I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions on this. This is one that I'm on the fence on.

I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions on this. This is one that I'm on the fence on.

Really, why?

:popcorn:


Equal pay for equal work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work)


do you believe there is pay inequality ?


Start with your Guy Obama in the White House ........


White House Promotes Equal Pay for Women While Paying Women in the White House Less Than Men (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/04/white_house_promotes_equal_pay_for_woman_while_paying_women_in_the_white_house_less_than_men)


The White House wants to know, do you support equal pay for women?

Did You Know That Women Are Still Paid Less Than Men?

On average, full-time working women earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This substantial gap is more than a statistic -- it has real life consequences. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families, and over a lifetime of work, far less savings for retirement.

The gender wage gap puts women at a career-long disadvantage

President Obama supports passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress puts to a vote on June 5. This comprehensive and commonsense bill updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work.





Typical Liberals .......... do as we say, not as we do ....

I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions on this. This is one that I'm on the fence on.

Are they going to mandate equal work for equal pay as well? I mean, are employees going to be required to get as much work done as any other employees getting the same pay get done? And what, we fine those employees that don't measure up? I suspect some of those advocating equal pay for equal work laws wouldn't be on board with equal work for equal pay laws.

Anyway, how the heck do you decide which people are doing equal work for which they deserve equal pay? Most people don't do the exact same job that others are doing. Even if you work in the same profession or have the same job title, the work you are expected to do isn't necessarily the same. Further, even if the work you are expected to do is the same, you might not do it as well as someone else. Two fry cooks working in the same restaurant may very well deserve different pay based on how well each does their job.

More important than anything though is the liberty aspect of the consideration. We are supposed to be, more or less, a free nation. Within reason, the government isn't supposed to tell us what we can or can't do. And would-be employers don't owe us a job any more than we owe them labor. If we can agree on the terms and conditions under which we will exchange money for labor, then great - if we can't, oh well. The government should not be telling would-be employers that they have to pay a certain amount or hire certain people any more than it should be telling would-be employees that they have to work a certain job or for certain people. The government should not be interfering with the negotiation of private contracts (usual qualifiers assumed). No person ever, in the history of employment, agreed to work for less than they were willing to accept for that work. If they did, it would be called slavery (or extortion). Laws against slavery would be a good idea. We should get on that as soon as possible.

Really, why?

While I like the idea in theory, a few problems that I've read in economic and conservative media are:

1.) Study after study have shown that women take jobs due to benefits while men look more at pay. Which leads me to number two:

2.) Should government really dictate this?

3.) Current trends show that, in younger generations, women earn more than men and are more likely to get jobs than men.

It sounds like the case could be made either way, though I do think it's certainly disingenous for Democrats to say Republicans are waging a war on women.

Wirelessly posted

:popcorn:


Equal pay for equal work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work)


do you believe there is pay inequality ?


Start with your Guy Obama in the White House ........


White House Promotes Equal Pay for Women While Paying Women in the White House Less Than Men (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/04/white_house_promotes_equal_pay_for_woman_while_paying_women_in_the_white_house_less_than_men)


The White House wants to know, do you support equal pay for women?

Did You Know That Women Are Still Paid Less Than Men?

On average, full-time working women earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This substantial gap is more than a statistic -- it has real life consequences. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families, and over a lifetime of work, far less savings for retirement.

The gender wage gap puts women at a career-long disadvantage

President Obama supports passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress puts to a vote on June 5. This comprehensive and commonsense bill updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work.





Typical Liberals .......... do as we say, not as we do ....

The author of that idiotic peice doesnt understand equal pay if she thinks you can determine it by taking the median income from a group of people. Equal pay is all about equal pay for equal work. The duties and responsibilities have to be the same. Even then the pay doesn't have to be exactly the same.

Are they going to mandate equal work for equal pay as well? I mean, are employees going to be required to get as much work done as any other employees getting the same pay get done? And what, we fine those employees that don't measure up? I suspect some of those advocating equal pay for equal work laws wouldn't be on board with equal work for equal pay laws.

Anyway, how the heck do you decide which people are doing equal work for which they deserve equal pay? Most people don't do the exact same job that others are doing. Even if you work in the same profession or have the same job title, the work you are expected to do isn't necessarily the same. Further, even if the work you are expected to do is the same, you might not do it as well as someone else. Two fry cooks working in the same restaurant may very well deserve different pay based on how well each does their job.

More important than anything though is the liberty aspect of the consideration. We are supposed to be, more or less, a free nation. Within reason, the government isn't supposed to tell us what we can or can't do. And would-be employers don't owe us a job any more than we owe them labor. If we can agree on the terms and conditions under which we will exchange money for labor, then great - if we can't, oh well. The government should not be telling would-be employers that they have to pay a certain amount or hire certain people any more than it should be telling would-be employees that they have to work a certain job or for certain people. The government should not be interfering with the negotiation of private contracts (usual qualifiers assumed). No person ever, in the history of employment, agreed to work for less than they were willing to accept for that work. If they did, it would be called slavery (or extortion). Laws against slavery would be a good idea. We should get on that as soon as possible.

Ding!

I have people who work for me who have the same jobs, titles and pay yet a couple always stand out, do extra outside the box stuff. How is that fair? I cannot financially reward them? What about merit raises? I have to give equal raises to everyone?

It is a simple fact that in most cases 3 out of ten carry the other 7.

I have to give equal raises to everyone?

It is a simple fact that in most cases 3 out of ten carry the other 7.

The union dream. Raises based only on longevity. Performance is not allowed to be considered.

Wirelessly posted


Ding!

I have people who work for me who have the same jobs, titles and pay yet a couple always stand out, do extra outside the box stuff. How is that fair? I cannot financially reward them? What about merit raises? I have to give equal raises to everyone?

It is a simple fact that in most cases 3 out of ten carry the other 7.

Actually, an equal pay violation can not be claimed in a pay for performance system. So yes you can reward people for performing more work than others.


Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. These are known as “affirmative defenses” and it is the employer’s burden to prove that they apply.

Wirelessly posted



Actually, an equal pay violation can not be claimed in a pay for performance system. So yes you can reward people for performing more work than others.


Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. These are known as “affirmative defenses” and it is the employer’s burden to prove that they apply.

Let's be clear though since that passage is a bit misleading. It isn't that pay differentials are allowed based upon "quantity or quality of production". It's that they are allowed based upon "a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production." So, if pay is determined somehow based on how much you get done - e.g., a salesperson on commission or someone getting paid X for each unit of Y they produce - that's allowed. That wouldn't apply to people being paid a set salary or hourly wage (though a 'merit' based differential might).

Further, people can still claim a violation based on sex and, if the EEOC is persuaded, have the EEOC's assistance in pursuing that claim. Then it's up to the employer to demonstrate otherwise. That could be a problem and, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case. To prove discrimination you should need to prove discrimination - not prove disparity, assume discrimination, and leave it to the accused to prove otherwise. (Of course, I don't believe such discrimination - by private parties - should be prohibited by the government anyway.)

More importantly though, the OP's question (I assume) stems from recent efforts to change existing law in this area. As you can see, we already have laws prohibiting employers from paying people differently based on their sex. This new law (i.e. the one that didn't achieve cloture in the Senate) doesn't make equal pay for equal work the law - it already is the law, contrary to some pundits' comments meant to mislead people on that point. The issue now is whether we should, among other things, make it more difficult for employers to maintain their innocence in the face of accusations. Are you familiar with what specifically the proposed law would do?

Wirelessly posted



Actually, an equal pay violation can not be claimed in a pay for performance system. So yes you can reward people for performing more work than others.

Yea and the burden of proof is on the employer, so are the legal fees and the risk of a sympathetic jury who sees the employer as a big evil corporation who can afford and extra $3 an hour despite having done nothing wrong.

No thanks

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Actually, an equal pay violation can not be claimed in a pay for performance system. So yes you can reward people for performing more work than others.


Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. These are known as “affirmative defenses” and it is the employer’s burden to prove that they apply.

Let's be clear though since that passage is a bit misleading. It isn't that pay differentials are allowed based upon "quantity or quality of production". It's that they are allowed based upon "a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production." So, if pay is determined somehow based on how much you get done - e.g., a salesperson on commission or someone getting paid X for each unit of Y they produce - that's allowed. That wouldn't apply to people being paid a set salary or hourly wage (though a 'merit' based differential might).

