[QUOTE]The Women's March on Washington galvanized women across the globe and gave voice to a rising political force on a history-making day. More than 2 million people took to the streets in Washington, D.C., and cities small and large on Jan. 21 to protest a new administration they fear will roll back civil, human and reproductive rights.
Will that voice thunder again?
On Wednesday, International Women's Day, the organizers behind the January march are planning a showing of economic solidarity in walkouts, rallies and marches dubbed A Day Without a Woman.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/03/06/day-without-woman-what-you-need-know/98690692/[/url]
Alexandria, Virginia public schools are closing tomorrow due to this strike.
didn't something very similar happen not too long ago and the only result was a bunch of people lost their jobs
i don't see how this will end differently
Oh look a bunch of positions are going to be vacant soon
This will help increase the amount of women in the workforce
There's that wage gap myth again.
Meanwhile women in their twenties are already earning more than men.
TBH I don't think this will pan out like the last one, can fire your men and no one will bat an eye, fire a woman and they'll get called a misogynist.
So they're gonna go from being paid .23c(or whatever imaginary number they chose) less than males to being paid nothing at all. Bold move!
[QUOTE=esk0;51929264]didn't something very similar happen not too long ago and the only result was a bunch of people lost their jobs
i don't see how this will end differently[/QUOTE]
The immigrant one? I live in an area that might as well be a northern mexico and I didn't even notice the protest until someone told me about it. Everyone who wanted to keep their jobs was still at work, including the Mexican behind the counter at jack in the box who told me about it.
If women actually earned 78% of what men earned, every business would only hire women
[quote]Organizers hope to call attention to economic injustices women face such as lower wages, gender discrimination, sexual harassment and job insecurities.[/quote]
What a fucking joke, not only have the wage inequalities been proven again and again to be nonexistent, I'd bet my left nut none of them would want to dive into many of the incredibly dangerous jobs that men dominate in.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51929329]If women actually earned 78% of what men earned, every business would only hire women[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, because humans are perfectly rational creatures.
What is generally accepted as being at play here is unconscious discrimination. When you appraise people, a whole lot of things are coming into play that, especially if you aren't trying to think of them, will influence you.
[URL]http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract[/URL]
Here's one study that illustrates it. These people (women too!) who are being asked aren't horrible bigots or penny-pinching capitalists. But, subconsciously when sizing up the applicant they tend towards placing the man as being better qualified than the woman, despite everything else being exactly the same.
[sp]tho 78% is the wrong figure, that's the gross earnings gap. which doesn't take into account things like job choice, leaving for maternity and bla bla bla. the real number that can't be explained away with things like that is about 5-8%. People use the 78% figure because it's much more striking than 5%, go figure.[/sp]
The assumption that this strike action will make women worse off through job losses is useless cynicism which only serves to entrench the power of employers to deny workers just compensation and is dismissive of their legitimate concerns in regards to women's rights
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51929329]If women actually earned 78% of what men earned, every business would only hire women[/QUOTE]
As silly as the wage gap concept is, I never understood nor liked this argument.
When people state women make 78% of what men earn, they're not saying it's not some economic standard that business observe.
They're saying there's a concept that employers look at their female employees, and deem their work to be of less value than their male employees (making an assumption based on gender alone), thus pay them less.
Take your thought train from there, instead.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51929654]The assumption that this strike action will make women worse off through job losses is useless cynicism which only serves to entrench the power of employers to deny workers just compensation and is dismissive of their legitimate concerns in regards to women's rights[/QUOTE]
You don't protest [i]some[/i] corporations unfairly compensating women by harming the company you work for, which has not necessarily done anything wrong.
That'd be like blaming Bernie Sanders for something Hillary Clinton did because they're generally on the same "side".
[QUOTE=geel9;51929713]You don't protest [i]some[/i] corporations unfairly compensating women by harming the company you work for, which has not necessarily done anything wrong.
That'd be like blaming Bernie Sanders for something Hillary Clinton did because they're generally on the same "side".[/QUOTE]
Have you heard of solidarity, one of the cornerstones of the workers' rights movement?
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51929686]As silly as the wage gap concept is, I never understood nor liked this argument.
When people state women make 78% of what men earn, they're not saying it's not some economic standard that business observe.
They're saying there's a concept that employers look at their female employees, and deem their work to be of less value than their male employees (making an assumption based on gender alone), thus pay them less.
Take your thought train from there, instead.[/QUOTE]
And how can they prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, unless they're mind readers of course.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51929740]Have you heard of solidarity, one of the cornerstones of the workers' rights movement?[/QUOTE]
If you harm my ethically-run business in protest of unethical businesses, you're a piece of shit.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51929293]There's that wage gap myth again.
Meanwhile women in their twenties are already earning more than men.[/QUOTE]
When I was younger, I worked at this hoity-toity vegan food store, starting at about 8.25 an hour. After two and a half years, I was at 9.34
I helped get my ex wife a job there, they started her at the same position, at 9.85$
Wage gap is horseshit
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;51929891]When I was younger, I worked at this hoity-toity vegan food store, starting at about 8.25 an hour. After two and a half years, I was at 9.34
I helped get my ex wife a job there, they started her at the same position, at 9.85$
Wage gap is horseshit[/QUOTE]
A single anecdotal experience is not evidence that the wage gap is horseshit. There's already enough real evidence of that. You don't need to muddy the waters with anecdotes.
[QUOTE=geel9;51929848]If you harm my ethically-run business in protest of unethical businesses, you're a piece of shit.[/QUOTE]
If you had an ethically-run business you would be in support of their display of solidarity with mistreated workers...
When is China striking?
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51929686]As silly as the wage gap concept is, I never understood nor liked this argument.
When people state women make 78% of what men earn, they're not saying it's not some economic standard that business observe.
They're saying there's a concept that employers look at their female employees, and deem their work to be of less value than their male employees (making an assumption based on gender alone), thus pay them less.
Take your thought train from there, instead.[/QUOTE]
It's because women's life choices (namely getting pregnant/raising kids) is why they EARN less. This isn't the company treating them discriminatory at all.
Could businesses use improvements? Always. But lying about a nonexistent wage gap doesn't accomplish that.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51930026]If you had an ethically-run business you would be in support of their display of solidarity with mistreated workers...[/QUOTE]
Good to know you have a shaky understanding of the fundamentals of how a business operates
My supporting their right to fair compensation does not affect the fact that maybe my business can't afford its female employees doing a stupid fucking strike.
[QUOTE=geel9;51930039]Good to know you have a shaky understanding of the fundamentals of how a business operates
My supporting their right to fair compensation does not affect the fact that maybe my business can't afford its female employees doing a stupid fucking strike.[/QUOTE]
If a strike took into consideration the negative effects it could possibly have on a business it wouldn't be a strike now would it?
I mean, you can harp on about this hypothetical paragon-of-virtue business as much as you like, but it doesn't change that fact that when push comes to shove it's the workers versus the employers. Showing solidarity by striking helps redress the imbalance of power between the two groups.
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
It's pretty obvious you have some chip on your shoulder in regards to this. If you do run a business it might be an idea to reassess whether you are ethical first and business second, or the other way around. I mean, I'm sure all businesses see themselves as ethical. Whether they are or not is a different matter. If you cared about the fair compensation of workers beyond tokenism you'd try and accommodate your employees decision to strike as much as possible.
Maybe this is why I got a job today
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51929654]The assumption that this strike action will make women worse off through job losses is useless cynicism which only serves to entrench the power of employers to deny workers just compensation and is dismissive of their legitimate concerns in regards to women's rights[/QUOTE]
And also based on the truth of the matter. Employers, especially in at will states, are under no obligation to listen to a single word from the striking workers and are well within their right to just fire them(likely for job abandonment) and hire replacements. And that is precisely what will happen. We have already seen it play out and the only change that came of it wasa slight bump in employee turnover.
The way to go about this isnt striking, its lobbying Congress to first strike down all at-will employment laws, get them to strengthen unions and make it much harder for employers to push unions away, and [i]then[/i] go on strike when its so much more difficult for employers to shrug it off.
Strikes only work when they cause more than a minor disruption and a bit of turnover, for that, we need unions.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51930530]And also based on the truth of the matter. Employers, especially in at will states, are under no obligation to listen to a single word from the striking workers and are well within their right to just fire them(likely for job abandonment) and hire replacements. And that is precisely what will happen. We have already seen it play out and the only change that came of it wasa slight bump in employee turnover.
The way to go about this isnt striking, its lobbying Congress to first strike down all at-will employment laws, get them to strengthen unions and make it much harder for employers to push unions away, and [i]then[/i] go on strike when its so much more difficult for employers to shrug it off.
Strikes only work when they cause more than a minor disruption and a bit of turnover, for that, we need unions.[/QUOTE]
americans can strike now, they just need to do so in significant enough numbers that it would actually get things done. you want change in your country? get all of the truck drivers, airport baggage handlers, tollbooth operators, and deliverymen to strike and you'd probably cripple the country
to begin with it was often illegal to be a member of a trade union in the early industrial era - they didn't kindly petition politicians to get the right to do so - they went out and actually caused some ruckus unless they got what they deserved from their employers
where is this so called evidence that the wage gap is a myth? why is it that the shittiest, most bigoted opinions show up in any thread about gender equality?
this thread is a fucking disaster I honestly thought fp was better than this
[QUOTE=geel9;51929269]Oh look a bunch of positions are going to be vacant soon
This will help increase the amount of women in the workforce[/QUOTE]
how warped is your worldview that you would blame the demonstrators for that instead of the companies that choose to do it? how can you change something you believe is wrong without breaking the rules of those who are enforcing it?
Edit: Not actually trade unions, whoops, just women
Welp, more jobs are open : )
gotta keep those profits up cant even miss a single day of work to strike!
The work day has started over here in middle USA. Parking lot is actually surprisingly empty. Will update with the women I don't see.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.