• Paycheck Fairness Act fails, yet again
    44 replies, posted
[quote=Politico] Senate Republicans rejected a measure written by Senate Democrats aimed at bridging differences in pay between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act fell short 52-40, failing to clear a 60-vote procedural vote hurdle on Monday evening, the third time the measure has failed since spring of 2012. That might be the last vote this year on Democrats’ poll-driven, election-year legislation aimed at creating a national contrast between Democrats and Republicans, aides said, given this is likely the last week the Senate is in session before recessing for the midterms. Democrats say the Paycheck Fairness Act would make significant headway to narrowing gender pay disparities by offering training for salary negotiations, increasing employees’ legal options for fighting pay disparities and prohibiting retaliation against employees seeking salary information.[/quote] Article: [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-pay-equity-bill-110980.html[/url] Here's the actual vote record: [url]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00262[/url] Every single Republican that didn't abstain voted against - this party is digging its own grave.
Hasn't it been proven over and over that the wage gap is not only caused by career choices but is a dated statistic from the 80s?
I don't have a problem with the bill, but wtf is with American lawmakers and giving such names to bills? Eg if you voted against the patriot act, you are labelled as not being a patriot. If you voted against the paycheck fairness act, you are labelled as being against fair pay etc. [editline]17th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Muthenfrucheir;45999742]Hasn't it been proven over and over that the wage gap is not only caused by career choices but is a dated statistic from the 80s?[/QUOTE] There's still inequality in pay between males and females today buddy.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45999767]I don't have a problem with the bill, but wtf is with American lawmakers and giving such names to bills?[/QUOTE] Most American Bills have terrible names? The Patriot Act? Protect IP Act?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45999767]I don't have a problem with the bill, but wtf is with American lawmakers and giving such names to bills? Eg if you voted against the patriot act, you are labelled as not being a patriot. If you voted against the paycheck fairness act, you are labelled as being against fair pay etc. [editline]17th September 2014[/editline] There's still inequality in pay between males and females today buddy.[/QUOTE] "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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.
[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;45999517] Every single Republican that didn't abstain voted against - this party is digging its own grave.[/QUOTE] Nice little election year gift to Democrats. There is virtually no reason any woman in her right mind would vote GOP.
did they even give a reason...seems like one of those headline generating things that would only hurt the republicans for not voting for or abstaining from... [editline]16th September 2014[/editline] ooh this is funny on so many levels [quote]Republicans have deemed the bill too broad and likely to result in a rise in litigation — and [B]criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for holding votes on legislation that has already failed this year. [/B] [/quote] first off, there's already a rise in litigation from NOT doing anything as more and more big cases are headed up towards the supreme court second off, how's dem repeal obama care bills going for you? you know the ones that failed to pass about 500 times last year
[QUOTE]Democrats say the Paycheck Fairness Act would make significant headway to narrowing gender pay disparities by offering training for salary negotiations, increasing employees’ legal options for fighting pay disparities and prohibiting retaliation against employees seeking salary information. [/QUOTE]The last two seem okay, but I don't think I am quite comfortable with the first one. It raises a lot of questions as to whom the training would be offered for and who decides what people get it. Not to mention what it could cost for a somewhat trivial service. It leaves a lot of room for exploitation and imo is pretty unnecessary. I am curious what exactly the last two things entail, though.
if it's good for women or minorities, the gop votes against it.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;46000107]The last two seem okay, but I don't think I am quite comfortable with the first one. It raises a lot of questions as to whom the training would be offered for and who decides what people get it. Not to mention what it could cost for a somewhat trivial service. It leaves a lot of room for exploitation and imo is pretty unnecessary. I am curious what exactly the last two things entail, though.[/QUOTE] i figure as long as both men and women are offered training on salary negotiation it shouldnt be an issue. there'd be no reason to prevent men from getting the training that i can see (from a pro-wage equality standpoint). men will negotiate for the highest wages they can get, women will negotiate for the highest they can get, hypothetically negotiating the gap away as well
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46000144]if it's good for women or minorities, the gop votes against it.[/QUOTE] I would more say that the democrats will vote for anything that they can swindle ignorant people into believing that it is good for minorities or women.
In what career fields is there a gap in wages? Every employer I've worked at has had the same starting wage plus standardized raises regardless of gender. I have never seen the "$0.71 for every $1" in my lifetime when it came to female wages. Its always been $1=$1
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;45999887]"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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.[/QUOTE] How is it proven wrong if there's still a 4.8%-7.1% pay difference for the same job? It might be better than it used to be, but it's still a problem.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45999767]I don't have a problem with the bill, but wtf is with American lawmakers and giving such names to bills? Eg if you voted against the patriot act, you are labelled as not being a patriot. If you voted against the paycheck fairness act, you are labelled as being against fair pay etc. [editline]17th September 2014[/editline] There's still inequality in pay between males and females today buddy.[/QUOTE] But oh, poor men like me have to work more hours than women according to statistics. This prevents me from doing things such as spending time with my family, exploring hobbies, and messing around with friends. You can't just look at statistics at face value and say that there's a problem. Men make more money than women for several reasons such as not having to be taken out of the game for childbirth, the fact that men choose to go into more demanding but better paying fields, etc. Even within the same job, if a woman decides to have a child that decision will potentially lead to having a lower salary in the long run due to not being a candidate for promotions.
[QUOTE=Muthenfrucheir;45999742]Hasn't it been proven over and over that the wage gap is not only caused by career choices but is a dated statistic from the 80s?[/QUOTE] It's been shown that the figure is not the oft-cited "70-80% of what men earn" when you factor in career choices but the same studies that debunk this figure still demonstrate a non-negligible wage gap that can't be explained away by non-discriminatory reasons. (Usually in the 5-10% range, as opposed to the commonly cited 20-30%)
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46000712]How is it proven wrong if there's still a 4.8%-7.1% pay difference for the same job? It might be better than it used to be, but it's still a problem.[/QUOTE] It's a minor problem now. 23 cents was a big problem. 3 - 6 cents... not so much. The traditional view of the gap is wrong, it being women making 77 cents to a man's dollar.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46000712]How is it proven wrong if there's still a 4.8%-7.1% pay difference for the same job? It might be better than it used to be, but it's still a problem.[/QUOTE] Literally no 2 groups of people will have exactly the same wages. As it stands, there's a bigger average wage gap between tall people and short people than between men and women.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46000961]Literally no 2 groups of people will have exactly the same wages. As it stands, there's a bigger average wage gap between tall people and short people than between men and women.[/QUOTE] Maybe we should do something about that then instead of claiming the problem doesn't exist or doesn't matter. [QUOTE=Nukefuzz;46000854]It's a minor problem now. 23 cents was a big problem. 3 - 6 cents... not so much. The traditional view of the gap is wrong, it being women making 77 cents to a man's dollar.[/QUOTE] Sure, if they were being paid $1 then 3-6 cents wouldn't matter, but people earn more than that. At $100 that's somebody else only getting $95.20 - $92.90, at $1,000 the other person is only earning $952-$929, etc.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46001059]Maybe we should do something about that then instead of claiming the problem doesn't exist or doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] The point being that a gap that small shouldn't be assumed to be a result of discrimination when there are other factors involved, namely: the possibility of pregnancy, women are generally less forceful when asking for promotions ([URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085399[/URL]), etc. You can't just assume discrimination when the gap mirrors the gap between many other groups. Once we understand the problem I'm not against doing something, but at this moment in time we simply don't.
It's so odd to see how the Republicans are today compared to when they were first founded.
American Bill names start to feel like buzzwords used in advertisements. "Do you want the comfort of a suburban middle-class wage, 2.4 children, and a dog? Then you need the American Maximum Natural Comfort Act. Oppose it and you oppose comfort itself!"
[quote=Politico] ... training for salary negotiations, increasing employees legal options for fighting pay disparities and prohibiting retaliation against employees seeking salary information.[/quote] Wouldn't these opportunities be given to anyone, regardless of gender? I can't see how this act applies only to women.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;45999887]"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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.[/QUOTE] Could you link the source on this? I'd like to read it.
are americans even real imagine voting against this lmao
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;45999887]"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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.[/QUOTE] But if a man has a kid he has no issues, if a woman has a kid she has to take time off. That choice between business and family is a much bigger one with worse consequences for a woman.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;45999887]"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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.[/QUOTE] Ok, fair enough. But doesn't that expose an inequality in job position or hours allocated? If women are consistently in lower positions than men, and we don't know exactly why, the investigation shouldn't stop there just because the adjusted pay gap isn't as big.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;45999887]"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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.[/QUOTE] A salary of $45,000 still becomes $41,805 to $42,840 for a woman with those numbers. That's several months worth of rent or food lost, which you can't possibly consider a "miniscule" difference.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46002078]imagine voting against this lmao[/QUOTE] Having actually read the contents of the proposed bill, I would, and I'm not even Republican. The proposed bill would gave the government some pretty serious powers over businesses, allowing them to be investigated or shut down even without any complaints by the employees, and would spend an inordinate amount of money on pursuing a social issue that is seriously exaggerated, as others have explained above. Furthermore, it was proposed earlier this year and failed then too. Democrats are bringing up legislation with extremely leading names instead of important, pressing issues, to score points for advertising ('This guy voted against a paycheck fairness act!') when re-election season starts in the fall. It's underhanded and it's unacceptable.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;45999887]"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%." It's been proven wrong. The differences in pay are minuscule.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone besides you would consider 4-7% minuscule.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46002397]Democrats are bringing up legislation with extremely leading names instead of important, pressing issues, to score points for advertising ('This guy voted against a paycheck fairness act!') when re-election season starts in the fall. It's underhanded and it's unacceptable.[/QUOTE] It's almost like that bill the Republicans tried to repeal about 40 or so times, after it had become law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.