Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

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.

Have we been paying attention to the same Congress?

 

[CyclopsRock]

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.

I don't think that's the case at all. Asking your employer what their maximum budget for your employment isn't the only way of determining your worth; my old boss wasn't actually the person that chose my pay (He'd inform HR of his opinion and it's utlimately be up to them) and he always recommended that I "shop" around - ask my peers at other companies, apply for other jobs, check the salary ranges of other jobs online etc. There are a lot of ways of determining what your value may be (and it goes further than that, of course - typically your worth at a company you already work at is higher than one you don't, because if they pay for someone with the same experience and the same skills to replace you for similar money, they'll have some element of retraining to do for the company-specific systems, as well as them being an unknown quantity vs you).

Negotiation is a bit like networking, really - it's a pretty personal skill, and some people are better at it than others, even with the same information.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

This is a good thing, why is anyone complaining? The quicker the GOP fade into total dumbfuck irrelavency, the better we're all off.

 

[Captain Pants]

i oppose equal pay legislation because women are busy

I caught that on NPR the other day. Pretty embarrassing.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm really not.

 

[RoninChaos]

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 don't know they're worth much much more.

Bingo. This vote is to keep the playing field shifted towards employers and not employees.

 

[The Librarian]

Because politicians are more interested in maintaining their image (IE we hate democrats) than actually helping people.

Politicians are people, so yeah they'd work to make their image look better. Don't you? Don't most companies?

Not necessarily directed at you, but I find it strange people criticize politicians for stuff that everybody else does as if they're the only ones.

Negotiation is a bit like networking, really - it's a pretty personal skill, and some people are better at it than others, even with the same information.

It's not that women are "worse negotiators." Even women at the top of the corporate ladder earn less than their male counteparts.

 

[Stinkles]

Hah, not this bill again. I think legislators really do have a binder full of stock bills to whip out when they want to make a point or score points during an election year.

Republicans have a binder full of actual women.

 

[CyclopsRock]

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.

In fairness, he didn't say the government needed to provide it as a benefit. They could lower taxation around daycare (both for the companies, the staff at the companies and the customers themselves, having those costs tax deductable). I'm not sure how much of this stuff there already is in the US but in the UK they're putting a thing like this into action (kinda) and the wonks have worked out - not that this is something that concerns you, I guess - that it'll actually be tax revenue neutral as the improved productivity from more women being at work (and more daycare workers needed to provide these services) cancel out the cost of the tax break.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's not that women are "worse negotiators." Even women at the top of the corporate ladder earn less than their male counteparts.

Sure. My question was about how the practicalities of bills like this work given those aspects that aren't quantifiable (or, as that other person said, if you have to pay a member of your staff an extra £5k to keep him or her, do you then have to pay all the others doing the same job the extra even though none of them were planning on leaving anyway?)

 

[The Librarian]

Sure. My question was about how the practicalities of bills like this work given those aspects that aren't quantifiable (or, as that other person said, if you have to pay a member of your staff an extra £5k to keep him or her, do you then have to pay all the others doing the same job the extra even though none of them were planning on leaving anyway?)

But this legislation and the Equal Pay Act of '63 aren't blunt. These are for companies that are found to be unfairly paying women less. It may not necessarily effect the situation you raised.

 

[AnotherNils]

I don't foresee any situation where republicans will favor a bill that encourages wage transparency. This takes power away from the employers and gives it to the employees.

 

[Aaron Strife]

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

Why, because they opposed privatizing Social Security? A deeply unpopular policy with Democrats, Republicans and Independents that led the Republicans to get crushed in the 2006 midterms? Is it really just playing politics when you're on the side of a vast majority of Americans? Especially when Social Security has nothing to do with our deficit and if it were privatized there was a little event in 2008 that would have completely fucked millions of people out of their retirement.

Bush also pushed an immigration reform bill that was passed by the Senate with 62 votes in 2006. 4 Democrats voted against it compared to 32 Republicans. This was before Democrats were in the majority, by the way. But yeah the obstructionism is totally the same.

I also love how much the author fellates Bush in that second article. Democrats want to "deny him the mandate" in spite of his "clear win." He won 281 electoral votes in his reelection compared to Obama who won 332, yet that one was a "squeaker." Fuck the media so goddamn much.

 

[Wilsongt]

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

Did you read the articles you posted?

"President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security," Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters after a Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday morning. "It will not happen. The sooner he comes to that realization, the better off we are."

Although one Senate Democrat said he had not yet made up his mind, Reid expressed confidence that none would back the president's plan.

That opposition alone would appear sufficient to doom Bush's plan in the Senate. It takes 60 senators to break a filibuster and force a vote on a bill; Republicans number 55 in the chamber.

Even if the president ultimately managed to strike some kind of bargain on the structure of private accounts, Reid's comments on the eve of the address illustrated the difficulty Bush faced in winning support for his Social Security initiative.

They were against it because he wanted to privatize it. The same bullshit the current set of Republicans tried to do after Obama got into office.

 

[Balphon]

Why, because they opposed privatizing Social Security? A deeply unpopular policy with Democrats, Republicans and Independents that led the Republicans to get crushed in the 2006 midterms? Is it really just playing politics when you're on the side of a vast majority of Americans? Especially when Social Security has nothing to do with our deficit and if it were privatized there was a little event in 2008 that would have completely fucked millions of people out of their retirement.

Changing social security at all is deeply unpopular. That's why it's called the third rail of politics. Which is why Democrats in Congress were tripping over themselves to hammer Bush on it before he made any proposal at all.

They were against it because he wanted to privatize it. The same bullshit the current set of Republicans tried to do after Obama got into office.

They were against the proposal before he made it, and escalated optional private accounts into the "privatization of social security."

But back to the original point: believing that obstructionism is a solely Republican political tactic is dangerously naive.

 

[ronito]

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.

That's a real nice sentiment.
But how do you intend to legislate that?

I do interviews all the time and nearly always people rate themselves either higher or lower than their actual skills (almost always higher)

So let's say I pay developer A who actually is a 10/10 more than Developer B who's more like a 7. Developer B can go out and sue me saying "I'm a 10/10 just like Developer A I should get that pay!" Now we have to go to court to prove it. That's an effective use of time and money. There are just too many variables to account for things and legislating things takes away all flexibility. For example some employees take less salary in exchange for more vacation. Others take a low base for a chance for a high bonus. Again, it's a nice sentiment. But there's just too many variables to effectively legislate.

 

[Tripon]

That's a real nice sentiment.
But how do you intend to legislate that?

I do interviews all the time and nearly always people rate themselves either higher or lower than their actual skills (almost always higher)

So let's say I pay developer A who actually is a 10/10 more than Developer B who's more like a 7. Developer B can go out and sue me saying "I'm a 10/10 just like Developer A I should get that pay!" Now we have to go to court to prove it. That's an effective use of time and money. There are just too many variables to account for things and legislating things takes away all flexibility. For example some employees take less salary in exchange for more vacation. Others take a low base for a chance for a high bonus. Again, it's a nice sentiment. But there's just too many variables to effectively legislate.

But the current system allows employers as a collective to effectively pay women less than men. No matter how you spin that, that is an issue that business community hasn't solved or won't solve possibly because they don't see it as an issue.

The reason why Congress is considering legislation is because employers are unfairly exploiting a group of people unfairly.

 

[speculawyer]

i oppose equal pay legislation because women are busy

Holy shit. They got nothing. She said nothing but stupidity and irrelevance.

 

[Devolution]

Cool.

Now how about some real parental leave and subsidized daycare you fuckheads in Washington.

 

[empty vessel]

Holy shit. They got nothing. She said nothing but stupidity and irrelevance.

Welcome to Texas.

 

[AntoneM]

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.

