Skip to comments.'Paycheck Fairness' Will Mean a Pay Cut for Men
Posted on 05/07/2012 6:52:58 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
Team Obama calculates that its road to victory is paved with the votes of women, so the American people are now subject to a coordinated effort to cast GOP opposition to expanding government power as an assault on the weaker sex. But few women view public policy as a battle between the sexes. Women whose husbands, brothers and sons are struggling to find jobs find no comfort in women's comparatively low unemployment rate.
Next up in the Democratic campaign is the Paycheck Fairness Act, supposedly necessary to achieve "equal pay" for women. Never mind that it's already illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. Democrats say that failure to support this bill is akin to greenlighting workplace discrimination. In reality, women aren't the primary beneficiaries of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Lawyers are, since it encourages more litigation, increases potential lawsuit payouts, and makes it more difficult for companies to defend themselves.
Under the act, the government would also collect more information about compensation practices and establish a national award for employers deemed best in advancing "pay equity." These are distractions companies don't need.
Feminists have long wanted enlightened government officials, rather than the indifferent market, to determine salaries. Information collection and government-compensation guidelines today could easily become regulations and mandates tomorrow.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
From each according to their abilities, to each according to the value of their vote.
Ah, yet another way of destroying the traditional family by punishing the father as provider...
I assume this includes the gubermint defining comparative worth units.
Google “OFCCP”. This administration has already started collecting reams of HR data from employers to allow ambulance chasing attorneys to go on a fishing expedition at their leisure.
And we wonder why we aren’t creating any new jobs.
Ah, Title XI applied to the real world.
What about lifespan equity?
Women live some 8 years longer than men.
What about divorce and alimony equity?
Why do women get alimony and child custody more frequently than men?
Produce or die.
Welfare Queens can clean my home, Car or do whatever it is I don’t want to do and earn some really good money.
You do a better job than most others or exceed expectations I pay even more, to incent excellence.
One shudders to think of the immense amount of regulation and extra steps this would create for employers.
And the new government jobs to monitor.
The idea that men & women are competing interest groups reflects the essence of the madness that judges social reality through a distorted prism based upon envy; a prism in which only the immediate "wish lists" of the participants have any relevance; and the sense of ongoing, multi-generational purpose, which motivated the advance of civilization, is no longer even a factor in philosophic discussion.
Feminism has not elevated woman; it has trashed femininity, and in doing so, has seriously undermined the true respect for woman. It focuses not on strength of character, but on the basest of emotions, envy. (And see Feminist Absurdity.)
What’s with this paycheck fairness business?
Pay discrimination is already illegal, and has been since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. If there is really a problem with women earning less than men for the same job, Obama and Holder already have the law and legal tools needed for the Justice Department to file lawsuits, or take other actions. We don’t need a “Paycheck Fairness Act”. The law is already there. If this is really a big problem in our society, enforce the existing law.
"I'll tell you what's fair and what's not!"
For decades radical feminists have worked overtime to devise schemes of “equalizing” the pay between males and females something called “comparable worth”. They’ve concocted plans to show why certain jobs that are normally held by women should have their pay scales upgraded to be equal to jobs normally held by men. For instance a health care worker vs. a construction worker. These nuts would have the government intervene to make sure that since in their minds, certain jobs have more social worth than others, the people, usually a female, working the more “socially worthwhile” jobs would get paid as much or more than some person, usually a male, working a “non-socially worthwhile” job. Screw the marketplace, they’ll make things right.
Well, I’m sure the liberal view is that it is discriminatory to have someone on welfare clean your house.
Just anecdotal evidence, it seems that very few black women work as domestic helpers anymore. Years ago many did so. I understand there was discrimination and other issues years ago. But the point is, they were working. Now, it’s rare to see black women working as domestic helpers. Most of those jobs are now done by people who were not born in this country.
We have millions of people on welfare who could do some kind of work, such as housework, but they have chosen not to do such work.
Flame away. I’m sure I have just offended the sensibilities of some liberals.
Historically, at least. Now that universities enroll about 40% male to 60% female that will naturally change on its own.
When a woman gets her Mechanical Engineering Degree and can successfully size, install, balance, pipe and sychronize the controls oh, and run a complete drop of a 100 ton unit on a roof from a helicopter during a 100 degree day in Florida, then I say equal pay.
It may already be “illegal” to pay women less, but the fact remains, women earn significantly less, men get paid more. However, men may work more hours at their jobs, because women still are the ones who really care about the family. I don’t pretend to know what the answer is.
because they are traditionally the ones who contract their careers to raise the children, have the role of being the caretaker, have always been the primary caretaker of the children and can’t earn the same as men. There, does that answer your question?
It is this pandering to human envy with ever more Governmental interference with the once free market that the Founders gave us, that has stifled growth in America since FDR.
The contrast between what works & what stifles could not be more stark. What works--demonstrated by experience--is having uniform measures, sound currency & courts to enforce the private bargains that a free people make with one another. What stifles is having a demagogue motivated big brother meddling in every private bargain, in order to control the social & economic results of the endeavors.
Egalitarianism--whether of the Jacobin or Marxist variety--is the ultimate attack on the reality of human interaction. (See Egalitarianims Sabotages Human Potential.)
Do you realize how marxist this is? Marx held that free markets devalued human worth by making labor simply another commodity to be bought and sold. Government should step in and “level” the labor trade by paying each individual the same. The ultimate goal is to simply collectivize all a society’s wealth and use it to supply the needs of the citizenry, thereby eliminating the need for compensation at all.
