U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Wells]

The studies show that when genders are compared with equal education and experience the wage gap drops to pretty negligible numbers. It's not individual sexism. Feel good regulation is not good law.

That doesn't mean that if a woman is being discriminated against she shouldn't have legal recourse.

Do you want to elaborate, or do you want to put the burden of proving your point on your opponent?

To be honest the pay discussion is more interesting.

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.

yeah I'm personally of the mind that if you're going to pay a woman less for the same work you need an actual reason to do so beyond feelings.

[Jaxi]

Actually, it is allowing abortion for minors only in case of incest.

Are you sure it is not just listing an act of incest after being a minor? I see your point, but I can honestly see it interpreted both ways. Show me proof that the intention of the bill was only to cover minors if incest and then I will agree with you that the bill is bull$&^#.

[Maharishi]

If a employee is being paid so much less that a suit will go forward then it would be pretty damn easy to justify that if it is not in fact sexism. Poor evaluations, poor sales numbers etc etc. You don't need a fancy metric.

Really, because I've worked at small businesses all my life, and none of them have kept metrics. They shouldn't have to start to combat a phantom issue because people are afraid of being labeled sexist.

[Deleted]

Study after study indicates that even after accounting for all other factors that there is still a wage gap. And women who are discriminated against based on sex should always have legal recourse.

Most of those studies have serious flaws in comparing the different group. They usually fail to take important factors into consideration.

yeah I'm personally of the mind that if you're going to pay a woman less for the same work you need an actual reason to do so beyond feelings.

You have two managers in two different divisions. You can clearly see that one of them is a great leader and knows his shit, the other one is mediocre. The division with the mediocre leader happens to be in a market that boosts his sales, not because of his input, but because it's a good time to be in that market. The divison with the great leader has been delegated to a market that is slowing down and his team's sales don't do so well even though he's doing everything right.

Yet the employer gives a raise to the team with the worse result but the better leader. The mediocre leader happens to be a woman and sues, because she thinks its unfair. Good luck proving a judge that one has better "leadership qualities" and their quantifiable sales results were a consequence of macroeconomic factors and not personal skill.

[Wells]

Really, because I've worked at small businesses all my life, and none of them have kept metrics. They shouldn't have to start to combat a phantom issue because people are afraid of being labeled sexist.

Your companies didn't have employee evaluations? What were said employees doing?

Most of those studies have serious flaws in comparing the different group. They usually fail to take important factors into consideration.

/rollseyes You're attacking studies before you've even seen them. Not exactly the height of honest debate.

[Jaxi]

To be honest the pay discussion is more interesting.

Haha fair enough.

[Maharishi]

That doesn't mean that if a woman is being discriminated against she shouldn't have legal recourse.

Why is a woman getting shit on by her job different than a man getting shit on by her job? Why should she have recourse when she can just apply to a different job? Has anyone in this forum ever not quit a job because they didn't feel like they were getting paid commensurate to their skills?

[oblivionx]

You're terrible for this discussion. You make broad antagonistic claims that are too vague to refute, and then claim victory because people don't have anything specific to discuss about them. It's borderline trolling.

This discussion?

I'm not the one that makes things up or that grossly misconstrues them. There is no republican war on women, it's not real. I don't need to claim victory nor am I trolling. People that make outlandish claims and try to portray all republicans as misogynists are the ones trolling.

[Maharishi]

Your companies didn't have employee evaluations? What were said employees doing?

Coding, making graphics. The "evaluations" were occasional verbal discussions where the boss would mention you need to step it up, or that you were doing a good job.

[Badpaladin]

The studies show that when genders are compared with equal education and experience the wage gap drops to pretty negligible numbers. It's not individual sexism. Feel good regulation is not good law.

Except it's not feel-good regulation. It's ensuring that people, regardless of gender, are paid according to their means. Metrics for determining this aren't impossibly contrived to all hell; not to mention a court will take nothing seriously unless it's a legitimate claim.

I guess I really don't see the issue. If an employer treats his employees well and pays them fairly, there's never an issue.

[Catta]

Boy... what did i start with my comment :P

[Wells]

Why is a woman getting shit on by her job different than a man getting shit on by her job? Why should she have recourse when she can just apply to a different job? Has anyone in this forum ever not quit a job because they didn't feel like they were getting paid commensurate to their skills?

Men have recourse for sexism as well in most states and if they don't that's certainly not something I support, nor is it an argument against equal pay laws.

I've worked jobs where I wasn't getting paid what I deserved. But that doesn't mean I had a sexism case. Now if I was the only chick getting paid that wage when all the men were making 30% more? Absolutely.

You're clouding the issue.

Coding, making graphics. The "evaluations" were occasional verbal discussions where the boss would mention you need to step it up, or that you were doing a good job.

I'll be perfectly honest. If your company has no records whatsoever of employee performance they're doing something terribly wrong.

[eriseis]

Why is a woman getting shit on by her job different than a man getting shit on by her job? Why should she have recourse when she can just apply to a different job? Has anyone in this forum ever not quit a job because they didn't feel like they were getting paid commensurate to their skills?

Because not all job markets are the same. Transitional friction is rather high in some job markets.

---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 03:43 PM ----------

Coding, making graphics. The "evaluations" were occasional verbal discussions where the boss would mention you need to step it up, or that you were doing a good job.

Some larger enterprises will have metrics. Phack, at my former job they calibrated your performance based on everyone else in the company at your level and if you were not at par you were in trouble.

I doubt Wal-Mart does...oh, speaking of gender discrimination...

[Maharishi]

Except it's not feel-good regulation. It's ensuring that people, regardless of gender, are paid according to their means. Metrics for determining this aren't impossibly contrived to all hell; not to mention a court will take nothing seriously unless it's a legitimate claim.

I guess I really don't see the issue. If an employer treats his employees well and pays them fairly, there's never an issue.

It comes down, for me, to : If the government is regulating an issue, there better be an actual reason for it. Every regulation has actual impact in terms of decreased efficiency for businesses. Many time the benefits of the regulations far outweigh the costs. However, in this situation, I can't see the problem that is being solved by this regulation. Title VII already covers a lot of employer based discrimination, equal pay laws are just a knee jerk reaction to that 76% pay gap number that always comes up.

[Wells]

It comes down, for me, to : If the government is regulating an issue, there better be an actual reason for it

Sure there is. Workplace discrimination occurs and its bad. Laws as they stand do not place a serious burden on employers unless there is substantial evidence they're discriminating already.

[Maharishi]

Larger enterprises will have metrics. Phack, at my former job they calibrated your performance based on everyone else in the company at your level and if you were not at par you were in trouble.

Sure. But many small businesses won't, often times because they can't afford to have a real HR department. Why regulate them into having to spend resources for an issue that doesn't seem to actually exist?

[Wells]

Why regulate them into having to spend resources for an issue that doesn't seem to actually exist?

You're slowly shifting here. You've gone from "pay gap is small" to "workplace discrimination doesn't exist".

[Maharishi]

You're slowly shifting here. You've gone from "pay gap is small" to "workplace discrimination doesn't exist".

The issue I was referring to was that there was a significant pay gap. Not workplace discrimination in general. My apologies if the antecedents of my anaphoras are unclear.

[Wells]

The issue I was referring to was that there was a significant pay gap. Not workplace discrimination in general. My apologies if the antecedents of my pronouns are unclear.

But that's the thing. The pay gap being small isn't a solid argument against discrimination recourse any more than a small murder rate is an argument against murder laws, to use a somewhat hyperbolic analogy.

[eriseis]

Sure. But many small businesses won't, often times because they can't afford to have a real HR department. Why regulate them into having to spend resources for an issue that doesn't seem to actually exist?

It's a historical problem. I'm sure the way it worked out (and I'm wording like that since it's a hypothesis and I don't want any "HUR DUR PROOOF ET DAMN LIBERAL") is that people realized there was a gender gap and the law is vestigial to a reaction to that gap.

The problem is that in the current political climate, the GOP has been pushing an agenda that seems to be against women's rights (whether it is or not, no need for "omg, phacking liberal" talk) and even if a law they propose is good, it will not be perceived under a good light.