• 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!

GOP lawmaker: 'Men are more motivated' than women

danielpalos said:
What do you mean by equal pay for equal work .
Click to expand...
Bump...again:

Gimmesometruth said:
AN ACT relative to paycheck equity.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Discrimination in the Workplace; Definitions; Equal Pay. RSA 275:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

275:37 Equal Pay.

I. No employer or person seeking employees shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex by paying employees of one sex at a rate less than the rate paid to employees of the other sex for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and is performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to:

(a) A seniority system;

(b) A merit or performance-based system;

(c) A system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

(d) Expertise;

(e) Shift differentials;

(f) A demonstrable factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

II. An employer who is paying wages in violation of this section shall not reduce the wage rate of any other employee in order to comply with this section.


SB 0207
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Is your opinion that women should not be paid equally for equal work?
Click to expand...

It's really just adressing a problem that barely exists by placing a burden on the company.

Even that article I quoted provided a study done by a union, which indicates the pay discrepancy when accounting for everyhing is about 5 cents - and that very well may not be related to any form of discrimation.
 
buck said:
It's really just adressing (sic) a problem that barely exists by placing a burden on the company.
Click to expand...
If the problem "barely" exists, then there will be "barely" a burden.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't ever work weekends or nights, and I rarely work more than I have to. The extra money isn't as important to me as my free time. My husband very often does. He would rather make more money.

So in my case, as a citizen of the state he lives in, it's true. Is it true in every case? Not at all. But all he did was give his opinion, and it was hardly a terrible comment he made in the grand scheme of terrible things lawmakers say.
Click to expand...

It's just in line with the Republican position on women, which is as progressive as their position on minorities, homosexuals, and other groups. It's why they do so well with the electorate in those categories.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I was never arguing about boycotts of business, the thread is about LEGISLATION against rate of pay discrimination based on gender.

If you are confused about what I am arguing for, perhaps you should read better before you toss your support behind someone or something.

PS.....if you are against legislation like this, you don't need evidence that the discrimination is occurring. You have already put yourself in the absolute opposition to remedial legislation.

To be consistent, you would also be in opposition to all civil rights legislation.
Click to expand...
ALL civil rights legislation? No...and thats a silly belief system. Absolutism is so...absolute. Things like affirmative action? Minimum wage laws? yes...I disagree with those.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Just a page ago, you complained:



Do you see that his statistics DO NOT apply, since they do not show explicitly the rate of pay?
Click to expand...
So...I take it that you refuse to comment on the statistical REALITIES. The FACTS show that STATISTICALLY...men work longer hours, more weekend hours, and more overtime hours. SHOW ME the actual case in question and if all things are equal, I will join in your outrage.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe we should simplify public policies such that markets reach their own equilibriums.

Unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines would be much more market friendly under our form of Capitalism, even under our form of Socialism.
Click to expand...
So instead of saying "Thanks for posting the legislation in question to help me understand what you meant by equal pay", your preferred response is a non-sequitur diatribe.

I almost prefer your delving into pornstar discussions.
 
shrubnose said:
Correct, but to some people that is implied by what he said.

He certainly didn't help the GOP with that statement no matter what his objective was in spouting that trash.
Click to expand...

So lying is okay because stupid people believe the lies. Got it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If the problem "barely" exists, then there will be "barely" a burden.
Click to expand...

There would, at the very least, be a reporting burden for all companies wether the probelms exists or not.
 
VanceMack said:
So...I take it that you refuse to comment on the statistical REALITIES.
Click to expand...
I'm all for them.....when they apply to the question before us.
The FACTS show that STATISTICALLY...men work longer hours, more weekend hours, and more overtime hours. SHOW ME the actual case in question and if all things are equal, I will join in your outrage.
Click to expand...
The question is rate of pay, not nominal earnings. I'm am not required to post anything for you.....SINCE YOU ALREADY REJECTED ANY LEGISLATIVE REMEDY.

Why do you require having the same point answered over and over?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm all for them.....when they apply to the question before us.The question is rate of pay, not nominal earnings. I'm am not required to post anything for you.....SINCE YOU ALREADY REJECTED ANY LEGISLATIVE REMEDY.

Why do you require having the same point answered over and over?
Click to expand...
I see...so...I dont agree with you about forcing legislation on the people that create industry and jobs so there is obviously nothing more to talk about. I mean...other than the fact that you are clinging to ginned up outrage over an admittedly false newspaper headline and misquoted comment.
 
buck said:
There would, at the very least, be a reporting burden for all companies wether (sic) the probelms (sic) exists or not.
Click to expand...
Where in the legislation is there a "reporting" requirement?

And who is talking about castrated sheep/goats?
 
VanceMack said:
I see...so...I dont agree with you about forcing legislation on the people that create industry and jobs so there is obviously nothing more to talk about.
Click to expand...
Wait, let me get this...you are asking me to decide for you that since you don't believe in legislative remedy whether you should continue to "stand by me"...or even talk to me about it?

What is it.....you cannot decide for yourself?

Or do you think it is up to me to convince you to change your opinion GENERALLY on legislative remedy?





I mean...other than the fact that you are clinging to ginned up outrage over an admittedly false newspaper headline and misquoted comment.
Click to expand...
??

When I state his words and actions.....where were they "false"?
Is this a new waste of my time?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wait, let me get this...you are asking me to decide for you that since you don't believe in legislative remedy whether you should continue to "stand by me"...or even talk to me about it?

What is it.....you cannot decide for yourself?

Or do you think it is up to me to convince you to change your opinion GENERALLY on legislative remedy?





??

When I state his words and actions.....where were they "false"?
Is this a new waste of my time?
Click to expand...
You know that old line "if your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it to?" No...I wont join you in a foolish act to combat what may or may not be a problem. I certainly wont join you in ginned up mock outrage over a deliberately false headline that lied about the actual spoken words of an individual.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Where in the legislation is there a "reporting" requirement?

And who is talking about castrated sheep/goats?
Click to expand...

Articles i've read on the topic have indicated that companies will have a reporting requirement. Even if not, though, once an individual that feels she was paid unfairly due to sexism files a complaint, you don't think there will be burdens placed on the company to prove otherwise? For a problem that barely exists... again.. for a potential 5 cent pay difference that may not even be due to sexism.

Even the democrats admit that there were only a couple of comlaints filed under their equal pay law (that they already have on the books in NH) and they were all dismissed due to it not being discrimanatory.
 
buck said:
Articles i've read on the topic have indicated that companies will have a reporting requirement. Even if not, though, once an individual that feels she was paid unfairly due to sexism files a complaint, you don't think there will be burdens placed on the company to prove otherwise? For a problem that barely exists... again.. for a potential 5 cent pay difference that may not even be due to sexism.
Click to expand...
You start from a position using false data, you compound by not understanding the legislation.....and now you believe that in fighting job discrimination charges a business should not have to defend itself.

All I can say is wow.

The Daily Beast article did not even touch on rates of pay, and business don't have to defend themselves over discrimination....they can default to to the court's mercy.

Or maybe you are trying to argue that this will create more unwarranted charges? Another rabbit hole for you to explore.

Even the democrats admit that there were only a couple of comlaints (sic) filed under their equal pay law (that they already have on the books in NH) and they were all dismissed due to it not being discrimanatory. (sic)
Click to expand...
Of course, I totally believe that this is true.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You start from a position using false data, you compound by not understanding the legislation.....and now you believe that in fighting job discrimination charges a business should not have to defend itself.
Click to expand...

No, democrats are the ones to start from a position of false data. The 77 cent figure that democrats use has been proven false again and again. Yet, Obama and the governor of NH (and many others) still continue to use oit to proclaim that equal pay laws are needed.

Of course, I totally believe that this is true.
Click to expand...

No, I don't suspect that you will.. So, let's provide a cite, then you can claim some other excuse for why it's not accurate.

State House Memo: Equal Pay Law works in New Hampshire but we can make it clearer | Concord Monitor

New Hampshire has required equal pay since 1947,
Click to expand...
In fact, there have been no convictions I can find under our state equal pay statute over the last 20 years. But that doesn’t mean I think we have all the data we need to ensure our commitment to pay fairness.
Click to expand...

The Labor Department knows of only three investigations in the past 20 years, all of which were dismissed when employers showed legitimate reasons for a disparity in pay between employees.
Click to expand...

Here, allow me to help you with your excuse making:
Oh, it's so awful, they just don't keep good records... Of course there have been hundreds of companies in NH that have been found guilty. We all know it to be true. After all, it's 77 cents on the dollar.. It has to be illegal.

Regardless of anything else, what the legislator in the op stated was accurate. What you and other left leaning organizations are attempting to do is to fan the flams of "republican's war on woman" by completely misrepresenting what he stated. You're being hoodwinked.
 
buck said:
No, democrats are the ones to start from a position of false data. The 77 cent figure that democrats use has been proven false again and again. Yet, Obama and the governor of NH (and many others) still continue to use oit to proclaim that equal pay laws are needed.



No, I don't suspect that you will.. So, let's provide a cite, then you can claim some other excuse for why it's not accurate.

State House Memo: Equal Pay Law works in New Hampshire but we can make it clearer | Concord Monitor





Here, allow me to help you with your excuse making:
Oh, it's so awful, they just don't keep good records... Of course there have been hundreds of companies in NH that have been found guilty. We all know it to be true. After all, it's 77 cents on the dollar.. It has to be illegal.

Regardless of anything else, what the legislator in the op stated was accurate. What you and other left leaning organizations are attempting to do is to fan the flams of "republican's war on woman" by completely misrepresenting what he stated. You're being hoodwinked.
Click to expand...
LOL...this is an opinion piece from.....wait for it....2 GOP NH Reps opposed to the legislation.

Color me unconvinced.

ps....working link:

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140228/OPINION02/140229240&template=mobileart
 
Last edited:
This guy personifies most of those in the republican party.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, I'm sure he never goes to the doctor. We don't have them yet in NH. We still have the veterinarians treating us here.
Click to expand...
No wonder then that some grow up to be politicians capable only if infantile reasoning.
We stopped shooting our politicians for voicing their important opinions here in NH sometime around 1798.
Click to expand...
In light of this maybe it is time to start the practice again and while at it import some doctors so this will not happen again.
 
buck said:
Well, then feel free to post a link to all the sucessful (sic) complaints in NH.
Click to expand...
I don't have to rely upon court cases filed in NH (which has very high levels of burden to bring) to know whether gender pay discrimination exists or not in NH.

My level of denial is not that great.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If you are referring to his argument on the floor, that is part of his position.
Click to expand...
But one can agree with facts, regardless of position.

He is a GOP NH House member, if you don't care....why are you here?
Click to expand...
Because the thread title said GOP lawmaker...it didn't say "GOP state lawmaker". Once I was here, I commented. It's not like I saw a state senator said something stupid and decided to make a thread about it.

It is completely incorrect in the CONTEXT OF THE LEGISLATION HE IS DEBATING. Again, it is stupid to argue that equal pay for equal work is not needed....be cause men do "more risky work", or because women are not as motivated.
Click to expand...
It is possible to look at parts of an argument to determine their accuracy, without passing judgment on the position as a whole. That's what I'm doing.

Are you disputing there is generally more societal pressure on the man to be the financial provider for the family?
 
Wiggen said:
It's just in line with the Republican position on women, which is as progressive as their position on minorities, homosexuals, and other groups. It's why they do so well with the electorate in those categories.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. :roll: Very dramatic.

This guy will win re-election handily. He's in a very Republican district and they don't have paranoia about the "Republican position on women".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom