Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I'm sure this applies to the civil rights act, amirite?
Senate Republicans Block Bill on Equal Pay
- Thread starter Sajjaja
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure this applies to the civil rights act, amirite?
Aaron Strife
Banned
The difference between Democratic PR stunts and Republican PR stunts is that if Democrats' PR stunts (minimum wage increase, expanding pre-K, closing background check loopholes on gun ownership, equal pay, DREAM Act, ENDA etc. etc. etc.) were enacted into law that would have immediate positive effects for the people they're trying to court with those policies. Republicans' PR stunts amount to taking away healthcare from 20 million-some people and banning gays in the Constitution.
But yeah they're both the same
But yeah they're both the same
In this thread there is a lot of thinking along the lines that if the bill doesn't solve everything all at once for all time it's just a pr stunt. Lol
The bill does actual good by making it easier for employees to learn what coworkers doing the same job earn, without retaliation.
The bill does actual good by making it easier for employees to learn what coworkers doing the same job earn, without retaliation.
rocketknight
Member
The fact that people here are calling Democrats working towards a real Democratic platform plank that positively impacts workplace inequality a "stunt" shows how thoroughly effective asinine GOP messaging is. Ugh.
NobleXenon
Member
I can see why it failed. It had transparency in it. No one likes transparency in our oligarchy. Not even peasants.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Or maybe they have a binder full of bills that would genuinely impact people's lives in a positive way but are continually blocked by Republicans?
Nah. How about let's try to pass a repeal Obamacare bill again?!
because voters can't remember what their representative did two years ago, so you don't let one party have a fresh success that they can point to and have voters feel good about supporting.
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
The law we had now is fine, we just need better enforcement. Our law system is complicated enough already, there are no reason to make it worst.
People underestimate how expensive it is to be transparent. It basically mean every internal document will require lawyers to review it multiple times to make sure your ass is covered. Even if you are following the law perfectly.
Except this will support the current law, actually will simplify enforcement and make pay more transparent.
CyclopsRock
Member
I always wonder how these things work, in practice. If two people do the same job, work the same hours and perform with the same level of quality, production and professionalism - ie, are effectively identical, but one is better at negotiation and ends up with a better salary, how does that square with bills like this?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Republicans aren't real. They're an enemy created by a government think tank to try to make Americans come together against a common enemy.
That's the screenplay
That's the screenplay
rokkerkory
Member
Sigh politics instead of doing real shit
Aaron Strife
Banned
If two people have the same job and responsibilities shouldn't they be paid the same anyway?
If you're not fucking over your employees you shouldn't have to worry.
For entry level jobs sure.
But let's take this example:
Let's say I run a software development firm. I have a job called "Software Developer"
I have two employees. Both doing the same job with the same job title.
One of them has 8 years of experience and knows 5 different coding languages.
The other has 5 and knows 3.
They both have the same job title (and so under the law same "job"). Do I pay them the same?
If this were to pass you'd see a slew of new titles so no one has the same "job". "Junior Senior Developer" or "Associate Junior Senior Developer"
One most first prove unlawful discrimination, so most people just accept it due to fear of losing their jobs. In one of my jobs (Customer Service Representative) we were told we weren't allowed to discuss our pay with co-workers. Sharing of pay information can lead to many consequences including being fired. Among other things I can see some other (good) reasons to block employees sharing pay information, but no doubt this can be one of the bad reasons.
Are they doing the same work though, or are they developing different software or using different languages? If it's the same software and same language and each is meeting your standards then they should get equal pay.
It doesn't take much to show a justifiable reason to pay one software developer more than another.
They might be doing the same work, but one might just be better even if they're both reaching the company standard. One might have a negotiated better, might have entered the company while the other one has been there for years which usually results in the newcomer being better paid. It would be possible to do what you say if you only base pay on experience and job title. In that case everyone with the same amount of experience would be paid the same. There are sectors where that could work easily. The sector I work in would be ruined by such a thing though. We have drastic salary differences based on a variety of factors unrelated from employer satisfaction. (And I'm talking about differences between white males of similiar age; so unrelated to any discriminatory criteria.)
SteveWinwood
Member
those gopers always have the women's interests in mind remember that
The Librarian
Banned
Enforcing it isn't the main problem. It's female employees finding out that they're getting paid less, hence the increased transparency efforts in this bill.
NobleXenon
Member
Pretty much. Peasants, at least American peasants, need to get used to a dark system of oligarchy.
Again it's not that simple. Developer A might be close to promotion, might be exceptional at the job while Developer B is good but not at the same level. They might have negotiated differently. One might have a better growth path than the other, etc, etc, etc.
old
Member
I don't think this is really about women.
I'd wager the republicans are more against the wage transparency part. Wage transparency gives workers more information to make more informed wage negotiations which raises wages. The company already knows what everybody in a department is getting paid, thus they know someone's worth. By not letting the worker know what their worth and by discouraging workers from discussing or sharing their salaries with other workers, the company creates an uneven playing field where they have more information than the worker, which means they can lowball the worker and the worker will likely accept it because the worker simply doesn't know they're worth much much more.
I'd wager the republicans are more against the wage transparency part. Wage transparency gives workers more information to make more informed wage negotiations which raises wages. The company already knows what everybody in a department is getting paid, thus they know someone's worth. By not letting the worker know what their worth and by discouraging workers from discussing or sharing their salaries with other workers, the company creates an uneven playing field where they have more information than the worker, which means they can lowball the worker and the worker will likely accept it because the worker simply doesn't know they're worth much much more.
How about this. 10 people doing the same job. One person says hes leaving cause IBM offered him more money. Boss thinks 'Ok I'll match what IBM is offering.. oh fuck, no I cant since 9 of your coworkers will complain.'
Is this right?
But then you're taking away an incentive of furthering ones education. A big reason people get their college degree, masters, and certifications is so they can not only compete in the job market but also qualify for a higher salary.
Just so we're clear I'm all for equal pay between men and women. I think pay should be based on education and experience. Not on gender or race.
And this bill is not one of those things.
speculawyer
Member
I don't understand why the GOP blocks these things? They tend to merely be tiny little things that work around the edges . . . not retaliating against people who discuss their pay. Really? Is that a big deal?
mugurumakensei
Member
I think workers should be protected from retaliation when asking for a raise.
I'm not entirely fine with wage transparency. It will result in a bunch of new titles, resentment, and a bunch of other really negative things.
I'm not entirely fine with wage transparency. It will result in a bunch of new titles, resentment, and a bunch of other really negative things.
No, but there are legitimate reasons to be opposed to this bill, which were likely aired one of the other times it's come up for a vote in the past 4-5 years. The Democrats floated it again now so they can publicly whack the Republicans for being obstructionist and sexist, which is easy since there have been many instances of Republicans being one or both of those in recent years and as such it plays into preconceived narratives.
Wow she sounds like a stammering idiot. She's making zero sense. Equal pay isn't solved by college or getting hired for a job. How is she even reasoning those are the solutions? It's like she doesn't understand the question.
Same reason why Democrats block stuff like this that Republicans come up with. During the off-election cycle period you will see cooperation on bills but during election years the PR "hit" you take for opposing something like this is way less than the PR boost you deny your opponent. Or so the strategist typically calculate, anyways.
These kinds of bills are proposed without any intent of actually passing. Parties literally write legislation with the sole intent of making it a news story when it's rejected.
Surprising? Nope.
Except Democrats don't vote against something simply because a person's name is attached to it. They vote against bills and resolutions that are fucking stupid, like Ryan's budget and repeating the ACA almost 50 times.
"Both sides do it" does not count here anymore.
Except Democrats don't vote against something simply because a person's name is attached to it. They vote against bills and resolutions that are fucking stupid, like Ryan's budget and repeating the ACA almost 50 times.
"Both sides do it" does not count here anymore.
empty vessel
Member
That's the last thing you want? I absolutely want employers thinking about whether the pay they give is based on skills rather than some other factors. Mindlessness is a powerful driver of inequality.
Sure it is. Here are all the things it does:
Congressional Research Service said:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2199
Of course it a PR stunt. They're trying to paint the GOP into a corner for the mid-terms. Only way to get anything done anymore and 95% of the time that doesn't even work. What else can be done?
Because politicians are more interested in maintaining their image (IE we hate democrats) than actually helping people.
Do you actually believe this? Nobody wants to work with "the enemy" in an election year.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's what I wonder too. There's more to salaries than simply looking up a rate card.
They do it all the time, and did moreso when they didn't control the White House.
See, e.g.:
articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/02/nation/na-speech2
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61686-2005Jan9.html
Sirpopopop
Member
It's true, so why not believe it.
I mean, I guess it's fine if you generally support positions of one party but lets not act like they are above political games. They most certainly aren't. There's a very real payoff for obstructing legislation proposed by your opponents, even if it is good legislation.
I would imagine you can only be better at negotiation if you know what your predecessor did the job for and go up or down as you need to.
Politics of women in the workplace aside, that seems like something that's a benefit to *every* worker out there.
The Boss should explain why that employee earned his or her raise, and what the others can do to achieve theirs. You're basically saying that the boss shouldn't have to do one of his duties of managing his workforce.
speculawyer
Member
Well that doesn't answer my question unless you are saying that the GOP wants to be the party known for being against equality.
Edit: Oh wait . . . they do it because they view naked obstruction as good? Just denying anything Obama wants (even if they want it too) is politically good for them? If so, they are more racist than I thought.
empty vessel
Member
Unfortunately, even most Democrats would probably oppose making daycare or other child support a government provided benefit. But that would indeed be great. Still, the issue isn't one of whether this bill will solve all problems. The bill would still meaningfully help working women, but Republicans are opposed to that.
- Status