Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Youre so off-base about the Lily Ledbetter Act it's not even funny.
"The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck."
And this is adversely affecting the state of Florida HOW?!
Maybe what you're unhappy with is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Actually it ammends the 1963 Equal Pay Act which itself is an ammendment to the 1938 FLSA. But thanks for the clairification.
Bottom line is no one gets a raise because women won't ask and men will be told no because they will have to give every woman a raise too. Sounds to me like this is a bonus for the employer who doesn't have the problem of raises any longer. Are the rich going to get richer because of this bill? Are worker's wages effectively controlled at a time when inflation is sure to explode?
Isn't this just another fine example of the liberal social engineers failing to think things through?[/quote]
"Bottom line is no one gets a raise because men will be told no because they will have to give every woman a raise too"????
How about if you share 1/2 of your (mens) raise with the women?
Bottom line is no one gets a raise because women won't ask and men will be told no because they will have to give every woman a raise too. Sounds to me like this is a bonus for the employer who doesn't have the problem of raises any longer. Are the rich going to get richer because of this bill? Are worker's wages effectively controlled at a time when inflation is sure to explode?
Isn't this just another fine example of the liberal social engineers failing to think things through?
"Bottom line is no one gets a raise because men will be told no because they will have to give every woman a raise too"????
How about if you share 1/2 of your (mens) raise with the women?[/quote]
Not at liberty to grant such a request since it's not my law. I'm a capitalist!
And like I said, or should have said if I wasn't clear the first time, you make no sense.
First, dissimilar work in equivalent jobs simply tightens the ability of companies to defend against discrimination charges by a technical classification of one job verses another. Two workers on the same assembly line, one is a man and the other is a woman both have the same education and experience. The man puts the widgets in the box, the woman seals it. Same assembly line, essentially the same job, but the woman receives less pay than the man, not because the job is different but because the employer thinks that men should be paid more because of some neanderthal belief that men as traditional wage earners in a good Christian home deserve more pay.
As for raises, once again, not only will no one get a raise in the coming year(s) but they will be lucky to just have a job.
The reason companies aren't handing out raises is because the economy sucks due to the financial crisis and most companies are currently losing money; that's why we're in a recession. How does momonkey constantly miss the obvious like this? How come the right wing sites she always links to always seem to have vast conspiracy theories with obvious giant holes in them?
And like I said, or should have said if I wasn't clear the first time, you make no sense.
First, dissimilar work in equivalent jobs simply tightens the ability of companies to defend against discrimination charges by a technical classification of one job verses another. Two workers on the same assembly line, one is a man and the other is a woman both have the same education and experience. The man puts the widgets in the box, the woman seals it. Same assembly line, essentially the same job, but the woman receives less pay than the man, not because the job is different but because the employer thinks that men should be paid more because of some neanderthal belief that men as traditional wage earners in a good Christian home deserve more pay.
As for raises, once again, not only will no one get a raise in the coming year(s) but they will be lucky to just have a job.
In your example you point out a scenario in which pay discrimination is clear. Provided their are not other reasons for the pay discrepancy like past absenteeism or other disciplinary issues, I would agree that the pay should be the same. But how many people work in a business like that? And who will decide what is "equivalent"?
It's not the lawsuits that are running companies out of the country, it is the threat of lawsuits that are less expensive to settle than to fight. Add to that we're going to throw the weight of the federal government behind class action lawsuits that can be brought up by any female who feels she is doing essentially the same work as a male. I'm an auto mechanic by trade (a nearly 100% male occupation). When I worked in that field, I made roughly twice what female service writers did. Who's to say if that is equivalent work? A court?
The idea that men will simply do the same dirty difficult and unpleasant jobs that women turn their noses up at for less money is a fantasy that has real consequeces for individuals and the economy.
In your example you point out a scenario in which pay discrimination is clear.
One of the problems of examples... but I still think that it was an apt example of real life problems.
"But how many people work in a business like that? And who will decide what is "equivalent"?"
I am sure that a review of recent court cases would demonstrate that the above scenario isn't all that outside of real life examples. Who decides? I think that is the burden of HR departments and specialist, the need to be very clear about spelling out job descriptions, titles and necessary training and experience. If done correctly, such descriptions should withstand judicial scrutiny.
"It's not the lawsuits that are running companies out of the country, it is the threat of lawsuits that are less expensive to settle than to fight."
I agree but the threat of lawsuits has gone a long way in improving HR policies. As for the weight of the federal government, attaining that weight on the side of any group of employees is tough and burdensome process. It isn't as easy as you might think. The EEOC only involves itself in very clear cases of demonstrable discrimination.
As for your example, I think that a woman would be hard pressed to argue that working as essentially a clerk in a service department doesn't require a fraction of the training and experience required to be a mechanic. I think that a service department clerk would be hard pressed to demonstrate equivalence.
Regarding the last link pay close attention to the following:
A female assistant manager in Utah was told by her store manager that retail is “tough” and not “appropriate” for women;
Another manager in Texas told a female employee that women have to be “bitches” to survive Wal-Mart management, while a Sam’s Club manager in California told another woman that she should “doll-up” to get promoted;
Managers have repeatedly told women employees that men “need to be paid more than women because they have families to support”:
A male manager in South Carolina told a female employee that “God made Adam first, so women would always be second to men”;
A female manager in Arizona was told she got paid less than a less qualified male because she “didn’t have the right equipment.”
A female personnel manager in Florida was told by her manager that men were paid more than women because “men are here to make a career and women aren’t. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money.”
If you were to ask me the states experiancing the backlash have nothing to do with liberal or conservative government, but a simple correction of the explosive growth that occured in them prior to the liquidity crisis. That is why Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah are at the bottom of the barrel and previously slow growth states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, Iowa, Alaska, and North Dakota are seeing the largest increases.
Interesting theory, but how do you explain Texas? It's experienced rapid growth since the mid-'90s, and at the same time has been under Republican leadership for 15 years. The state seems to be doing much better than others.
Maybe it has something to do with their constitution forbidding the state from running a deficit?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/quote]
