Skip to comments.Hoping for clout with women, Obama urges Congress to pass ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’
Posted on 06/04/2012 1:18:39 PM PDT by central_va
President Barack Obama, his re-election fortunes heavily dependent on women, pushed Congress on Monday to "step up and do its job" by passing a bill designed to erase the wage gap between male and female workers doing the same job. With Senate Republicans expected to block the Paycheck Fairness Act when it comes up for a vote on Tuesday, Obama urged supporters of the measure to make an 11th-hour push on behalf of the legislation. "At a time when we're in a make-or-break moment for the middle class, Congress has to step up and do its job," the president said on a conference call. "But let's face it: Congress is not going to act because I said it's important; they're going to act because you guys are making your voices heard."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What D.C. Republican will be the first to fall into this trap ?
The boy emperor will not be happy until the entire country pays union dues.
I thought this was already passed under clinton.
Why would anyone hire a woman?
Hussein, in his typical me-me-me thought patterns, neglects that in the economy he has created, ANYONE, male OR female, should count themselves damned lucky to have a job in the first place, let alone equity.
THEY WILL PASS THE SAME LAWS OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEIR MINIONS DON’T REMEMBER ANYTHING BEFORE BREAKFAST THIS MORNING...........FOR THEM, IT’S LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY EVERY DAY........
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 already forbids pay discrimination between men and women in the same jobs.
This new law is unneeded, from what I understand.
If this issue of pay discrimination is a major issue, Obama could have had Eric Holder and the Justice Department looking into it all these years they have been in power. The law and legal tools are already in place to do something about this, if it’s really a problem.
Is this election year posturing on the part of Obama? So if this new bill fails, he and his henchmen will get out on the campaign trail, and say that Republicans are against equal pay for females???????
The same old tripe they trot out every time.
This article quotes a 77.5% number, and then goes on to explain it:
"occupational selection is the primary determinant of the gender wage gap" (as opposed to discrimination) because any measure of earnings that excludes fringe benefits may produce misleading results as to the existence magnitude, consequence, and source of market discrimination. They found that the average wage rate of females was only 87.4% of the average wage rate of males; whereas, when earnings were measured by their index of total compensation (including fringe benefits), the average value of the index for females was 96.4% of the average value for males.
This article says something similar:
Whether this difference is caused by simple demographic issues like age and experience or by something more nefarious like sexism is not yet clear, but does demonstrate a distinct difference in the career paths of men and women MBAs after school.
Much of this difference can be attributed to the differing career choices many MBAs make, with women working fewer hours and having more career interruptions due to starting and caring for a family.
Yet they still drag out the same lines...
Lacking an accurate yardstick, Obama will provide his own, designed to garner the most votes, irrespective of reality.
He will have the engineer write specs for aircraft tires, making the same as the engineer designing the avionics.
This points up a completely separate issue.
So let’s suppose that a woman gets married. Let’s also say that she gets married to a man, which nowadays we have to specify.
Then let’s suppose that the couple have children. Then suppose the wife cuts back at work, or takes leave for a period of time, because they have had children.
Then suppose that she returns to the work force, but she has fallen off the “fast track” for promotions and career advancement. If this happens, is it anyone’s “fault” as such? Is society at large, or corporations, at fault for this sort of situation?
Now, go another step further. Suppose this woman, married to a man, was happy about getting pregnant and having a family with her husband. Suppose cutting back at work or taking leave due to her family responsibilities was her choice, or the choice that she and her husband made as a couple. In that case, whose “fault” is it, what law was broken?
If she knew the consequences to her career advancement, and still wanted to have more time with her children, what then? Where’s the discrimination, where’s the lawsuit in all of this????
Women for the first time in the USA, outnumber men in the workforce. They also like benefits - which cost money - therefore they get less pay but more benefits.
This is getting ridiculous!
Like when they were reporting that our schools ‘shortchange’ girls. Sure sure. Most school teachers are female - so if it IS discrimination - it is mostly females discriminating against females - and NOT very effectively.
Despite having lower scores on just about any test of academic ability ever devised - females get higher grades and more of them go on to college. So much for discrimination!
My father pointed out that on the “equal pay” scale - they were rating a building engineer the same as a secretary! Which one can operate a boiler? Because I am pretty sure both can operate a computer and type and operate software to make reports and such.
Whatever one co-sponsored it.
Nearly all new laws are unneeded. All "lawmakers" do now is make existing laws ridiculously specific or name existing laws after somebody. "Lawmaker" is as outmoded a line of work as buggy-whip maker.
A better question might be "Why would anyone hire a man?".
