• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama signs equal-pay bill

JMak said:
Should I have put ~SARCASM~ before and after those comments to reflect the sarcasm? I thought my last line coupled with a rolleyes would do the trick...
Click to expand...

Yah but that sentence was sarcastic too. Tone is hard to convey over the internet. Sarcastic sarcasm has to be done well
 
Here is my take on all this:

Why legislate pay in the first place? If a company wants to discriminate against women, then let them. They will only be cutting off their own nose. Fact is, if women are just as good in the workplace as men (and I believe they are), then they can move on to companies that don't discriminate, and those companies who held them back become less competitive in the marketplace, thus paying the penalty for their assholishness. It is a much better solution than wasting tax money in a governmental attempt to accomplish the same end.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Here is my take on all this:

Why legislate pay in the first place? If a company wants to discriminate against women, then let them. They will only be cutting off their own nose. Fact is, if women are just as good in the workplace as men (and I believe they are), then they can move on to companies that don't discriminate, and those companies who held them back become less competitive in the marketplace, thus paying the penalty for their assholishness. It is a much better solution than wasting tax money in a governmental attempt to accomplish the same end.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't legislating pay. They're prohibiting employers from discriminating against individuals based on those protected categories like race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Of course, the lefties are too stupid to recognize that a variance in pay or variance between minorities employed and minority proportion in the general population by themselves are not evidence of discrimination, though, they have successfully gotten the courts to rule that it is via adverse impact nonsense.
 
JMak said:
Well, they aren't legislating pay. They're prohibiting employers from discriminating against individuals based on those protected categories like race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Of course, the lefties are too stupid to recognize that a variance in pay or variance between minorities employed and minority proportion in the general population by themselves are not evidence of discrimination, though, they have successfully gotten the courts to rule that it is via adverse impact nonsense.
Click to expand...

I believe that the end result is the same - They are legislating pay. I also include minimum wage laws in my statement. What companies and employees agree on as pay should be the only determining factor as to what the pay should be. Companies who can't or won't reach accommodation with their employees, be they male for female, will suffer, as it should be.
 
danarhea said:
I believe that the end result is the same - They are legislating pay. I also include minimum wage laws in my statement. What companies and employees agree on as pay should be the only determining factor as to what the pay should be. Companies who can't or won't reach accommodation with their employees, be they male for female, will suffer, as it should be.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same result as employers can discriminate based on pay for a variety of legitimate reasons, e.g., education, training, experience, performance, longevity with the firm, etc. Legislation that prohibits pay discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender ain't legislating pay and regulating pay behavior this way does not lead to pay equity.
 
JMak said:
No, it's not the same result as employers can discriminate based on pay for a variety of legitimate reasons, e.g., education, training, experience, performance, longevity with the firm, etc. Legislation that prohibits pay discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender ain't legislating pay and regulating pay behavior this way does not lead to pay equity.
Click to expand...

As I stated, the end result is the same, but this is just a minor disagreement between us. The part I bolded I completely agree with you on.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
From the article
Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of the large discrepancy in her pay until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala, and she filed a lawsuit
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. My statement goes along the lines of what danarhea has been saying. A person should be responsible for their own pay and performance. think of this. Ledbetter went to work everyday for 18 years thinking she had a great job and was getting paid a fair wage. Suddenly, one day, because she discovers that someone else makes more than her, she decides what she made for the past 18 years wasn't enough. To me that doesn't make sense. Why was it enough yesterday but not today. Everyone gets paid differently based on a variety of factors. If she felt she was paid unfairly she should have left and found a company willing to pay her the amount she felt she was worth.

This new law (and I haven't read the whole thing) IMO should include a provision that a person must file their complaint within a specified amount of time from discovery of the infraction. Say 30 days. My reasoning is because a person could discover the difference in wages and then continue to work for years before filing a complaint. They would amass thousands of dollars in damages knowingly, which is unfair to the employer IMO.
 
danarhea said:
Here is my take on all this:

Why legislate pay in the first place? If a company wants to discriminate against women, then let them. They will only be cutting off their own nose. Fact is, if women are just as good in the workplace as men (and I believe they are), then they can move on to companies that don't discriminate, and those companies who held them back become less competitive in the marketplace, thus paying the penalty for their assholishness. It is a much better solution than wasting tax money in a governmental attempt to accomplish the same end.
Click to expand...

In a world where all this information was completely accessible and individuals could make educated choices, we wouldn't need such legislation. However, due to the level of opacity surrounding salaries, things like this are the only way to regulate pay discrimination, which is something that society has determined is worth regulating.
 
Phoenix said:
Yes, I get that. My statement goes along the lines of what danarhea has been saying. A person should be responsible for their own pay and performance. think of this. Ledbetter went to work everyday for 18 years thinking she had a great job and was getting paid a fair wage. Suddenly, one day, because she discovers that someone else makes more than her, she decides what she made for the past 18 years wasn't enough. To me that doesn't make sense. Why was it enough yesterday but not today. Everyone gets paid differently based on a variety of factors. If she felt she was paid unfairly she should have left and found a company willing to pay her the amount she felt she was worth.

This new law (and I haven't read the whole thing) IMO should include a provision that a person must file their complaint within a specified amount of time from discovery of the infraction. Say 30 days. My reasoning is because a person could discover the difference in wages and then continue to work for years before filing a complaint. They would amass thousands of dollars in damages knowingly, which is unfair to the employer IMO.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical: You work at a place where talking about salary is frowned upon. If you discuss salary, you can be fired. You're offered a job at $30k, you accept. Each year, you get a 3% raise, and the company has a policy that the best employees get promotions every 5 years that include 10% raises. You work there for 20 years, having only gotten one promotion. You feel like you've been passed over, but get your 3% each year and stick it out.

This morning, you find out that the company has had a longstanding policy that people named Phoenix only deserve 3% raises, while people not named Phoenix get 5% raises. (Substitute in whatever minority group you want). Furthermore, people named Phoenix are far less likely to get promotions, such that if you had not been named Phoenix, your performance evaluations would have earned you 2 additional promotions.

Was that unfair?
 
RightinNYC said:
Hypothetical: You work at a place where talking about salary is frowned upon. If you discuss salary, you can be fired. You're offered a job at $30k, you accept. Each year, you get a 3% raise, and the company has a policy that the best employees get promotions every 5 years that include 10% raises. You work there for 20 years, having only gotten one promotion. You feel like you've been passed over, but get your 3% each year and stick it out.

This morning, you find out that the company has had a longstanding policy that people named Phoenix only deserve 3% raises, while people not named Phoenix get 5% raises. (Substitute in whatever minority group you want). Furthermore, people named Phoenix are far less likely to get promotions, such that if you had not been named Phoenix, your performance evaluations would have earned you 2 additional promotions.

Was that unfair?
Click to expand...

No, because Phoenix should have been psychic enough to know to quit Phoenix's job before such a travesty should have occurred.
Also, assume Person A loves her job except she knows she gets unfairly paid -$5000 because she's a woman. However, she could easily make up that $5000 by working in a poorer part of town that, while dangerous, offers equal benefits to men and women. Are you saying that it is an easy decision for Person A to endanger her own life to "stick up for her beliefs" and get the $5000 that she should have received anyway if her employers weren't sexist? And speaking of which, aren't there anti-sexist laws?
 
RightinNYC said:
Hypothetical: You work at a place where talking about salary is frowned upon. If you discuss salary, you can be fired. You're offered a job at $30k, you accept. Each year, you get a 3% raise, and the company has a policy that the best employees get promotions every 5 years that include 10% raises. You work there for 20 years, having only gotten one promotion. You feel like you've been passed over, but get your 3% each year and stick it out.

This morning, you find out that the company has had a longstanding policy that people named Phoenix only deserve 3% raises, while people not named Phoenix get 5% raises. (Substitute in whatever minority group you want). Furthermore, people named Phoenix are far less likely to get promotions, such that if you had not been named Phoenix, your performance evaluations would have earned you 2 additional promotions.

Was that unfair?
Click to expand...
I think that it's completely fair. I entered into an agreement with that company to work XX number of hours for XX number of dollars. The company's contract with other people is not my concern. An employee shouldn't be able to go back on their agreement any more than an employer should be allow to ask for money back from an employee if they decide they paid the employee too much. If I find out htat others are being paid more and am unhappy, I can request a raise or leave the company and find someone that will pay me what I want.
 
Last edited:
I think that it's completely fair. I entered into an agreement with that company to work XX number of hours for XX number of dollars. The company's contract with other people is not my concern. An employee should be able to go back on their agreement any more than an employer should be allow to ask for money back from an employee if they decide they paid the employee too much. If I find out htat others are being paid more and am unhappy, I can request a raise or leave the company and find someone that will pay me what I want.
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to know that there are still people in the world who are not total cry-babies.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
No, because Phoenix should have been psychic enough to know to quit Phoenix's job before such a travesty should have occurred.
Also, assume Person A loves her job except she knows she gets unfairly paid -$5000 because she's a woman. However, she could easily make up that $5000 by working in a poorer part of town that, while dangerous, offers equal benefits to men and women. Are you saying that it is an easy decision for Person A to endanger her own life to "stick up for her beliefs" and get the $5000 that she should have received anyway if her employers weren't sexist? And speaking of which, aren't there anti-sexist laws?
Click to expand...

What travesty occured? I got paid exactly what I agreed to work for.
In your second example person A would have to make a difficult decision. However Person A KNOWS they are working for less than others. At that point they are choosing to work in that environment.

BTW That is a decision teachers make everyday. At least in the Carolinas, take a lower paying job in a good neighbourhood or take a higher paying job in a troubled neighbourhood. Is this somehow discriminatory?
 
After reading the thread and the article, it seems obvious that the headline writer is making it out to be much more than it actually is. There doesn't seem to be anything new here in terms of mandating equal pay for equal work, just lengthen the amount of time you have to sue.

Does sound like a legal stimulus package, but we already know the trial lawyers have Democrats in their hip pockets, but it isn't as insidious as the headline makes it out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom