Senate Republicans Vote Down Bill on Equal Pay

[Captain N]

It really baffles me as to how these guys keep getting put in office. Let's not pay men and women the same for the same amount of work because a woman may have to take time off for a baby? And then go on once more to attack Obamacare instead.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us...ml?hpw&rref=us

[Osmeric]

Government control of wages... what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

This bill is just the Democrats looking to make headlines of a War on Women to try to get some votes for them in November. As has been pointed out countless times, the pay disparity all but vanishes when you account for hours worked, jobs held and breaks from working (women who take a couple years off after having a baby). What's funny is Obama's white house is paying women 20% less for the same job as men, but the left remains silent on that.

Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that this is a bad idea. But being informed is a lot harder than outrage at imagined injuries.

Source on that last part.

[Captain N]

Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that this is a bad idea. But being informed is a lot harder than outrage at imagined injuries.

Paying someone an equal wage is a bad idea...? Source please.

[Kathandira]

So a woman who decides to not have children, or just plain can't for what ever reason, should get paid less than men?

Sounds stupid to me.

[Tseol]

This bill is just the Democrats looking to make headlines of a War on Women to try to get some votes for them in November. As has been pointed out countless times, the pay disparity all but vanishes when you account for hours worked, jobs held and breaks from working (women who take a couple years off after having a baby). What's funny is Obama's white house is paying women 20% less for the same job as men, but the left remains silent on that.

Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that this is a bad idea. But being informed is a lot harder than outrage at imagined injuries.

I believe most of the figures I hear quoted are per hour, for men and women holding the same jobs. I don't know how time off, hours worked or jobs held make any difference for those..?

[theostrichsays]

Can I ask this honestly? Where is the gap? I have read both sides of there being a gap and not being a gap, and when I look at most the gap arguments they ignore time in job and things like that. Not being a douche really not, I feel that people should be paid equally just most the arguments I see that talk about their being a massive gap the 77 percent of a mans pay or whatever didn't take into effect time at the job, and things like that. 77 and 95 percent are some big differences.
From Wikipedia-
In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers. Women's median yearly earnings relative to men's rose rapidly from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%), and less rapidly from 1990 to 2000 (from 71.6% to 73.7%) and from 2000 to 2009 (from 73.7% to 77.0%).[18][19]

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, The U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[4]

Just from personal experience, I have worked with females in most every job I have had (minus Infantry in the military) and never seen a gap between what I earn and what they earn. Once upon a time I took a second job at Walmart for a while, and caught a bunch of flack because I started out more then the women who did at the same time. Also, I had more experience with electronics and qualifications for fork lift, and other machinery they had, plus nobody attacked the female who started at a higher wage due to her prior experience.
Now if we are talking about people getting jobs then I can agree whole heartedly, from the same section of Wiki-
Other studies have found direct evidence of discrimination. For example, fewer replies to identical resumes if sent by women with children than by men with children[24]:10 and more jobs for women when orchestras moved to blind auditions
Because I can whole heartedly admit that I am the outlier as a male with full custody of my son, and multiple jobs have pulled 180's when discovering that I am the only provider for him.
Anyways... how Mitch gains support for much of anything these days is confusing. Just haven't heard Grimes make a compelling case for replacing him (pretty well locally its just been, she is a woman and Mitch is a republican as the only argument for her), and Blevin likely won't gain anywhere near the support.

[Xires]

This bill is just the Democrats looking to make headlines of a War on Women to try to get some votes for them in November. As has been pointed out countless times, the pay disparity all but vanishes when you account for hours worked, jobs held and breaks from working (women who take a couple years off after having a baby). What's funny is Obama's white house is paying women 12% less for the same job as men, but the left remains silent on that.

Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that this is a bad idea. But being informed is a lot harder than outrage at imagined injuries.

Edited: to change 20% to 12%

Well said^. The left just loves to start up crap and then in the end all they did was sucker you for your vote. What now over 6 years of Obama and more people are on welfare then ever before and the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer and American jobs continue to go overseas...lets talk about THAT.

[Osmeric]

Paying someone an equal wage is a bad idea...? Source please.

Having a government decide what is an equal wage, and who deserves to get it, is a very bad idea.

[Captain N]

Show me evidence that a woman performing the same job, for the same company, for the same amount of years with the exact same qualifications as her male counterpart is continually paid less.