This is clearly a step in that direction, driven by a false dialectic that asserts women are paid less than men.
One faces certain death in an accident and the other might get a paper-cut. So both have dangerous jobs and deserve equal pay.
In the free market, when all choice factors are included, women make about 5% less than men. In general, with wide deviation at the individual level, women's brains are about 10% smaller than men. They're aren't 10% dumber but definitely the brain cell count and processing power is less. If you look at MCAT scores to get into medical school, women consistently score about 5% less than men. There you go, women in general make 5% less than men because on average they have 5% less mental firepower. Outside of government jobs, employees aren't paid for breathing, but for thinking.
Isn’t it always the way with liberalism, that instead of lifting people up, it forcefully pulls others down in a vain attempt to achieve some mythical equality?
There are a myriad of reasons why women earn less than men, but that is hard facts that liberals dismiss. It is all about appearance to them.
Where I work, I earn somewhat more than some of the males who do the same job, should my pay be cut so that we all make the same?
Idiots being idiotic again.
If the concept gets forced to the point of screwing with your paycheck to put on the appearance of fairness, then put the screws to the employer. Let them fail. I was in a position to turn the failure into a success and reap a reward in the form of a promotion. When the employer doesn't have the option, there will be no value in coming to their rescue.
“...because women still are the ones who really care about the family.”
Not true. Try taking your head out of your @$$ before making generalizations like this.
Holy crap, I wish you had directed that post to someone else.
look bud, think what you want. But all this is factually and statistically correct. There are individual exceptions.
Hey, great business model idea folks! I'll start a business, and all my employees will be minority females, who work at the same work output as their white male counterparts, and I'll have a 5% competitive advantage on every other business out there!
I wonder why no one has thought of this? Perhaps because
IT ISN'T TRUE.
Let’s look at the larger picture:
Women have demanded & gotten time off to have their children.....now they are wanting such time off to be PAID by the employer. Not fair, I say.
Are the Feds going to look at a year’s W-2 or look at hourly pay? If a woman is gone 6 weeks for her ‘new born’—that can affect a W-2.
Men tend to get more education than women—therefore, such extra education should draw more hourly pay. Women get married- get pregnant- and then start whining about getting special benefits the men never can get because of sheer biology.
Men can do a larger range of jobs- lift more- are more willing to do dirty jobs like oil fields, etc.
Women want the ‘clean jobs’—they want exact hours, and most are not willing to work overtime to get something done or to get a repaired part out the door. Men will be more likely to do that.
Even women who have no kids or are single want to watch the time clock. They don’t look at a job or skill as a career—it is just a job & a paycheck. They can call it a career all they want—but then they cannot have multiple interruptions in continuous service to have their ‘family’. This has always stuck in my craw.
Women have created a hostile environment in the business place for all men. Even the slightest lift of an eyebrow by a man can draw a sexual harassment suit. I know a large number of men who used to be friendly in their work environment. Now, they only speak to a female when required to do so. They no longer EVER go to lunch with a female co-worked in the group. Some even refuse to car pool with female co-workers. Too much risk. On top of that, men who own businesses are now carrying extra insurance premiums because of potential accusations of sexual misconduct. I am talking about men who have never intentially said or done anything toward a female employee that could have construed as sexual harassment or misconduct before the 70’s. Women have handcuffed their own opportunities, IMO.
The vagueness of the wording of sexual harassment laws have men on edge and women on the prowl, IMO.
I remember the old argement: “Why should a SINGLE brain surgeon get more pay than a MARRIED janitor with 9 kids? The guy with 9 kids needed to support them in the manner they wished to be supported!!””
The non-match of the skills involved wasn’t allowed to be discussed—only the number of children!!
In the 70’s or 80’s in Angeles, there was a stupid push over the price of cleaning/laundry fees about the difference of the cost of a man’s shirt and a woman’s blouse. The women were complaining that they were being ‘overcharged’.
No matter that the honest, hard working people of the cleaning industry showed over and over again that all the design differences, buttons, etc. of a woman’s blouse required more time to press, etc., versus the sameness and flatness of a man’s shirt——the Los Angeles City Council demanded that the price be the same...
Sooooo—the cost of a man’s shirt went to over $1.50 or more to match the price of a woman’s blouse!!!!! Some of those increases were over double!
The hue and cry was wonderful!!!
Then they started to debate the same subject regarding HAIRCUTS!!! Again- the women thought they were being overcharged!
After their abject failure on the cleaning fight, the haircut fight never got off the ground!!
We are not oreo cookies—one of the reasons I quit working in union jobs. The worst employee with the same required job ‘skills’ got paid the same as the best, fastest, most accurate employee for the same ‘skills’. The worst one could be a total slacker & the best one could work rings around the worst one, but work performance bonuses were never granted. I said goodbye.
One union job I left took 2 1/2 persons to replace me. I still love that fact. Some of the job duties I held were never replaced. No one could find all the info I could find. I wasn’t offering them any help, either. It is my brain & MY effort. You cannot mandate me to prop up the lazy ones. Period.
well, guess what? I agree with you. Women are wired to take care of the kids and men are the hunter/gatherers/protectors.
The 5% delta is true when all *choice* factors are included but exclude the biological factors. The delta disappears when you include the biological factors. Women score 5% less on cognitive function tests on average, such as the MCAT, which accounts for the pay difference. You can no longer use the SAT test scores to measure that because it has been politically corrected to the point it hides most of the difference. However if you look at old SAT scores you can see it there too.