Support NeoGAF

[hidys]

I also agree that this is a complicated issue that can't be resolved with relatively simplistic legislation.

Absolutely right. But legislation sure would help.

 

[Irobot82]

It's fascinating how people actually think that the senators from either party really cared about this issue and not just about getting re-electing and staying in power. This plays to both sides, both parties gain from this and neither side really cared if this thing passed or not. It's all just to create a checklist to send out to potential voters. Look what I did, look what I blocked.

 

[gogosox82]

I'm a Democrat and absolutely think that women should make the same as their male counterparts, but I kind of understand what the Republicans are saying in this situation. There's a lot of gray areas here, and you can't legally mandate that men and women earn the same for the same job because no one in corporate environments gets paid the same for the same job. I understand that studies have shown that the exact same resume with a male name will get a higher starting offer than that resume with a female name, but that just tells me that this is a systemic issue. What does legislation look like that corrects this?

It seems like these bills keep getting pushed because Republicans will vote it down and then look bad.

Well issues like this need legislation in order for any effective change to happen. If the bill was passed, it would at least give women the opportunity for legal recourse if they feel are being underpaid compared to their male counterparts. While it may be tricky to sue your employer, I think the threat of possibly being sued would be a big enough threat to have companies change their behavior since no one wants to get sued and go to court, even if your a big corporation.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's fascinating how people actually think that the senators from either party really cared about this issue and not just about getting re-electing and staying in power. This plays to both sides, both parties gain from this and neither side really cared if this thing passed or not. It's all just to create a checklist to send out to potential voters. Look what I did, look what I blocked.

Speak for the GOP.

Unlike Republicans, I, and many progressives, actually think there is a place for government in promoting the general interests and well-being of the public and society in general. So no, we don't treat legislative votes as a façade, or as a sport, or as a dog and pony show, but as serious decisions for tangible problems.

 

[The Librarian]

I think legislation that allows employees to know each other's wages would be a great way to combat the wage gap. If I'm in the same position as someone and I know I'm earning less, I can go to my boss or company and ask why I'm earning less and what I can do – or what they should do – to equalize my wage.

 

[Afrodium]

Well issues like this need legislation in order for any effective change to happen. If the bill was passed, it would at least give women the opportunity for legal recourse if they feel are being underpaid compared to their male counterparts. While it may be tricky to sue your employer, I think the threat of possibly being sued would be a big enough threat to have companies change their behavior since no one wants to get sued and go to court, even if your a big corporation.

Though something like this would start out with good intentions, I think that opening up an avenue for employees to legally scare their employer into giving them a raise would end up preventing companies from hiring women.

 

[Jobiensis]

The issue is that pay isn't equalized for anyone. Let's say a corporation has an opening for a system's analyst position that will pay in the salary range of $55,000 - $59,000. The salary within that range that en employee falls into will depend on experience. As I said earlier, studies have shown that the same exact resume with a male name and a female name will be submitted for a position and the male will be given a higher offer. This is a problem, but this scenario will never happen in reality. A corporation will always be able to argue that the male's experience entitled him to a higher salary. The only way that men and women could be guaranteed equal pay would be if pay was equal to everyone, and all positions had a definitive salary, which is an unrealistic solution.

They can argue that, but if men are on average being paid higher than women in the same jobs, something doesn't add up.

These sorts of arguments are also used against affirmative action.

Additionally, the statistic that women make 75 cents on the dollar comes from the average female salaries versus the average of male salaries. The careers of the sampled men and women are not taken into account. Getting females into the currently male dominated STEM fields would actually close the gender pay gap in a way that legislation can't.

It will help, but it doesn't fully explain the pay inequity.

I don't think the solution is perfect, but I think it is pretty ridiculous to expect any change just because.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Though something like this would start out with good intentions, I think that opening up an avenue for employees to legally scare their employer into giving them a raise would end up preventing companies from hiring women.

Huh? A company would rather hire NO women than pay them the same as their male employees? How does that work?

 

[TacticalFox88]

It's fascinating how people actually think that the senators from either party really cared about this issue and not just about getting re-electing and staying in power. This plays to both sides, both parties gain from this and neither side really cared if this thing passed or not. It's all just to create a checklist to send out to potential voters. Look what I did, look what I blocked.

Ah, the false equivalency fallacy strikes its head again.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

omg politicians playing politics, what is the world coming to

this is why people don't like you, republicans. it should be pretty easy to see, but clearly you're all daft idiots.

 

[Afrodium]

Huh? A company would rather hire NO women than pay them the same as their male employees? How does that work?

I was referring to the poster who suggested that it be easy for women to sue their employees for paying them less than male counterparts. Yes, I think employers would be more likely to hire people who cannot sue them for raises than people who can.

EDIT: I realize that I'm coming across as the guy in this thread who's against attempts to equalize pay for women, which was not my intention. I simply believe that the current efforts are hollow/ineffective. I agree with Dax that pay transparency is a step in the right direction. I'm going to bow out now because I don't want to come across as some misogynist.

 

[Irobot82]

Speak for the GOP.

Unlike Republicans, I, and many progressives, actually think there is a place for government in promoting the general interests and well-being of the public and society in general. So no, we don't treat legislative votes as a façade, or as a sport, or as a dog and pony show, but as serious decisions for tangible problems.

I have no doubt you do. But your wonderful elected leaders, just want to stay your wonderful elected leaders.

 

[Jobiensis]

I was referring to the poster who suggested that it be easy for women to sue their employees for paying them less than male counterparts. Yes, I think employers would be more likely to hire people who cannot sue them for raises than people who can.

So a company is going to be willing to break fair hiring laws so they don't have to pay women equally? Well, I do hope the US Department of Labor comes down on assholes like that.

 

[gogosox82]

Though something like this would start out with good intentions, I think that opening up an avenue for employees to legally scare their employer into giving them a raise would end up preventing companies from hiring women.

This could be a possibility but I think that would be impossible given the shifting demographics. Women will make up a majority of the population and have more college degrees than men. I think it would be impossible to run any business in the near future and not hire a few women.

Edit: I should say that intentionally not hiring women would be against fair and labor practice laws so they can be taken to court on those grounds as well but I will admit that would be difficult to prove in court.

 

[The Librarian]

The case for pay transparency.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It's fascinating how people actually think that the senators from either party really cared about this issue and not just about getting re-electing and staying in power. This plays to both sides, both parties gain from this and neither side really cared if this thing passed or not. It's all just to create a checklist to send out to potential voters. Look what I did, look what I blocked.

Yeah, and? I think most people do their job in a large part to ensure that they don't lose their job. It doesn't mean the benefits are inconsequential.

 

[danm999]

Speak for the GOP.

Unlike Republicans, I, and many progressives, actually think there is a place for government in promoting the general interests and well-being of the public and society in general. So no, we don't treat legislative votes as a façade, or as a sport, or as a dog and pony show, but as serious decisions for tangible problems.

I mean, the biggest litmus test for how the GOP views the role of government in contrast to Democrats and progressive is when they demonise the Democrats for representing the interests of their base.

"Blacks/women/Hispanics/young people only vote for them because they do stuff for them and try to give them stuff!!!"

I wonder how they imagine a representative democracy is supposed to work.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

I mean, the biggest litmus test for how the GOP views the role of government in contrast to Democrats and progressive is when they demonise the Democrats for representing the interests of their base.

"Blacks/women/Hispanics/young people only vote for them because they do stuff for them and try to give them stuff!!!"

I wonder how they imagine a representative democracy is supposed to work.

With white male land owners being the only ones allowed to vote, just as The Founding Fathers and God intended.

 

[kirblar]

Systemic issues require legislation. Keeping it at status quo, will just keep things at status quo. There is no driving force or reason to fix the pay equality gap. It isn't happening at an acceptable pace on its own.

The way you fix this is you force companies to try and equalize pay.

Good intentions do not necessarily make for good legislation.

The problem is that each salary results from an individual negotiation. We see that pay equals out when people are paid for specific, measureable skills on a relatively standard scale. It's when things get subjective that we start to see the variance, and that subjectivity is inherent to the system, as all value is subjective.

 

[Aquamarine]

I mean, the biggest litmus test for how the GOP views the role of government in contrast to Democrats and progressive is when they demonise the Democrats for representing the interests of their base.

"Blacks/women/Hispanics/young people only vote for them because they do stuff for them and try to give them stuff!!!"

I wonder how they imagine a representative democracy is supposed to work.

"The purpose of government is to minimise the government's impact on people's lives."

Or something like that.

 

[SliceSabre]

Republicans don't actually care about fairness unless its about making things more unfair.

 

[capitalCORN]

"The purpose of government is to minimise the government's impact on people's lives."

Or something like that.

The truth is everyone wants big government, if only for their causes.

 

[Jobiensis]

Good intentions do not necessarily make for good legislation.

Then pick something bad out of the legislation other than complicated what ifs that do nothing but push status quo.

The problem is that each salary results from an individual negotiation. We see that pay equals out when people are paid for specific, measureable skills on a relatively standard scale. It's when things get subjective that we start to see the variance, and that subjectivity is inherent to the system, as all value is subjective.

Courts can deal with subjective issues.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I don't understand the "Democrats only bring it up to score political points. So I won't cote for it!" thought process. Do they realize that the only way to stop the Democrats from scoring points for it is to vote for it? Voting against it is exactly what the Democrats want you to do.

I feel like this is similar to "This celebrity is just in this charity to get talked about again!"
Who cares? If it does something good, why care if it also has benefits for the people supporting it. This is the craziest idea possible to me. "Oh, you didn't just donate 30€ to the Red Cross cause you care. You just did it to look good!" WHO CARES

 

[JSizzle]

This is one of those well intended bills that would be almost impossible to police. Unless wages are going to be completely out in the open which would only display even more disparity it is impossible to prove. Not to mention, it goes beyond gender. At certain times when you really need somebody to fill a role you may go higher than you otherwise would've.

So if you say have a female developer that has been with your company for a year already. You're expanding so looking for somebody to fill the same level of position, but now the demand for developers is much higher you go higher in salary. You've created a wage disparity that has little to do with gender and more to do with timing.

Not to mention, how do you make an opinion on other matters such as degree? An MBA from a top 5 business school is worth more than one from the University of Phoenix. But both are still technically MBA's.

The democrats are either jackasses that want to ignore all of the obvious issues with this kind of bill or are just looking to rile people up knowing the Republicans would squash it. Either way its bullshit and clearly is working to rile up the base here.

 

[Aquamarine]

Companies now already discriminate against hiring young women because of pregnancies. It's illegal but it's still a thing.

Not only hiring young women, but also how they treat young women.

I remember getting asked off-hand if I was single / married / plan on having children, that kind of thing. They're very sneaky about it...nowadays the discrimination tends to be subtle. Like, you'll get more harshly evaluated / they'll fire you more quickly if you say off-hand that you plan on having kids...because that's a liability for them if you decide to take maternity leave, and they don't want to deal with it.

Luckily it wasn't a problem for me because I'm career-oriented and single but...that definitely still exists.

 

[Version 3.0]

I don't think women being paid less is done deliberately, in most cases. It's a subconscious bias.

Some might say that makes this harder to deal with. I disagree. I think a good step towards a solution, or possibly even the solution itself in many cases, is simply to measure it. A law that says companies must measure and report on equal pay could go a long way towards resolving the issue. Raising awareness is a great first step towards solving any systemic problem.

In any case, doing nothing results in nothing changing.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I feel like this is similar to "This celebrity is just in this charity to get talked about again!"
Who cares? If it does something good, why care if it also has benefits for the people supporting it. This is the craziest idea possible to me. "Oh, you didn't just donate 30€ to the Red Cross cause you care. You just did it to look good!" WHO CARES

Basically. Except, this is an even worse case of the phenomenon because the thing they're getting flak for is actually their job! He's criticizing them for doing their job because they're motivated by fear of losing their job.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

It's fascinating how people actually think that the senators from either party really cared about this issue and not just about getting re-electing and staying in power. This plays to both sides, both parties gain from this and neither side really cared if this thing passed or not. It's all just to create a checklist to send out to potential voters. Look what I did, look what I blocked.

Do you actually have evidence to suggest that the Democrats don't care about woman's issues or this issue in particular?

Or is this just more.. "Both parties are the same!"

 

[speculawyer]

.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

International crisis has a lot to do with women getting same pay according to John McCain. What kind of excuse is this? Give women the same pay as men for the same job/work.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

This is one of those well intended bills that would be almost impossible to police. Unless wages are going to be completely out in the open which would only display even more disparity it is impossible to prove. Not to mention, it goes beyond gender. At certain times when you really need somebody to fill a role you may go higher than you otherwise would've.

So if you say have a female developer that has been with your company for a year already. You're expanding so looking for somebody to fill the same level of position, but now the demand for developers is much higher you go higher in salary. You've created a wage disparity that has little to do with gender and more to do with timing.

Not to mention, how do you make an opinion on other matters such as degree? An MBA from a top 5 business school is worth more than one from the University of Phoenix. But both are still technically MBA's.

The democrats are either jackasses that want to ignore all of the obvious issues with this kind of bill or are just looking to rile people up knowing the Republicans would squash it. Either way its bullshit and clearly is working to rile up the base here.

Fortunately, this bill would provide protections to those who discover a paycheck disparity. Employers often have strict policies that prevent employees from discussing their wages, salaries, benefits, etc. This bill would offer protections so that employers cannot use that policy to punish an employee for bringing the wage disparity problem to management.

Wages do not need to be out in the open, but the policy of keeping compensation information to yourself should not be held against someone if they try to approach management about the problem.

