Minn. lawmaker: Fair-pay bill makes women look like ‘whiners’

[kaz]

Thats the pattern. Say something isnt happening first. Then admit later once they are caught that it is happening but it's ok...they'll explain why its ok.

Pick a topic, any topic...

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

Women also take more time away from their careers and while they get more college degrees than men, fewer are in higher paying sciences. The gap is also smaller for younger women who tend to get more degrees and more science degrees than women did previously. Younger women are on average taking less time off their careers also.

 

[nodoginnafight]

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

You're in the wrong forum. Personal insults are all that most posters here, have to offer.

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

I've found many posters whose arguments are good enough that they don't have to resort to personal insults - I enjoy kicking it around (even disagreeing) with these posters a lot more. Yeah, a lot of folks are here just to hurl insults and stuff back and forth - if that's what they enjoy - that's fine with me. It's just not very challenging or satisfying for me.

To each their own.

But on the topic - so you are arguing that it is OK for women to be paid less ?

I disagree.

And I think most Americans (and a huge majority of women) would probably agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and you are necessarily wrong - it just means that - politically speaking - it's a losing position.

Now, I believe your position is wrong - because I think you've cherry-picked a few things that indicate women are less productive and ignored some other factors that contradict that conclusion.

But no names - no insults. I believe that equally intelligent, equally honest people can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats the pattern. Say something isnt happening first. Then admit later once they are caught that it is happening but it's ok...they'll explain why its ok.

Pick a topic, any topic...

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

Nope please run on this message. That combined with your fuzzy math will get the GOP much votes

 

[Little-Acorn]

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

And I think most Americans (and a huge majority of women) would probably agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and you are necessarily wrong - it just means that - politically speaking - it's a losing position.

Oh, is the debate over whether it's a "losing position"? Meaning, whether liberals can get more people to vote for it, by carefully not explaining the details?

Or is the debate over "what is right"?

and ignored some other factors that contradict that conclusion.

And they are.....??

 

[nodoginnafight]

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

And I think most Americans (and a huge majority of women) would probably agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and you are necessarily wrong - it just means that - politically speaking - it's a losing position.

Oh, is the debate over whether it's a "losing position"? Meaning, whether liberals can get more people to vote for it, by carefully not explaining the details?

Or is the debate over "what is right"?

and ignored some other factors that contradict that conclusion.

And they are.....??

The productivity difference is 2% in the United States (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/139-06.pdf)

and the wage difference is 10 to 15%

So yes, according to the data I've seen, there IS a productivity difference.
But it is nowhere near as pronounced as the pay difference.

Efforts to block closing that gap is a losing proposition because it is a wrong proposition in my opinion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And I think most Americans (and a huge majority of women) would probably agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and you are necessarily wrong - it just means that - politically speaking - it's a losing position.

Oh, is the debate over whether it's a "losing position"? Meaning, whether liberals can get more people to vote for it, by carefully not explaining the details?

Or is the debate over "what is right"?

and ignored some other factors that contradict that conclusion.

And they are.....??

The productivity difference is 2% in the United States (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/139-06.pdf)

Link doesn't work. "Cannot find file".

How did they measure "productivity difference"?

DIfferent number of widgets produced by women vs. men, per hour spent on the line?

Or did they take into account the expenses the company must shoulder to find, hire, and train replacements for each group's taking time off, leaving the workforce etc.?

 

[The Rabbi]

(ignoring personal insults - as is my custom)

You're in the wrong forum. Personal insults are all that most posters here, have to offer.

Ok - so your argument is also that women ARE paid less, But it's OK?

Women cost their company more on average, for the equal work they do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pay-bill-makes-women-look-like-whiners-4.html

Can you give me any possible reason why the company should pay them THE SAME, instead of less?

Or is "Fair" supposed to apply only to the selected group of victims that are the flavor of the month (women), rather than the group that's actually being hurt (companies providing jobs)?

I've found many posters whose arguments are good enough that they don't have to resort to personal insults - I enjoy kicking it around (even disagreeing) with these posters a lot more. Yeah, a lot of folks are here just to hurl insults and stuff back and forth - if that's what they enjoy - that's fine with me. It's just not very challenging or satisfying for me.

To each their own.

But on the topic - so you are arguing that it is OK for women to be paid less ?

I disagree.

And I think most Americans (and a huge majority of women) would probably agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and you are necessarily wrong - it just means that - politically speaking - it's a losing position.

Now, I believe your position is wrong - because I think you've cherry-picked a few things that indicate women are less productive and ignored some other factors that contradict that conclusion.

But no names - no insults. I believe that equally intelligent, equally honest people can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions.

See. the problem is you misrepresent people's positions and then argue with your version of what they wrote.
He nowhere wrote it was OK for women to be paid less. That is simply fact. You make things up.
What he did write is that there are good reasons why we find in reality women getting paid less. And those reasons have nothing to do with discrimination.
So do you want to pass a law saying everyone must get paid the same, no matter what their experience, skills, or time on the job?

 

[Andylusion]

And I think most Americans (and a huge majority of women) would probably agree with me. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right and you are necessarily wrong - it just means that - politically speaking - it's a losing position.

Oh, is the debate over whether it's a "losing position"? Meaning, whether liberals can get more people to vote for it, by carefully not explaining the details?

Or is the debate over "what is right"?

and ignored some other factors that contradict that conclusion.

And they are.....??

The productivity difference is 2% in the United States (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/139-06.pdf)

and the wage difference is 10 to 15%

So yes, according to the data I've seen, there IS a productivity difference.
But it is nowhere near as pronounced as the pay difference.

Efforts to block closing that gap is a losing proposition because it is a wrong proposition in my opinion.

But even your own link, states clearly that there are many non-productive factors that play into wage. For example availability.

Two people, completely equal production, equal job, equal everything. But the man is more than willing to stay over every night that he is needed, but the women has to go home and fix dinner.

Should they be paid exactly the same? No, one is more valuable to the company than the other. Having an employee that is willing and able, to stay over 4 hours on nights where there is extra work, or a last minute shipment that needs to go out, is far more valuable than one who is not.

That factor alone, is of far greater importance, than a tiny 2% difference in productivity.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But even your own link, states clearly that there are

???

The link worked for you? Hmmm, didn't work for me.

Vas ist das?

 

[Andylusion]

But even your own link, states clearly that there are

???

The link worked for you? Hmmm, didn't work for me.

Vas ist das?

Sure. He for some reason put brackets on each end, which screwed up the forum link parsing. If you select from the 'h' of http, to the 'f' of pdf at the end, and paste that into the browser, it works fine.

When you try and click on the link with the mouse, because he has the brackets in there, it screws up.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Don't need a fair pay bill. All you need to do is actually enforce The Fair Pay Act of 1963. It simply prevents wage discrimination based on gender.

Actually, the Fair Pay Act only gives you 180 days from the date of employment to file a claim. The Ledbetter Act allows you to file a claim when you find out, even if it is over the 180 day expiration date.

Ms. Ledbetter worked at her company for several years before finding out that her male counterparts were being paid more. The Ledbetter Act has no expiration date, so you can file when you find out.

Additionally, that particular sentiment isn't just from the GOP in MN, it's also the sentiment of the GOP in TX (and was said by a woman no less)........................

Texas Republican Party Executive Director Beth Cubriel argued on Monday that women should stop using laws like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help them achieve equal pay, and that they should become “better negotiators” like men instead.

In an interview over the weekend, Cari Christman, who leads the GOP political action committee RedState Women, told WFAA that equal pay lays were not “practical” because women were “extremely busy.”

“We don’t believe the Lilly Ledbetter Act is what’s going to solve that problem for women. We believe that women want real-world solutions to this problem, not more rhetoric,” she said. “If you look at it, women are… extremely busy, we lead busy lives… And so when we look at this issue, we think, what’s practical?”

On Monday, YNN’s Capital Tonight asked Cubriel to explain why the Republican Party opposed equal pay laws.

“Is it really fair to clog up the courts with litigation that you can take through another avenue?” she asked. “And put that ahead of litigation that can only go through the state courts? I don’t think so.”

Cubriel asserted that the solution to fair pay was for women to become more like men.

“Men are better negotiators,” she remarked. “And I would encourage women, instead of pursuing the courts for action, to become better negotiators.”

Texas GOP director tells women: Stop suing for equal rights and ?negotiate? like men | The Raw Story

Simple, if you wait past 180 days to make your claim, that's your fault, not anyone else's. You get six freaking months to discover it, I see that as ample time. Who in their right minds would wait till day 181 to do anything about it? Additionally, we have a fair pay act alread in place, and this Lily Ledbetter act is redundant.

Its time you learned that many laws are changed or amended when its learned they don't cover loopholes. (You've been seeing the same thing with ObamaCare)

If, by chance, you ever find yourself in an actual paying job, you might find out just how stupid it is to say we should just keep doing it even though we now know its wrong or doesn't work. As in, this little loophole protects employers from having to abide by the law. How do you think the women who support useless little boys can find out if they're being paid less than men to do the same work?

Or, maybe you'll never have to live in the real world. Maybe you'll always have some woman taking care of you.

Either way, you just might want to be more concerned about your meal ticket.

And, the bottom line is that men and women are not being paid the same to do the same work. Lily Ledbetter addresses some of the reasons for that. Its likely, however, that some employers will find new ways around it. If they do, we need to do what is necessary to make sure they abide by the law.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If we have had a Fair Pay Act since 1963 then why are women still paid less than men for the same jobs in 2014?

Because you only have 180 days from the date you are hired to file a claim, and because of the secrecy that a lot of employers have concerning their pay scales, many people won't find out they're underpaid when compared to their peers until much later than that.

Incidentally, in Texas, women only make about 79 percent of what their male counterparts make. In a middle income family, that can equate to around 6,000 dollars per year LESS than what a man makes.

6,000 dollars is a nice family vacation or half a car.

Many of those same women are raising children alone, without child support from the man who is making $6000 more.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is a grim elegance to conservatives opposing equal pay for women...

Grim just because they are capable of thinking that way, as Americans, in 2014,

and yet elegant because it's a position that perfectly symbolizes where modern American conservatism in its entirety is at nowadays.

You really nailed it with this.

Its hard to imagine that the party who give lip service to our Constitution have continuously and loudly objected to the most basic form of equality - equal pay for equal work.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Oh, is the debate over whether it's a "losing position"? Meaning, whether liberals can get more people to vote for it, by carefully not explaining the details?

Or is the debate over "what is right"?


And they are.....??

The productivity difference is 2% in the United States (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/139-06.pdf)

and the wage difference is 10 to 15%

So yes, according to the data I've seen, there IS a productivity difference.
But it is nowhere near as pronounced as the pay difference.

Efforts to block closing that gap is a losing proposition because it is a wrong proposition in my opinion.

But even your own link, states clearly that there are many non-productive factors that play into wage. For example availability.

Two people, completely equal production, equal job, equal everything. But the man is more than willing to stay over every night that he is needed, but the women has to go home and fix dinner.

Should they be paid exactly the same? No, one is more valuable to the company than the other. Having an employee that is willing and able, to stay over 4 hours on nights where there is extra work, or a last minute shipment that needs to go out, is far more valuable than one who is not.

That factor alone, is of far greater importance, than a tiny 2% difference in productivity.

Why is that?

Is it because men can't find the kitchen?

Its time we moved out of the Dark Ages, even if we have to drag the damn Republicans along with us.

Both men AND women have children. Even if they're not living together, they should be equally responsible for every aspect of raising those children. No last minute shipment is or should be more important than our children and there are plenty of ways around the backward attitude of having to look down the front of your pants to find out what you're capable of doing.

 

[MaxGrit]

1.) Pay the same dollar amount to every worker doing the same job, regardless of gender.
2.) Dock workers' pay in proportion to the amount of time they take off, and make sure the worker knows it's not just for lost productivity, but also for training replacements, bringing them up to speed, additional overhead for the replacement etc.

Except, how do you predict in advance, that someone is going to leave permanently? Retirements due to age can be predicted. Absence due to illness or non-job injury can (statistically) be predicted. Leaving to devote a life to childraising often cannot, especially when the employee (or spouse) is not even pregnant when first hired. But when they do, it is too late to dock any pay for the expenses they incurred due to leaving. So the structure listed above is unworkable in significant ways.
childraising or whatever) more often than men, because the company required them to.

1) Base pay rate
2) Attendance bonus (linear scale)
3) Performance bonus (non-linear)
4) Loyalty bonus (linear)


Positive reinforcement >>> punishment.

 

[Andylusion]

There is a grim elegance to conservatives opposing equal pay for women...

Grim just because they are capable of thinking that way, as Americans, in 2014,

and yet elegant because it's a position that perfectly symbolizes where modern American conservatism in its entirety is at nowadays.

You really nailed it with this.

Its hard to imagine that the party who give lip service to our Constitution have continuously and loudly objected to the most basic form of equality - equal pay for equal work.

Again, the difference is, you are looking at this from 'how you feel' about it.

I'm looking at it from what the results will be. The results will be the women will end up unemployed.

Again, I pointed this out before. Women who are paid less, there is a reason for it. If a man and woman are working 5 years, but the girl is gone for pregnancy twice, missing two years of work, who is more valuable to the company? The man who has been there consistently 5 years, or the woman who is gone 2 years of the 5?

Of course the guy is.

And that's the point. The reason any employer is willing to hire a woman, when she is not there as much, is because he can pay her a lower rate in accordance with her lower value to the company.

If you do what you want, and force companies to pay the same between the man and the woman.....

What do you think a company is going to do?

They won't hire the woman. Why hire someone who is going to be less valuable to the business, if you have to pay them the same as the man who is more valuable?

In fact.... they may not hire the woman just to avoid the possiblity of getting sued, regardless of her relative value to the company.

You have two equal potential employees. One has the possibility of suing the company if they want to, and the other does not. Which one do you hire?

The one that can't sue you. Less risk.

Again, this is the difference. Your policy will HARM women. Mine will not. But you don't care about that, as long as you "feel good" about so-called "equal pay".

It reminds me of the Euro gender equality law, that made it illegal to charge more or less based on Gender.

INSTANTLY.... all the auto insurance companies raise their rates on women. Women typically have lower insurance premiums. But due to leftist stupidity "feel good" policies, now women are charged just as much as men.

Leftist never help anyone. They only harm. That's what you people do! Just a fact. Same is true of this. If you pass this law, it will be harder than ever for women to find good jobs.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Again, the difference is, you are looking at this from 'how you feel' about it.

I'm looking at it from what the results will be. The results will be the women will end up unemployed.

Gee, which is more reliable ..... your crystal ball or someone else's feelings ?????

 

[The Rabbi]

There is a grim elegance to conservatives opposing equal pay for women...

Grim just because they are capable of thinking that way, as Americans, in 2014,

and yet elegant because it's a position that perfectly symbolizes where modern American conservatism in its entirety is at nowadays.

You really nailed it with this.

Its hard to imagine that the party who give lip service to our Constitution have continuously and loudly objected to the most basic form of equality - equal pay for equal work.

I am sure the Democrats have good reasons for their objections. "Fairness" for example.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, the difference is, you are looking at this from 'how you feel' about it.

I'm looking at it from what the results will be. The results will be the women will end up unemployed.

Gee, which is more reliable ..... your crystal ball or someone else's feelings ?????

How about facts and logic?
Oh, you never considered that, did you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is a grim elegance to conservatives opposing equal pay for women...

Grim just because they are capable of thinking that way, as Americans, in 2014,

and yet elegant because it's a position that perfectly symbolizes where modern American conservatism in its entirety is at nowadays.

You really nailed it with this.

Its hard to imagine that the party who give lip service to our Constitution have continuously and loudly objected to the most basic form of equality - equal pay for equal work.

Again, the difference is, you are looking at this from 'how you feel' about it.

I'm looking at it from what the results will be. The results will be the women will end up unemployed.

Again, I pointed this out before. Women who are paid less, there is a reason for it. If a man and woman are working 5 years, but the girl is gone for pregnancy twice, missing two years of work, who is more valuable to the company? The man who has been there consistently 5 years, or the woman who is gone 2 years of the 5?

Of course the guy is.

And that's the point. The reason any employer is willing to hire a woman, when she is not there as much, is because he can pay her a lower rate in accordance with her lower value to the company.

If you do what you want, and force companies to pay the same between the man and the woman.....

What do you think a company is going to do?

They won't hire the woman. Why hire someone who is going to be less valuable to the business, if you have to pay them the same as the man who is more valuable?

In fact.... they may not hire the woman just to avoid the possiblity of getting sued, regardless of her relative value to the company.

You have two equal potential employees. One has the possibility of suing the company if they want to, and the other does not. Which one do you hire?

The one that can't sue you. Less risk.

Again, this is the difference. Your policy will HARM women. Mine will not. But you don't care about that, as long as you "feel good" about so-called "equal pay".

It reminds me of the Euro gender equality law, that made it illegal to charge more or less based on Gender.

INSTANTLY.... all the auto insurance companies raise their rates on women. Women typically have lower insurance premiums. But due to leftist stupidity "feel good" policies, now women are charged just as much as men.

Leftist never help anyone. They only harm. That's what you people do! Just a fact. Same is true of this. If you pass this law, it will be harder than ever for women to find good jobs.

You do make some good points ... right now, we're seeing companies deny women the same insurance coverage in order to save money. They lie about, saying they're god tells them to lie, cheat and steal from their employees.

There will always be employers who look for ways to screw over some or all of their employers.