On-Topic GOP Claims To Be The Equal Pay For Women Party

[TX-Beau]

You do understand that you are debating with yourself over facts invented by yourself? It is known as a straw man argument. Knock yourself out but do not rxpect anyone else to debate you.

...Ben says to the mirror...

 

[xbuzzerx]

You do understand that you are debating with yourself over facts invented by yourself? It is known as a straw man argument. Knock yourself out but do not rxpect anyone else to debate you.

I am merely illustrating the logic you are empowering with your opposition to laws that demand equality rather than just lip service to equality.

Lip service without legal teeth to back it up is worthless. It will be abused, and rampantly. We have hundreds of years of gender and racial inequality as evidence against the idea that laws need never become involved.

 

[frankfrank]

Republicans support equal pay. We do not support laws mandating equal pay.

You mean just like how you are for gay equality, just not laws mandating gay equality?

Reworded: "Republicans support equal gay. We do not support laws mandating equal gay."
First part: NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Second part: All-too-true. (Civil rights, when reasonable, need some teeth-of-law behind them.)

Whether women are paid less depends on who gets to be the dictator. That is, it requires aomeone to say, a receptionist deserves to make as much as a steel worker; a waitress as much as an over the road trucker.

No, a FEMALE receptionist should make as much as a MALE receptionist; MALE and FEMALE truckers should be subject to the same pay scale and policies, etc. A female waitress being paid less than a male LAWYER is irrelevant. But female attorneys shouldn't paid less for similar workloads and results, either.


There are a handful of occupations, such as acting, where women seem to have a good chance of receiving pay similar to men, but in that particular field there is no pay scale that can be considered to be even close to "consistent" or "customary" at all.

 

[bankside]

No, a FEMALE receptionist should make as much as a MALE receptionist; MALE and FEMALE truckers should be subject to the same pay scale and policies, etc. A female waitress being paid less than a male LAWYER is irrelevant. But female attorneys shouldn't paid less for similar workloads and results, either.
.

Just to be clear I agree with your point but lots of feminists do not. They would state that work is "gendered," and the reason lawyers make more than food servers is because of sexism, or at least partly because of sexism. I think that's nonsense, but it's a view with enough credibility among feminists to be of concern for anyone actually interested in equality or doing something practical to improve the world.

 

[Benvolio]

Reworded: "Republicans support equal gay. We do not support laws mandating equal gay."
First part: NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Second part: All-too-true. (Civil rights, when reasonable, need some teeth-of-law behind them.)


No, a FEMALE receptionist should make as much as a MALE receptionist; MALE and FEMALE truckers should be subject to the same pay scale and policies, etc. A female waitress being paid less than a male LAWYER is irrelevant. But female attorneys shouldn't paid less for similar workloads and results, either.


There are a handful of occupations, such as acting, where women seem to have a good chance of receiving pay similar to men, but in that particular field there is no pay scale that can be considered to be even close to "consistent" or "customary" at all.

As long as you are merely talking about "should be" I would agree with it. I But any law will end up being more controlling than that. What do do if a woman truck driver for one company does not make as much as men working for other companies? The angst about equality is not limited to salaries within the same company. Will it bother you that a male chef in a restaurant makes more than a cook in a diner who may work harder? What if female personell directors make less than male sales directors".

 

[xbuzzerx]

Just to be clear I agree with your point but lots of feminists do not. They would state that work is "gendered," and the reason lawyers make more than food servers is because of sexism, or at least partly because of sexism. I think that's nonsense, but it's a view with enough credibility among feminists to be of concern for anyone actually interested in equality or doing something practical to improve the world.

Teaching is one example of a profession which remains lowly paid despite not at all having low educational requirements or training in order to do it (with the same amount of time one could go to law school or similar) and was a traditionally female career.

We could argue whether or not correlation is causality but there would definitely be no basis to say that all traditionally female jobs are lowly paid because they're also low in requirements.

 

[xbuzzerx]

As long as you are merely talking about "should be" I would agree with it. I But any law will end up being more controlling than that. What do do if a woman truck driver for one company does not make as much as men working for other companies? The angst about equality is not limited to salaries within the same company. Will it bother you that a male chef in a restaurant makes more than a cook in a diner who may work harder? What if female personell directors make less than male sales directors".

It is a completely ridiculous slippery slope to say there's a rational reason to oppose fair pay for women because it will turn into laws requiring women to be paid at the maximum level any man anywhere is paid for a given job.