Like I said though it's pretty easy to justify a difference. If a suit was brought you could concede that while both employees meet company standards employee A also did this that and the other thing that employee B didn't and therefore is being compensated for doing more work. Or if you want to promote continuing education by tying raises to certain certifications, as long as all employees are aware of this optional bonus, it's not discriminatory.

 

[kirblar]

Even as a very liberal person, I see this bill as nothing but pointless PR.

If they really wanted to close the pay gap they would:
1. Provide more affordable daycare
2. Promote women to take higher paying careers like engineering

I'm in the same boat. I cringed when the unadjusted 77% figure was used in the State of the Union because it meant that this would merely be a politics issue instead of a policy one. (The adjusted figure winds up in the 92-96% range.)

 

[Piecake]

Norms/practices/laws that reduce wage transparency seem patently anti-free market to me. How does an employee set and gain a fair wage if he does not know what other people in the labor market are getting? Its simply impossible to set the value of your labor in that situation.

The only reason why I can see for people voting against transparency laws is that the law will hurt the bottom line of business.

 

[Crayons]

I feel the same way about this bill. Women aren't making as much as men because they go for less risky, less dangerous jobs that pay lower, they're less likely to negotiate for a raise, and many take off work to raise their children and thus forfeit some years in which they might've got promoted. It's not like when hiring someone a man goes "Oh, she's a woman so I'll pay her less".

 

[Fusebox]

It's not like when hiring someone a man goes "Oh, she's a woman so I'll pay her less".

Maybe not as much as it used to happen but yeah of course this still happens. Bosses are just people and people can be misogynistic grubs.

 

[Devolution]

I feel the same way about this bill. Women aren't making as much as men because they go for less risky, less dangerous jobs that pay lower, they're less likely to negotiate for a raise, and many take off work to raise their children and thus forfeit some years in which they might've got promoted. It's not like when hiring someone a man goes "Oh, she's a woman so I'll pay her less".

The whole concept of women being worth less than men isn't always this overt. And women internalize this as well and can be incredibly competitive with each other because of the threat of one minority only getting ahead, and that needs to be themselves.

 

[Fusebox]

The whole concept of women being worth less than men isn't always this overt. And women internalize this as well and can be incredibly competitive with each other because of the threat of one minority only getting ahead, and that needs to be themselves.

Queen Bee Syndrome. I've seen it in action, it isn't pretty.

 

[Devolution]

Queen Bee Syndrome. I've seen it in action, it isn't pretty.

Right and this is a symptom of what I mentioned previous as well as the "women don't ask for things nor are they proactive enough in their job that's why they're paid less." If you're not a complete hardass your likeliness to get to the top, welp.

 

[The Librarian]

I feel the same way about this bill. Women aren't making as much as men because they go for less risky, less dangerous jobs that pay lower, they're less likely to negotiate for a raise, and many take off work to raise their children and thus forfeit some years in which they might've got promoted. It's not like when hiring someone a man goes "Oh, she's a woman so I'll pay her less".

There are factors like that, yes, but when you remove all such factors there is still a systemic discrimination that persists.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Changing social security at all is deeply unpopular. That's why it's called the third rail of politics. Which is why Democrats in Congress were tripping over themselves to hammer Bush on it before he made any proposal at all.

Raising the cap polls pretty well actually which is funny because not only is it the only effective way of dealing with Social Security but it's the only one the media doesn't ever talk about. You're not serious unless you want to raise the retirement age. And depending on how far the cap is raised, the retirement age could actually be lowered, which along with doing the same for Medicare would go a long way to helping seniors so they don't have to work shitty jobs at Wal Mart that teenagers should be doing instead.

Yes, there are hypocritical Democratic politicians. But all of Bush's major reforms - No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, the 2001/2003 tax cuts, the Patriot Act - passed on the backs of Democratic votes even though some of those go completely at odds with liberal interests. But they were willing to sit down and find compromise. Even Obama has offered cuts to Social Security in return for minimal (and I mean minimal) tax increases and the GOP has rejected him every time.

John Boehner was on Fox News the other day saying that immigration reform was impossible since Republicans can't trust Obama because of Obamacare or... something? The level of obstructionism coming from the modern Republican Party is unfuckingprecedented. And don't pretend like this was just as bad under Bush, if Pelosi said anything like that during his presidency she would have been crucified by the media.

 

[Piecake]

Raising the cap polls pretty well actually which is funny because not only is it the only effective way of dealing with Social Security but it's the only one the media doesn't ever talk about. You're not serious unless you want to raise the retirement age. And depending on how far the cap is raised, the retirement age could actually be lowered, which along with doing the same for Medicare would go a long way to helping seniors so they don't have to work shitty jobs at Wal Mart that teenagers should be doing instead.

Yes, there are hypocritical Democratic politicians. But all of Bush's major reforms - No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, the 2001/2003 tax cuts, the Patriot Act - passed on the backs of Democratic votes even though some of those go completely at odds with liberal interests. But they were willing to sit down and find compromise. Even Obama has offered cuts to Social Security in return for minimal (and I mean minimal) tax increases and the GOP has rejected him every time.

John Boehner was on Fox News the other day saying that immigration reform was impossible since Republicans can't trust Obama because of Obamacare or... something? The level of obstructionism coming from the modern Republican Party is unfuckingprecedented. And don't pretend like this was just as bad under Bush, if Pelosi said anything like that during his presidency she would have been crucified by the media.

This bugs me to no end. I really do not understand the concept of hurting poor/middle class people=serious proposal, instead of, you know, actually seeing if the proposal is actually good policy. Whats idiotic, is all of these 'serious' proposals on SS would actually cost America more money.

But hey, apparently fucking over poor people is serious while raising taxes on the rich a bit is not. No pain, no gain or some stupid shit like that.

 

[Balphon]

John Boehner was on Fox News the other day saying that immigration reform was impossible since Republicans can't trust Obama because of Obamacare or... something? The level of obstructionism coming from the modern Republican Party is unfuckingprecedented. And don't pretend like this was just as bad under Bush, if Pelosi said anything like that during his presidency she would have been crucified by the media.

I don't disagree that the modern Republican Party has turned obstructionism into an art form. I was just saying that it's dangerous to portray Democrats as though they'd never sacrifice working towards good policy to get ahead politically.

 

[ronito]

But the current system allows employers as a collective to effectively pay women less than men. No matter how you spin that, that is an issue that business community hasn't solved or won't solve possibly because they don't see it as an issue.

The reason why Congress is considering legislation is because employers are unfairly exploiting a group of people unfairly.

Well that depends on the industry, STEM fields this is largely not true.
But I'm there with you when it comes to Sales Ops and Operations in general.
But again, the problem is in legislation. If you say that the same job needs the same pay then what you'll see is a bunch of new job titles so no one has the same job.

Like I said though it's pretty easy to justify a difference. If a suit was brought you could concede that while both employees meet company standards employee A also did this that and the other thing that employee B didn't and therefore is being compensated for doing more work. Or if you want to promote continuing education by tying raises to certain certifications, as long as all employees are aware of this optional bonus, it's not discriminatory.

That's the thing though, is it really so easy to justify a difference? Could it be so easy to prove in a court? Now you've required a huge amount of documentation behind everything. As someone pointed out someone that is crucial to the team gets a better offer, instead of being able to match that, now everyone needs to think "well now I have to give everyone raises." Companies do this now with their contract pricing, there are cathedrals of code and whole departments out there to help companies determine, "If I give x company y prize and other like companies hear of it what will that do to my prices?"

Really if there was a good way to actually legislate this then perhaps it'd be good. But I'm not seeing it.

 

[nateeasy]

Why should my coworkers know how much I make? That's my business.