Further, people can still claim a violation based on sex and, if the EEOC is persuaded, have the EEOC's assistance in pursuing that claim. Then it's up to the employer to demonstrate otherwise. That could be a problem and, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case. To prove discrimination you should need to prove discrimination - not prove disparity, assume discrimination, and leave it to the accused to prove otherwise. (Of course, I don't believe such discrimination - by private parties - should be prohibited by the government anyway.)

More importantly though, the OP's question (I assume) stems from recent efforts to change existing law in this area. As you can see, we already have laws prohibiting employers from paying people differently based on their sex. This new law (i.e. the one that didn't achieve cloture in the Senate) doesn't make equal pay for equal work the law - it already is the law, contrary to some pundits' comments meant to mislead people on that point. The issue now is whether we should, among other things, make it more difficult for employers to maintain their innocence in the face of accusations. Are you familiar with what specifically the proposed law would do?

I am not familiar with the proposed law and wouldn't. Have guessed that there was one considering we already have the EPA and Title VII.

But from what I have read in EPA case law even minor differences in duties (a chasier that makes a bank deposit or is also responsible for closing the shop) is enough to justify a pay differential. As for the "pay system" yeah that is one of the affirmative defenses and employer can use, so is "any reason other than sex."

You are right that a person can still raise a claim just about no matter what. However, those cases would be easily defended using one of the affirmative defenses.

I think the concept of equal pay goes against the free market approach. What is the really issue here? What problem or challenge is being solved?

You are right that a person can still raise a claim just about no matter what. However, those cases would be easily defended using one of the affirmative defenses.

Since you are so blissfully unaware you obviously need this explained to you. Any time you use the words "affirmative defense" you can also add the words "legal team."

It may be easily defended, but that just means that instead of costing $500,000 it would only cost $200,000 per case. Any business facing that type of burden would be stupid not to follow the union model of paying everyone the same regardless of performance.

Since you are so blissfully unaware you obviously need this explained to you. Any time you use the words "affirmative defense" you can also add the words "legal team."

It may be easily defended, but that just means that instead of costing $500,000 it would only cost $200,000 per case. Any business facing that type of burden would be stupid not to follow the union model of paying everyone the same regardless of performance.

Same reasons car insurance companies are quick to throw the $2,500 PIP at someone who is obviously filing a false personal injury claim... it is cheaper to just cut them a check than it is to take them to court and have it thrown out.

I think the concept of equal pay goes against the free market approach. What is the really issue here? What problem or challenge is being solved?

It's a campaign issue that is used to divide and give an "us vs. them" talking point. There is no real intent to do anything to "fix" this made up problem, they just want to use it as a hammer to beat opponents.

They use bogus statistics to make it look like there is an issue where there really isn't one.

Same reasons car insurance companies are quick to throw the $2,500 PIP at someone who is obviously filing a false personal injury claim... it is cheaper to just cut them a check than it is to take them to court and have it thrown out.

I worked for an insurance company that fought everyone of them. I re wrote their check writing and claims system. I uses live data to test and was amazed at how many stupid slip and fall cases were dismissed when court was threatened. The first live check that came of my system was a paid claim of $1 M. First and last time I saw a check for that much.

Based on the premise that $2500 a case with $1250 going to the attorney, they could file 100 cases and be walking away with 125 K a year. What is filing? $40.

Wirelessly posted

You are right that a person can still raise a claim just about no matter what. However, those cases would be easily defended using one of the affirmative defenses.

Since you are so blissfully unaware you obviously need this explained to you. Any time you use the words "affirmative defense" you can also add the words "legal team."

It may be easily defended, but that just means that instead of costing $500,000 it would only cost $200,000 per case. Any business facing that type of burden would be stupid not to follow the union model of paying everyone the same regardless of performance.

I am completely aware of that side of things, and the "legal team" the employer has is a big reason that most discrimination claims don't go anywhere.


But again, if a company wants to pay for performance they are free to set up the system and be protected from equal pay act claims.

But again, if a company wants to pay for performance they are free to set up the system and be protected from equal pay act claims.

But, to what Pete said (I think), that doesn't stop the lawsuits. The second someone decides to pay a man more than a woman on a merit pay system, lawsuits get filed and you instantly get "the evil corporation" against "the sweet little lady" and the burden is placed on the employer to prove they didn't discriminate.

