archive2009-14.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

  1. Andy_brown
    Member

    Republicans Unanimously Block Equal Pay Bill

    This truly underscores the hypocrisy of the whole party. They say they are all in favor of equal pay, but when push comes to shove they don't want to put their money where their oversized mouths are. Pro control gender discrimination is clearly their agenda. Pissing off the women of America is not a good strategy. Someone needs to get that message to McConjob.

    After allowing the Paycheck Fairness Act to move forward last week, Senate Republicans turned around on Monday evening and unanimously voted to block the bill, which would ban salary secrecy and tighten rules to try to narrow the gender wage gap.
    The vote came weeks after the Republican National Committee claimed that “All Republicans support equal pay.” Senate Republicans have unanimously shot the bill down multiple times over the past four years.
    The bill includes a number of provisions aimed at preventing the gender wage gap in the first place, which currently means a woman who works full time, year round makes 77 percent of what a similar man makes and hasn’t budged in a decade.
    It would ban salary secrecy, in which employers prohibit or strongly discourage employees from discussing pay with each other, thus making it difficult for women to discover unequal practices. While it’s illegal to tell workers they can’t talk about wages with each other without a business justification, since it infringes on the right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid, it’s still widespread: about half of private sector workers say they can’t talk about pay at work. But in workplaces without this practice, the wage gap shrinks. Among the federal workforce, where pay scales are usually transparent, the wage gap has fallen significantly over the past 20 years. It’s also falling among unionized workers, who similarly tend to have wage transparency.
    The Paycheck Fairness Act would also narrow the definitions of what is considered a legitimate business-related justification for pay disparities between a man and a woman with the same skills, responsibilities, and working conditions, while increasing penalties for those who are found to have no reason for gaps. It’s meant to discourage unequal pay scales so that women don’t have to remedy situations by bringing lawsuits, which are time consuming, costly, and increasingly difficult to win.
    Republicans say they are in favor of equal pay for women’s work, but they haven’t articulated their alternatives to the Democrats’ bill. Instead they say women are already protected and argue that the gap isn’t as big as the statistics say. But while it’s true that many factors go into the gender wage gap, it can’t be explained away and discrimination is likely at least partly to blame.

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/15/3567740/republicans-paycheck-fairness-act/

    Posted on September 15, 2014 - 10:06 PM #
  2. Brianl
    Member

    I take issue with one piece of this, and that is the part where "salary secrecy" would be banned. It's not a good idea to openly discuss wages, etc. with coworkers, but it has nothing to do (at least in my experience) with a lack of equal pay for women. I have always been a big believer in promoting and giving raises based on performance, not tenure, and have always acted accordingly. I try to be as transparent as possible with all parties involved, but inevitably there is animosity and hard feelings if I promote or give a raise to someone who hasn't been there as long, because well, they deserve it more than another person.

    In regards to equal pay, absolutely it should be equal pay. I 100% support that. You do the same job, you get the same pay. If it can be proven that you are being hushed because of that (which, admittedly, is damn near impossible), then on that ground I go along with it.

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 03:48 AM #
  3. Deane Johnson
    Member

    Andy, since you're so gung-ho for this legislation which includes a ban on salary secrecy, why don't you demonstrate your strong feelings by posting your salary information in this thread.

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 05:34 AM #
  4. jerry1949
    Member

    Why would a greedy Republican businessman hire a man if he can get a woman to do the same work at a 23% discount?

    If it's true women are making so much less for absolutely equal production, the workforce should be very lopsided in favor of women.

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 07:23 AM #
  5. Amus
    Member

    "If it's true women are making so much less for absolutely equal production..."

    Do you dispute that?

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 07:31 AM #
  6. jerry1949
    Member

    I dispute that this is an issue that needs a legislative remedy and increased micromanagement of the economy by those least qualified to do so. The market is much fairer and smarter than an unfairly overpaid bureaucrat.

    If women could be hired so cheaply then there should be all-women companies cleaning up and driving the male dominated ones out of business.

    Besides that, new legislation will ultimately hurt women. They will be less likely to be hired.

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 08:16 AM #
  7. Amus
    Member

    "new legislation will ultimately hurt women. They will be less likely to be hired"

    In other words, women should just back off with all this equality nonsense and accept their lot.

    They're better off getting paid less because they're more likely to be hired that way.

    The same could be said for sweatshop workers?
    Accept substandard pay and dangerous working conditions?
    Shut up and be thankful you have a job?

    "The market is much fairer and smarter than an unfairly overpaid bureaucrat"

    "The Market" will always favor some more than others.
    Guess who always loses that one, every time.
    The Market is never fair.
    It is always rigged.

    Whenever I see some so called "Christian" touting the virtues of the
    so called "Free Market", I am reminded of;

    The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 08:19 AM #
  8. Vitalogy
    Member

    The statement that women make $.77 per $1.00 of a man is pure BS.

    If you compared apples to apples, men would be a few cents ahead, not 33 cents.

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 11:07 AM #
  9. Amus
    Member

    "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills."

    -Pope Francis

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 11:23 AM #
  10. Andy_brown
    Member

    "Andy, since you're so gung-ho for this legislation which includes a ban on salary secrecy, why don't you demonstrate your strong feelings by posting your salary information in this thread."

    I am self employed and draw no salary. When I have insufficient work to pay bills, I live off of other resources.

    "The statement that women make $.77 per $1.00 of a man is pure BS.
    If you compared apples to apples, men would be a few cents ahead, not 33 cents."

    You're wrong on this one, Vitalogy. The Bureaus of Labor Statistics says this:

    http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-06-21/openingremarks26__01inline__405.jpg

    So if you ever plan on using numbers from The B.L.S. in the future, I'd say that's proof enough. The graph breaks down some popular apples to apples categories which do vary, but the average clearly is just under 80% from visual inspection of the graph.

    "Why would a greedy Republican businessman hire a man if he can get a woman to do the same work at a 23% discount?"

    He wouldn't because he, like you, are pro control misogynists.

    "I dispute that this is an issue that needs a legislative remedy"

    The Republitards disagree. They agree it does, but don't want it to happen at this time. Try reading the article, ace. Everybody thinks it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Clearly the GOP does not want to give the Obama administration a win on this. They want to pass it when they are in the White House. I don't think women want to wait for that to happen which would be 2024 at the earliest.

    Re: the salary secrecy thing.

    Judging the whole issue by this would be pretty narrowminded. It is a topic that merits discussion. Cost of living raises should be given to everyone that has put in over a year of work and should be and often is a percentage of what you are already making. Clearly, it's the merit raises that can cause problems like Brian pointed out. However, clearly the management/ownership contingent has not been giving those out simply based on job performance or this gap wouldn't exist. As far as "secrecy" that is not legal although it is often requested by management/ownership to not disclose these increases, but it appears that is illegal, or at least terminating someone for disclosing it would not stand up in court or putting it into a contract wouldn't stand up if challenged, either.

    Either you want free speech or not, folks.

    Most of the time everyone in the firm knows what everyone else is getting paid whether management/ownership wants to admit it or not. If not exact numbers, ballpark amounts. The folks in accounting know everyone's pay, so face the facts of reality. People talk. Get used to the idea.

    Posted on September 16, 2014 - 12:00 PM #