 

[Dead Man]

How dare you bring up the text of the bill, Dead Man!

Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.

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.

It is pretty simple though, if they are doing the same job, they get paid the same. If they are not, they don't. Just because a person has an extra qualification doesn't mean they should be paid more if that qualification is not being used in the role they are in. If it is, them the two people would not be doing the same job.

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?

You will have to offer them all the same. Oh no, collective bargaining! Those horrible employees all demanding the same treatment! How rude of them.

 

[Delusibeta]

Regardless of the content of the bill, this is a large stick for the attack adverts to beat the Republicans with.

 

[ronito]

It is pretty simple though, if they are doing the same job, they get paid the same. If they are not, they don't. Just because a person has an extra qualification doesn't mean they should be paid more if that qualification is not being used in the role they are in. If it is, them the two people would not be doing the same job.

again, you're just going to cause stratification.
In my company there aren't many job titles. You take a title such as "consultant" well that could mean anyone from fresh out of college to five+ years of experience. Under this I'd either have to pay them all the same (nice for the entry level folks but crappy for the higher level folks) of start splitting them off into different job titles. Even people in the same "job" don't come close in pay, for example a director of sales will make far more than a director of IT because they're generally closer to the bottom line than IT is. But they're both "directors"

Besides many companies already do something like this to try and keep pay close, but that's in bands and those bands tend to be large (like spanning 20k).

Again to say that I have to pay everyone the same is like saying everyone performs at the same level. That's just not true. Some will perform better and others will perform worse.

 

[damisa]

The whole same job thing is also incredibly vague as well. You can have two software developers with the same experience and same job title, say Bob and Mary, and still rightfully pay Bob twice as much. How? Have Bob simply be much better at his job.

 

[The Technomancer]

is anyone saying that job performance can't be a factor in determining different pay for employees with the same position? The way I see it if I have the same position as another employee and I know what we're both making I can go to my supervisor and ask just why they're making more and either ask what I need to improve to reach that point or else contend some of their claims. But at least the employees would know that their employer valued them differently, and I think that that can lead to important dialogues.

 

[Dead Man]

again, you're just going to cause stratification.
In my company there aren't many job titles. You take a title such as "consultant" well that could mean anyone from fresh out of college to five+ years of experience. Under this I'd either have to pay them all the same (nice for the entry level folks but crappy for the higher level folks) of start splitting them off into different job titles. Even people in the same "job" don't come close in pay, for example a director of sales will make far more than a director of IT because they're generally closer to the bottom line than IT is. But they're both "directors"

Besides many companies already do something like this to try and keep pay close, but that's in bands and those bands tend to be large (like spanning 20k).

Again to say that I have to pay everyone the same is like saying everyone performs at the same level. That's just not true. Some will perform better and others will perform worse.

If they are doing the same job, no you wouldn't. If I was working for a company that paid me less for doing the same job I would be walking. It's not performance, it is responsibilities and duties. If they are the same, then they should be paid the same, regardless of their age or career stage.

It is just a fundamentally different perspective I think. Pay by the job role, or pay by other factors. If two people have the same job description, I think they should be paid the same. If their job description is the same but their jobs are different, the job description should be updated so it reflects they are doing two different jobs.

The whole same job thing is also incredibly vague as well. You can have two software developers with the same experience and same job title, say Bob and Mary, and still rightfully pay Bob twice as much. How? Have Bob simply be much better at his job.

In which case you include performance clauses in the pay structure. Pretty sure that is legal everywhere.

 

[damisa]

If they are doing the same job, no you wouldn't. If I was working for a company that paid me less for doing the same job I would be walking. It's not performance, it is responsibilities and duties. If they are the same, then they should be paid the same, regardless of their age or career stage.

It is just a fundamentally different perspective I think. Pay by the job role, or pay by other factors. If two people have the same job description, I think they should be paid the same. If their job description is the same but their jobs are different, the job description should be updated so it reflects they are doing two different jobs.