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/wo...ngs-and-income

[Raeph]

American Enterprise study proves the statement, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/gen...r-paid-to-men/.

They compared the salaries of the paid staffers released in the White House report http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r...l-records/2013

Women staffers make about 65k a year average, male staffers make about 73.7k a year.

But it is a conservative organization that posted the information so they must be lying.

[Fexus]

I don't know the specifics of the bill, but the government would have to subsidized the increased cost of labor or this bill could inadvertently hurt women. Women, on average, cost more to employ because they sometimes have babies. If wages are made equal this will cause employers to desire to hire men more. This effect could potentially be alleviated by legislation, but all too often the government harms groups they are trying to help.

[Lilly32]

this is one of those things that seems really great on paper but wont turn out well. I mean theres so many questions. Where exactly is the extra money going to come from? How will they decide who gets paid more and how much should they get paid? Are we talking a woman and man doing the same job but what if she has less experience. What about location? Obviously a larger company that services more customers can afford to pay more but a smaller company might not be able to and has to lay off people. There are just too many variables and questions raised by this.

[Symphonic]

The bill is inherently flawed. If a bill like this was passed then your ability to negotiate for higher pay (either with your current employer or for a new job) diminishes. The power shifts to the employer where they'll end up setting specific pay for specific roles for fear of being sued if someone gets higher pay (not to mention the workplace turmoil). So if you do a better job than your counterpart, it doesn't matter. Your job gets paid X amount and therefore you won't get paid more unless it's the standard yearly pay raise or you get promoted (other than those who are paid off commission). The only other way to get a raise would be to get HR to sign off on giving everyone a raise, which is a lot harder than negotiating for just yourself to get a raise.


Anyway, isn't a reason the "pay gap" is less for women because most women leave the workforce to have children, and when they come back they now don't have as much experience as those who never stopped working? Therefore, they're being paid based on what their experience level is? And as far as I'm concerned, I don't tell other coworkers what I make, and I don't know what they make. There is a reason the employer negotiates with you to get you a salary/wage that works for both of you.

[THE Bigzoman]

There is no wage gap. The bigger question is, why women can't/aren't going into the same positions as men to acquire the same pay. Not why they are doing the same thing as a guy and are getting paid less.

It could be the fact that they are still seen as the caregiver in our society. Or double standards in presentation and communication that can make a guy a boss on the top of his game in one hand while a girl is called a moody bitch boss when she employs the same approach.

Or it could be because physical appearance/beauty play more of a factor in female promotion then it does men.

None of these problems are fixed by an arbitrary gap of a few cents. Because when all proper factors are taken into account, thats all the gap really is.

[Lilly32]

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/wo...ngs-and-income

i dont trust websites like that. They have an agenda and like everyone with an agenda they distort facts or leave things out in order to make a point. Link a non biased study.

[THE Bigzoman]

The median annual earnings for full-time, year-round women workers in 2012 was $37,791 compared to men’s $49,398.1
In 2013, the median weekly earnings for full-time working women was $706, compared to $860 for men.2
In 2013, the median weekly earnings for women in full-time management, professional, and related occupations was $973, compared to $1,349 for men.3
In 2012, full-time working married women with spouses present had median usual weekly earnings of $751, somewhat higher than never married women ($594) or women of other marital status (divorced, separated, or widowed - $735).4
In 2012, full-time working married men with spouses present had median usual weekly earnings of $981, significantly higher than never married men ($620) or men of other marital status ($815), or women of any marital status.5
In 2013, Asian women who were full-time wage and salary workers had higher median weekly earnings than women of all other races/ethnicities as well as African-American and Latino men.

I see no specific professions, companies, or anything else in that account. Just broad statistics.

[Felya]

Saying women's pay being 12% less because of babies, implies that women take more than a month off every year, to have a baby... That's absurd...

[Fexus]

i dont trust websites like that. They have an agenda and like everyone with an agenda they distort facts or leave things out in order to make a point. Link a non biased study.

Most of their statistics are cited from the Department of Labor.

[Felya]

i dont trust websites like that. They have an agenda and like everyone with an agenda they distort facts or leave things out in order to make a point. Link a non biased study.

Do you take more than a month off each year to have a baby?