• 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!

Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time

So you see no difference in me as an individual posting my data and everyone's data being available?

In both instances, your data is public. Apparently your beliefs are only applicable when everyone is forced to participate. Also, since you don't recognize any flaws in your idea, you want everyone to conform to your idea without you understanding all the implications of implementing them. Wake up Congressman, you have a committee meeting to go to.
 
There is something different about working for the public. And if you aren't working for the public, the school board is.
The school board may be working for the public, but I'm working for my employer. And it doesn't change the fact there's no real reason you can give me why those who work for private employers are entitled to more privacy. I don't lament them having more privacy, I'm just saying there's no legitimate reason you can give me to why they are entitled to more privacy.

I agree with your sentiments that "At first it bothered me" and that some people should not have more privacy than others. It would bother me if my salary was publicized, it would help criminals in determining who to rob or identity to steal, and it would put me on unequal footing with people who don't draw a salary and therefore have greater financial privacy. (Such as investors, landlords, pensioners, etc.)
Make everyone's earnings public, I don't care. It'd probably go a long way in helping prevent tax fraud. And, as long as you aren't pulling down $1 million or more a year, I think you're grossly overestimating your risk to pre-planned home invasions. And, speaking from personal experience (not mine, but someone very close to me), if you're pulling down more than $1 million a year, you can afford to purchase extra security, which you probably need already.
I'm going to make a wild guess here and that is that when you wrote the above you pictured how you would react in the situation and then attributed your reaction to the populace at large.
No, I just assumed those who would be willing to sue over compensation, regardless of how fair it was, would do so already.

Now imagine the reaction of the most stupid and strident feminists with the least common sense imaginable and how this perpetual troublemaker would react.
Why feminists? Why not men?

But, using your example, don't you think those people are already trying to sue? Why would this law change anything?
 
Oblabla has been in office for SIX years and he just now discovers this?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm not sure where you get that from! I want information in order to make informed choices. I've never mentioned once that I want the government or law to back up any demand.

Also...you mention pay in accordance with national averages but that's all this bill provides...disclosure.

Then why do want a law passed to get you information that is already readily available?? What's the point of this law?? Income equality isn't it, because the law does nothing more than Title VII does other than gathering information that's already being gathered. So what's the point if not to get the gov't involved in determining pay??
 
I think it's weird that someone would think it should be legal to fire an employee for discussing their salary with someone.

If that was one of the conditions of employment, then it's not weird. When you agree to work for someone, you agree to follow their rules and if not discussing your pay with your fellow associates is one of those rules and you break it, then you get fired/disciplined.
 
The school board may be working for the public, but I'm working for my employer. And it doesn't change the fact there's no real reason you can give me why those who work for private employers are entitled to more privacy. I don't lament them having more privacy, I'm just saying there's no legitimate reason you can give me to why they are entitled to more privacy.

And, speaking from personal experience (not mine, but someone very close to me), if you're pulling down more than $1 million a year, you can afford to purchase extra security, which you probably need already.

I still don't understand your point. Do you wish that your income was private or, since it is not, are you just being vengeful, perhaps, and want others to suffer your fate.
I agree that the public doesn't have a right individual salaries of public employees but it seems that the public has a right to know how much is being spent on public employees in terms of salaries, health pensions, and pension benefits (both currently funded and deferred). These costs are very significant and having a great impact on a local/state/school district's ability to provide the services that they are expected to provide. And as long as politicians are basically able to buy votes of public employees by supporting higher salaries then we have some real problems.
 
I still don't understand your point. Do you wish that your income was private or, since it is not, are you just being vengeful, perhaps, and want others to suffer your fate.
My point is it doesn't matter if people know. Whether income is private or public, it's not going to substantially change an individual's life. And my point is I don't understand why you working in the private sector entitles you to more privacy than me working in the public sector.

I agree that the public doesn't have a right individual salaries of public employees but it seems that the public has a right to know how much is being spent on public employees in terms of salaries, health pensions, and pension benefits (both currently funded and deferred).
I don't disagree at all. I'm not whining about my salary being public, though I am pointing out I don't work for the public so much as I work for my employer. But, then again, I'm also not whining about everyone's earnings being made public.

And that's what started all of this. One poster challenged another to share how much they earned, as a "put your money where your mouth is" regarding to supporting public earning information. I stepped up and said, "feel free to know what I earn".

I hope that makes sense.
 
There is a mountain of literature on this. Search for scholarly articles in the labor economic literature. The trouble is that there really isn't ONE SOURCE which puts everything together for you.

Here's one piece of the puzzle:

The analysis was prepared by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who first reported his findings in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation. It shows that women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men. . . .

“Citified college-women are more likely to be nonmarried and childless, compared with their suburban sisters, so they can and do devote themselves to their careers,” said Andrew Hacker, a Queens College sociologist and the author of “Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Men and Women.”​

Thanks for the link. I'm aware that there is a lot written on the topic, my problem is with the sheer volume of useless or incomplete information.
 
Just ridiculous. Unequal pay for equal work is one of the biggest problems facing this country.

It really is not. Republicans just defended women from the democrat war on women.

3 Things You Should Know about the Paycheck Fairness Act
1. It Could Hurt Women’s Employment Prospects. What those who support the act don’t tell you is how it would burden employers with additional liability and regulations. Such increased regulation, in turn, could reduce the number of jobs available for women.

2. Equal Pay for Women Is a Smokescreen for Washington Setting Economy-Wide Pay Rates. Reporting requirements and subsequent Labor Department pay guidelines would move the economy closer to a “comparable worth regime,” in which government plays an increasing role in determining wage rates.

3. The Act Is Based on Bad Statistics. Women deserve to be treated with respect and should never suffer discrimination in the workplace, or anywhere else for that matter. To the extent that women experience discrimination, using misleading gender wage gap statistics does women a disservice.
 
Back
Top Bottom