All Aboard the Sexual Harassement train to easy money!...

11/09/11

[CharlesWayneCT]

I didn’t say they had justification, I said that arguing that it was common to get 35-45 thousand dollars simply by filing false claims is an absurd argument to make, and it is not borne out by the facts.

I also said that this doesn’t mean their claims are accurate, and that I wasn’t dealing with the specific claims, because I wanted to avoid just the confusion you ended up with.

Of course the “average” claim is offset by people who get next to nothing. How do you think that makes your claim stronger, and not weaker? That was the entire point — MOST PEOPLE WHO FILE HARRASSMENT CLAIMS get NOTHING. THe claim is that everybody who complains can get a payment of $35,000-$45,000. But in claims that actually were REPORTED to the EEOC (which would if anything suggest a slightly more “serious” complaint then these women had), almost half are dismissed with no payment at all, and the average payout is only $3000.

The argument is that the two women had false, unverifiable claims, but were paid off anyway just to make it go away. The EEOC numbers show that in 1997, women who had false, unverifiable claims weren’t getting paid off to go away. They were being fought, their claims were being rejected, such that the average payout was a fraction of what these women got.

Your logical error is to assume that I bought into the stupid argument that “low payouts prove they weren’t serious charges”. I didn’t. So I can argue that the payments weren’t “low” without arguing that it makes the charges real. Maybe the NRA had some other difficulty which made it easier for them to settle. They were a lobbying organization looking to influence federal policy, maybe harrassment lawsuits would harm their work moresof than with a typical private firm.

Thus, they could pay out more money than is typical, and STILL not be admitting to any error.

That’s why I said I was arguing about the general principle, not these specific incidents.

Did you go to the web page and look at the chart? You could easily calculate what the average payment was to women who were “successful”, by assuming only those successful women got paid.

In 1997, there were 1178 “settlements”, and another 1267 “withdrawal with benefits”. That’s 2445 who got money of some sort. $49.5 million was paid out, so that’s $20,245 per report that was paid out.

So, even restricting to only those who GOT money, $35,000 and $45,000 is about twice the average payout in 1997.

In 1999, there were 2660 payouts, for $50.3 million, an average of $18,909.

In 1998, there were 2529 payouts, for $34.3 million, an average of $13,562.

So, if the average payout to people whose claims were serious enough to file with the EEOC and who actually got paid was $13,562 in 1998, and $18909 in 1999, do you still say I’m “manipulating” in saying that the payouts of $35,000 and $45,000 were not “small payouts” for harrassment claims? They were above average for claims which got payouts, and way above average for all claims filed with the EEOC.

I reassert my position — the claim that these payouts were SMALL, and therefore indicative of false charges, is not supported by facts in evidence.

If you wish to add additional information to support the counter-argument, please find statistics on sexual harrassment payouts in 1998 and 1999 that indicate the payouts were tiny.

And again, I reject the argument that the size of the payouts indicates the merit of the charges. That’s an absurd argument to make — there are many reasons to pay off claims, and I’ve said so repeatedly from the beginning of this fight.

I’m just starting to bite back a bit against arguments that seem to lack a factual foundation. We can fight against smears without having to appeal to anecdotal claims not backed up by evidence.

[TexasPatriot8]

Part of the fact is, the less than $35K EACH that Karen Kraushaar AKA Anon. #1, and Anon. #2, the gal with the good sense to shut it, they got about three mos salary, and lost their jobs after these baseless false accusations. The facts of their accusations totally cut them off at the knees. Kraushaar says Cain compared her height to his wife. NOT sexual harassment. Anon.#2, a lush who was drunk at the end of the day, and Cain offered to take her home to stay with him AND HIS WIFE, so she didn’t drive home drunk, or walk home drunk at night in Chicago and get raped and murdered. She declined, he left and went home. That’s not sexual harassment. Neither of them have a leg to stand on, and when this is over, Kraushaar will wish she’d of never said a thing. She lost her job at Natl. Rest. Assoc. because of these accusations, and she went on to work at the INS and filed a bogus sex harassment complaint against her next boss at INS too. THAT was thrown out too. They have no credibility, and Herman Cain has over 42 years of credibility and established experience in the real world and no one has accused him of anything inappropriate in his life, other than these liberal trolls from the Natl. Rest. Assoc. in liberal controlled Obama armpit Chicago, who exists ONLY to get Obama re-elected, controlled by Rom Emanuel and David Axerod. That is all fact. It’s not emotion, it’s fact and refusal to accept lies or tolerate them.

[TexasPatriot8]

Frankly I think the person who fired at the White House is an Obama supporter or some other liberal. Like Rush said, Occupy D.C. movement. Good liberal extremist fascists, anarchists and socialists, with the Occupy movement that the Democrats want to own it. They suspect Oscar Ramiro Ortega. Hispanic much? Ever hear of a conservative Hispanic grass roots person taking a shot at someone in this country? I guarantee he has no Tea Party grass roots connections, unless he’s taken a shot at one of us too. But I’m surprised the lame stream lap dog liberal media didn’t jump to that accusation trying to blame the Tea Party. Funny how when the Tea Party protested D.C. no violence took place. Unless it was against the Tea Party by liberals who want to stifle their free speech rights and right to petition government guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

What I want to know is, is Mr. Ortega a citizen? He probly is, but if not, that would be very ironic if he’s an illegal alien who takes a shot at the White House. Leaving the border open and refusing to find and deport illegals, taking a shot at him, coming home to roost. But like I said, he’s probly a citizen, since he’s from Idaho. It would just be ironic I think.