But what about insurance and other areas. With something like this, do we now go after insurance inequalities? Should I have to pay more for health insurance (which I almost never use) because the government decides men and women have to pay in to health insurance equally (something the left has called for)?

Why aren't the same people calling for baseline auto insurance rates to be equal for men and women? Of course, we already know the answer to that. The insurance companies have a perfectly valid reason for charging men more than women, just like health insurance have a perfectly valid reason for charging women more than men.

I'm all for basic fairness, but should everything be equal? I typically consider myself a liberal because they stand for a lot of which I agree, but sometimes the hypocrisy astounds me.

Wirelessly posted

But again, if a company wants to pay for performance they are free to set up the system and be protected from equal pay act claims.

But, to what Pete said (I think), that doesn't stop the lawsuits. The second someone decides to pay a man more than a woman on a merit pay system, lawsuits get filed and you instantly get "the evil corporation" against "the sweet little lady" and the burden is placed on the employer to prove they didn't discriminate.

But what about insurance and other areas. With something like this, do we now go after insurance inequalities? Should I have to pay more for health insurance (which I almost never use) because the government decides men and women have to pay in to health insurance equally (something the left has called for)?

Why aren't the same people calling for baseline auto insurance rates to be equal for men and women? Of course, we already know the answer to that. The insurance companies have a perfectly valid reason for charging men more than women, just like health insurance have a perfectly valid reason for charging women more than men.

I'm all for basic fairness, but should everything be equal? I typically consider myself a liberal because they stand for a lot of which I agree, but sometimes the hypocrisy astounds me.

I don't know about the new bill but the EPA protects men and women equally. Either could bring a claim, while it may be used more by women because of the historical disparity that doesn't mean men couldn't use it.


The suits are going to happen under title VII anyway.

Why aren't the same people calling for baseline auto insurance rates to be equal for men and women?




I have an ex Gf ....... in the 3 yrs we dated, every time she was pulled over for speeding she got so upset, she started crying - and basically cried her way out of the citations - the one ticket she couldn't [female cop] the officer was a no show at the traffic hearing .... so she skated on that one as well .......... :jameo:

in the early 2000's however she missed a fire truck ON A CALL, at 301 and Gardner dr. and took off a cross the intersection, crossing 301 and totaled a Dodge Van, doing serious damage to the Waldorf fire truck as well .......


So Are Women Better Drivers Than Men? (http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126)

Many auto insurance industry experts would agree with the theory that men, especially young men, tend to drive more aggressively than women and display their aggression in a direct manner, rather than indirectly. Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, male drivers are more likely than women to break the law, and the male of the species tends to be more of a risk-taker.

Even so, it's hard to say women are better drivers, although they are statistically safer. Women have just as many accidents as men; however, they tend to be minor fender-benders. Men, on the other hand, tend to do the job properly when they crash, and as a result cost their insurance companies a lot more money.

So, even though it's a blow to our male egos, we'll have to give this round to women. Sorry fellas.

For nearly two decades, New York-based writer and editor Chuck Tannert has covered everything from automobiles to gadgets to travel. Before joining the MSN Autos team, Tannert served as senior automotive editor at Popular Mechanics, and his work has appeared in many outlets, including Cargo, Men's Journal, Penthouse, Popular Science, and Wired.

In the market for a new car? MSN Autos is pleased to provide you with information and services designed to save you time, money and hassle. Click to research prices and specifications on any new car on the market or get a free price quote through MSN Autos' New-Car Buying Service.



the study is a little dated, and frankly a Sista will cut you off on the beltway in a second this days, but it would be racist to publish facts like that .... more aggressive indeed

I have an ex Gf ....... in the 3 yrs we dated, every time she was pulled over for speeding she got so upset, she started crying - and basically cried her way out of the citations - the one ticket she couldn't [female cop] the officer was a no show at the traffic hearing .... so she skated on that one as well .......... :jameo:

in the early 2000's however she missed a fire truck ON A CALL, at 301 and Gardner dr. and took off a cross the intersection, crossing 301 and totaled a Dodge Van, doing serious damage to the Waldorf fire truck as well .......






the study is a little dated, and frankly a Sista will cut you off on the beltway in a second this days, but it would be racist to publish facts like that .... more aggressive indeed

Oh, in my experience, men tend to be more aggressive. But, it would be a tough call around here -- everyone seems to act impatient.

-- everyone seems to act impatient.



yes definitely