1. #2241
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is correct. In most employment disputes the DoL will represent employees who meet their requirements
    So the fear of the employee having to pay for all the court costs doesn't exist (and rightfully so).

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    We're talking about people making less than their peers. If they are then there clearly should be a reason that can be demonstrated, such as poor educational level, poor sales, poor attendance etc etc. Your appeals to things like "leadership" are just tiresome nonsense that has no relevance.
    So leadership qualities, or any other qualities that in that particular job does not translate into measurable numbers, should not be allowed to cause higher wages?

  2. #2242
    So leadership qualities, or any other qualities that in that particular job does not translate into measurable numbers, should not be allowed to cause into higher wages?
    We're not talking about higher wages, we're talking about someone making lower wages than all the people around them, not just than one person.

    Unless you think "she's making less than the 6 guys doing the same job because they all have leadership" is a serious argument.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 10:43 PM ----------

    But lets get this straight, you're assuming discrimination in the workplace is bad. So why don't you want those who are discriminated against to have their day in court?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #2243
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    But lets get this straight, you're assuming discrimination in the workplace is bad. So why don't you want those who are discriminated against to have their day in court?
    I would have nothing against this, it just needs to be treated like a normal case, instead of switching the burden of proof into the employer.

    So the employee would actually have to show "memo's or paper" that shows she is the victim of gender discrimination, not that she just for whatever reason happens to have a lower wage.

    Anyway, bed.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-05-15 at 10:48 PM.

  4. #2244
    I would have nothing against this, it just needs to be treated like a normal case, instead of switching the burden of proof into the employer.
    Which no one is doing. So you've spent pages attacking a strawman law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  5. #2245
    Legendary! Callace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ivory Tower
    Posts
    6,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I would have nothing against this, it just needs to be treated like a normal case, instead of switching the burden of proof into the employer.

    So the employee would actually have to show "memo's or paper" that shows she is the victim of gender discrimination, not that she just for whatever reason happens to have a lower wage.
    They do have to show evidence like "memos or paper", the employee does have the burden of proof. That's why people are standing up for this as a basic right, because it is.

  6. #2246
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Which no one is doing. So you've spent pages attacking a strawman law.
    I don't think you understand the law. Under the federal Equal Pay Act:

    The employee has to show that 1) The wages between sexes are different 2) The jobs they perform require equal skill, responsibility etc and are performed under the same conditions. There is no need to show intent.

    After this, the employer will be liable unless he can prove it wasn't sexism.

    So indeed, the employee does not need to actually prove sexism, only that it might be sexism, even though it could be a variety of other reasons that are harder or easier to show by the employer.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-05-16 at 07:51 AM.

  7. #2247
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I don't think you understand the law. Under the federal Equal Pay Act:

    The employee has to show that 1) The wages between sexes are different 2) The jobs they perform require equal skill, responsibility etc and are performed under the same conditions. There is no need to show intent.

    After this, the employer will be liable unless he can prove it wasn't sexism.

    So indeed, the employee does not need to actually prove sexism, only that it might be sexism, even though it could be a variety of other reasons that are harder or easier to show by the employer.
    No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex .[2]
    doesnt that pretty much cover the ways pay is determined?

  8. #2248
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ferndale, MI
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Just because you have the same job title, workplace experience and even same qualifications, doesn't mean people do work of equal value. And some outside judge can certainly not determine the value of a persons work. The way an employer values how important someone is to the firm can seldom be quantified concretely on a paper. It consists more of personal observations or other factors that are ultimately subjective.

    And this has the potential to create cases of sexism where there is none. Which in turn leads to companies having to invest into keeping some hard evidence, even if complete bogus, to justify the different salaries.
    At the very least, would you concede that this would be easy enough to handle for starting pay?

  9. #2249
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    doesnt that pretty much cover the ways pay is determined?
    It does, but you're missing his point.

    In a normal business dispute- say, Activision vs former Infinity Ward staff:

    IW staff sues because they feel they weren't properly compensated.

    They, the plaintiff, must prove that they weren't paid as per the agreement they had in place. They must present contracts, payments, etc to prove their case. The defense, Activison, does what they feel they need to defend themselves.

    In an equal pay case, if all the IW workers were women, and said they were compensated at a lower rate due to sexism, they need only prove they were doing similar work, recieved less pay, and that it MIGHT have been sexism. At that point, they have no burden of proving that it WAS sexism- that burden falls on the defense to prove that it wasn't.

    It runs counter to the very nature of our court system.

    Further, (and this is where it disproportionately hurts small/mid-size businesses) businesses need to be pro-active to diffuse potential bombs by building in formal review structures, creating paper trails for CYA, etc.

    I just think the whole thing is a load of bullshit. As has been said by me in the past, isn't it funny how a 7% pay gap (assuming it is only ever gender bias that causes it) requires legislative correction, but a 20% and growing educational gap doesn't?

    Isn't it amusing and convenient that when women make on average 7% less, it's the fault of big, bad men, but when women outnumber men in the workforce and vastly outnumber them in college, it's because they must work harder or be smarter?

    Isn't it amusing that women are actually a slight majority in this country, and a bigger majority in the voting booth, and yet are still a protected minority?

    If there is a war on women, it is obviously about as successful as our wars on drugs and poverty.

    And before you get your panties in a bunch, Eresis, the above is not something I'm concerned about. I'm not a victim. I'm not playing a card. I'm just amused.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-16 at 10:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by BLCalliente View Post
    At the very least, would you concede that this would be easy enough to handle for starting pay?
    Ironically, it is starting pay that has the smallest gap.

  10. #2250
    The Lightbringer eriseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Not the ATX :(
    Posts
    3,880
    Quote Originally Posted by BLCalliente View Post
    At the very least, would you concede that this would be easy enough to handle for starting pay?
    But even starting pay differs across individuals in the same positions. Many enterprises have salary levels and one day John got hired at 19.71 but later on Carl came over with programming knowledge which the company was seeking at the time and since he's an attractive candidate they didn't wanna risk losing him so he starts at 22.75 even though he's in the same position as John.
    Quote Originally Posted by Espe View Post
    God, Guns, Gays and Gynecology - the Republican 4G Network.

  11. #2251
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,035
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It does, but you're missing his point.

    In a normal business dispute- say, Activision vs former Infinity Ward staff:

    IW staff sues because they feel they weren't properly compensated.

    They, the plaintiff, must prove that they weren't paid as per the agreement they had in place. They must present contracts, payments, etc to prove their case. The defense, Activison, does what they feel they need to defend themselves.

    In an equal pay case, if all the IW workers were women, and said they were compensated at a lower rate due to sexism, they need only prove they were doing similar work, recieved less pay, and that it MIGHT have been sexism. At that point, they have no burden of proving that it WAS sexism- that burden falls on the defense to prove that it wasn't.

    It runs counter to the very nature of our court system.

    Further, (and this is where it disproportionately hurts small/mid-size businesses) businesses need to be pro-active to diffuse potential bombs by building in formal review structures, creating paper trails for CYA, etc.

    I just think the whole thing is a load of bullshit. As has been said by me in the past, isn't it funny how a 7% pay gap (assuming it is only ever gender bias that causes it) requires legislative correction, but a 20% and growing educational gap doesn't?

    Isn't it amusing and convenient that when women make on average 7% less, it's the fault of big, bad men, but when women outnumber men in the workforce and vastly outnumber them in college, it's because they must work harder or be smarter?

    Isn't it amusing that women are actually a slight majority in this country, and a bigger majority in the voting booth, and yet are still a protected minority?

    If there is a war on women, it is obviously about as successful as our wars on drugs and poverty.

    And before you get your panties in a bunch, Eresis, the above is not something I'm concerned about. I'm not a victim. I'm not playing a card. I'm just amused.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-16 at 10:08 AM ----------



    Ironically, it is starting pay that has the smallest gap.
    but all they have to do is have a clear system of pay. and what you and diurdi keep glossing over is that that legislation is what brought the gap to 7% instead of 50%.

  12. #2252
    The Lightbringer eriseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Not the ATX :(
    Posts
    3,880
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    I just think the whole thing is a load of bullshit. As has been said by me in the past, isn't it funny how a 7% pay gap (assuming it is only ever gender bias that causes it) requires legislative correction, but a 20% and growing educational gap doesn't?

    Isn't it amusing and convenient that when women make on average 7% less, it's the fault of big, bad men, but when women outnumber men in the workforce and vastly outnumber them in college, it's because they must work harder or be smarter?
    That same article you quoted mentioned that although women work harder in college, they get compensated less. You are picking what may or may not be a problem to fight the result of a solution that had deep historical and sociological roots. You are playing the "men are victims" too card, which is only noise. It's not the same problem.

    Edit: I left the original post up cuz I think it's hilarious I wrote it and missed the "And before you get your panties in a bunch, Eresis, the above is not something I'm concerned about. I'm not a victim. I'm not playing a card. I'm just amused.", lol.

    At any rate. You're obfuscating with something that may or may not be a problem. You claim that women are not a minority. In power they are. We might or might not have more women graduating but those in power are still men. Most CEO's are men, most congressmen are men, we still haven't had a female president. In STEM fields most people are men.
    Last edited by eriseis; 2012-05-16 at 02:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Espe View Post
    God, Guns, Gays and Gynecology - the Republican 4G Network.

  13. #2253
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    doesnt that pretty much cover the ways pay is determined?
    Yes, but the point is that you can't just say "well her wage is based on 'any other factor other than sex'". You also need to prove it wasn't based on gender, but based on something else.

    While it is normally the claimant that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did something, under the equal pay act it isn't so. It's a case of guilty until proven innocent once the employee has provided a possibility that it may be sexism. Also known as, shared burden of proof.

    Whether the employer is deliberately being a misogynist and giving a lower wage to women because of sexism, is irrelevant to these cases. Intent doesn't matter.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-05-16 at 02:19 PM.

  14. #2254
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Yes, but the point is that you can't just say "well her wage is based on 'any other factor other than sex'". You also need to prove it wasn't based on gender, but based on something else.

    While it is normally the claimant that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did something, under the equal pay act it isn't so. It's a case of guilty until proven innocent once the employee has provided a possibility that it may be sexism. Also known as, shared burden of proof.
    to even begin the case the employee had to show:
    different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
    the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and
    the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.

    intent is also not a requirement.

  15. #2255
    Quote Originally Posted by BLCalliente View Post
    At the very least, would you concede that this would be easy enough to handle for starting pay?
    Maybe in some industries, but not others. For example if they at walmart have some index that says that new hires recieve $10/hour if they're male and $9/hour if they're female by default, then it would be a case of discrimination. But it's often not this simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    to even begin the case the employee had to show:
    different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
    the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and
    the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.

    intent is also not a requirement.
    Yeah, I just said that. I don't need you to copypaste from wikipedia for me.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-05-16 at 02:25 PM.

  16. #2256
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    but all they have to do is have a clear system of pay. and what you and diurdi keep glossing over is that that legislation is what brought the gap to 7% instead of 50%.
    Put this in big bold letters and call it a day. We've come a long way with this Equal Pay Act.

    Diurdi and others make great points about such things as leaving the workforce to have babies being a possible reason for the wage gap of 7%. But you can't ignore darenyon's assertion, which seems to have been forgotten.

  17. #2257
    The Lightbringer eriseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Not the ATX :(
    Posts
    3,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Put this in big bold letters and call it a day. We've come a long way with this Equal Pay Act.

    Diurdi and others make great points about such things as leaving the workforce to have babies being a possible reason for the wage gap of 7%. But you can't ignore darenyon's assertion, which seems to have been forgotten.
    I thought the 7% came after maternity leave was accounted for?
    Quote Originally Posted by Espe View Post
    God, Guns, Gays and Gynecology - the Republican 4G Network.

  18. #2258
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Maybe in some industries, but not others. For example if they at walmart have some index that says that new hires recieve $10/hour if they're male and $9/hour if they're female by default, then it would be a case of discrimination. But it's often not this simple.

    Yeah, I just said that. I don't need you to copypaste from wikipedia for me.
    then why would you say its guilty until proven innocent? they have to establish a case that theres unequal pay on the basis of sex.

  19. #2259
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ferndale, MI
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    Ironically, it is starting pay that has the smallest gap.
    I don't find that to be ironic at all. That's my point.

    A gap in starting pay would be a very easy to spot indicator that there was sexism involved.

    Beyond that even I think it gets too muddy.

  20. #2260
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by eriseis View Post
    At any rate. You're obfuscating with something that may or may not be a problem. You claim that women are not a minority. In power they are. We might or might not have more women graduating but those in power are still men. Most CEO's are men, most congressmen are men, we still haven't had a female president. In STEM fields most people are men.
    And you're obfuscating the currently existing pay gap, which may or may not be a problem.

    Might or might not have more women graduating? Do you not believe in facts? More women have been graduating since I was 3!

    Most CEO's and Congressmen are men... And most mothers are... Women? SHOCKING! I know that you will only be happy after we have conquered and made irrelevant basic biology, but seriously... The dissonance is shocking.

    Yes, there are obviously and rightly women concerned with reaching the peaks of the business and political worlds... And there are many that just want to run a normal life, get married, have kids, and do their thing. Your argument is just silly on its' face. Biologically, more women will ALWAYS be interrupted by the 'being a woman' issue than men.

    It's as if you're saying that until women can pee standing up, they will always be behind the ball in business because they can't be as productive and they use more toilet paper. In order to correct this, we must either teach girls to catheterize themselves during potty training, or we must force men to sit down to pee in every occasion so that women can be equal.

    We still haven't had a female President because 1) Enlightened Democrats preferred an unqualified black guy over the most qualified female candidate we've ever had, and 3) Not enough women will vote for one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •