• 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

a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.

you mean she should be paid as much as the guy who actually was at the work place working while she was home. Or who know has say six more months of seniority or put in 500 more billable hours than she did?
 
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.

Ok, so I have a question regarding this.

Man A works 3 years and Woman A works for 3 years. Woman A goes on pregnancy leave for 1 month (assuming she leaves work at around 8 months in her pregnancy). Do you think Woman A and Man A are exactly equal at that point?

I agree that women shouldn't be hired at LOWER pay ASSUMING they might get pregnant, but once the pregnancy happens then their time at actual work SHOULD be taken into consideration.

At the same time I will concede that some jobs offer teleworker capabilities which in that case a woman and a man are no different regardless of pregnancy.
 
you mean she should be paid as much as the guy who actually was at the work place working while she was home. Or who know has say six more months of seniority or put in 500 more billable hours than she did?

Depends on pregnancy and the job. As I pointed out in my previous post if a job offers teleworker capabilities, even with pregnancy, the woman can still be working the same as a man. Remember, sick time can be accrued, paid time off can be used as well if they have enough time. A pregnancy alone shouldn't be justification for lower pay.
 
It's already illegal to discriminate in pay based on sex.
I understand this, but my understanding of this bill isn't outlawing pay discrimination, it's preventing employers from dismissing employees for discussing their pay and requiring public knowledge of pay.

So how does this bill give people more ability to sue, if pay practices are not discriminatory?

LOL and being paid less due to your gender when you do the same work is gender DISCRIMINATION

try a few dozen Title VII cases as I have, and then I will listen to you tell me about a subject I was a recognized expert in
Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?
 
I understand this, but my understanding of this bill isn't outlawing pay discrimination, it's preventing employers from dismissing employees for discussing their pay and requiring public knowledge of pay.

So how does this bill give people more ability to sue, if pay practices are not discriminatory?

Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?

1) the government doesn't have the proper power to prevent businesses from firing those who discuss salary

2) why does every pro business legislator oppose it while all the anti business legislators support it?
 
1) the government doesn't have the proper power to prevent businesses from firing those who discuss salary

2) why does every pro business legislator oppose it while all the anti business legislators support it?
You're not answering my question. It's a simple question that I'll ask again.

Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?
 
I understand this, but my understanding of this bill isn't outlawing pay discrimination, it's preventing employers from dismissing employees for discussing their pay and requiring public knowledge of pay.

So how does this bill give people more ability to sue, if pay practices are not discriminatory?

Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?

Unless one decides that all employees (in any given position) are equally productive, dependable and likely to seek other employment then it makes sense for their pay to vary accordingly. Many seem to have no problem with seniority pay, which I find ridiculous, but I do not have a problem with paying differently based on actual job performance. If the salary information is to be made public then why not all personnel evaluations and attendance records?

Paying people who perform (the same job) differently is not discriminatory but disallowing an employer to keep individual pay, performance or attendance records private is. If the only information required to be made public is salary then that would encourage lawsuits. Sometimes personnel matters are, in fact, personal. Forcing employers to disclose individual employee pay information but not the basis for it does, indeed, invite more lawsuits.
 
Any bill with the name fairness in it is a circle jerk. Fairness is subjective. If you take working men and women as a whole and try to say men make more and that's unfair, it's in reality nonsense. Men work in the most dangerous occupations, ones that are physical like coal mining, lumberjacking and oil drilling. Their mortality is much higher than women in the workplace. Where women and men work in jobs that aren't affected by gender like sales, clerical, administrative and management equal pay is just common sense because businesses strive to find the best employees regardless of gender.

This is a false issue in an election year brought forth by an administration that pays men more than women in similar positions. The administration is using statistics that don't accurately reflect workplace conditions. It's a tactic that this administration is using to take the voters eye off the ball when the real issue is the harm Obamacare is doing to the economy and lives of citizens who live in it.
 
The bill is just creating transparency. It doesn't matter if it's illegal if no one is aware it's taking place.

Honestly all salaries should be public information for all individuals. If anything it would lead to a truly fair and competitive labor market.

Please post your salary and your name so we can verify the info. Or are there serious flaws you can recognize in your idea?
 
But this bill isn't about industry averages, it's about the individual corporation's average. If this was designed to force employers to give raises based on industry/profession averages, then it not only goes too far, it goes WAY, WAY, WAY too far.

It doesn't force employers to do anything. What it does is remove the veil over salaries.
 
Unless one decides that all employees (in any given position) are equally productive, dependable and likely to seek other employment then it makes sense for their pay to vary accordingly. Many seem to have no problem with seniority pay, which I find ridiculous, but I do not have a problem with paying differently based on actual job performance. If the salary information is to be made public then why not all personnel evaluations and attendance records?

Paying people who perform (the same job) differently is not discriminatory but disallowing an employer to keep individual pay, performance or attendance records private is. If the only information required to be made public is salary then that would encourage lawsuits. Sometimes personnel matters are, in fact, personal. Forcing employers to disclose individual employee pay information but not the basis for it does, indeed, invite more lawsuits.
I don't agree what you posted would happen (or, at least, that it would happen more often), but I do appreciate you at least explaining the theory behind it.
Please post your salary and your name so we can verify the info. Or are there serious flaws you can recognize in your idea?
Here you go: 2012 Missouri educators' salaries : News

I'm not going to tell you my name, for obvious reasons, but you're more than welcome to see what I earn. It's public knowledge. That link is from a couple years ago, so I make a little more now, but you are welcome to the information. Or you can come meet me in person and I'll happily tell you in person.
 
It doesn't force employers to do anything. What it does is remove the veil over salaries.

If it creates no action, then what's the point in passing the law in the first place?? Giving people half-assed information is a bad idea. You can't give people all the information regarding pay scales at a corporate level (and aggregating beyond that is pointless) without potentially exposing confidential information. You sound like you want to be able to approach your employer and demand raise based on national averages and have the law back you up in that demand. Yet, nothing beyond the business you work for matters. If you want to go to your employer and show her that you're getting paid 35% less than the national average for your type of profession, that's between you and her, not between you, her and the gov't.
 
You sound like you want to be able to approach your employer and demand raise based on national averages and have the law back you up in that demand. Yet, nothing beyond the business you work for matters. If you want to go to your employer and show her that you're getting paid 35% less than the national average for your type of profession, that's between you and her, not between you, her and the gov't.

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.
 
Read more @: Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time

The GOP stopped supporting equality in the 50's. The party of pitty. The party that represents inequality. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Do you think such a bill is needed? There are equal pay statutes and the IRS has access to everyone's pay and should be able to determine if there is unequal pay based on gender or any other grouping. We have HIPAA laws to protect privacy of health records, what wrong with having privacy of pay records?
 
I don't agree what you posted would happen (or, at least, that it would happen more often), but I do appreciate you at least explaining the theory behind it.

Here you go: 2012 Missouri educators' salaries : News

I'm not going to tell you my name, for obvious reasons, but you're more than welcome to see what I earn. It's public knowledge. That link is from a couple years ago, so I make a little more now, but you are welcome to the information. Or you can come meet me in person and I'll happily tell you in person.

Do you see a difference between someone working for the government ("You work for us!!"") and a employee of some privately owned company? Do you see why this law is not needed in your situation since the information is already available? Do you like the idea that anyone can know what you make and if you had a chance, would you prefer that this was private?
 
This is just more political posturing for the upcoming election. Get that woman vote Dems., you'll need it. Give me one line of work where a woman has less pay than a man with the same exact credentials/experience...... Where I work you get paid what you are worth, seniority doesn't enter the equation. This is just more BS from DC.
 
Do you see a difference between someone working for the government ("You work for us!!"") and a employee of some privately owned company?
Not really. Oh, I get the argument you're trying to present, but I don't agree my working to educate your children means I should have less privacy than you. Or I guess it would be more appropriate to say I don't see why working in the private sector should afford you more privacy than me.

And let's be honest, I don't work for you. I work for my employer. My employer is the school district.

Do you see why this law is not needed in your situation since the information is already available?
I do, but I think you're missing the point here. The post I was responding to was a challenge to "put your money where your mouth is", so to speak. If you're advocating for a law, then be willing to be subject to it. All I'm showing is that I'm happily subject to the idea.

Do you like the idea that anyone can know what you make and if you had a chance, would you prefer that this was private?
At first it bothered me, but then I realized it's not that big of a deal. So what if you can see how much I make? Why does it matter? Why should I care?
 
Last edited:
Not really. Oh, I get the argument you're trying to present, but I don't agree my working to educate your children means I should have less privacy than you. Or I guess it would be more appropriate to say I don't see why working in the private sector should afford you more privacy than me.

And let's be honest, I don't work for you. I work for my employer. My employer is the school district.

At first it bothered me, but then I realized it's not that big of a deal. So what if you can see how much I make? Why does it matter? Why should I care?

I worked for two "public" agencies. The Military and the Federal Reserve Bank. I think that the requirements of both those jobs were fair. I was not allowed to be in uniform while attending a partisan political event and I wasn't allow to run for a partisan political office or support one while identifying myself as a FRB employee. Those seem like reasonable and needed restrictions-I worked for the people, all the people, and it ruins that concept if I showed political favoritism. Wish that all public employees had that same integrity.

There is something different about working for the public. And if you aren't working for the public, the school board is.

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.)
 
I don't agree what you posted would happen.

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. Now imagine the reaction of the most stupid and strident feminists with the least common sense imaginable and how this perpetual troublemaker would react. That type of woman exists out there somewhere. She's far out on the margin but after she acts then other women see how the drama has played out and the margin moves inward slightly. Rinse and repeat.
 
I think it's weird that someone would think it should be legal to fire an employee for discussing their salary with someone.
 
Have idea why they really blocked it, or are you going to stick with, "Conservatives are all racists/sexists/homophobes

What the typical BS "oh its anti business"?
 
Back
Top Bottom