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

[The Rabbi]

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.

Link?

 

[Andylusion]

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 ?????

And see, this is why our country is doomed, if this level of ignorance is pushing national policy.

Do you know the history of Apartheid Africa?
Apartheid: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Let me give you some highlights.

Apartheid began from Labor Unions, all of whom were avowed Socialists.

To discourage mine owners from substituting cheaper African labor for more expensive European labor, the trade unions regularly resorted to violence and the strike threat. They also turned to legislation: the Mines and Works Act of 1911 (commonly referred to as the first Colour Bar Act) used the premise of “worker safety” to institute a licensing scheme for labor. A government board was set up to certify individuals for work in “hazardous” occupations. The effect was to decertify non-Europeans, who were deemed “unqualified.”

Sound familiar? Joe the plumber anyone?
Continue...

The goal of mining and manufacturing capital was to hire cheap labor. As Africans assimilated into Western culture and the workforce, the abundance of managerial, skilled, and semiskilled talent would mushroom. The precariously privileged position of white labor would topple.

Why? If you have two companies, both doing the same business, and competing with each other, and one company only hires expensive white labor, and the other hires cheaper minority labor.... what happens? The company with the color blind hiring will have a lower cost, and thus be more competitive, while the other company will lose customers and go out of business.

The White Socialists unions, knew this.

Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 authorized sector-by-sector labor union wage setting for the ostensible purpose of securing labor peace. The following year, the Wage Act extended this to the nonunionized sector.

They pushed for, and got, legislation to dictate wages across entire industries.

Why? To eliminate the ability of companies hiring minorities and paying a lower wage. It didn't prevent them from hiring minorities.... it only eliminated the wage difference.

What was the result?

From 1910 to 1918 the ratio of blacks to whites employed in the mines ranged from 8 or 9 to 1. This was pushed down to 7.4 to 1 in the 1918 “status quo” agreement sought by the unions. After the Chamber of Mines suppressed the Rand Rebellion in 1922, it managed to up the ratio to 11.4 to 1. By 1929, however, the National Labour government, with its “civilized labour policy,” had cut it back to 8.8 to 1. In 1953—the heyday of apartheid—the ratio was further constrained to 6.4 to 1

To recap... in 1918, the mines had hired 8 minorities for every one white. By 1922, it was 11 minorities for every white.
In 1924 Unions enforced equal pay.
By 1929, it was down to 6 minorities for every white.

Simply put... if you have to pay the same for both, and you can't pay a lower wage for a particular group of people.... why hire that group? So they didn't. Part of the reason Blacks were excluded from the work force in what became Apartheid Africa, wasn't due to a law against employing Blacks, but merely a law requiring equal pay.

But it doesn't end there.......

Ironically, the labor market rules that were intended to raise barriers against black workers blocked the path for what were commonly called “poor whites,” the lowest tier of the protected class.

The minimum wage, set by Unions, also harmed poor white people too, just like it does in the US today.

But the Socialists refused to accept the harm their policies always cause, and....

Hence, the final intervention of the Civilized Labour Policy was nationalization of businesses that employed large numbers of nonwhites. In a policy of “affirmative action,” state-run railways and other huge state enterprises preferentially hired and promoted less skilled whites. In fact, many industries were nationalized just to impose racial preference.

So the Unionized minimum wage was harming poor whites, so they just nationalized businesses, and then imposed a white preference.

Again.... You act like I'm just coming up with stuff from a crystal ball. No, this is historical documented fact. It's a fact with the Euro gender discrimination laws I mentioned before. It's a fact with Apartheid in Africa.

Your system will harm women. Period. You can either learn from history, or remain ignorant, but either way, what I said is true.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I'm assuming you mean birth control and such. If that's not what you are referring to, then you need to be more specific.
Denying a non health care issue, is not 'screwing someone'. Birth control is not a health care issue. It is in fact a "I want to screw someone, and get subsidized by others doing it" issue.

See here's the deal. You act like if a company provides all these things, that the cost is shouldered by the company.

That's wrong. The cost is shouldered by *US* the premium payers.

If I work a company X, and some girl demands that the 'company' pays for her birth control.... and then the company agrees.... who really pays that? The company?

No.... the employees pay for it, in higher premiums.

Every single benefit you get from the company, has to come from one of two places. Either higher costs to the consumer.... or lower benefits, or in this case higher premiums to the employees.

I was lucky enough to work for a company that was extremely open with their financials. They gathered the whole company, and explained everything in the company budget.

They showed how last years health insurance expenses, increased the costs of the policy, and how those expenses translated into higher premiums for us. All companies operate this way.

So when you hear about girl X who says "I want to screw a bunch of guys and have you pay for it", what she is in effect saying is, I want all you employees to pay for my promiscuity. Because YOU are the one going to pay for it.

For some strange reason, you leftists seem to think that the CEO of the company is going to pay for it. Not a chance. It's you employees that will pay the higher premiums for girls who want insurance paid for abortions and pills and rubbers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Link?

A link to what?

Hobby Lobby?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Link?

A link to what?

Hobby Lobby?

Hobby Lobby isn't denying women the same coverage as men. Where did you hear that? Rachel Maddow?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Link?

A link to what?

Hobby Lobby?

So you lied. Ok.

 

[The Rabbi]

Link?

A link to what?

Hobby Lobby?

So you lied. Ok.

Here's a rule of thumb: If there is a thread startd by Nuddly, it has a lie in the title. If he posts, there's a lie somewhere in it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

I'm assuming you mean birth control and such. If that's not what you are referring to, then you need to be more specific.
Denying a non health care issue, is not 'screwing someone'. Birth control is not a health care issue. It is in fact a "I want to screw someone, and get subsidized by others doing it" issue.

See here's the deal. You act like if a company provides all these things, that the cost is shouldered by the company.

That's wrong. The cost is shouldered by *US* the premium payers.

If I work a company X, and some girl demands that the 'company' pays for her birth control.... and then the company agrees.... who really pays that? The company?

No.... the employees pay for it, in higher premiums.

Every single benefit you get from the company, has to come from one of two places. Either higher costs to the consumer.... or lower benefits, or in this case higher premiums to the employees.

I was lucky enough to work for a company that was extremely open with their financials. They gathered the whole company, and explained everything in the company budget.

They showed how last years health insurance expenses, increased the costs of the policy, and how those expenses translated into higher premiums for us. All companies operate this way.

So when you hear about girl X who says "I want to screw a bunch of guys and have you pay for it", what she is in effect saying is, I want all you employees to pay for my promiscuity. Because YOU are the one going to pay for it.

For some strange reason, you leftists seem to think that the CEO of the company is going to pay for it. Not a chance. It's you employees that will pay the higher premiums for girls who want insurance paid for abortions and pills and rubbers.

It used to be that jobs included a portion of the pay in form of "benefits". Sick pay, vacation pay, health care insurance, etc. It was considered a cost of doing business and since the employer got all of it on the cheap (like ObamaCare is giving the rest of us now), it was a good deal all around.

The Greed Is Good Movement of the slimy Kock bros and their Repub shills have changed all that. There will come a day when the children and grand children of those stupid rw's who fell for this dog and pony show will curse their ancestors for having moved us further back toward a time of locked sweat shops.

Your last paragraph is pure Limbaugh vomit with no basis in the real world.

 

[The Rabbi]

Uh, you understand government regulation, increased tort liability, and other things pushed up healthcare costs, right. Not "corporate greed."

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I'm assuming you mean birth control and such. If that's not what you are referring to, then you need to be more specific.
Denying a non health care issue, is not 'screwing someone'. Birth control is not a health care issue. It is in fact a "I want to screw someone, and get subsidized by others doing it" issue.

See here's the deal. You act like if a company provides all these things, that the cost is shouldered by the company.

That's wrong. The cost is shouldered by *US* the premium payers.

If I work a company X, and some girl demands that the 'company' pays for her birth control.... and then the company agrees.... who really pays that? The company?

No.... the employees pay for it, in higher premiums.

Every single benefit you get from the company, has to come from one of two places. Either higher costs to the consumer.... or lower benefits, or in this case higher premiums to the employees.

I was lucky enough to work for a company that was extremely open with their financials. They gathered the whole company, and explained everything in the company budget.

They showed how last years health insurance expenses, increased the costs of the policy, and how those expenses translated into higher premiums for us. All companies operate this way.

So when you hear about girl X who says "I want to screw a bunch of guys and have you pay for it", what she is in effect saying is, I want all you employees to pay for my promiscuity. Because YOU are the one going to pay for it.

For some strange reason, you leftists seem to think that the CEO of the company is going to pay for it. Not a chance. It's you employees that will pay the higher premiums for girls who want insurance paid for abortions and pills and rubbers.

It used to be that jobs included a portion of the pay in form of "benefits". Sick pay, vacation pay, health care insurance, etc. It was considered a cost of doing business and since the employer got all of it on the cheap (like ObamaCare is giving the rest of us now), it was a good deal all around.

The Greed Is Good Movement of the slimy Kock bros and their Repub shills have changed all that. There will come a day when the children and grand children of those stupid rw's who fell for this dog and pony show will curse their ancestors for having moved us further back toward a time of locked sweat shops.

Your last paragraph is pure Limbaugh vomit with no basis in the real world.

Limbaugh? lol. I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since the late 1990s. Is he still even on the air? I thought he retired or something, after he got an ear infection or whatever?

Oh well.... Stupid left-tards are always trying to blame everything else for people with opposing opinions. Glad to see you follow in the leftardian tradition of strawman arguments.

Further, you proved conclusively your ignorance of the discussion.

No, companies did not give out benefits as a cost of doing business.

The origins of company benefits started in the 1930s-1940s, when that idiot FDR, put in place price controls, and wage controls. Companies unable to attract CEOs, and even basic labor, with higher wages, started offering benefits.

It was never "cheap", and it was an alternative to wage increases, just as they are today.

Every company that exists, always determines how much they are going to pay, based on the total cost of employment.

Meaning, if the company has $30,000 set aside to pay for a particular position, they can't pay the employee $14.40 /hour. Why? Because they have to deduct from that, the benefits and taxes and fees. Meaning, that if the benefits, taxes, and fees cost $10,000, how much does the employee get paid? $20,000... or.... $9.60/hour.

When you increase the cost of benefits, taxes, or fees, by demanding more social security tax, by demanding more health insurance, or by increasing unemployment compensation, and the cost goes up to $12,000.... what happens to employee pay? It goes down to $18,000, and the employee get's $8.60 an hour.

You say that doesn't happen? Sure it does. I've seen it happen. I worked at a company called DEX, which operated just south of Columbus ohio. During the 1990s, the government increased the Social Security tax. The company laid off the entire work force. Closed the plant down for 2 weeks. Then rehired everyone they could, and replacements for those they could not..... at a dollar less an hour.

All companies operate on the total cost of employment, for determining wages. All do.

 

[Toro]

Nope
The statistics compare women working the same jobs - and they make less.

Nice spin - unless you know the facts.

That is false.

There have been several empirical studies that have refuted this claim. When education and experience are adjusted, the disparity is very small.

This should be intuitive. It's not reasonable to assume that someone with 5 years of experience with less education would make the same as someone with 10 years of experience and more education. But liberals infer that it is reasonable to assume that it is discrimination if someone with less experience and education makes less.

The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. ...

Much of the wage gap can be explained away by simply taking account of college majors. Early childhood educators and social workers can expect to earn around $36,000 and $39,000, respectively. By contrast, petroleum engineering and metallurgy degrees promise median earnings of $120,000 and $80,000. Not many aspiring early childhood educators would change course once they learn they can earn more in metallurgy or mining. The sexes, taken as a group, are somewhat different. Women, far more than men, appear to be drawn to jobs in the caring professions; and men are more likely to turn up in people-free zones. In the pursuit of happiness, men and women appear to take different paths. ...

The gender wage gap myth - Society and Culture - AEI

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, idiot. No one opposes equal pay for women.

Really? We know the conservative consensus on the following:

1. A business owner should be able to serve or not serve anyone he wants

2. An employer should be able to hire or not hire anyone he wants.

3. An employer should be able to pay employees whatever the market allows, and not have to pay anything like a government mandated minimum wage

...and yet you would have us believe that conservatives do not think an employer should be able to pay each employee whatever the market allows,

including being able to pay a woman less than man for the same job...without the government saying otherwise?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The conservative view can't diverge that much on one issue.

 

[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.

No, idiot. No one opposes equal pay for women.

Really? We know the conservative consensus on the following:

1. A business owner should be able to serve or not serve anyone he wants

2. An employer should be able to hire or not hire anyone he wants.

3. An employer should be able to pay employees whatever the market allows, and not have to pay anything like a government mandated minimum wage

...and yet you would have us believe that conservatives do not think an employer should be able to pay each employee whatever the market allows,

including being able to pay a woman less than man for the same job...without the government saying otherwise?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The conservative view can't diverge that much on one issue.

Paying each employee what the market allows is not the same as not equal pay.

But if what you said were true, why aren't there women in every corner of business? What business owner would hire a man when he can get a woman to work for him at 20% less?

 

[Little-Acorn]

As I have pointed out repeatedly (and no one has even tried to refute), 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)?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, idiot. No one opposes equal pay for women.

Really? We know the conservative consensus on the following:

1. A business owner should be able to serve or not serve anyone he wants

2. An employer should be able to hire or not hire anyone he wants.

3. An employer should be able to pay employees whatever the market allows, and not have to pay anything like a government mandated minimum wage

...and yet you would have us believe that conservatives do not think an employer should be able to pay each employee whatever the market allows,

including being able to pay a woman less than man for the same job...without the government saying otherwise?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The conservative view can't diverge that much on one issue.

Paying each employee what the market allows is not the same as not equal pay.

But if what you said were true, why aren't there women in every corner of business? What business owner would hire a man when he can get a woman to work for him at 20% less?

When I was a kid the jobs ads in the classifieds of the newspapers had two categories:

Help Wanted - Men

Help Wanted - Women

 

[MaxGrit]

Limbaugh? lol. I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since the late 1990s. Is he still even on the air? I thought he retired or something, after he got an ear infection or whatever?

Oh well.... Stupid left-tards are always trying to blame everything else for people with opposing opinions. Glad to see you follow in the leftardian tradition of strawman arguments.

Further, you proved conclusively your ignorance of the discussion.

No, companies did not give out benefits as a cost of doing business.

The origins of company benefits started in the 1930s-1940s, when that idiot FDR, put in place price controls, and wage controls. Companies unable to attract CEOs, and even basic labor, with higher wages, started offering benefits.

It was never "cheap", and it was an alternative to wage increases, just as they are today.

Every company that exists, always determines how much they are going to pay, based on the total cost of employment.

Meaning, if the company has $30,000 set aside to pay for a particular position, they can't pay the employee $14.40 /hour. Why? Because they have to deduct from that, the benefits and taxes and fees. Meaning, that if the benefits, taxes, and fees cost $10,000, how much does the employee get paid? $20,000... or.... $9.60/hour.

When you increase the cost of benefits, taxes, or fees, by demanding more social security tax, by demanding more health insurance, or by increasing unemployment compensation, and the cost goes up to $12,000.... what happens to employee pay? It goes down to $18,000, and the employee get's $8.60 an hour.

You say that doesn't happen? Sure it does. I've seen it happen. I worked at a company called DEX, which operated just south of Columbus ohio. During the 1990s, the government increased the Social Security tax. The company laid off the entire work force. Closed the plant down for 2 weeks. Then rehired everyone they could, and replacements for those they could not..... at a dollar less an hour.

All companies operate on the total cost of employment, for determining wages. All do.

FDR and Woodrow Wilson are progressives/liberals. The hallmark of progressivism is attempts to destroy individual rights and growth of big government Statism.

Progressives/Liberals are neo-communists. They want to implement Marxism/Communism throughout the world.

I don't think they understand that progressivism failed horribly in all countries that implemented it. Marxism will ruin all countries that implement it as a social policy.

 

[Andylusion]

No, idiot. No one opposes equal pay for women.

Really? We know the conservative consensus on the following:

1. A business owner should be able to serve or not serve anyone he wants

2. An employer should be able to hire or not hire anyone he wants.

3. An employer should be able to pay employees whatever the market allows, and not have to pay anything like a government mandated minimum wage

...and yet you would have us believe that conservatives do not think an employer should be able to pay each employee whatever the market allows,

including being able to pay a woman less than man for the same job...without the government saying otherwise?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The conservative view can't diverge that much on one issue.

Paying each employee what the market allows is not the same as not equal pay.

But if what you said were true, why aren't there women in every corner of business? What business owner would hire a man when he can get a woman to work for him at 20% less?

It's not even just that.

Let's even pretend for a moment, that there is a sexist hateful CEO. He hates women. Thinks they should not even be in the work force.

Now if you pass a law forcing equal pay, and now this sexist CEO by law must pay women exactly the same as men..... stop.... think....

What reason does he have now to ever hire a women for anything?

He'll never hire a women now. That's what conservatives are arguing beyond being against government regulating and controlling every aspect of our lives. We're not just against it because it's morally wrong. We're also against it because you will flat out harm the people you think you are helping.

A sexist anti-women CEO, can't afford to only hire men. If he only hires men, and his competitors are willing to hire women at a lower cost, he loses. His products and services will be more expensive than his competitors, who are taking advantage of lower labor costs.

But if you remove that, and the Sexist anti-women CEO knows that his competitors can't undercut him with lower labor costs, then why would he ever hire a woman? He wouldn't.

Back to Apartheid Africa. When wages were free, blacks were integrating into society. Once the Unions imposed industry wide minimum wages, black employment drastically fell. Once they had to pay the same for both black and whites.... why hire blacks? So they didn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Wrong. No company should be able to give a pay differential for the same work to anyone with a 180 day Ollie Ollie oxen free 180 day escape clause.

A complainant who discovers such a discrepancy to his or her disadvantage should be given a 180 day pay bonus plus being compensated for the difference from pay date to the corrected pay date.

 

[Andylusion]

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 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.

Wrong. No company should be able to give a pay differential for the same work to anyone with a 180 day Ollie Ollie oxen free 180 day escape clause.

A complainant who discovers such a discrepancy to his or her disadvantage should be given a 180 day pay bonus plus being compensated for the difference from pay date to the corrected pay date.

Let us say that you own rentals. Specifically, you own two homes that you rent out, in two different nearby towns. You need to have the lawn mowed at both of your rentals, so you hire a guy to mow the lawn, both from each respective town where the rental is.

Now one guy is nice, decent, positive, happy, flexible, willing to help out if you are trying to find a new renter, and clean the place up nice.

The other guy, is not so much... kind of short with you, always seems in a bad mood, just a bit of a jerk. But he is just as good at the job. Always gets the lawns mowed, and kept clean and maintained.

After 5 years, both of them come and ask to renegotiate their contract with you.

What are the chances of you giving the nice, polite, happy guy, a higher pay rate? And by what margin would you agree to pay more to him?

Comparatively, what are the chance you give the complainy, bad mood, jerky guy, a higher pay rate? And by what margin would you agree?

But they are both doing the same job! They are both doing their jobs equally well! Right....?

Yet, chance are, that like most people across this entire planet, you won't be nearly as likely to give more money, or nearly as much, to the bad mood jerk, over the happy positive helpful guy. Even if he completes his work, to the same quality and speed as the other.

TO THE POINT.......

There is no such thing as equal work. I'm sorry.... there is NO SUCH THING as equal work. Your attitude, your demeanor, your relational skills, your communication skills, everything is a factor in your work.

I was reading the story of a CEO who hired a lady as a sales rep. She started raking in the sales. Top of the company. More sales than anyone else. But, she was arrogant, and talked down to people. Not insults... just belittling, talking down. Had her head so puffed up, it could barely fit in the door. He finally told her to cut it out, and she directly refused, saying she was the best in the company so forget them. She was right, in that she was the best in the company at sales.... and he fired her butt on the spot, and escorted her out the door.

There is no such thing as "equal work". It's a myth. Everyone is different. No two people perform all aspects of their job in complete equality.

CONCLUSION....

Companies pay people more, when they want those people there. And there are hundreds of factors that play into the value of an employee.

When an employer, and an employee agree to a pay rate, that... and that alone... is all that matters.

If you create a system where a woman, has a special legal privileged that allows them to sue a company on wage discrimination grounds, 20 years or 1 year, after agreeing to work for a wage rate....

The results of your policy will be that employers simply won't hire women, unless it's for a job where few if any men work. In effect, it will reinforce keeping women 'in the box'.

For any given positions, where you have a bunch of men working, if you hire a women, you instantly open yourself up to legal risk. Instead of risking it, you simply won't hire the women.

You say that won't happen?

Remember the Fairness Doctrine imposed by the FCC on radio stations? Instead of risking getting sued, many stations simply didn't discuss social-political issues, rather than end up having their license withdrawn because they were supposedly unfair. They called the the "chilling effect".

When the Fairness Doctrine was repealed back in the early 80s, the number of talk radio stations dramatically increased.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~thazlett/pubs/Fairness Doctrine.pdf
From the Journal of legal studies.

People tend to avoid legal risk. If you impose this system, where a woman who has worked someplace for years, gets ticked off, and can sued for some alleged discrimination, the result will be the employers will avoid hiring women, unless they are in roles nearly exclusively for women, thus preventing them from building a discrimination case.

In short, you will hinder women from advancing outside the box.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

No, idiot. No one opposes equal pay for women. They oppose nanny state laws that try to dictate what that should be.
.

Okay, you don't oppose equal pay for women, you just oppose having laws that would enforce that.

lol

It's the same reasoning he uses to support his opposition to gay marriage.