What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
392 Comments
- poprocksandsoda, on 01/28/2009, -25/+88I'm sorry but telling an employer they have to equally pay people for similar work is going to actually work in reverse as it will require companies to define pay levels for jobs instead of creating competition and pay based on performance. I find it odd that equal pay for equal work isn't called equal pay for equal performance. Male or female you have to toot your own horn and push your employer to pay you what you feel you deserve regardless. There is not a company out there volunteering more cash when you make them more money.
There is no glass ceiling anymore. What this law would do if it ever became enacted (which it won't, because this is just the Left getting women all excited for no reason because not a sane person in government except some fringe mentally unstable elected official would vote for this) is turn this country into a socialist state with defined pay scales for all jobs. I laugh that anyone thinks this ever has a chance of becoming law. - pathouston22, on 01/28/2009, -19/+671. A womans health insurance costs more than a man
2. A woman can take time off for pregnancy
Men and women are not equal. Each has particular advantages and disadvantages over the other sex. - SHv2, on 01/28/2009, -28/+74So if I accept a job at pay rate A and discover that someone doing the roughly same job at pay rate B, which is higher than my pay rate A, I can sue the employer for my acceptance of the lower pay? That sounds a bit messed up. Where has personal responsibility gone?
- DrReaper, on 01/28/2009, -7/+46More rules for American employers means more outsourcing.
- johnhummel, on 01/28/2009, -5/+38SHv2: I've worked at places that make it a firing offense to ask or discuss what people make. So if I'm hired at Company X for $50,000, then discover that the only reason why I'm being paid $50,000 instead of $60,000 is because I lack a vagina - *I would have no way of knowing*.
That's what this law is seeking to fix. - TreatsTheBear, on 01/28/2009, -2/+33The only thing this is changing is the statute of limitations of the existing law. Pay discrimination has been illegal for a while and we're not socialists yet.
It will still be difficult to prove that you were payed less specifically because you were a woman or a minority and not because you suck at your job. That's not changing. Now you just have a longer time to figure out that you're getting screwed and to do something about it.
More lawsuits? Probably. Socialism? Hardly. - DivisibleByZero, on 01/28/2009, -7/+35She might have just been really bad at negotiating salaries. I know it's definitely made me consistently get paid less than my colleagues.
Anyhow, I say pay people whatever you want to pay them. If they think you're not paying them enough--regardless of how much you pay other employees--they can ask for a raise and threaten to quit. It's how the world works. - Rothbardosaurus, on 01/28/2009, -26/+46So has private property finally been banned in the US? Who really owns the business if Washington is micromanaging the payroll?
- KSUdesigner, on 01/28/2009, -0/+20At least in Ohio, employers are also required to give men time off when their wife has a baby if they ask for it. Don't know if it's a state by state thing or if it's a national thing, but there are now laws that protect a man's job if he wants to take paternity leave.
- voleur, on 01/28/2009, -2/+181. It is absolutely unfair that both employers and insurance companies assume women are constantly popping out babies when so many women are not interested in having children at all.
2. Anyone male or female can take time off for medical reasons such as surgery.
I will never get this. - ironhide, on 01/28/2009, -19/+35yep let's get back to letting children work in factories for slave wages.
- johnhummel, on 01/28/2009, -4/+20Let's try to get something straight here.
This bill does not say that if a man and a woman "deserve" the same pay for the same job. It doesn't say that a black man or a person of a particular faith "deserves" as much pay as anyone else.
What it does say is that *you can not base your pay decisions on a persons gender/race/religion*. If one person works harder than another or brings in more business than another, then you have every reason to give them more money.
If you decide though that Person A gets more money than Person B *because they have a penis*, then that's illegal.
It's been like this for decades now, folks. Remember that whole "civil rights movement" thing, which said that you couldn't go discriminating based on color/gender/religion? Anyone? Was that "socialism" to say that you could deny someone a loan just because they were black/brown/white/red instead of based on their income, savings, and trustworthiness/credit score?
*All this bill does is remove the time limitations.* See, the current law says "If you discover you're being paid less because of your gender/race/religion, then you can sue for equal pay. BUT - you have to do it within 6 months."
Turns out that many businesses have a pay gag rule - if you talk about how much you get paid, then you can be fired (I've worked at places like that). So it's impossible to know if every woman in the workplace is being paid more than every man in the workplace (regardless of performance), for example.
In a particular case, I believe with GM, a woman discovered *years later* that every male coworker was making more money than her even though she had performed as well or better by every metric. The only reason that could be determined - and was established by the trial - was because she was a woman.
However, because she didn't file her suit within 6 months (remember, she didn't know for years she was getting the short end of the stick compared to her male coworkers), the Supreme Court said she deserved nothing.
So, this is a chance in the law to remove that statute of limitations. Will this increase court cases? Most likely - but *as long as you're not basing your pay off of gender/color/religion, and are only basing it off of experience/ability/performance*, then businesses have nothing to worry about.
If you're Wal-Mart and spend years paying female managers less than male managers, or offering male managers promotions over male managers *purely because of gender*, then you'd better be figuring out how you're going to stop that nonsense.
This is not socialism - this is not the US government deciding upon how much each job should pay, or dictating wages, or doing anything other than saying "If you base pay/promotion/hiring/firing based on color/race/religion, then you can be sued by your employees."
That's all this is. Now, can the hysterics about "OMG people with vajajas want equal pay and they want to get into our tree house RUNNNNN!" please stop? - reaper527, on 01/28/2009, -3/+18equal pay for equal work != equal pay.
there have been cases where woman have filed for pay discrimination (and won) when they were NOT able to do equal work. (in fields that have a more physical component, such as firefighting).
IF a woman can do the same job as a man with the same quality/efficiency, than give her equal pay, otherwise, keep the pay differences. (likewise, if there is a field where a woman would have an advantage and would outperform a male counterpart, i have no problem with her making more money than the guy.)
base pay on performance. - parax, on 01/28/2009, -4/+19I can't believe how many people think that renewing a statute of limitations with each infringement is somehow a radical change to a socialist/communist society that's going to rip holes in the fabric of the universe. Calm down. It's not even a new law, it's just typical legislation to close a loophole that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
- alpha19, on 01/28/2009, -5/+20Every player in the NBA should be paid $100,000 a year. I don't see that working too well... There are clearly players that work harder, are better at what they do, and thus deserve more compensation. They are all "equal". They are all basketball players on the same team. Go ahead and split it up any way you want, point guards, rebounders... whatever. You still can't say each point guard would logically deserve the exact same compensation. Each one brings a different level of performance to the team. People should get rewarded for their performance.
I would agree with a base to start from for a particular position at a company maybe. But from there, people should be rewarded for their hard work. - BoxAdorable, on 01/28/2009, -4/+19Using the phrase "Democraps" somewhat undercuts the intelligence of your argument.
- danj484, on 01/28/2009, -5/+17Eff that, let's have actual slaves, that would really help businesses out.
- VCubed, on 01/28/2009, -30/+42Then don't bother, let yourself be paid less because you're female, or young, or old, or disabled, and be so grateful you're getting paid at all though exploited so that you (and your kids, while you raise them and when you retire and get less in your social security and they have to support you) get robbed of what you would have rightfully earned had you been treated as an equal. No one is obligating you to be paid fairly. You are free to let yourself be exploited. Ain't it great? I'd like to hire you to work for me, and what anyone else earns working for me is top secret, maybe you'll get lucky, maybe not! But since I know you won't sue, I'll be glad to pay my favorites more with what I save by not paying you. See how that works?
- WorldGroove, on 01/28/2009, -1/+13@johnhummel
Agree 100%, I actually worked at a place that hired & fired the same person within 24hrs due to constant inqueries about other's salaries.
