On-Topic Senate Democrats pay female staffers less than male staffers

[Jack Springer]

Usual hypocritical BS from liberals.

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.


Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.


Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

The democrat women Senators don't even pay their female staffers as much as men.

I'm sure there is a perfectly sensible reason for this.

Let the spin begin . . .


Senate Dems Betray Lilly | Washington Free Beacon

 

[chance1]

hmmm

looks like somebody's gonna get a raise soon

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Let the spin begin . . .

The "spin" is the shitty Free Beacon article in the first place. It's a nice hit piece for right-wing masturbatory fantasies (and folks like Springer who start and end with the "libs are bad" mantra and don't want to actually think in between) but nowhere does it say that these females are paid less than males for doing THE SAME JOB, which is the issue.

Which makes this:

The democrat women Senators don't even pay their female staffers as much as men.

a (say it with me) LIE

More like usual BS from Springer.

 

[Jack Springer]

The "spin" is the shitty Free Beacon article in the first place. It's a nice hit piece for right-wing masturbatory fantasies (and folks like Springer who start and end with the "libs are bad" mantra and don't want to actually think in between) but nowhere does it say that these females are paid less than males for doing THE SAME JOB, which is the issue.

Which makes this:


a (say it with me) LIE

More like usual BS from Springer.

Prove it's not true.

. . . your BS doesn't prove anything.

 

[CowboyBob]

Springer. First worried about the poor..... now worried about women, equal pay and Democrats.

What's going on here? Next thing is he'll be worried about is the environment and a women's right to choose.

He's a closet Progressive.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Prove it's not true.

. . . your BS doesn't prove anything.

Is this the JUB version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

The article asserts that the carefully parsed statistics they published somehow prove a hypocrisy on the part of those "Democrats" who are fighting for wage fairness between the sexes by counting up the men and women in each office and figuring out what the "sexes" are paid. It does NOT prove (or even state) that there is ANY disparity between men and women being paid different amounts for DONG THE SAME JOB (which WOULD be hypocrisy)

In FACT, from the article:

One possible explanation for the pay disparity is the noticeable preference among Senate Democrats’ for male chiefs of staff, who typically draw the highest congressional salaries. Of the 46 Democratic Senators listing a chief of staff on their payroll in 2011, 13 were women.

Which makes perfect sense as to why the group of "men" makes more than the group of "women."

Now, if you want to have a discussion about women not holding the same power positions as men do in Washington then there is certainly something to that. It's an entirely different issue than THIS though and, to do that, you would ALSO have to look a the Republican staffs as well (which this highly partisan hit job from a Koch Brothers rag didn't do, gee I wonder why?) where I'm willing to bet money that the same "male vs female" disparity exists.

YOU prove that the women in these offices are being paid less than men for DOING THE SAME JOB and then we can talk like big boys.

 

[Jack Springer]

This may well be the biggest scandal of the year.

 

[Kulindahr]

Is this the JUB version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

The article asserts that the carefully parsed statistics they published somehow prove a hypocrisy on the part of those "Democrats" who are fighting for wage fairness between the sexes by counting up the men and women in each office and figuring out what the "sexes" are paid. It does NOT prove (or even state) that there is ANY disparity between men and women being paid different amounts for DONG THE SAME JOB (which WOULD be hypocrisy)

In FACT, from the article:



Which makes perfect sense as to why the group of "men" makes more than the group of "women."

Now, if you want to have a discussion about women not holding the same power positions as men do in Washington then there is certainly something to that. It's an entirely different issue than THIS though and, to do that, you would ALSO have to look a the Republican staffs as well (which this highly partisan hit job from a Koch Brothers rag didn't do, gee I wonder why?) where I'm willing to bet money that the same "male vs female" disparity exists.

YOU prove that the women in these offices are being paid less than men for DOING THE SAME JOB and then we can talk like big boys.

Yep.

I think what this proves is that Jack is a communist: he isn't interested in what jobs people are doing, he wants them all paid the same.

 

[MystikWizard]

I guess Democrats now also have a War Against Women.

 

[chance1]

^ so many fronts

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Other then that... you have nothing.

He'll have the Koch Brothers.....

 

[opinterph]

This may well be the biggest scandal of the year.

Do you have a link to the methodology used to conduct the study? (I can't find it on Washington Free Beacon or elsewhere.) According to Newsmax, the analysis did not consider job stature or seniority.

 

[Kulindahr]

equal pay is a complicated issue.

both in Washington and outside, you'll see men making more money because they're in leadership positions -- and some of that is sexism, and some of that is also the societal gender-role notion that compels females to feel like they have to take care of the home/family (maternity leave, sick days to be with the kids, not being able to stay late because they need to cook dinner)... I'd expect that to be especially true in a demanding, 24/7 job like a Chief of Staff.

Then you have to consider whether they supervise anyone, and if so how many; how long they've been in the job; what degrees they have that pertain to the job; who they work for . . . .

 

[opinterph]

I was assuming it was such a shitty analysis to highlight the bad analyses often used by equal pay law advocates?

That's entirely possible. It would be helpful if they published the science along with the headline.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's entirely possible. It would be helpful if they published the science along with the headline.

What, and let people think?

Partisan media doesn't want people to think. Thinking might make people realize that the Two-Faced Whore is a sham.

 

[Ninja108]

Are there any other places that has this study listed? Using one article to make the claims you make isn't enough to justify the broad brush you used.