Hostile Workplace

[auditor0007]

Hostile Workplace​

Obama White House pays women less than men, records show


BY: Andrew Stiles
April 11, 2012


[excerpt]
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

Read more: Hostile Workplace | Washington Free Beacon

Good Lord you are stupid.

 

[auditor0007]

Mitt romney is a walking creep. He lies and hides his true feelings. If he wins many Americans will die in endless wars for profit

Trying to deny, deflect or distance yourself from the truth is typical of your ideology. Why don't you comment on the facts presented to you? Oblamer claims that Romney is against women, when on the other hand Oblamer himself pays women less than their male counterparts within his own administration while touting Lilly Ledbetter. Hmm..???

So now you are for equal pay for everyone regardless of what position the person may hold. Wow, Communism at its best. The janitor should make as much as the Secretary of Defense. Get your Communist ass out of here.

 

[catzmeow]

The Irony: Obama's Female Debate Coach Complained About 'Hostile Workplace' at White House​

Obama's Female Debate Coach Complained About 'Hostile Workplace' at White House | The Weekly Standard
10/17/2012
Daniel Halper





Last night, President Obama presented himself as a crusader for women's issues. He later tweeted:
Mitt Romney still won’t say whether he’d stand up for equal pay, but he did tell us he has “binders full of women.” OFA.BO/LMVWmZ

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 17, 2012

What's interesting about this is President Obama's own history with women in the work place.
When one of President Obama's debate coaches, Anita Dunn, worked at the White House, this is what she reportedly had to say about her experience there:

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. ... Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

In the same piece, former economic adviser Christina Romer is reported as saying, "I felt like a piece of meat."

“‘I felt like a piece of meat,’ Christina Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said of one meeting in which Suskind writes she was ‘boxed out’ by Summers,” reported the Post.

Time magazine called Obama's White House a "Boys' Club."

Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...

What a patently dishonest article. It deliberately misquotes the women in the original article and relies upon a book by "journalist" Ron Suskind for these quotes.

The women in question have stated that these quotes are erroneous. In fact, if you'd clicked through the weekly standard's link to the article it claims to be citing, you'd have seen this.


Book: Women in Obama White House felt excluded and ignored - The Washington Post

 

[catzmeow]

Are you saying that Maobama would only have women in the less important lower paying jobs, I know for a fact he has several in cabinet levels, so why would an average work?

An average or a median comparison by gender doesn't work in situations like this, because women are overrepresented in low paying jobs, like secretarial work. In other words, there are likely to be far more women at the lowest paying end of the scale, as opposed to men. Not because of preferential treatment of men by Obama, but because of women making personal choices not to pursue degrees and/or taking lower-skilled jobs.

In order to do a valid study to examine female treatment in the obama whitehouse, you would have to eliminate personal choices made by those women which limited them to lower-paying jobs. The only sound way to look at this issue would be to compare men and women who have similar educational backgrounds and job titles. If the women earn less, there is bias.

But, when you compare secretaries to executive directors, you're not just looking at pay, you're looking at life choices (i.e., taking a lower stress hourly wage job so you can focus on family priorities), educational background, work experience, and work requirements.

This comparison is like comparing the salaries of every man who works in a hospital, on average, with every woman. You'd have more male doctors and many more female nurses, and that would skew things. You know the average doctor earns more than the average nurse...a lot more, in fact. The average department head makes a lot more than the average secretary. But, there are a lot of female secretaries in any sort of office setting...not because of discrimination per se, but because of selection bias...many more women choose to become secretaries, nurses, and teachers. Many more men choose to become firefighters, cops, security personnel, and construction workers.

You can't compare female secretaries to male doctors and come up with anything meaningful to talk about gender...the male doctor is worth more in the marketplace because of his degree and skills, not because he's male. The female secretary is worth less, not because of her gender, but because of her skills, education, and types of expertise.

It is what it is. Women with degrees tend to earn as much or more than their male peers. Women without degrees who do secretarial work don't even keep pace with their degreed female peers.

So, it probably went something like this:

Women:
20 secretaries
40 low-level staffers
30 mid-level staffers
20 high-level staffers

Men:
40 low level staffers
30 mid-level staffers
20 high-level staffers

The secretaries are going to pull the women's wages down to be artificially low because secretaries typically make a lot less than staffers.

So what your saying is all the details matter, so why is the left so happy with generalizations in most cases. It is a fact that women tend to miss more work for family related matters, they tend to have higher medical cost because of biology, yet it's called discrimination when they are treated differently. Amazing.

The **** are you on about? I'm a woman, I work in a professional field, and I earn more than my male peers because I have a longer resume of accomplishments. Women who don't have degrees and work in low-skill areas earn less. And that is a personal choice.

 

[catzmeow]

Of course Democrats don't pay women as much. After all, women are just vaginas.

Projecting your opinion that women are just baby incubators again?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Are you saying that Maobama would only have women in the less important lower paying jobs, I know for a fact he has several in cabinet levels, so why would an average work?

An average or a median comparison by gender doesn't work in situations like this, because women are overrepresented in low paying jobs, like secretarial work. In other words, there are likely to be far more women at the lowest paying end of the scale, as opposed to men. Not because of preferential treatment of men by Obama, but because of women making personal choices not to pursue degrees and/or taking lower-skilled jobs.

In order to do a valid study to examine female treatment in the obama whitehouse, you would have to eliminate personal choices made by those women which limited them to lower-paying jobs. The only sound way to look at this issue would be to compare men and women who have similar educational backgrounds and job titles. If the women earn less, there is bias.

But, when you compare secretaries to executive directors, you're not just looking at pay, you're looking at life choices (i.e., taking a lower stress hourly wage job so you can focus on family priorities), educational background, work experience, and work requirements.

This comparison is like comparing the salaries of every man who works in a hospital, on average, with every woman. You'd have more male doctors and many more female nurses, and that would skew things. You know the average doctor earns more than the average nurse...a lot more, in fact. The average department head makes a lot more than the average secretary. But, there are a lot of female secretaries in any sort of office setting...not because of discrimination per se, but because of selection bias...many more women choose to become secretaries, nurses, and teachers. Many more men choose to become firefighters, cops, security personnel, and construction workers.

You can't compare female secretaries to male doctors and come up with anything meaningful to talk about gender...the male doctor is worth more in the marketplace because of his degree and skills, not because he's male. The female secretary is worth less, not because of her gender, but because of her skills, education, and types of expertise.

It is what it is. Women with degrees tend to earn as much or more than their male peers. Women without degrees who do secretarial work don't even keep pace with their degreed female peers.

So, it probably went something like this:

Women:
20 secretaries
40 low-level staffers
30 mid-level staffers
20 high-level staffers

Men:
40 low level staffers
30 mid-level staffers
20 high-level staffers

The secretaries are going to pull the women's wages down to be artificially low because secretaries typically make a lot less than staffers.

So what your saying is all the details matter, so why is the left so happy with generalizations in most cases. It is a fact that women tend to miss more work for family related matters, they tend to have higher medical cost because of biology, yet it's called discrimination when they are treated differently. Amazing.

We cab certainly see that the Obama White House holds to the adage that women should be paid less. Lilly Ledbetter Bill is only for the law abiding people, but it's okay for Obama to violate the same law that he signed. I guess Liberal Democrats don't have to live by the same laws all others must live by. They're special, they're elitiests.

 

[catzmeow]

Let's try this a different way.

Here is the actual data on what white house staffers are paid:

2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House

The table in the center of the page is sortable, kind of like an excel file. If you click on salary, the table will sort itself to show you who is paid what, by name. Scroll down to the very bottom. You'll find that the highest paid white house staffers earn $172k a year.

There are 7 women at that pay level and 13 men. The men and women, at that level, earn exactly the same amount.

Why do you think there might be more men than women at the highest levels of the staff?

Now, scroll down to the bottom of the pay scale. The lowest paid white house staff members earn $42k a year.

Those people are mostly secretaries, assistants, schedulers. 35 of the 60 people who earn $42k a year are women.

Who works as secretaries and administrative assistants? These are generally people with a high school diploma or an AA degree. They earn less because they have fewer and less technical skills, and because there are more secretaries out there in the world than there are highly skilled technical advisers. Basic supply and demand.

The harder it is to attain a particular skill set, the more valuable it tends to be in the marketplace. That's why Kobe Bryant out-earns the average janitor. Almost anyone can clean offices, not everyone can make consistent 3-point shots.

1/3 of the top administrators in the Obama white house are women. Now, compare that America's Fortune 500 companies...

Statistical Overview of Women in the Workplace : Catalyst

Twice as many women are in high level leadership roles in the Obama White House as are in leadership roles in the corporate world.

There are a lot of reasons why women haven't attained equality in either place. For one thing, the bulk of childcare responsibilities tend to fall on women. Women are much more likely to opt out of employment to raise their kids (ten times as many women do so as men). Women are much more likely to take jobs with family-friendly hours, like teaching or nursing. Women are much more likely to choose less demanding jobs, where they are going to have to work 60-70 hours per week.

The white house is a pressure cooker. The staff there average 70 hour work weeks (and they are salaried). Many women simply don't want to put in that kind of time at work, because, in America, they're still carrying the bulk of home responsibilities.

It is what it is.

The Obama white house is consistently better in terms of promoting women to top levels than America's top corporations are. But, the simple fact remains that most women don't aspire to do those jobs.

So, let me ask...are you suggesting that the Obama administration should have quotas for hiring a set amount of women for certain jobs?

Wouldn't that be discriminatory towards qualified male candidates?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has correlated the claim against "equal pay equal work".

Buncha creep whining until that happens.

Mitt romney is a walking creep. He lies and hides his true feelings. If he wins many Americans will die in endless wars for profit

Trying to deny, deflect or distance yourself from the truth is typical of your ideology. Why don't you comment on the facts presented to you? Oblamer claims that Romney is against women, when on the other hand Oblamer himself pays women less than their male counterparts within his own administration while touting Lilly Ledbetter. Hmm..???

 

[JakeStarkey]

The information is worthless if the source has no cred.

Next?

A blog.

Seriously?

Can't address the information so you attack the source, how commiecrat of you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Logical fallacy here, cutter.

The complaint is about endless wars for profit, not about just about profit.

Wars should not be about profit, end of argument.

Mitt romney is a walking creep. He lies and hides his true feelings. If he wins many Americans will die in endless wars for profit

Typical Lib; It's so unAmerican for a company to make a profit. I'll bet you also think it's wrong for the owner of the company to make more than the employees he hires.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only question that counts is, "Do women and men earn the same salary for the same work"?

No one here has answered this.

Are you saying that Maobama would only have women in the less important lower paying jobs, I know for a fact he has several in cabinet levels, so why would an average work?

An average or a median comparison by gender doesn't work in situations like this, because women are overrepresented in low paying jobs, like secretarial work. In other words, there are likely to be far more women at the lowest paying end of the scale, as opposed to men. Not because of preferential treatment of men by Obama, but because of women making personal choices not to pursue degrees and/or taking lower-skilled jobs.

In order to do a valid study to examine female treatment in the obama whitehouse, you would have to eliminate personal choices made by those women which limited them to lower-paying jobs. The only sound way to look at this issue would be to compare men and women who have similar educational backgrounds and job titles. If the women earn less, there is bias.

But, when you compare secretaries to executive directors, you're not just looking at pay, you're looking at life choices (i.e., taking a lower stress hourly wage job so you can focus on family priorities), educational background, work experience, and work requirements.

This comparison is like comparing the salaries of every man who works in a hospital, on average, with every woman. You'd have more male doctors and many more female nurses, and that would skew things. You know the average doctor earns more than the average nurse...a lot more, in fact. The average department head makes a lot more than the average secretary. But, there are a lot of female secretaries in any sort of office setting...not because of discrimination per se, but because of selection bias...many more women choose to become secretaries, nurses, and teachers. Many more men choose to become firefighters, cops, security personnel, and construction workers.

You can't compare female secretaries to male doctors and come up with anything meaningful to talk about gender...the male doctor is worth more in the marketplace because of his degree and skills, not because he's male. The female secretary is worth less, not because of her gender, but because of her skills, education, and types of expertise.

It is what it is. Women with degrees tend to earn as much or more than their male peers. Women without degrees who do secretarial work don't even keep pace with their degreed female peers.

So, it probably went something like this:

Women:
20 secretaries
40 low-level staffers
30 mid-level staffers
20 high-level staffers

Men:
40 low level staffers
30 mid-level staffers
20 high-level staffers

The secretaries are going to pull the women's wages down to be artificially low because secretaries typically make a lot less than staffers.

So what your saying is all the details matter, so why is the left so happy with generalizations in most cases. It is a fact that women tend to miss more work for family related matters, they tend to have higher medical cost because of biology, yet it's called discrimination when they are treated differently. Amazing.

 

[catzmeow]

No one has correlated the claim against "equal pay equal work".

Buncha creep whining until that happens.

Male and female staffers earn the same wages for the same level of work: 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House

I wonder what stats will be misrepresented next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am voting Romney, but I hate when our side does this.

I am very unhappy that MR is being attacked for the "binders" remark. That was neither sexist nor insensitive. Those who attack it from the left are no better than the Tea Party fools on our side.

 

[catzmeow]

I am voting Romney, but I hate when our side does this.

I am very unhappy that MR is being attacked for the "binders" remark. That was neither sexist nor insensitive. Those who attack it from the left are no better than the Tea Party fools on our side.

Mitt Romney didn't know a single woman who was qualified to serve in his cabinet, and you don't consider him sexist? Mitt Romney thinks women's issues can be distilled down to "needs to get home in time to cook dinner."

What a maroon.

 

[Charles_Main]

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -1162 reputation points from catzmeow.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
You are a moron who needs to die in a fire to save the species.

Regards,
catzmeow

Nice, Wish death on those who have different Opinions than you.

Ahh the tolerant left.

 

[Charles_Main]

I am voting Romney, but I hate when our side does this.

I am very unhappy that MR is being attacked for the "binders" remark. That was neither sexist nor insensitive. Those who attack it from the left are no better than the Tea Party fools on our side.

Mitt Romney didn't know a single woman who was qualified to serve in his cabinet, and you don't consider him sexist? Mitt Romney thinks women's issues can be distilled down to "needs to get home in time to cook dinner."

What a maroon.

He didn't say he didn't know any you ******* Hack. He said none had applied to be in his Cabinet.

God you ******* Propagandist ***** disgust me, why don't you go wish death on someone or something.

Oh wait, already did.

 

[g5000]

From the article linked in the OP:

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Do you know how this median amount was obtained? You take every employee, without regard to their professional role, based purely on gender, and find the center point between the highest and lowest paid employees.

It's total rubbish. You can't compare the salaries of secretaries and executive directors and conclude gender bias.

You can only do a true comparison by looking at the position and educational background of employees, and comparing like to like.

Jesus Christ, is there any limit to the nearly endless stupidity on this board?

This is precisely the problem with the meaningless Bureau of Labor Statistics number that women earn $.77 for every dollar that men earn.

So what you are saying is that the Obama White House gave low paying jobs to women and high paying jobs to men.

And this makes it all better...how?


.

 

[emptystep]

No one has correlated the claim against "equal pay equal work".

Buncha creep whining until that happens.

Male and female staffers earn the same wages for the same level of work: 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House

I wonder what stats will be misrepresented next.

Thank you, catzmeow, for your posts. That answered my question. The White House staffers are indeed government employees. As such a GS11 is paid the same independent of other factors, including gender. The question of the number of women as GS2's opposed to the number of GS11's is a different topic.

 

[g5000]

*cues Jeopardy game show theme music*

Still waiting to hear why giving women the low paying jobs and men the high paying jobs makes it all better.

.

 

[cutter]

Logical fallacy here, cutter.

The complaint is about endless wars for profit, not about just about profit.

Wars should not be about profit, end of argument.

Mitt romney is a walking creep. He lies and hides his true feelings. If he wins many Americans will die in endless wars for profit

Typical Lib; It's so unAmerican for a company to make a profit. I'll bet you also think it's wrong for the owner of the company to make more than the employees he hires.

Romney has never started a war for profit. He is a successful businessman and in most liberals opinion that is as evil as mass murder. It's clear a community organizer has no idea how to get this nation back to work, Maybe a successful businessman knows what it takes to bring business back.