Fairness Paycheck Act sponsored by.....

[Skull Pilot]

[

QUOTE=CharlestonChad;648493]Fair as in equal to others at the same job, or fair as in what they think the worker should earn for their work?

i read it as the government decides what you should pay a particular worker for their labor. this is not a good idea for reasons i have stated earlier.

as far as the same job, i don't know if you mean all bookkeepers in the country should be paid the same or whether i should pay all my bookkeepers the same wage. either way it is not the governments job to police my payroll

It most certainly is OUR business. The work force greatly dictates our standard of living in America. If we allow business to discriminate, then the pool of quality employees is smaller which will hurt everyone financially in the long run.

you're telling me that you, the government or whoever should have a say in who i hire? wrong. it is MY business not YOUR business and i should be able to hire or not hire whoever the hell i damn please.

you think that only hiring the best most qualified people that i want to work in my company will diminish the country? where do you get this drivel? the fact is that hiring quotas and social mandates have diminished our workforce and our country. i can only think you mean that all businesses should be mandated to hire shitty employees so as not to lessen the pool of qualified labor. are you smoking crack? do you actually think about what you write?

if we discriminate MORE on who we hire as businesses then we RAISE the quality of employees through competition. potential employees will realize that they have to bring their A game to the job. that is how we ALL benefit, not by lowering the bar thereby sanctioning mediocrity

Not everyone is mentally, physically, or financially capable of starting their own company. The vast majority of Americans are subject to a boss, and they will be their whole lives regardless of how much they want to start their own company

[/QUOTE]

we live in America anyone can work for themselves if they have the guts and are willing to take the risk.

i am sick and tired of people who have no idea what it takes to risk everything to run your own business telling me how to run mine. until you've done it and know what you're talking about when it comes to building an employee base and providing benefits to keep those employees from your competitors and managing resources on a shoestring to make a decent profit while the government is taking a big wet bite out of your ass and lefty liberal whiners are trying to screw up your business with hiring and wage mandates... maybe then you'll realize what i'm talking about

 

[jillian]

There is always a minimum size before most of the federal laws (besides minimum wage) go into effect. As for telling you what you have to pay, it's more that you can't pay your white heterosexual male worker differently from your homosexual male worker or female worker or black worker for doing the same job and with the same experience/skills.

In other words, it's anti-discriminatory, not a wealth distribution thing, as far as I can tell.

BTW, I did run my own business and I do know how hard it is.

 

[CharlestonChad]

i read it as the government decides what you should pay a particular worker for their labor. this is not a good idea for reasons i have stated earlier.

I thought it meant that businesses can't pay a worker differently just because they feel like it, aka, just because the owner does like a certain type of person.

you're telling me that you, the government or whoever should have a say in who i hire? wrong. it is MY business not YOUR business and i should be able to hire or not hire whoever the hell i damn please.

You are sadly wrong, and I think you need to take into context our countries rich history of racism and bigotry.

you think that only hiring the best most qualified people that i want to work in my company will diminish the country? where do you get this drivel? the fact is that hiring quotas and social mandates have diminished our workforce and our country. i can only think you mean that all businesses should be mandated to hire shitty employees so as not to lessen the pool of qualified labor. are you smoking crack? do you actually think about what you write?

We are obviously on different pages, and you have misread my post. I said that we should be hiring the most qualified people no matter what. To me, the gov is saying that you can't hire a straight person over a more qualified gay person just because you hate gays. "You" meaning a business owner.

Please don't make this a flame war. YOU did not understand what I posted, and then attacked me for it.

if we discriminate MORE on who we hire as businesses then we RAISE the quality of employees through competition. potential employees will realize that they have to bring their A game to the job. that is how we ALL benefit, not by lowering the bar thereby sanctioning mediocrity

Again, if the act means what I think it means then that's exactly what it's trying to make sure happens. Like i was saying before, if a business owner won't hire gays because he doesn't like them, then in the long run we are all hurt because the owner won't be able to choose among the most qualified employees.

we live in America anyone can work for themselves if they have the guts and are willing to take the risk.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think anyone in this country is capable of running a business. As a business owner, you surely realize that it takes intelligence and/or a lot of money to start a successful business. Hard work can only take you so far in life.

i am sick and tired of people who have no idea what it takes to risk everything to run your own business telling me how to run mine. until you've done it and know what you're talking about when it comes to building an employee base and providing benefits to keep those employees from your competitors and managing resources on a shoestring to make a decent profit while the government is taking a big wet bite out of your ass and lefty liberal whiners are trying to screw up your business with hiring and wage mandates... maybe then you'll realize what i'm talking about

I watched my father start his business from his home office and grow to a successful corporation, so I may not know exactly how to run the finances, but I'm not completely ignorant to the process.

 

[Dr Grump]

you don't seem to realize that in the US the majority of people are employed by companies of less than 1000. you would want to see a huge number of these people out of work so you can stick it to so called big business?

if an employer is not "doing right " by you LEAVE. find someone who will pay you what you think you deserve and work there.

the fact is that people who bag groceries are just not that valuable to the marketplace. the idea of wages and jobs in a free market is that it resembles a ladder not a bed. start on one rung and move up. if you want to stay in a dead end job it's your choice and the government should not tell me i have to pay you more than your job is worth to my bottom line. hell i'll get rid of my grocery baggers and offer my customers a slight discount to bag their own and i'll make more money than if i kept them on at a govrnment enforced wage that is too high for my bottom line. so by doing things your way with government control all my grocery baggers lost their jobs and i made more money

what's next the government tells me i have to hire them back and even hire more employees so it "fair" then i'm out of business and ALL my employees suffer. btw i am not in the grocery business but the example holds for all businesses

i put you in the category of all people who are too god damn lazy to make their own way and want to rest of the hard working and heaven forbid successful people to subsidize your life. you are simply jealous of those who have success. fyi i don't believe that everybody wants to rip me off but i am smart enough to know that some of them do. i am also smart enough to know that i won't always know who these people are so i take measures to reduce my risk across the board.

lets use your opinion on employee theft in another scenario.

you're a doctor and you know that a very small percentage of people have AIDS so why bother to wear gloves or dispose of needles properly? the vast majority of people are just fine right??


http://www.corporatecombat.com/statistics.html

http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/11/01/focus1.html

as you can see even a 1 % employee theft rate can cost billions would you call that insignificant?

I think the govt should regulate things to make sure there is no discrimination in the workplace and people are paid the same despite their colour, gender etc.

What makes you think I am lazy? Who am I mooching off? You know me??? Weirdo...

 

[Zoomie1980]

It's a colloquial term for employers who exploit their workers..

Typical employer - believes everybody is out to rip them off. I put you in the category of people who believe ALL Muslims are out to kill them. Are there employees who steal? Absolutely. They are very much the minority, but people like you try to make out they are the mainstream. They are not, by a long shot. BS re the national debt. If employees were that prolific there would be no businesses- they'd be out of money!

Oh, right, make yourself more valuable. So let's say EVERY person makes themselves more valuable. Let's say EVERYBODY does that. Who's gonna clean the buildings, be baggage handlers, sweep the streets, shine the shoes, sort the peas, pick the cotton, wash the windows, work the checkout??? And you call me naive...


Absolutely the govt has to interfere. Big employers can never be trusted to do right by their employees. If they did there would not be unions in the first place. And if employers are so fucking amazing why are there Tyco's and Enrons in this world?? Naive?? ppfffffttt - get your own house in order before spouting superlatives.....

What complete nonsense. Let's say my dog spontaneously combusts...

The reason computer programers make more than secrataries or human resource data entry clerks is almost EVERYBODY can perform the duties of a data entry clerk and very few people can become effective programmers. If "everybody" could increase their worth, "everybody" would be paid a lot less.

If your job was twice as easy I could pay someone else half as much to do it, so you'd be gone. IT's how the marketplace works and government has no clue to how the market works, which is why every time they get involved, they cock it all up.

 

[pegwinn]

it is not the job of the government to tell me what i have to pay an employee period

Exactly. The .gov is not supposed to have a huge "footprint" on society. That is the states and local .gov job But, thanks to a non-literal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause......

Absolutely the govt has to interfere. Big employers can never be trusted to do right by their employees. If they did there would not be unions in the first place. And if employers are so fucking amazing why are there Tyco's and Enrons in this world?? Naive?? ppfffffttt - get your own house in order before spouting superlatives.....

Perhaps in YOUR country the .gov has to interfere. In my country the .gov is supposed to be specifically limited in what it can do at the federal level by the Constitution. If the states want to do it, they can, but not the fed.

So you are saying that you wouldn't have a problem with an equally valuable gay employee making half of what the straight employee makes? You don't think there's something wrong when the WSJ author said this" The second bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, passed the House of Representatives last fall. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." In short, private-sector employers who have religious or other objections to homosexuality would be told their moral views lack legitimacy." as something being a bad thing?

Yep. Your sexual orientation is none of my business. I don't discuss mine with you nor do I take it to work. I would expect the same level of conduct from you, or I would fire you. Race, National Origin, Gender, are not private matters that can be excluded from work. Religion and Sexual preferences are assuredly private and should remain away from the workplace.

well, I guess the government can always take your money via taxes and create market competition that pays Americans an accepted living standard. it's not as if this nation was created for the sake of mega conglomerates, corporate entities and rich people. find the words free-market capitolism in the Constitution, fellas. Sure, feel free to pay at a minimum wage while a government business normalizes the American standard of living and forces you to compete or drop out of the race..

Did I read that right? Are you advocating the .gov going into a consumer oriented business for itself? Bit of conflict of interest eh? Of course given how far we have diverged from the Constitution and how corrupted our political process is, it wouldn't surprise me. It'd piss me off, but surprise me? Nah.

There is always a minimum size before most of the federal laws (besides minimum wage) go into effect. As for telling you what you have to pay, it's more that you can't pay your white heterosexual male worker differently from your homosexual male worker or female worker or black worker for doing the same job and with the same experience/skills.

In other words, it's anti-discriminatory, not a wealth distribution thing, as far as I can tell.

BTW, I did run my own business and I do know how hard it is.

I think that a "small business" is anyone less than 500 employees. But, I didn't source it, so if I am wrong, don't taze me bro. I have no issue with anti-discrimination laws based on things you cannot avoid taking to work with you and being on involuntary display. Sweaty fat women or men cannot just leave it at home if you get my drift. Gays? They can be gay on thier own time, but not on my dime. Same with your or my religious convictions.

Note that I also understand certain positions require certain attributes that may be discriminatory in some cases. But, so long as the employer is able to demonstrate that the need for the attributes is there...... think personal trainer in a gym. Fat, balding, old men need not apply.

Finally. I have worked in a position where the pay was normalized without regard to output and worth. It is called the US Marines. All Sergeants (E5) with X number of years service, in the same geographical locale, and the same family status get the same pay whether they are a grunt or typist. And, one Sergeant may be leading a squad and responsible for 100K of gear while another is the Company Clerk (think Radar O'Reilly) and has little to no actual authority or responsibility.

So, those who oppose the militarization of America better oppose these bills.

 

[Zoomie1980]

There is always a minimum size before most of the federal laws (besides minimum wage) go into effect. As for telling you what you have to pay, it's more that you can't pay your white heterosexual male worker differently from your homosexual male worker or female worker or black worker for doing the same job and with the same experience/skills.

In other words, it's anti-discriminatory, not a wealth distribution thing, as far as I can tell.

BTW, I did run my own business and I do know how hard it is.

No one here is defending discriminatory practices. What we take exception to is any attempt of any kind by government to dictate a wage scale to business. We have an extensive body of law in this country to protect workers from all kind of corporate malfeasance but those of us that hire and pay people are largely free to pay people as little or as much as the market will dictate the negotiating skills of the individual. I pay considerably different amounts of money for employees doing almost the exact same work, mostly because some simply take whatever you seem to offer while others wring every last dime they can out of you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think the govt should regulate things to make sure there is no discrimination in the workplace and people are paid the same despite their colour, gender etc.

What makes you think I am lazy? Who am I mooching off? You know me??? Weirdo...

what makes you think i think all muslims want to kill me? you can't throw that at me and then gte all indignant when i throw something back at you

the name of this bill says it all the term fairness is the give away.

we already have antidiscrimination laws on the books we don't need a fairness law. the word fair is one of those that can mean too many things to too many different people

the government does not belong in the free market period.

 

[Shogun]

Did I read that right? Are you advocating the .gov going into a consumer oriented business for itself? Bit of conflict of interest eh? Of course given how far we have diverged from the Constitution and how corrupted our political process is, it wouldn't surprise me. It'd piss me off, but surprise me? Nah.


Can you quote the Constitution where it says that the US must have a free market capitolist economy? Where is the conflict of interest when the GOVERNMENT exists for the sake of it's people instead of it's corporations? Would you like to suggest that the economy of colonial America at all reflects our modern economy? If that is the case, then where are you making the assumption that the government CAN'T mingle in markets in order to normalize wages for the benefit of the NATION rather than the profit margin?

After all, I didn't say you COULDNT compete in the private market... just that you will find yourself having to bend to the market forces that you otherwise use to rationalize the aspects of capitolism that the masses find less than satisfactory. You know, like price gouging oil. If the Gov started pumping at ANWR at half the price per gallon of gas then, by all means, keep selling your gas at 3 dollars if you can stay in business.


But, again, DIVERGED FROM THE CONSTITUTION? Show me where the Constitution indicates our economic standard at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did I read that right? Are you advocating the .gov going into a consumer oriented business for itself? Bit of conflict of interest eh? Of course given how far we have diverged from the Constitution and how corrupted our political process is, it wouldn't surprise me. It'd piss me off, but surprise me? Nah.


Can you quote the Constitution where it says that the US must have a free market capitolist economy? Where is the conflict of interest when the GOVERNMENT exists for the sake of it's people instead of it's corporations? Would you like to suggest that the economy of colonial America at all reflects our modern economy? If that is the case, then where are you making the assumption that the government CAN'T mingle in markets in order to normalize wages for the benefit of the NATION rather than the profit margin?

After all, I didn't say you COULDNT compete in the private market... just that you will find yourself having to bend to the market forces that you otherwise use to rationalize the aspects of capitolism that the masses find less than satisfactory. You know, like price gouging oil. If the Gov started pumping at ANWR at half the price per gallon of gas then, by all means, keep selling your gas at 3 dollars if you can stay in business.


But, again, DIVERGED FROM THE CONSTITUTION? Show me where the Constitution indicates our economic standard at all.

The Constitution provides specific powers to Congress. Further it was written thus to ensure that the Government was LIMITED in power and that the people had to provide it MORE power through the AMENDMENT process.

Now other than the right to regulate interstate Commerce, please show me the power that grants the Federal Government the right to set wages and pay for ANY business.

 

[Toro]

Both are bad ideas.

Neither will happen.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

When will the libs ever learn that socialism doesn't work. Its been tried numerous times and never works. I really am having a hard time understanding their lack of economic and free market practices. One of these two will run this country deeper into the ground.

 

[Shogun]

The Constitution provides specific powers to Congress. Further it was written thus to ensure that the Government was LIMITED in power and that the people had to provide it MORE power through the AMENDMENT process.

Now other than the right to regulate interstate Commerce, please show me the power that grants the Federal Government the right to set wages and pay for ANY business.

I said nothing about congress setting wages. Perhaps if you didn't have your head up your ass....


I stated that there is nothing in the CONSTITUTION that says that the fed cannot normalize the economy via lowballing a market as I explained above.

Now, take your strawman and fuck off.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I said nothing about congress setting wages. Perhaps if you didn't have your head up your ass....


I stated that there is nothing in the CONSTITUTION that says that the fed cannot normalize the economy via lowballing a market as I explained above.

Now, take your strawman and fuck off.

Again the ONLY power the Congress and thus the Federal Government has in relation to the economy has to do with INTERSTATE trade. Well and setting tariffs and duties on outgoing and incoming goods from our ports.

They also have the right to create and control the money we use, that power is also granted to Congress and the Federal Government.

These bills are all about setting wages and telling business what they can pay and what they WILL pay. A power Congress does NOT possess.

 

[jillian]

No one here is defending discriminatory practices. What we take exception to is any attempt of any kind by government to dictate a wage scale to business. We have an extensive body of law in this country to protect workers from all kind of corporate malfeasance but those of us that hire and pay people are largely free to pay people as little or as much as the market will dictate the negotiating skills of the individual. I pay considerably different amounts of money for employees doing almost the exact same work, mostly because some simply take whatever you seem to offer while others wring every last dime they can out of you.

Those of *us* who paid people also don't get to pay them differently for discriminatory reasons.

Same as firing someone. You can fire someone for no reason or any reason at all. It just can't be for an ILLEGAL reason. By the same token, you can pay people what you want but you can't do it for DISCRIMINATORY purposes.

I think that's fair.

 

[Shogun]

Again the ONLY power the Congress and thus the Federal Government has in relation to the economy has to do with INTERSTATE trade. Well and setting tariffs and duties on outgoing and incoming goods from our ports.

They also have the right to create and control the money we use, that power is also granted to Congress and the Federal Government.

These bills are all about setting wages and telling business what they can pay and what they WILL pay. A power Congress does NOT possess.

No, they would be about protecting the citizens of the US from modern robber-barrons who make their money despite the cost to America. We did this kind of thing with bell labs and every employer that used child labor on the same bullshit excuses you are making. fuck you. Go find where the CONSTITUTION says that congress cannot create price blowout competition much like we did when capitolism delivered the great depression. Otherwise, I simply don't give the first rats ass about your conveluded little free market fantasy.


now go eat a turd.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, they would be about protecting the citizens of the US from modern robber-barrons who make their money despite the cost to America. We did this kind of thing with bell labs and every employer that used child labor on the same bullshit excuses you are making. fuck you. Go find where the CONSTITUTION says that congress cannot create price blowout competition much like we did when capitolism delivered the great depression. Otherwise, I simply don't give the first rats ass about your conveluded little free market fantasy.


now go eat a turd.

In other words you can not argue the point so instead, as the troll you are, you resort to name calling and foul language.

The Federal Government is LIMITED to what the Constitution gives it power for. You have to provide the clause in the Constitution or the Amendment that allows YOUR claim to be true.

But you know you can not so instead are resorting to your usual trolling behavior.

 

[Shogun]

In other words you can not argue the point so instead, as the troll you are, you resort to name calling and foul language.

The Federal Government is LIMITED to what the Constitution gives it power for. You have to provide the clause in the Constitution or the Amendment that allows YOUR claim to be true.

But you know you can not so instead are resorting to your usual trolling behavior.

Do you really think that the interstate commerce clause could not be applied in order to validate the creation of a normalizing factor in the domestic economy? You must not play chess very often, eh?


good grief. you are like a toy dog barking like a stud from under the couch.

 

[Dr Grump]

When will the libs ever learn that socialism doesn't work. Its been tried numerous times and never works. I really am having a hard time understanding their lack of economic and free market practices. One of these two will run this country deeper into the ground.

When will conservatives learn that capitalism never works. It leaves a large underclass that are the causes of most crime and welfare dependancy..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

When will conservatives learn that capitalism never works. It leaves a large underclass that are the causes of most crime and welfare dependancy..

Sorry, but no. Capitalism is what built this country....not a bunch of angry socialists begging for handouts.