 

[Cat]

I read that the Republicans did this unanimously as well.

Also, from Planned Parenthood's Twitter:

 

[gogosox82]

This is one of those well intended bills that would be almost impossible to police. Unless wages are going to be completely out in the open which would only display even more disparity it is impossible to prove. Not to mention, it goes beyond gender. At certain times when you really need somebody to fill a role you may go higher than you otherwise would've.

So if you say have a female developer that has been with your company for a year already. You're expanding so looking for somebody to fill the same level of position, but now the demand for developers is much higher you go higher in salary. You've created a wage disparity that has little to do with gender and more to do with timing.

Not to mention, how do you make an opinion on other matters such as degree? An MBA from a top 5 business school is worth more than one from the University of Phoenix. But both are still technically MBA's.

The democrats are either jackasses that want to ignore all of the obvious issues with this kind of bill or are just looking to rile people up knowing the Republicans would squash it. Either way its bullshit and clearly is working to rile up the base here.

How would you even know what someone else makes unless you asked or were told and disclosing how much you make is usually against company policy. This bill gives you protections for when someone finds out about any wage discrepancy without it being used against them.

 

[kirblar]

Then pick something bad out of the legislation other than complicated what ifs that do nothing but push status quo.

The problem is that you can't force the women to behave like men. This is a complicated issue, and the salary gap shrinks immensely once you control for a number of variables. Sexism/Misogyny/Harassment are very much real things that contribute for this, and going after those things directly is great, and will contributed to better working conditions and likely to better pay as a consequence of making those areas less hostile.

The gap itself, though, isn't just a result of those pernicious issues- there are very real differences in male/female behavior contributing to the gap (even after we control for the obvious ones) and it looks very likely that some of those might be incredibly unlikely to change.

 

[Jobiensis]

The gap itself, though, isn't just a result of those pernicious issues- there are very real differences in male/female behavior contributing to the gap (even after we control for the obvious ones) and it looks very likely that some of those might be incredibly unlikely to change.

Bullshit. The reason women are paid less is because they are valued less and companies can get away with the behavior.

Give women the legal teeth so that they can dispute unfair pay policies.

 

[gutter_trash]

ironic that pro-life Republicans don't want women to make more money that would be beneficial to their child.

oh wait, Republicans only care about unborn babies. Once they are born, they are on their own.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I wish the president could just send congress home if they aren't going to do shit. Would be the best option actually. Maybe then they would be voted out.

 

[Jibbajabbawockky]

Republicans might have a point in the vagueness of the bill if that is true but the "we have an international crisis!" Reason is bullshit.

I think its more that the Democrats were seemingly proposing this bill again when they know it won't pass (again) to be able to point at a vote in the coming election and vilify Republicans,i nstead of trying to tackle issues they might be able to do something about.

It seems similar to all the House Republican votes to repeal Obamacare- they have no chance of passing but they're politically motivated votes.

 

[davepoobond]

I think its more that the Democrats were seemingly proposing this bill again when they know it won't pass (again) to be able to point at a vote in the coming election and vilify Republicans,i nstead of trying to tackle issues they might be able to do something about.

It seems similar to all the House Republican votes to repeal Obamacare- they have no chance of passing but they're politically motivated votes.

Maybe, but democrats are a lot less guilty of rhetoric and shitting on the government recently than the GOP IMO. Not saying democrats are saints by any means, but its not like I'm going to be showing sympathy for the GOP after their own hypocritical time wasting with trying to repeal obamacare a million times and not even allowing for emergency money for the immigration problem going on.

 

[E92 M3]

Anecdotal evidence: when my mom worked in the corporate finance sector (male dominated), she the made most money in her department.

Realistically, there is a wage disparity between women and men, but I don't think any government enacted laws can change that. Private employers can technically pay whatever they want for any given position (not talking about labor laws) and it's up to the person to accept.

I feel that women should promote companies that are more equal and give them recognition. Positive PR will lead to positive changes.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

The beheading are horrible, but this isn't an international crisis. The only crisis is the fact that ISIS is selling/taking oil from companies over there. And we all know how easy it is to get congress to focus on that aspect of the region.

 

[The Librarian]

Anecdotal evidence: when my mom worked in the corporate finance sector (male dominated), she the made most money in her department.

Realistically, there is a wage disparity between women and men, but I don't think any government enacted laws can change that. Private employers can technically pay whatever they want for any given position (not talking about labor laws) and it's up to the person to accept.

I feel that women should promote companies that are more equal and give them recognition. Positive PR will lead to positive changes.

Wage transparency.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

The problem is that you can't force the women to behave like men. This is a complicated issue, and the salary gap shrinks immensely once you control for a number of variables. Sexism/Misogyny/Harassment are very much real things that contribute for this, and going after those things directly is great, and will contributed to better working conditions and likely to better pay as a consequence of making those areas less hostile.

The gap itself, though, isn't just a result of those pernicious issues- there are very real differences in male/female behavior contributing to the gap (even after we control for the obvious ones) and it looks very likely that some of those might be incredibly unlikely to change.

Do you think this is going to end up with a glut of legislation of day care workers suing for not making as much as the execs working 80 floors above them? Because that's not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the wage gap is real, even among identical careers in STEM fields:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/the-pay-gap-in-stem-fields-19116412

Note that in the one field where women actually outnumber the men, men still make more money.

I mean, you could use embarrassing and misleading statistics like only looking at the first year of salaries for a select number of professions, but no one on GAF would be that disingenuous.

Anecdotal evidence: when my mom worked in the corporate finance sector (male dominated), she the made most money in her department.

Realistically, there is a wage disparity between women and men, but I don't think any government enacted laws can change that. Private employers can technically pay whatever they want for any given position (not talking about labor laws) and it's up to the person to accept.

I feel that women should promote companies that are more equal and give them recognition. Positive PR will lead to positive changes.

As noted above, how can you advocate companies that offer equal pay without wage transparency?

 

[kirblar]

Do you think this is going to end up with a glut of legislation of day care workers suing for not making as much as the execs working 80 floors above them? Because that's not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the wage gap is real, even among identical careers in STEM fields:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/the-pay-gap-in-stem-fields-19116412

Note that in the one field where women actually outnumber the men, men still make more money.

I mean, you could use embarrassing and misleading statistics like only looking at the first year of salaries for a select number of professions, but no one on GAF would be that disingenuous.

Yes, it is real. That is not in debate. However, the wage gap is not the result of purely pernicious factors, and it's important to dive into it and try and figure out which individual factors are going into it. The gap is a symptom of other issues, and not all of those issues are ones that are likely to be effectively legislated away. (Confidence gap leading the men to overvalue themselves in salary negotiations while the women undervalue themselves, differing reproductive timelines causing women to face greater costs than men do for educational/career time investments in their 20's/30's, etc.)

The numbers you linked appear to be raw, unadjusted ones, btw. (The article they come from also mentions the 77% raw one.) That number is great for politics and talking points, but is a very bad place to start from when trying to make policy, as you do have to adjust for the career differences between men and women to find the actual gap between two individuals who are identical save for their gender.

 

[Bodacious]

I wish the president could just send congress home if they aren't going to do shit. Would be the best option actually. Maybe then they would be voted out.

 

[gutter_trash]

Hahahahahaha.

You (we) wish.



This is what I think every time I hear this, but you could say that maybe they think a woman's place is to stay home and take care of the the baby, and that they should find a good, God-fearing man to work and support the family. Like God intended. or something.

+the only western nation without state mandated maternity leave

 

[ronito]

It is a tricky issue. If two people (irrespective of gender) do the same job but the second is better at negotiating, should the employer have to go back to the first employee and offer them a raise (or increase in benefits) to match the latter's receipt as a result of their bargaining ability. I don't doubt there's a problem, but I'm not sure regulation is an actual solution.

Yeah, I'd like to see the regulation and how it actually addresses it. Like I said before what's going to most likely happen is just that everyone will get different job titles so no one can have anyone else to compare their salary to. But I highly doubt execution of the law was really the GOP's primary concern.

Of course, it's a smart move on the dem's part. They'll get to clobber the GOP for this all over the place, especially 2 years from now.

 

[davepoobond]

Yeah, I'd like to see the regulation and how it actually addresses it. Like I said before what's going to most likely happen is just that everyone will get different job titles so no one can have anyone else to compare their salary to. But I highly doubt execution of the law was really the GOP's primary concern.

Of course, it's a smart move on the dem's part. They'll get to clobber the GOP for this all over the place, especially 2 years from now.

"Ted Cruz voted no to equal pay for women 3 times"

 

[DoktorEvil]

Yeah, I'd like to see the regulation and how it actually addresses it. Like I said before what's going to most likely happen is just that everyone will get different job titles so no one can have anyone else to compare their salary to. But I highly doubt execution of the law was really the GOP's primary concern.

Of course, it's a smart move on the dem's part. They'll get to clobber the GOP for this all over the place, especially 2 years from now.

Aren't the midterm elections coming up?

How do the seats looks like this year? From all of the bad press the GOP has received, I'd be surprised if they even hold onto a slight majority.