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.
No, it isn't a fact. Some of the companies were in dire straits. Other companies simply were looking for ways to be more profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawkgirl
Oh no! Romney helped companies that were in "dire straits" and helped others become more profitable and then they could hire more employees! How horrible of him.
Apparently, there is no easy way to answer either of your questions:
I can see how that would be problematic for you and your family. Can you foresee a future when more jobs would be in green manufacturing rather than war/defense-related industries? A more peaceable world with work aligned with our values?
My husband works for a defense contractor-- but his contract is fetal alcohol syndrome research and prevention. He thinks our jails would be half-empty if we could eliminate FAS. So this particular one is probably good for everyone. Our other industries are information and music publishing.
Since Romney seems to be your man, not mine, why don't you supply the facts to support your claim...I'm sure some can be manufactured to support your premise.
And while you're at it, why don't you supply the facts that show how the previous Republican president (you know the one, his last name begins with a B and who, for some odd reason, was not invited to your convention) sent our economy into a free fall and put American citizens out of work and out of their homes.
Yes, you're right, facts are devious little critters who hide in dark corners and shrink from the light of day. Women are not fooled this time.
"I'm sure some can be manufactured to support your premise". Either you are calling me a liar or you won't believe any "facts" I post anyway because you think they are all "manufactured".
Being your post came first and YOU made a lot of claims, how about YOU backing them up first?
Nope, no one's backed up the claims I've asked them to on this thread, so I'm not gonna do the work of backing up mine, either. It's discriminatory--and you know how I feel about that. lol.
I started my career in the 1970's and gender discrimination in the private sector corporate world was very common--and sometimes blatantly and brutally honest. I remember interviewing for one position and being told upfront that there were two pay levels--one for male employees--and a lower wage level for women in the same role since "men were the breadwinners supporting families."
Yes, and we women, prior to legislature making this illegal, often took jobs on this basis. I know I did...and I often hit the glass ceiling. At one Marine Insurance company I worked for, women were not permitted by the company to study for and become underwriters. All the underwriters were male. I doubt this would happen today, yes?
Hard to believe all this took place, but ask most any woman with a long career and she will tell you this was not uncommon.
In the govt. sector, this was not the case. It was a level playing field. Equal pay for equal work.
Now I work in corporate and non-profit communications under my own banner. Times have changed for the better in so many ways, and I fully and passionately support moving forward and not backward.
I honor and respect our gender differences and have found each gender brings unique and valuable insights and talents to the table. It's wonderful progress we've made--and I'm excited to see what tomorrow brings.
I do not disagree with anything you have stated. my only question is when did you leave working for others and started working for yourself.
I ask this because of your other statements about pay disparity.
I think all would agree that there WAS pay disparity 40 years ago but, a lot has changed.
Many more women are in the labor force, forcing employers to "wake up".
The laws on the books today protect women. I don't see a reason for "another" law that doesn't really do anything that the existing laws already cover.
Too many laws are passed just so a politician can claim the did something good when running for re-election..
I do not disagree with anything you have stated. my only question is when did you leave working for others and started working for yourself.
I ask this because of your other statements about pay disparity.
I think all would agree that there WAS pay disparity 40 years ago but, a lot has changed.
Many more women are in the labor force, forcing employers to "wake up".
The laws on the books today protect women. I don't see a reason for "another" law that doesn't really do anything that the existing laws already cover.
Too many laws are passed just so a politician can claim the did something good when running for re-election..
There is still pay disparity. 40 years ago there was open discrimination. Some employers have simply become better at hiding the discrimination.
The laws on the books today protect women, IF women find out they've been discriminated against. And the Supreme Court has placed a time limitation on women being able to seek legal redress. The Lily Ledbetter makes every paycheck that reflects pay disparity an act of discrimination. That essentially extends the time limitations that the Supreme Court has mandated. Because in most cases of pay disparity, the woman is unaware, and company policies often prohibit employees from discussing their compensation packages, which keeps it a secret. If a woman discovers that there was a pay disparity when she was hired, she may find out too late to take legal action, but if her most recent paycheck reflects the pay disparity, the Ledbetter act allows her to sue based on that paycheck, not based on when she was hired.
