• 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

anything that gives more ability for plaintiffs to sue hurts employers. bookkeeping requirements are very expensive
How does this bill give more opportunity to sue, if pay practices are fair? It's a genuine question. If anything, wouldn't public knowledge give plaintiffs LESS reason to sue, assuming pay practices are equal?

I'm not seeing your logic. And as far as bookkeeping requirements, what additional bookkeeping would be necessary? Don't businesses already keep books?
 
How does this bill give more opportunity to sue, if pay practices are fair? It's a genuine question. I'm not seeing your logic. And as far as bookkeeping requirements, what additional bookkeeping would be necessary? Don't businesses already keep books?

if there is discrimination, there is already laws to sue under. its duplicative. why aren't Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski-who almost always support "pro woman" issues not supporting this?
 
What someone is paid is up to the parties in play, not legislators. You do not have a right to equal pay from private commerce.

That is of course ignoring that this entire bill is based on a myth.
 
if there is discrimination, there is already laws to sue under.
I agree. But my understanding of this bill is that it's not giving more people the ability to sue, but rather making public knowledge about pay practices. It also claims to prevent an employer from dismissing an employee for discussing wage.

So, again, how is this a problem for employers, if they are not engaging in discriminatory pay practices? I'm not trying to be adversarial here, I'm just not seeing your logic. It seems you're arguing against something this bill doesn't try to do.
 
Oh, and if both parties agree than it is fair pay.
 
:lamo
BS! Title VII is about discrimination, not pay.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 206(d) of Title 29 [section 6(d) of the Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended].
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. Title VII EXPLICITLY addresses compensation. This whole issue is about people selectively applying statistics to try to create an issue where none exists. Corporations simply don't give a rat's ass about whether you're male or female, they care about how much money you make them. Make them a lot and they will pay you well (as a general rule).

Debunking the Myth of a Mythical Gender Pay Gap | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com
 
I agree. But my understanding of this bill is that it's not giving more people the ability to sue, but rather making public knowledge about pay practices. It also claims to prevent an employer from dismissing an employee for discussing wage.

So, again, how is this a problem for employers, if they are not engaging in discriminatory pay practices? I'm not trying to be adversarial here, I'm just not seeing your logic. It seems you're arguing against something this bill doesn't try to do.


I don't have a problem with an employer firing someone for discussing wages.
 
Imposing on business to make them agree to pay people more than they desire to do so is bad.
its not doing that.
"and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex."
 
Honestly all salaries should be public information for all individuals. If anything it would lead to a truly fair and competitive labor market.

It is none of anyones business how much I earn.
 
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. Title VII EXPLICITLY addresses compensation. This whole issue is about people selectively applying statistics to try to create an issue where none exists. Corporations simply don't give a rat's ass about whether you're male or female, they care about how much money you make them. Make them a lot and they will pay you well (as a general rule).

Debunking the Myth of a Mythical Gender Pay Gap | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

Compensation does not equate salary.
 
There are already laws on the books to make the opportunity of equal pay a right of any woman.

Pay should be based on performance, productivity, and contribution to the bottom line. If a man does a job better, he should be paid more. If a woman does a job better, she should be paid more. The government should stop trying to equalize the sexes and just stick with equalizing the opportunity for anyone in this country to get compensated for his or her work, and leave the "sex" part out of it.
 
its not doing that.
"and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex."

Oh right sorry, it is making sure everyone follows the morals of the government. My bad.
 
It is none of anyones business how much I earn.

Quoted for truth. Who on Earth thinks it's a good idea to make everyone's income a matter for public consumption? Talk about a violation of privacy.
 
I don't care how much you earn honestly. I do care about averages for job titles so that I can use that information to negotiate my wages.

Well, you aren't owed that information. You don't have a right to force people into labor to compile whatever information you desire at the current time. We have an amendment against that kind of government action and everything.
 
Equality is a bad thing? :shock:

We are talking about commerce, so all transactions are separate from all others that occur. The only thing your equality argument works towards is rights, and there is no right to commence in commerce or to get a job with a certain level of pay.
 
Well, you aren't owed that information. You don't have a right to force people into labor to compile whatever information you desire at the current time. We have an amendment against that kind of government action and everything.

Sure...just like I'm not owed a companies financial information or owed information on a car I'm about to buy but it sure does help markets operate.
 
Back
Top Bottom