U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Deleted]

And the employer has to show that she's being discriminated against, not just making less money. At that point if she can do that then yes the employer has to defend himself. Working as intended.

The judge doesn't need to know how the business works. Your understanding of the law here is severely lacking. Employee finds out she is making less and has evidence of direct sexism on the part of the employer (memos, that sort of thing). It then goes to court. The employer can then say "this person is paid this lesser wage because they're a worse employee, see this evaluation". At no point does what the company do become itself relevant.

From what I can learn, the employee needs to show the following:

-You performed work in a position requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions
-You were paid less than the male employees.

After that the employer has to prove it wasn't sexism. And if it's some small firm that doesn't have a proper HR department you'll have a harder time. This regulation obviously affects smaller business more than big corporations.

And yes, the judge must know how the business works, or he can't properly determine what makes work valuable.

[Wells]

Diurdi, let's start simple.

Let's say a woman can show credible evidence that she is being paid less due to employer sexism.

Should she be able to bring this to court and seek redress?

---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 10:01 PM ----------

And yes, the judge must know how the business works, or he can't properly determine what makes work valuable.

He doesn't need to know what makes work valuable. They're not discussing the absolute value of the work, only that employee's relative value to others doing the same work.

[Deleted]

not quite... the gap was already known to be based on gender.

If you want to start nitpicking: There's an unexplainable amount of women deaths. Instead of properly looking what the cause is, you just assume it's whatever agenda of yours it fits.

Diurdi, let's start simple.
Let's say a woman can show credible evidence that she is being paid less due to employer sexism.
Should she be able to bring this to court and seek redress?

1. What is credible evidence 2. Ideally discrimination law in business shouldn't exist, but that's another issue entirely.

He doesn't need to know what makes work valuable. They're not discussing the absolute value of the work, only that employee's relative value to others doing the same work.

And how can you show this unless you know the business. People can get paid more for things that don't show up as concrete and quantitative evidence.

[eriseis]

If you want to start nitpicking: There's an unexplainable amount of women deaths. Instead of properly looking what the cause is, you just assume it's whatever agenda of yours it fits.

1. What is credible evidence 2. Ideally discrimination law in business shouldn't exist, but that's another issue entirely.

And how can you show this unless you know the business. People can get paid more for things that don't show up as concrete and quantitative evidence.

I wouldn't argue businesses would be on the losing side. Didn't Wal-Mart win the discrimination lawsuits?

[Wells]

Ideally discrimination law in business shouldn't exist

Then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't argue businesses would be on the losing side. Didn't Wal-Mart win the discrimination lawsuits?

For wallmart the cost of such lawsuits is pocket change. I'm more worried about small and medium sized business.

Then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Why not? I'm willing to debate from the perspective that discrimination shouldn't be allowed. Even if I thought discrimination law was totally fine, I could still point to the same flaws about Equal Pay legislation.

[starlord]

If you want to start nitpicking: There's an unexplainable amount of women deaths. Instead of properly looking what the cause is, you just assume it's whatever agenda of yours it fits.

but we already know the reason, is what i said. thats why the law was made in the first place. its simply not quite effective enough.

[Wells]

Why not? I'm willing to debate from the perspective that discrimination shouldn't be allowed. Even if I thought discrimination law was totally fine, I could still point to the same flaws about Equal Pay legislation.

Then whats the problem? If you assume that workplace discrimination is bad then how would you not want people to be able to air their grievances in court if they feel they have a case as set by law?

[eriseis]

For wallmart the cost of such lawsuits is pocket change. I'm more worried about small and medium sized business.

Shit, small business, my weak point. I guess you are right in that regard.

[Wells]

Shit, small business, my weak point. I guess you are right in that regard.

Its pretty common for small businesses to get more protection.

[Callace]

For wallmart the cost of such lawsuits is pocket change. I'm more worried about small and medium sized business.

Doesn't the complainant have to pay the court expenses for the defendant if they lose the case?

[Deleted]

Then whats the problem? If you assume that workplace discrimination is bad then how would you not want people to be able to air their grievances in court if they feel they have a case as set by law?

Because of the massive holes I just revealed to you. The employee should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is discriminated against because of her gender. Not just show that men are earning more than her and they have similar jobs, and then ask the employer to prove it's not based on gender.

[mistuhbull]

Doesn't the complainant have to buy the court expenses for the defendant if they lose the case?

Only if your suit says so

[Wells]

The employee should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is discriminated against because of her gender.

Before going to court?

[Callace]

Only if your suit says so

Egad, that should read "pay" not "buy". I've been awake for 48 hours. =/

[Deleted]

Doesn't the complainant have to buy the court expenses for the defendant if they lose the case?

Probably. But if the small business doesn't have a proper human resources division that keeps track on the reasons why people are paid what they are paid (which is costlier to small business than big corps) or the grounds for the wage are non-quantifiable and can't thus be properly proven, the small business is in trouble.

That's why, like in all other discrimination cases (for example race), the complainant has to prove it's discrimination. Not just show that it "might be".

[Wells]

Probably. But if the small business doesn't have a proper human resources division that keeps track on the reasons why people are paid what they are paid (which is costlier to small business than big corps) or the grounds for the wage are non-quantifiable and can't thus be properly proven, the small business is in trouble.

You don't need a "proper HR division" to do biannual employee evaluations.

[Callace]

Probably. But if the small business doesn't have a proper human resources division that keeps track on the reasons why people are paid what they are paid (which is costlier to small business than big corps) or the grounds for the wage are non-quantifiable and can't thus be properly proven, the small business is in trouble.

That's why, like in all other discrimination cases (for example race), the complainant has to prove it's discrimination. Not just show that it "might be".

So, in the worst case scenario, the business may not be equipped to handle it regularly. But the prospect of not only losing the case, but paying the defendant's court costs will still act as a strong deterrent for frivolous suits.

[starlord]

You don't need a "proper HR division" to do biannual employee evaluations.

yeah, at my job the managers do it.

[Wells]

yeah, at my job the managers do it.

I've worked at a company with 6 people and they did them.