts. Why? Well, when I went to school, I not only graduated at the top of my class but also earned two additional degrees to put myself at the top of the proverbial pile. I received quite a few job offers and had my pick.
Then, as I entered into the workforce, I proved myself again, earning both promotions and pay raises. I actually earn more than most of my male peers that have the same amount of time working because I was willing to take on the responsibility that extra pay merited and I outperformed my male peers.
I want my performance to be based upon my actual performance vice some arbitrary legislation that would cause those same male peers to resent my promotions as well as question my capabilities.
A business would be a poorly run business if it did not utilize the best person for the job, whether that be male or female."""
and they run more profitably if they can short pay someone...
"" If you do work at a business that does not promote the best and looks to gender instead, would you really want to work there given how this would be a bad business decision?""
How would a woman KNOW if she's paid less than her male counterparts?...discuss salary=get shown the door at many companies.
""" In addition, would that business be able to withstand the competition from the other businesses that do indeed promote and hire only the best qualified candidate? For this, and several other reasons that a simple post is insufficient to enumerate, I am strongly against any "special" treatment of women.
Typical Republican..."I'm fine so to hell with anyone else"
That really should be the theme(anthem?) of America today....it has worked so well....
Show us please, how this attempt at further governmental control over business would have prevented exploitation of women. If you prefer, show is how not having this silly new act is exploitative of women.
Secrecy and retaliation are the key features in this.
Secrecy. Lets say that you and I are hired on the same day. We have the exact same amount of education, the exact same amount of skills, we do the same exact job and work the same hours. We are prohibited from sharing information about our salaries by the said company.
Or even better, I have more experience and a better education and a higher level of skills than you and my responsibilities at this company have increased with my experience and you make more than I doing less work.
Well, one day you discuss our pay and it comes out that you make way more than I do for no other reason that can be shown except gender.
If I go to the boss and we discuss my salary and at some point I say, Bill Keegan makes 10,000 more than I do. Why? And afterwards what happens to you?
So, the companies hold all the cards in a negotiation. No information is given on salaries at the beginning and no information can be shared without retaliation. All this is doing is closing the loopholes and saying that there is a bit more back up if it can be shown that there is no other reason except gender.
No, you can't make a legitimate case of having the male employees that are able and willing to be on the road for 5 days a week and female employees that are only willing to stay in one place and handle other business. No, you can't make a salary comparison from someone that is making $100,000 dollars in New York City and the $45,000 in Podunk. No, you can't walk in and say I have a high school degree and he has a masters and he has been here 20 years and I have been here 6 months pay me equal. That isn't how it has ever worked, that isn't how it would work.
Now, the Republicans (3 of them that were outspoken and stated that this was necessary, all of a sudden changed their mind). Of course, the US Chamber of Commerce has advocated against this, heavily. Because they want to continue to hold all of the cards.
You see, you cannot pay me less because you assume that because I am female that I will at some point have children. You cannot pay me less because I already have children and you are starting from a stand point that they will in the future cause me to have work interruptions.
Are there woman who are constantly have problems with child care? You betcha. Are there woman who have taken off on leave to have a child? You betcha. Does that account for all woman? Not a chance.
Instead, you send me to the woman who organized Stop the ERA. The woman who doesn't believe in spousal rape.
You have obviously lost your ever loving mind.
Now, go look at the damn bill and tell me what is wrong with it.
By the way, Phyllis Schlafly is a Constitutional attorney. I think she understands this legislation and why it is bad for women, not good.
That is also why she has always opposed the ERA, because while radical feminists like yourself only look at the surface, she looks at it from the standpoint of the law, and how it could (and probably would) do more harm to women in the workforce than good. Ever hear of "the law of unintended consequences"?
See, your problem is that like so many, you refuse to look beneath the surface. I'd be willing to bet you never read this bill, and haven't a clue how it changes existing law in a way that would be detrimental to women who wish to compete with men in the workplace.
I read Phyllis's assessment of it. I think she is absolutely right on the mark.
And as she said, "If it were really true that businesses pay women less than men for the same work, then cost-conscious bosses would hire only or mostly women. Since that doesn't happen, there must be other factors".
I think you need to study this issue more thoroughly to find out how it might really affect women in the workforce, before climbing onto the bandwagon with the rest of the whining radical feminists who are not doing women any favors at all.
My wife worked in retailing for many many years, and was the GM of several high end department stores in S. California before they closed (Buffum's). She had managed the Fashion Valley store, Grossmont Center, and lastly, the Lomas Santa Fe store. She has never been a proponent of the ERA.
I did read it. I read her little article and her little schpeil on those horrible feminists. Which tells me that you have a weak case.
Really sad, but so typical of sheeple.
Oh, go back to your N.O.W friends. You people are doing you best to make life difficult for real professional women. Your bunch has never done them any favors.
Oh, go back to your N.O.W friends. You people are doing you best to make life difficult for real professional women. Your bunch has never done them any favors.
Or even better, I have more experience and a better education and a higher level of skills than you and my responsibilities at this company have increased with my experience and you make more than I doing less work.
Well, one day you discuss our pay and it comes out that you make way more than I do for no other reason that can be shown except gender.
If I go to the boss and we discuss my salary and at some point I say, Bill Keegan makes 10,000 more than I do. Why? And afterwards what happens to you?
So, the companies hold all the cards in a negotiation. No information is given on salaries at the beginning and no information can be shared without retaliation. All this is doing is closing the loopholes and saying that there is a bit more back up if it can be shown that there is no other reason except gender
The only way this scenario can happen is if the woman is really stupid and agrees to take a job for 10 thousand less than market value.
Are you saying women are stupid?
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.