Personally, if I do some research online and my salary seems to be slightly above average for the type of work & experience I have... I'm happy. Stressing out over what coworkers may, or may not, be making never seems to lead to good things.
That being said:
http://www.ticker.computerjobs.com/
Please tell me this website is accurate! - inactive, on 01/28/2009, -0/+12Isn't equal pay for equal performance implied? After all, you have to prove you were discriminated against, and part of that is eliminating the possibility that you were paid less because you didn't work as hard. I mean, if it's a situation where a woman is being paid less than a man, despite the fact that the woman is more productive and does her job better, then there's a serious issue there.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 01/28/2009, -0/+11I can't believe we STILL haven't guaranteed workplace pay equality between the sexes yet. It's the friggin 21st century already...
- neoneddy, on 01/28/2009, -9/+20Well the thing is, This exists.. people of equal qualifications and skill level are pretty much paid the same.
However if I a job one average takes 10 hours to do, and I can do it 5, should we both be paid $20/hr? Or what if I can do it better in those 10 hours.
If you work hard enough in this country, and plan ahead, and think further ahead than how wasted you're going to get this weekend, you'll do well.
If there are no winners, we're all losers. - AgeofMastery, on 01/28/2009, -5/+16And unless you already know people working at the company you'll be able to find out people's salaries there are how?
- bentman78, on 01/28/2009, -6/+17@SQLServer
And they do this how? Do they have some sort of goverment agent sit in every work place and have charts of who does what?
This opens up people to bitching and complaining. If you're paid less for the same job you probably suck, that's why you get paid less. - TreatsTheBear, on 01/28/2009, -7/+18They do this however they've been doing it all along. There have been laws about pay discrimination for ages. The only thing this changes is the statute of limitations on when you can file a suit over it.
Did anybody hear read the article? - FredFredrickson, on 01/28/2009, -5/+16Taking time off because a small human being is sliding down your reproductive tract is an advantage now?
- DeusNova, on 01/28/2009, -4/+14Since when did digg have right wingers?
- amadeusdemarzi, on 01/28/2009, -3/+13Did you read the ***** article? The circumstances for creating a lawsuit aren't changing. They are just making the circumstances renewable.
Yay ignorance. - SHv2, on 01/28/2009, -16/+26So it isn't my job to investigate what others make doing the same job and then ask for that pay when I am hired? Get a ***** clue.
Ever think that the people that accept the lower pay are perhaps not doing the same work? Who knows, maybe the lower paid people aren't doing the same quantity or quality of work. - SQLserver, on 01/28/2009, -15/+25RTFA dude. This has NOTHING to do with whatever you just mentioned.
This will simply make sure that in a workplace, everyone, no matter their race or gender, who is doing the exact same work, should get the same pay. - pintomp3, on 01/28/2009, -14/+24There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who are in denial about the fact that women are paid on average only about 77% of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is even wider. You can spout your hypothetical scenarios and pseudo-rational ideological talking points all you want, but the facts still remain.
- FredFredrickson, on 01/28/2009, -2/+12How is that? Are you saying that women / minorities inherently deserve less pay, or am I missing something here?
- sbader, on 01/28/2009, -1/+10Or maybe she was just a bad negotiator? If she sucked at her job why did they keep her for so long?
Should negotiation be considered a job skill? - crazykidenator, on 01/28/2009, -0/+9Men can ABSOLUTLEY take time off. They are covered in the FMLA and most companies have a gender neutral policy about making babies.
- FredFredrickson, on 01/28/2009, -3/+12Paying two people a different amount for the same job is already illegal if it can be proved that the difference is there because of some form of discrimination.
So why are you getting your panties into a bunch over this? - SQLserver, on 01/28/2009, -5/+14Woa.. That's a pretty elaborate troll. Check out this guy's history: He's been trolling digg for months pretending to be a "stupid Obama minion".... You know, the kind of people that Republicans love to pretend represent the "base" of Obama's support...
What an idiot. - pintomp3, on 01/28/2009, -3/+11God forbid you pay people based on performance instead of sex or race.
- inactive, on 01/28/2009, -3/+11Finally male porno stars will get paid for their services!
- AgeofMastery, on 01/28/2009, -5/+13Libertarians, the only party more determined to hand the country over to big business than the Republicans
- SQLserver, on 01/28/2009, -11/+19OMG SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO GOD NO NOT SOCIALISM, RON PAUL TOLD ME THAT WAS EVILLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
TAKE AWAY MY LIBERTIES, SHIP ME OFF TO WAR, DESTROY EDUCATION, AND LET CORPORATIONS CONTROL THE COUNTRY, BUT PLEASE ANYTHING BUT SOCIALISM!!!!1
Seriously... Do you know how idiotic you anti-Socialism people sound? You act like its the linchpin of all evil in the world...
I just find it ironic that the democratic Socialist countries in this world enjoy better education, better standards of living, more benefits, less wars, and more freedoms then Americans, yet they act like Socialism is the end of the world... - Paranor01, on 01/28/2009, -2/+10@bentman78: You are making an assumption that just because a woman files for in-equality, that she will 'win' equality. There should be (better be) an independent investigation on the business and it's management, AND the woman filing, so that these concerns of just handing over a pay raise because she's a woman are covered.
- minoss, on 01/28/2009, -4/+12I think you're confusing right wingers with libertarians. Or at least those with some libertarians views.
- gobbleplex, on 01/28/2009, -5/+12Call me back when they're interested in equally paying a manufacturer in China for the same work from a manufacturer in Wisconsin, or the same work from a Programmer in San Francisco as that from a Programmer in Mumbai.
- BoxAdorable, on 01/28/2009, -1/+8Yeah, indentured servants and slaves keep operating costs way down. Who are we to stand in the way of "the market." We must appease the pestilent jungle god.
- KSUdesigner, on 01/28/2009, -3/+10I can agree with you on keeping the government out of the market place, but this has little to do with what you are talking about. It's not about increasing the cost of doing business, it's about treating people equally and fairly, and that should be a whole lot more important to everybody than making a few extra bucks. If you hire a white man and a black man to do the exact same job, you should pay them exactly the same as well. What reason could you possibly have to pay one less than the other? It is discrimination to pay people differently based on what they look like, as long as they are both doing the same job. If you can't afford to pay that other guy more, then you never should have hired him in the first place.
- bjornski, on 01/28/2009, -0/+7@Paranor01
They actually cost less to exploit, because you don't have to ensure that they're fed, housed, clothed and healthy. - geoffp, on 01/28/2009, -4/+11I own my car, but I'm not allowed to run red lights with it. You own your business, but you're not allowed to use it to screw people over.
Can't believe all the whining about requiring a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. - banderwocky, on 01/28/2009, -3/+10How about that? Some common sense about equal pay in the workplace! Good stuff.
- johnhummel, on 01/28/2009, -5/+12@bentman78 : It's actually pretty easy to find out. If there are 10 people in the workplace, 8 get paid $60,000 and 2 get paid $50,000, and the two are black|atheist|female|male|etc - and the other 8 are not, then you have a case for "Yo, why the hell are we being paid less than these people?"
In the case of Wal-Mart, for example, you had hundreds of managers, and the *only* thing that predicted if you were going to get paid less then another manager was whether you were male or female. When you can reduce things to a single factor, and that single factor is race/gender/religious based - then you have a case.
The problem is that one woman discovered she was paid less than the men in her department for 10 years - purely because she was a woman (as was proven in court). But the Supreme Court denied her equal pay compensation because she didn't file the complaint within 6 months of being hired - even though she herself didn't know for years. - bjornski, on 01/28/2009, -0/+6@ironhide
Some people are calling for just that, also.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristo ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 400 discussions