As as a working woman, I'm wondering what policies the Republicans have proposed that would improve my life?
--Bills such as the Lily Ledbetter Bill that brings Equal Pay for Equal Work that have been signed into action by the current administration?
it wont do what is claimed. in fact that bill would actually hurt working women more than it helps. how you ask? if employers are forced to pay everyone equally or get sued, they will comply at first, but as women leave the job market for various reasons, giving birth, raising children, etc. they will be replaced by men, which means that the unemployment rate for women will rise substantially. besides we already have equal pay for equal work laws on the books, and if you look at the reason why women seem to be paid less than men is that often times women take time off for the reasons above, andit doesnt make sense for employers to continue to raise the pay of someone who is not working.
and how fair is it for someone, make or female, to hire on at a company, and get the same pay as someone who has been at the company for ten years?
Quote:
--Affordable healthcare for myself, spouse and children as proposed by the current adminsitration?
the obamacare act will not decrease the cost of healthcare, it will make it more expensive and harder to get. why? all the new taxes and regulations being put in place(13,000+ pages and still counting). all this will cause health care costs to rise substantially, and if you have a health care plan that is too expensive, you get taxed on that as well.
Quote:
--Affordable education to improve my educational level and qualify me for better jobs?
college costs have been rising steeply because the government is supporting student loans, and in fact has taken over the student loan program. until we get government out of the education system, costs will not come down any time soon.
Quote:
As a thinking and working woman, I see absolutely nothing--nothing--that the Republicans propose that is favorable to working women..instead I see their misplaced desire to control my body and my destiny in regard to birth control.
I don't see how any working, thinking woman could vote for Romney/Ryan. They frighten me. And surely, they don't have my best interests at heart.
so you dont think that a 20% tax cut would do you any good? you dont think that cutting back on excessive regulations so that business can afford to hire new people would do you any good? do you really think that the republicans want to eliminate birth control altogether? the reality is that birth control pills are fairly cheap at walmart(something like $9 per month last i looked a couple of months ago). and every time you send the bill to your insurance company for small items like that means you pay more in the end. instead of listening to the mainstream media, about about checking out the candidates websites and see what they are really proposing. as a thinking person, you should be doing this anyway.
it wont do what is claimed. in fact that bill would actually hurt working women more than it helps. how you ask? if employers are forced to pay everyone equally or get sued, they will comply at first, but as women leave the job market for various reasons, giving birth, raising children, etc. they will be replaced by men, which means that the unemployment rate for women will rise substantially.
You'd think that, but during this recession the unemployment rate for men is greater than for women (Aug. 2012 6.8 for men and 6.1 for women).
Quote:
besides we already have equal pay for equal work laws on the books, and if you look at the reason why women seem to be paid less than men is that often times women take time off for the reasons above, andit doesnt make sense for employers to continue to raise the pay of someone who is not working.
and how fair is it for someone, make or female, to hire on at a company, and get the same pay as someone who has been at the company for ten years?
If the pay is actually based on seniority, no problem.
Here is the text of the law under which the Lily Ledbetter act allows more lawsuits to be filed. You will notice that discriminating by seniority, merit, and productivity is legal. Equal pay is very much an "all other things being equal" issue.
Quote:
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to
(i) a seniority system;
(ii) a merit system;
(iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or
(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
That being said, I routinely turn down female applicants who are in the child bearing age bracket, or those who had mentioned they have young kids at home.
As long as you do the same to men in the child bearing age bracket or those who mentioned they have young kids at home OK by me.
That's because you don't know anything about them nor do you seem to care to find out.
To use one of your own examples:
How on Earth would a law like Lily Ledbetter be enforced without destroying business with billions of dollars worth of law suits? Every woman in the working world who thinks that they are not making what they think they should make will come out of the woodwork and sue their companies.
This is what's wrong with America. People hear ideas like "equal pay for equal work" but they do not have the intellectual curiosity to truly think about what this would mean in practice
Well, let's see. It would mean that a woman who does the same, exact job as her male counterpart - would make the same pay.
What's so hard about that? And if companies ARE paying men more as a general business practice - then they most certainly deserve to be sued - once, twice, or thousands of times.
Intellectual curiosity - please.
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.