Since women purportedly make much less than a man for "doing the same job", an employer would benefit from lower labor costs by hiring only women. (I wonder why they don't do that?)
There is no “wage gap between men and women doing the same job”. That discrimination is already against the law. This is nothing more than the lowest form of demagoguery, and any Republican who votes for it should be dis-elected in November.
“FOR THEM, ITS LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY EVERY DAY”
This simile is not very apt, at least so long as you don’t make clear that you’re talking about for everyone else in that movie besides Bill Murray, who’s in exactly the opposite situation.
Keep it up 0bama and watch the female unemployment rate skyrocket even more than it is for both males and females.
How many female firefighters died on 9/11? I have not heard of one, although they get the same pay as the guys who carried the heavy equipment up the stairs.
I suspect you know my answer to this, but I'll say NO, of course not.
The wife knows that pregnancy is a possibility. For all the "pro-choice" rhetoric you hear, nobody seems to take having an actual full-term baby is a choice.
Barring weird cases like rape, she chose to reduce her corporate workload and increase her personal workload (and bless those who do; I'm married to one).
The company has no obligation to compensate her for that choice. She's not there for them; why should they be there for her?
There is no doubt discrimination; certain jobs require long-term commitments and women are more likely to break that commitment to have a family.
On short-term thinking though, the proponents of this legislation apparently seriously think, and are trying to convince you, that I, as a struggling business person out after the almighty dollar, will pay a 30% premium to get the same work out of a male employee that I could have from a woman.
I could have hired her for 77 cents, but no, I'll hire him for $1.00.
That's how stupid they think we are.
A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called gender pay gap, urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month.
However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesdays press conference Democrats Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Patty Murray of Washington, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Barbara Boxer of California three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
“The Equal Pay Act of 1963 already forbids pay discrimination between men and women in the same jobs.”
It’s not about law it’s about “What are we doing to get the attention of today’s voters?”. Make a non-issue an issue and move forward. I’m sure inequities exist, that is the way of things. At least enforce the laws that others have passed in good faith instead of one’s own agenda.
Great,equal pay for non-existent jobs.
Problem solved, reelect Bambi.
I read an interesting stat a number of years ago.
People that work 50 or more hours a week make (on average) TWICE as much as people who work 40 hours a week.
Read that again, and let it sink in.
And, who makes up that 50+ hours a week group? It is almost 100% men.
It’s a cultural thing. Women, as a group, have tried to strike a balance between their work and their home life. Men, on the other hand, have traditionally focused on their work often at the expense of their home life.
And, there is a lot of cultural pressure on both to act that way. Men who don’t succeed and get ahead in their work are often looked down upon by society. Women who focus on their work at the expense of the family are often looked down on by society.
Ever hear of the workaholic man? Sure, it’s even a stereotype, and it’s not always a negative. Society still holds a man who works hard to support his family in high (if at times grudging) regard.
Ever hear of the workaholic woman? Not so much, and when you do hear about it, there is almost always a negative spin attached to it.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesdays press conferenceBarbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a war a women, is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murrays staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.
Shameless, really. This is the latest example of the disdain in which this administration holds the citizenry.
Why do you ask such no-brainer questions? She's FEMALE, don't you GET it? She works, she get pregnant, she takes time off, she wants to come back - IT DOESN'T MATTER, SHE'S THE VICTIM. The COMPANY owes her, the STATE owes her, EVERYONE OWES HER - raises, promotions, status, and changing the words used in and around her presence, referring to her and anything she is associated with, judged solely - solely - by how it makes her FEEL.
And pretending to ask about this obvious fact is nothing but abuse - and abuse is malice, and malice means punitive damages. So for asking your question, you have outed yourself as a typically abusive, malicious male. Which means get out your checkbook, buddy - time to pay BIG for being a sexist pig.
And when you're done paying for THAT, she can use the fact of it to prove abuse in DIVORCING you, to get everything ELSE you have - or ever WILL have.
P.S. Go ahead, I dare ANYONE to tell me I'm exaggerating.
I wonder when they’re going to apply this “act” to professional sports.
I’m sure that everyone would be thrilled to see every “small” forward in the NBA receive the same pay as Lebron James... Or the owners would be thrilled to see Lebron James take a pay cut to that of all “small” forwards in the league.
And Tom Brady would get the same pay as every other quarterback in the NFL...
Hey, it’s the same position, so it’s the same work.
If women are really getting lower pay than men for the same job, why aren’t women getting preferential hiring status? Wouldn’t a company be stupid to pay more for a man if it could really get the same job from a woman for less cost?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.