WTF was Obama talking about with equal treatment & pay for women?

[thereisnospoon]

Prove the government has the right to protect its people?

I don't belong to the government.

What does "belong" mean? Are you a citizen of the United States?

I am...And I neither want nor need the 'protection' of government. At least not the type of protection it offers.
When government 'offers' something, invariably there are strings attached. No thanks.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA]The Nine Most Terrifying Words - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that in general or in same jobs? Because part of the reason (which may fix pay inequality in and of itself) is that MORE women than men are getting college degrees now...and that usually equates to better paying jobs.

I get it, women making more than men is fine, but the other way around is sexism.

You show me where your ex-wife gets paid more than a man doing the same job.

I have no idea how much she makes, but thanks for asking.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is that in general or in same jobs? Because part of the reason (which may fix pay inequality in and of itself) is that MORE women than men are getting college degrees now...and that usually equates to better paying jobs.

I get it, women making more than men is fine, but the other way around is sexism.

You show me where your ex-wife gets paid more than a man doing the same job.

Neg repped for red herring deflection. He didnt claim his ex wife gets paid more than a man doing the same job.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Many women start late in their career after having a kid or put their career on hold for awhile to have a kid or more. So....when they work less years than a man doing the same job say a manager in a company, he will make more money based on being on the job longer.

These are facts
Women take more days off than men.
Women often attempt to juggle family obligations and career.
Women are often not available or unwilling to travel for work.
Women are less likely to work longer hours at night or weekends.

These are facts. These are also choices women make that in some instances adversely affect their careers.
Now, to be fair here are instances where career women are most likely to be paid as much or even more than their male counterparts.
Women that have husbands with more flexible work schedules can often travel or work long hours into the evenings or weekends.
Women in this position also take fewer days off from work.
Women make up nearly 53% of college undergrads and are just as likely as men to continue their education for post graduate degrees. Women are turning out more likely to have a college degree than men.
On equal pay..
This is nearly impossible to accomplish in the real world.
For example.....In sales where the position is commission based.
Let's say the draw is identical for all salespeople in the staff.
it is impossible to "fix" the amount of pay to a 100% of the time equal level because the pay is based on performance.
A female sales person could not file a complaint because she earns less than a male sales person. Her pay level is completely under her control.
Another.....It is virtually impossible to find two people who are alike in many ways so as to label them as "equal"..Therefore the only criteria one can truly use to set pay rates is by the job performance of the individual.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Many women start late in their career after having a kid or put their career on hold for awhile to have a kid or more. So....when they work less years than a man doing the same job say a manager in a company, he will make more money based on being on the job longer.

Maybe in 1776 that happened...

Still does. Denial is not a defense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have not heard ANY public outcry or discussions about women being mistreated in the workplace.

I hear plenty about it. What I don't here is very many women putting forth half an effort to get the pay the way. At my job we have a young woman who is the lowest paid of everyone. Truth is that she has additional responsibilities that nobody else has, and has been there longer than most of the rest of us. Longer than myself. But she's the lowest paid person. Just last week, our GM was able to give her a new title, for the singular purpose being to be able to justify giving her a modest raise. He didn't have to do this. But he's a good man and likes to take care of his people. I guess he just didn't feel right allowing her to be the lowest paid person, considering the circumstances. So now, she's not the lowest paid. She's almost the lowest paid. And she's still paid less than me.

Now, the question is, why is this? I can tell you it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice against women. It's because when she was hired, she settled for whatever pay she was going to be given. On the other hand, when I was hired, I put forth a figure above what they were initially planning on, and managed to convince them.

There's a lesson here that women should heed if they feel that they don't get paid equal, for equal work.

This is what I refer to as the "doormat syndrome"...
Here we have an individual who is obviously quite capable. She has many balls to juggle and juggle them well. In effect, she is a valuable employee in the job she does.
Now, it is quite possible this position is limited on the level of pay. And what tips me off to that is the fact her boss gave her a new title so that he could increase her pay because most likely she maxed out on the pay for the current position.
I would find it surprising she has not asked to be transferred or for a promotion.
Here's the doormat part..
Boss:....I would very much like to offer you a new position but you are too valuable in your current spot and per company policy you are already making more than the top rate for your position. Sorry, but I cannot promote you because your highest and best use as an employee here is in the position that you hold."....
Now to the average person that looks like a whole lot of bullshit. And in a way, it is.
Here's why. That woman obviously has earned a promotion, but the problem is that the boss would have to spend more than a year training her replacement just to get to the level of being adequate. Plus, the boss would never let on that this woman is nearly indispensable. So she gets 'walked on' or 'stepped over'...a doormat.
The other problem of course is an arbitrary wage cap. A policy many companies use to determine pay rates.

 

[Steinlight]

Why should women on average get paid the same wage for the same work when they on average work less at the same jobs than their male counterparts?

Women are far more likely to have part time, as opposed to full time work. Women are also more likely to leave the work force for child birth and child care. The question here is, why do women deserve special treatment?

Also, raw wages is just part of the deal, when you account for total compensation(including things like health benefits, pensions etc), men and women are more equal(men still make around 5% more than women).

This is according to the Department of Labor. I am new here and can't post the 2009 study, but I suggest everyone here look it up. So either Obama's Labor Department is lying, or he is.

The title of the study is "Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women".

 

[American4Americ]

Truth be told women should get paid less. In the 1940s or so businesses seldom hired women under the theory they would get married, get pregnant, and be unavailable to work. If they had kids, they would either stay home with them or would take many sick days when their kids got sick. It makes sense and it worked just fine. Pretending women don't have such issues is simply a denial of reality.

Precisely!

 

[SwimExpert]

I have not heard ANY public outcry or discussions about women being mistreated in the workplace.

I hear plenty about it. What I don't here is very many women putting forth half an effort to get the pay the way. At my job we have a young woman who is the lowest paid of everyone. Truth is that she has additional responsibilities that nobody else has, and has been there longer than most of the rest of us. Longer than myself. But she's the lowest paid person. Just last week, our GM was able to give her a new title, for the singular purpose being to be able to justify giving her a modest raise. He didn't have to do this. But he's a good man and likes to take care of his people. I guess he just didn't feel right allowing her to be the lowest paid person, considering the circumstances. So now, she's not the lowest paid. She's almost the lowest paid. And she's still paid less than me.

Now, the question is, why is this? I can tell you it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice against women. It's because when she was hired, she settled for whatever pay she was going to be given. On the other hand, when I was hired, I put forth a figure above what they were initially planning on, and managed to convince them.

There's a lesson here that women should heed if they feel that they don't get paid equal, for equal work.

This is what I refer to as the "doormat syndrome"...
Here we have an individual who is obviously quite capable. She has many balls to juggle and juggle them well. In effect, she is a valuable employee in the job she does.
Now, it is quite possible this position is limited on the level of pay. And what tips me off to that is the fact her boss gave her a new title so that he could increase her pay because most likely she maxed out on the pay for the current position.
I would find it surprising she has not asked to be transferred or for a promotion.
Here's the doormat part..
Boss:....I would very much like to offer you a new position but you are too valuable in your current spot and per company policy you are already making more than the top rate for your position. Sorry, but I cannot promote you because your highest and best use as an employee here is in the position that you hold."....
Now to the average person that looks like a whole lot of bullshit. And in a way, it is.
Here's why. That woman obviously has earned a promotion, but the problem is that the boss would have to spend more than a year training her replacement just to get to the level of being adequate. Plus, the boss would never let on that this woman is nearly indispensable. So she gets 'walked on' or 'stepped over'...a doormat.
The other problem of course is an arbitrary wage cap. A policy many companies use to determine pay rates.

That's very close, except that she hasn't even encountered any wage caps. She is, for all intents and purposes, equal to myself, but I managed to get myself hired at higher pay than her. Matter of fact, I still make more than she does even though I'm technically in a lower position. To use an Army analogy, her new title basically makes her the local corporal. She digs ditches with the rest of us E-4s, and when the sergeant has to step away she stands where the sergeant was to fill in.

 

[Meister]

I hear plenty about it. What I don't here is very many women putting forth half an effort to get the pay the way. At my job we have a young woman who is the lowest paid of everyone. Truth is that she has additional responsibilities that nobody else has, and has been there longer than most of the rest of us. Longer than myself. But she's the lowest paid person. Just last week, our GM was able to give her a new title, for the singular purpose being to be able to justify giving her a modest raise. He didn't have to do this. But he's a good man and likes to take care of his people. I guess he just didn't feel right allowing her to be the lowest paid person, considering the circumstances. So now, she's not the lowest paid. She's almost the lowest paid. And she's still paid less than me.

Now, the question is, why is this? I can tell you it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice against women. It's because when she was hired, she settled for whatever pay she was going to be given. On the other hand, when I was hired, I put forth a figure above what they were initially planning on, and managed to convince them.

There's a lesson here that women should heed if they feel that they don't get paid equal, for equal work.

This is what I refer to as the "doormat syndrome"...
Here we have an individual who is obviously quite capable. She has many balls to juggle and juggle them well. In effect, she is a valuable employee in the job she does.
Now, it is quite possible this position is limited on the level of pay. And what tips me off to that is the fact her boss gave her a new title so that he could increase her pay because most likely she maxed out on the pay for the current position.
I would find it surprising she has not asked to be transferred or for a promotion.
Here's the doormat part..
Boss:....I would very much like to offer you a new position but you are too valuable in your current spot and per company policy you are already making more than the top rate for your position. Sorry, but I cannot promote you because your highest and best use as an employee here is in the position that you hold."....
Now to the average person that looks like a whole lot of bullshit. And in a way, it is.
Here's why. That woman obviously has earned a promotion, but the problem is that the boss would have to spend more than a year training her replacement just to get to the level of being adequate. Plus, the boss would never let on that this woman is nearly indispensable. So she gets 'walked on' or 'stepped over'...a doormat.
The other problem of course is an arbitrary wage cap. A policy many companies use to determine pay rates.

That's very close, except that she hasn't even encountered any wage caps. She is, for all intents and purposes, equal to myself, but I managed to get myself hired at higher pay than her. Matter of fact, I still make more than she does even though I'm technically in a lower position. To use an Army analogy, her new title basically makes her the local corporal. She digs ditches with the rest of us E-4s, and when the sergeant has to step away she stands where the sergeant was to fill in.

You need to tell her about the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Sounds like a good case for the courts.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nobody forced her to agree to her pay.

 

[Meister]

Nobody forced her to agree to her pay.

Doesn't make any difference according to the Equal Pay Act. It was enacted for a purpose, unless it was contracted, I'm assuming.

 

[Freewill]

I have never worked any where women were paid less for doing the same work as men. Yes, if you take the whole of women's wages and stack them up against that of men I would guess women do make less because the work they mostly do pays less.

 

[1776]

Women that are married and bringing in the second income for the family are supported by their husband for their work outside the home. The man understands the woman many times will put her career on the backburner for the family while he works full-time.

Liberals hate this....they hate the man and woman family and use their bogus stats to claim the "single woman" is being oppressed with lower wages while covering up the fact their data includes married women that take time away for their family from the workforce.

Liberals in the end only support the single woman, they loathe the conservative family oriented woman that stays home taking care of a family or even works a job while juggling the family life.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nobody forced her to agree to her pay.

Doesn't make any difference according to the Equal Pay Act. It was enacted for a purpose, unless it was contracted, I'm assuming.

If they're not being paid equally. Isn't that illegal?

SO the federal government doesn't enforce their own laws that they're now whining about????

I think it is more simple as woman simply have less education overall with far less in science, math and engineering, etc. So we suppose to bump their pay up to male levels when men are doing the harder jobs??? Doesn't sound fair.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Women that are married and bringing in the second income for the family are supported by their husband for their work outside the home. The man understands the woman many times will put her career on the backburner for the family while he works full-time.

Liberals hate this....they hate the man and woman family and use their bogus stats to claim the "single woman" is being oppressed with lower wages while covering up the fact their data includes married women that take time away for their family from the workforce.

Liberals in the end only support the single woman, they loathe the conservative family oriented woman that stays home taking care of a family or even works a job while juggling the family life.

Single families shouldn't be encouraged as the child simply has less. I find it sad how they could support such a thing that would harm society.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nobody forced her to agree to her pay.

Doesn't make any difference according to the Equal Pay Act. It was enacted for a purpose, unless it was contracted, I'm assuming.

And how is that to be enforced? There is plenty of variation in what we are all paid. Does the law require that all men must be paid equal for equal work? Or only that women must be paid equal to the highest paid male?

 

[OriginalShroom]

At one time they wanted to make it so that your pay was public knowledge within the company so that women would know what the men were making.

Molon Labe

 

[Freewill]

At one time they wanted to make it so that your pay was public knowledge within the company so that women would know what the men were making.

Molon Labe

In union shops it is well known what everyone makes and everyone makes the same according to classification. When people move into management positions then there may be a difference in what is paid. Performance is suppose to dictate pay, "pray for Pay."

 

[thereisnospoon]

I hear plenty about it. What I don't here is very many women putting forth half an effort to get the pay the way. At my job we have a young woman who is the lowest paid of everyone. Truth is that she has additional responsibilities that nobody else has, and has been there longer than most of the rest of us. Longer than myself. But she's the lowest paid person. Just last week, our GM was able to give her a new title, for the singular purpose being to be able to justify giving her a modest raise. He didn't have to do this. But he's a good man and likes to take care of his people. I guess he just didn't feel right allowing her to be the lowest paid person, considering the circumstances. So now, she's not the lowest paid. She's almost the lowest paid. And she's still paid less than me.

Now, the question is, why is this? I can tell you it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice against women. It's because when she was hired, she settled for whatever pay she was going to be given. On the other hand, when I was hired, I put forth a figure above what they were initially planning on, and managed to convince them.

There's a lesson here that women should heed if they feel that they don't get paid equal, for equal work.

This is what I refer to as the "doormat syndrome"...
Here we have an individual who is obviously quite capable. She has many balls to juggle and juggle them well. In effect, she is a valuable employee in the job she does.
Now, it is quite possible this position is limited on the level of pay. And what tips me off to that is the fact her boss gave her a new title so that he could increase her pay because most likely she maxed out on the pay for the current position.
I would find it surprising she has not asked to be transferred or for a promotion.
Here's the doormat part..
Boss:....I would very much like to offer you a new position but you are too valuable in your current spot and per company policy you are already making more than the top rate for your position. Sorry, but I cannot promote you because your highest and best use as an employee here is in the position that you hold."....
Now to the average person that looks like a whole lot of bullshit. And in a way, it is.
Here's why. That woman obviously has earned a promotion, but the problem is that the boss would have to spend more than a year training her replacement just to get to the level of being adequate. Plus, the boss would never let on that this woman is nearly indispensable. So she gets 'walked on' or 'stepped over'...a doormat.
The other problem of course is an arbitrary wage cap. A policy many companies use to determine pay rates.

That's very close, except that she hasn't even encountered any wage caps. She is, for all intents and purposes, equal to myself, but I managed to get myself hired at higher pay than her. Matter of fact, I still make more than she does even though I'm technically in a lower position. To use an Army analogy, her new title basically makes her the local corporal. She digs ditches with the rest of us E-4s, and when the sergeant has to step away she stands where the sergeant was to fill in.

Ok..At the end of the day though is this scenario really an issue of gender?