In which case you include performance clauses in the pay structure. Pretty sure that is legal everywhere.

You can't include performance clauses in a lot of jobs. There are no clear metrics like "sell 5 cars to get a bonus". Our company (software development) has vague metrics like "follows company culture" and "knowledgable about the product" and "works well with others". Everyone basically had the same job title and works on the same product but there are some employees that are clearly more valuable then others and there's no way to judge it clearly in metrics beforehand

 

[Lynux]

I'm in an online public administration class for university and we have weekly discussion board assignments and one of them is posting a current event. I had posted a write-up of this story from Aljazeera three days ago and got a comment that I thought some of you might find interesting.

Here is the thing; a law against pay discrimination already exists. As Stacy Dash points out, in 1962 JFK passed a bill the Equal Pay Act. She also goes on to point out that the only people that opposed it were democrats. So this so called movement is very agenda based and liberals are doing this, not because they want to protect women but because this is a movement towards their socialist platform of equal of everything. If everything needs to be equal then the rich, middle class, and poor all need to pay the same taxes because we should have equality all around. You cannot have equal for one group and not equal for another. The beginning of the video that I linked that has Stacey Dash on the Sean Hannity program shows an interview with a person asking if pay discrimination is the case in the private sector then why is their discrimination in the white house or public sector. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.caintv.com/gender-pay-equity-obama-gets-h

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

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.

a bunch of bullshit rhetoric for not offering people decent wages.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I'm in an online public administration class for university and we have weekly discussion board assignments and one of them is posting a current event. I had posted a write-up of this story from Aljazeera three days ago and got a comment that I thought some of you might find interesting.

It's the same old "socialist dystopia conspiracy" crap that never gets substantiated.

It's the same old lies about democrats only pretending to care about women and minorities to serve their conspiracy, which is clearly dubious if you apply a little intellectual honesty about people (especially when a lot of these people are women and minorities themselves.)

And it's the same terrible argument that making a law to address a problem is redundant if that problem is already illegal. Not only is that illogical, it ignores a VAST swath of other important legislation that has done the same. Legislation is about more than "this is now illegal" unless you are playing make believe congress with grade-schoolers.

Using the votes of 9 democrats made over 50 years ago as a basis for a narrative of "White House hypocrisy" exposes this for the intellectual bankruptcy it is.

But you know what? If a party fights for equality just for the purpose of getting votes, good. That is the best case scenario for a representative democracy working.

To some people, letting a good thing be done for selfish reasons is worse than opposing said good thing because of said perception of selfishness. I think the truth is that those people just can't cop to why they really oppose this law, and wrestle with the cognitive dissonance of a broken line of logic between their resentment of democrats and their opposition to this legislation. Republicans would have you believe that more transparency somehow leads to more frivolous lawsuits, something I haven't figured out yet (never mind the presumption that an uptick in frivolous lawsuits is a worse evil than sexist pay gaps).

 

[Valnen]

I don't foresee any situation where republicans will favor a bill that encourages wage transparency. This takes power away from the employers and gives it to the employees.

Pretty much. The less power employers have, the better honestly.

 

[Enron]

a bunch of bullshit rhetoric for not offering people decent wages.

Or, its not bullshit and paying people according to tenure/expertise/experience, perhaps?

It's not often that ronito and I agree on _ANYTHING_ but we agree here.

Who said people aren't being offered decent wages? We should pay people by job role and not by experience/value to the company? A systems analyst that has been there for 5 years should be making the same as some nub systems analyst that's been there for 1? What?

 

[The Technomancer]

Or, its not bullshit and paying people according to tenure/expertise/experience, perhaps?

It's not often that ronito and I agree on _ANYTHING_ but we agree here.

Who said people aren't being offered decent wages? We should pay people by job role and not by experience/value to the company? A systems analyst that has been there for 5 years should be making the same as some nub systems analyst that's been there for 1? What?

I'm still not sure how this is at all contradictory with transparency. If I know the guy who's been there for five years is making more then me and I go to my employer and I ask why he's making more and they say he's been there for five years and proven himself and whatever well, I'll react to that however I'm going to react, positive or negative, but at least I'm acting with more information about how the company values employees and other things. Why is this transparency a bad thing again?

 

[LaserBuddha]

Or, its not bullshit and paying people according to tenure/expertise/experience, perhaps?

It's not often that ronito and I agree on _ANYTHING_ but we agree here.

Who said people aren't being offered decent wages? We should pay people by job role and not by experience/value to the company? A systems analyst that has been there for 5 years should be making the same as some nub systems analyst that's been there for 1? What?

Why even quote someone if you are going to jump into unrelated, silly statements about these wage gaps really being about experience and value? Just about every job gives raises based on performance and tenure. That is far from being the topic or what this bill targets.

Here's an excerpt from the article you defended:

By the way, you're quite familiar with the argument that women make less on average because they leave the workforce to have babies, and it's true enough, but can I suggest another difference that's inherent to gender? Men tend to be more assertive than women. It's simply gender difference that's born of nature. I don't think it's better or worse to be more or less assertive. It's just who you are. But the fact remains that the most likely way to get something you want is to have the nerve to ask for it, and more assertive people are more likely to ask. (Yes, this is a generalization, and yes, there are exceptions on both sides, but the generalization reflects the truth overall and you know it.)

Do you sympathize with this head-in-ass view on sexual politics lifted straight from O'Reilly's playbook?

 

[Lynux]

It's the same old "socialist dystopia conspiracy" crap that never gets substantiated.

It's the same old lies about democrats only pretending to care about women and minorities to serve their conspiracy, which is clearly dubious if you apply a little intellectual honesty about people (especially when a lot of these people are women and minorities themselves.)

And it's the same terrible argument that making a law to address a problem is redundant if that problem is already illegal. Not only is that illogical, it ignores a VAST swath of other important legislation that has done the same. Legislation is about more than "this is now illegal" unless you are playing make believe congress with grade-schoolers.

Using the votes of 9 democrats made over 50 years ago as a basis for a narrative of "White House hypocrisy" exposes this for the intellectual bankruptcy it is.

But you know what? If a party fights for equality just for the purpose of getting votes, good. That is the best case scenario for a representative democracy working.

To some people, letting a good thing be done for selfish reasons is worse than opposing said good thing because of said perception of selfishness. I think the truth is that those people just can't cop to why they really oppose this law, and wrestle with the cognitive dissonance of a broken line of logic between their resentment of democrats and their opposition to this legislation. Republicans would have you believe that more transparency somehow leads to more frivolous lawsuits, something I haven't figured out yet (never mind the presumption that an uptick in frivolous lawsuits is a worse evil than sexist pay gaps).

Exactly, and not only that all you have to do is look at the voting results for the Equal Pay Act and you find that the 9 nay votes were made by Southern Democrats who formed the Conservative Coalition

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1963/h29

 

[ronito]

I'm still not sure how this is at all contradictory with transparency. If I know the guy who's been there for five years is making more then me and I go to my employer and I ask why he's making more and they say he's been there for five years and proven himself and whatever well, I'll react to that however I'm going to react, positive or negative, but at least I'm acting with more information about how the company values employees and other things. Why is this transparency a bad thing again?

Because maybe both the employees have been on the same amount of time but one consistently delivered above and beyond and the other just barely met requirements. Can it be proven that one does better than the other? Maybe, depending on the industry (good luck customer service). But now you've made businesses liable for it and they're not in business to do that.

edit: I also have to say that one of the earlier companies I worked for had an incident where an employee went to the HR system and printed out everyone's salary and posted it in the break room. It was easily one of the most toxic things I'd seen for an organization at that point. All the time people across teams were saying "that guy is worth x? No way." It was terrible and I don't feel they ever really recovered from it until most of the people had left.