The War on Women

[Ansgar Seraph]

Yeah, it's an annoying tactic that both sides are guilty of; name the bills things like "Protecting America's Youth Act" and then when the other side votes against it the supporting politicians can say "see, these [Democrats/Republicans] don't really give a crap about America's youth! What terrible people! Vote for us!"

I can't really say for sure because I haven't actually read it yet, but the name of it certainly makes it sound like the sort of thing that's designed specifically for the dems to use as campaign fodder against Republicans. "Republicans voted against 'Paycheck Fairness' for women. Clearly these misogynistic vermin don't care at all about women like we do, so vote democrat in the coming elections!"

EDITED TO ADD: Looks like Reid is already using it for this purpose:

"...it's clear where Democrats stand. We stand for equal pay for equal work. And it's time for Republicans to stop denying the reality that millions of women face every day, and work with us to give women the pay equality they deserve."

i.e., "we like women; Republicans, not so much. So vote for us!" The bill may not have passed, but I think its real purpose has been served.

Olympia Snowe, the Republican senator from Maine, called the bill "unfortunate" and "an overreach," even as Democrats were expecting to court her vote. Given Snowe's professed reason for retiring is the logjam of senate partisanship, I'd say her opinion probably accurately reflects the content of the bill.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

Olympia Snowe, the Republican senator from Maine, called the bill "unfortunate" and "an overreach," even as Democrats were expecting to court her vote. Given Snowe's professed reason for retiring is the logjam of senate partisanship, I'd say her opinion probably accurately reflects the content of the bill.

—Sam

Interesting.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Here's the bill, for those interested in reading it.

[Psychic Missile]

Yeah. Republicans are no better than Democrats.

Greed truly knows no political boundaries.

I'm against passing laws that would increase the burden on businesses(the extra paperwork, not to mention face-to-face time managers would have to take away from doing their actual jobs to deal with this when employees complain) in order to deal with a problem that hasn't even been shown to exist. So good.

It looks like it's for the purposes of lawsuits.

Again, it's not clear that the any discrimination occurs on the part of the employer when there are a number of other factors that come into play, such as an employee's ability to negotiate their salary. If there are legitimate reasons for the pay disparity, then compelling employers to justify it could cause more problems than it is intended to fix.

How would it cause problems?

Maybe democrats should start paying the women on their staff the same as their men before they demand that the rest of the country do the same.

If politicians had to follow laws before they pass them there would be no more laws passed.

[Carrikature]

I've yet to find anything that clearly defines why an average salary is a worthwhile comparison. You could only legitimately compare salaries of the same position, and then you would still have to take into account years of experience and general effectiveness. I'd be willing to bet the 'gap' is a product of poor statistical measures. Surprise.

[rogue06]

you would still have to take into account years of experience

The problem with that as I have been saying is one employee may work on average 35-36 hours per week (arriving late/taking off early) and taking the equivalent of 3½ weeks off while the other stays late or comes in early averaging 42-44 hours per week and only missed 5 days during the year.

[Carrikature]

The problem with that as I have been saying is one employee may work on average 35-36 hours per week (arriving late/taking off early) and taking the equivalent of 3½ weeks off while the other stays late or comes in early averaging 42-44 hours per week and only missed 5 days during the year.

Oh I agree. That's part of what I consider general effectiveness.

[Soyeong]

How would it cause problems?

"If there were no victims, it would be necessary for democrats to invent them." There are no victims here, democrats just want to add paper work and allow women to sue over a problem that doesn't exist, thereby hurting businesses and lining the pockets of lawyers.

[Jedidiah]

If politicians had to follow laws before they pass them there would be no more laws passed.

That sounds good to me.

[rogue06]

I'm amazed at how a politician gets caught breaking a law and then immediately turns around demanding that another law be passed to cover it. How about just obeying the law covering it already on the books? But this allows the politician to pretend that they're a champion for cracking down on violations when in fact they're the one who broke the law in the first place.

A good example are those caught violating election financing laws.

[Psychic Missile]

"If there were no victims, it would be necessary for democrats to invent them." There are no victims here, democrats just want to add paper work and allow women to sue over a problem that doesn't exist, thereby hurting businesses and lining the pockets of lawyers.

Have you not heard of the Lily Ledbetter case?

[Soyeong]

Have you not heard of the Lily Ledbetter case?

That is evidence of pay disparity, but there was not enough information in the link to show that any of the disparity was due to gender discrimination. It may have been the case that she was not as good at negotiating her salary as the other supervisors or other factors. Note that I was not saying that there have not been any victims of gender discrimination, but that this law appears to make victims out people who earn less based on that fact regardless of whether any gender discrimination has actually occurred

[Darth Executor]

If politicians had to follow laws before they pass them there would be no more laws passed.

If politicians genuinely thought something was a problem they would not be doing it while trying to pass a law against it. It doesn't help that they can exempt themselves from their own law.

[Psychic Missile]

That is evidence of pay disparity, but there was not enough information in the link to show that any of the disparity was due to gender discrimination. It may have been the case that she was not as good at negotiating her salary as the other supervisors or other factors. Note that I was not saying that there have not been any victims of gender discrimination, but that this law appears to make victims out people who earn less based on that fact regardless of whether any gender discrimination has actually occurred

Can you elaborate on your last sentence? I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

If politicians genuinely thought something was a problem they would not be doing it while trying to pass a law against it. It doesn't help that they can exempt themselves from their own law.

I don't think it matters what their motive is. I think what matters is if the law is a good one.

[Soyeong]

Can you elaborate on your last sentence? I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Person A agrees to work for a certain salary. Person B of the opposite gender was able to negotiate a higher salary, and has earned more raises because they work more over time, and take less time off. There are legitimate reasons for their wage disparity, but with this law they are suddenly a victim and can sue or threaten to sue over it even though it has nothing to do with gender discrimination. The goal seems to be to put pressure on businesses to pay everyone the same regardless of whether they have earned the same pay. Especially with with small businesses, they might not be able to stay in business with being forced to give an unjustified raise.