Posted on 04/12/2016 12:46:25 PM PDT by simpson96
So what does this mean? Does “The Works” pay its waitresses only 79 cents for each dollar it pays its waiters? Does it pay the female cook 79% of what it pays the male cook? If so, they should be sued. Of course, that’s not what it means. I’m sure that The Works pays all comparable waiters and waitresses and cooks the same rate irrespective of their sex. Just like every other company pays all comparable workers the same irrespective of their sex. This is all just more BS.
Hopefully the guys will just not show up March 14. Let them eat their own losses.
Just declare you’re a woman that day. If they deny you the discount sue the ever living stuffing out of them. That’s the only way to make liberalism pay.
Kind of silly to make it illegal and I never minded he discounts for the ladies.
More ladies means more guys. Fewer ladies means fewer guys. More ladies and men, more money! Simple business math.
So he “knows” this is a perpetual problem, but only gives the discount for one day a year?
Cowardly publicity stunt. The guy needs to man up, live his convictions and institute this permanently.
It’s illegal in many places and liberals like the person doing this discount is probably against them.
can I ask some stupid questions??
We keep hearing liberals say that women make 79 cents on the dollar, or some lesser amount than men.
Are these comparisons for men and women who are doing the same job??
Are these comparisons taking into account issues such as years of experience, seniority with a company??
Are these comparisons taking into account full time vs. part time work, comparing hours worked to hourly wages?
Are these comparisons controlling for the fact that women more than men tend to take time off from job or career to care for their small children?
Are these comparisons considering that some women actually prefer to not climb the career ladder as high as they could, so that they have more time for their families?? Some women actually turn down promotional opportunities, relocating to other cities, etc. in order to better balance work and family life.
Just a few thoughts. To state a gross overall figure, state that women make less than men, and just leave the impression that such disparity MUST BE due to some illegal discrimination or micro aggression against females, is absurd.
Which of those female patrons makes less than a man? Or more? How does anyone know?
Should I automatically deduct the bill for a woman who makes a mere $40,000 a year, but not for a man who is unemployed?
None of this makes sense.
It is, this is a violation of Federal law.
Dress up like a woman and get a discount. Pay only 79%. Sounds like a plan.
Easy lawsuit to win if any man is nearby and can stop by and get refused the discount. You’ll own that business.
Can I ask a stupid question??
Paying women less for the same job as a man is illegal, and has been against the law, going back to the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
The stupid question is: If Obama is convinced this is a huge issue, what has he done about this in his 7 plus years as president?? This alleged pay discrimination is already against the law. Obama can invoke executive orders, and Loretta Lynch can launch lawsuits on this subject, because the laws to deal with this already exist.
So what has Obama done?
Hillary agrees with this women earn less than men mantra too. What did she do in her time in public office/first lady, to deal with this?
What did Bill and Hillary do, when they were in the White House, to combat this alleged discrimination??
Private property matters not one whit when it comes to Federal civil rights laws. This is blatantly illegal.
Hotties shouldn’t have to pay at all.
A restraint near me has a Ladies Night on Tuesdays-—2 dinners for the price of one. They have been doing it for years.
No lawsuits.
No complaints.
Oops—restaurant.
.
Make your own political statement by placing an order and leaving without paying.
Does the discount apply when the men pay, as they frequently do, for the meals of the women they accompany?
If so, I guess men still benefit.
Still, it is a stupid attempt to make a political statement in order to appease the unappeasable perpetually-aggrieved.
I guess they decided they don’t need men customers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.