 

[Benvolio]

It is a completely ridiculous slippery slope to say there's a rational reason to oppose fair pay for women because it will turn into laws requiring women to be paid at the maximum level any man anywhere is paid for a given job.

The law already prohibits discrimination against women, so an employer cannot legally pay men more than women for the same job. The complaint is that on a national level women are paid less.

 

[TX-Beau]

The law already prohibits discrimination against women, so an employer cannot legally pay men more than women for the same job. The complaint is that on a national level women are paid less.

Can you tell us again in which state you passed the Bar?

- - - Updated - - -

Go on, I won't laugh if it's Alabama.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is a completely ridiculous slippery slope to say there's a rational reason to oppose fair pay for women because it will turn into laws requiring women to be paid at the maximum level any man anywhere is paid for a given job.

The only way to truly avoid that slippery slope is to just not pay workers at all.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The only way to truly avoid that slippery slope is to just not pay workers at all.

I know I suggested that one somewhere; he shot it down. I was surprised, I thought it was a good way to meet all of his concerns.

 

[Benvolio]

Here is the Wikipedia summary of existing Federal law

"Legislation passed by the Federal Government of the United States in 1963 made it illegal to pay men and women different wage rates for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar working conditions.[21] One year after passing the Equal Pay Act, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII of this act, makes it unlawful to discriminate based on a person’s race, religion, color, or sex.[22] Title VII attacks sex discrimination more broadly than the Equal Pay Act extending not only to wages but to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Thus with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, an employer cannot deny women equal pay for equal work; deny women transfers, promotions, or wage increases; manipulate job evaluations to relegate women’s pay; or intentionally segregate men and women into jobs according to their gender.[23]

Since Congress was debating this bill at the same time that the Equal Pay Act was coming into effect, there was concern over how these two laws would interact, which led to the passage of Senator Bennett’s Amendment. This Amendment states: “It Shall not be unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex . . . if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of the [Equal Pay Act].” There was confusion on the interpretation of this Amendment, which was left to the courts to resolve.[24] Thus US federal law now states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."[9]"

Source Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_...and_Title_VII_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

 

[xbuzzerx]

Are women paid less than men because they choose to be, by gravitating to lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work?

That is what some Republicans who voted down the equal pay bill this month would have you believe. “There’s a disparity not because female engineers are making less than male engineers at the same company with comparable experience,” the Republican National Committee said this month. “The disparity exists because a female social worker makes less than a male engineer.”

But a majority of the pay gap between men and women actually comes from differences within occupations, not between them — and widens in the highest-paying ones like business, law and medicine, according to data from Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor economist and a leading scholar on women and the economy.

“There is a belief, which is just not true, that women are just in bad occupations and if we just put them in better occupations, we would solve the gender gap problem,” Dr. Goldin said.

Rearranging women into higher-paying occupations would erase just 15 percent of the pay gap for all workers and between 30 and 35 percent for college graduates, she found. The rest has to do with something happening inside the workplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/u...e-of-gender-not-jobs.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

There are many ways to structure the nature of the workplace or the nature of how jobs of different types or hours are compensated which manifest gender pay inequalities without actually pointing at an employee and saying "you have a vulva, you will be paid less."

 

[mightbe]

Have you intentionally forgotten about the glass ceiling?

Pay discrimination isn't within a company, it's within a field. That's the only way it can be accomplished. Lump all the female employees (regardless of skill) with the less skilled male ones, pay them the same, and constantly shift out the other male employees without giving much attention to the skilled female ones.

That's indirect pay discrimination. It can be and IS done. Lawyers (and those who employ them to structure this) are experts at evading the law. Almost to the point of being high art.

 

[otters]

…………………

…………………

 

[Kulindahr]

Have you intentionally forgotten about the glass ceiling?

Pay discrimination isn't within a company, it's within a field. That's the only way it can be accomplished. Lump all the female employees (regardless of skill) with the less skilled male ones, pay them the same, and constantly shift out the other male employees without giving much attention to the skilled female ones.

That's indirect pay discrimination. It can be and IS done. Lawyers (and those who employ them to structure this) are experts at evading the law. Almost to the point of being high art.

Oh, it's not infrequently within a company -- you just call the woman a "secretary" and the man an "executive assistant", even though they do the same work, and pay the woman less. There was a case like that here in redneckville that never got to the government's attention, because when one partner in the business discovered this after coming back from a sort of sabbatical, he dealt with it in his own creative way: keeping names out of it, he showed all the figures to his partner's wife.....

That wife is now in charge of all personnel matters, BTW.



There's another company up the coast a ways which got caught being more subtle: women were getting promoted at only a fraction of the rate at which men were getting promoted, even though their work was just as good. That situation went to some sort of mediation, so they managed to avoid legal penalties.

I learned of another labeling situation from the office gal at the place I take my truck for maintenance: a former roommate of hers got hired as a "driver" by some company. It turned out that women were "drivers" while men doing the same job were "delivery specialists", so the men got paid more. The company is owned by three men; when this office gal (actually a full partner where she works) found out about this, she had a talk with those men's wives.


It boggles my mind, actually, that owners of businesses with only twenty to fifty employees in fairly small towns think they can get away with this crap. I do like, though, that things in these cases got handled without government intervention.

 

[frankfrank]

As long as you are merely talking about "should be" I would agree with it. I But any law will end up being more controlling than that. What do do if a woman truck driver for one company does not make as much as men working for other companies? The angst about equality is not limited to salaries within the same company. Will it bother you that a male chef in a restaurant makes more than a cook in a diner who may work harder? What if female personell directors make less than male sales directors".

Indeed the differences between individual companies - some poorly managed, some managed well - some with higher overhead/G&A than others, etc. - is something that one-size-fits-all legislation may ignore. A female driver for ABC Trucking may be paid 42.8700264549% worse than the female driver at

ACETYL*SERYL*TYROSYL*SERYL*ISO*LEUCYL*THREONYL*SERYL*PROLYL*SERYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*VALYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*LEUCYL*SERYL*SERYL*VALYL*TRYPTOPHYL*ALANYL*ASPARTYL*PROLYL*ISOLEUCYL*GLUTAMYL*LEUCYL*LEUCYL*ASPARAGINYL*VALYL*CYSTEINYL*THREONYL*SERYL*SERYL*LEUCYL*GLYCYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*GLUTAMINYL*THREONYL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTAMINYL*ALANYL*ARGINYL*THREONYL*THREONYL*GLUTAMINYL*VALYL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*SERYL*GLUTAMINYL*VALYL*TRYPTOPHYL*LYSYL*PROLYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*GLUTAMINYL*SERYL*THREONYL*VALYL*ARGINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*GLYCYL*ASPARTYL*VALYL*TYROSYL*LYSYL*VALYL*TYROSYL*ARGINYL*TYROSYL*ASPARAGINYL*ALANYL*VALYL*LEUCYL*ASPARTYL*PROLYL*LEUCYL*ISOLEUCYL*THREONYL*ALANYL*LEUCYL*LEUCYL*GLYCYL*THREONYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*ASPARTYL*THREONYL*ARGINYL*ASPARAGINYL*ARGINYL*ISOLEUCYL*ISOLEUCYL*GLUTAMYL*VALYL*GLUTAMYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTAMINYL*SERYL*PROLYL*THREONYL*THREONYL*ALANYL*GLUTAMYL*THREONYL*LEUCYL*ASPARTYL*ALANYL*THREONYL*ARGINYL*ARGINYL*VALYL*ASPARTYL*ASPARTYL*ALANYL*THREONYL*VALYL*ALANYL*ISOLEUCYL*ARGINYL*SERYL*ALANYL*ASPARAGINYL*ISOLEUCYL*ASPARAGINYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*ARGINYL*GLYCYL*THREONYL*GLYCYL*LEUCYL*TYROSYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMINYL*ASPARAGINYL*THREONYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*GLUTAMYL*SERYL*METHIONYL*SERYL*GLYCYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*TRYPTOPHYL*THREONYL*SERYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*ALANYL*SERINE

Freight Lines and Triple-Kill Mousetraps (the latter gets hardship pay for having to correctly write out her company's name on tax forms), and some industries such as medicine have widely different pay scales between employers, BUT...

The law already prohibits discrimination against women, so an employer cannot legally pay men more than women for the same job. The complaint is that on a national level women are paid less.

this federal law is obviously not being enforced in any meaningful way, either.

Kulindahr has shown how companies can pay women differently by being even only moderately creative.

 

[frankfrank]

A female driver for ABC Trucking may be paid...worse than the female driver at... Freight Lines...

D'OH!!! Paid worse than the MALE driver. THE MALE DRIVER!!!

 

[Rolyo85]

We should overturn Citizens United. I mean, I am all for corporations being people, I am just not for laws mandating that they are. I mean, such laws are just ever so controlling...

 

[xbuzzerx]

I approve of Rolyo's custom description.

His salary has been decreased accordingly.

I'm going to use all this freedom of speech I saved to buy a Senator.