Posted on 10/14/2004 9:34:14 AM PDT by No Surrender Monkey
Desperate men often resort to clichéd lines when trying to snare women. Senator John Kerry must be desperate, because he dragged out the tired, misleading statistic about the so-called wage gap during last night's debate; namely, that women only earn 76 cents for each man's dollar.
This factoid comes from Department of Labor data on the average wage of a full-time working woman and the average wage of a full-time working man. And, yes, if you look at those numbers you will find that the average woman earns about three quarters of the income of the average man.
But that statistic ignores many relevant factors that affect a worker's take-home pay. For starters, it doesn't adjust for number of years worked. On average, women spend about a decade out of the workforce to care for their families. It should come as no surprise to Senator Kerry that a 35-year-old woman reentering the workforce after ten years off earns less than a man or woman who worked continuously during that time.
The wage-gap statistic also fails to consider educational attainment. Today, women earn more than half of all bachelor's and master's degrees, but it wasn't always that way. Older women in the workforce tend to have less education than their male peers, which affected their career path, their salaries, and ultimately Department of Labor data.
Women and men also often have different priorities when assessing employment opportunities. One survey of working women found that for nearly three quarters a flexible schedule was "very important" when considering a job. This means that many women are willing to trade more money for more flexibility or time off.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I don't know. You haven't answered any questions. Which was my point.
I have nothing to base my response on besides your semi-literate retort, "Then why am I the boss then now?" Having established a track record of answering questions, unlike the 'boss' to whom I'm replying, I shall endeavor to reply.
Why are you the 'boss then now?' Possibly a blast took out your office and killed all the remaining competent employees. Or perhaps you simply outlived all your coworkers after the Nile virus decimated your company. Or maybe your company's owner passed on, leaving the office to a Teresa Heinz-like harpy who enjoys similar company. It could be that you managed to kidnap the children of the current owner so that he determined it was easier to abdicate ownership than deal with your 'reasonable' comments. It may be that your own poor, long-suffering relative died and you took over yourself. Or it might be that no one else wanted to direct you since every responsibility you were assigned turned somehow into one that only a sexist would delegate. It might even be that your competence at showing up on time to flop Whoppers and hot-grease the fries outshines your regularly late coworkers.
It is hard to respond to questions that pose such interesting possibilities. However, I would reckon the Peter Principle is certainly at work in your office.
Precisely. Your company had to adjust your salary to comply with Federal law.
As a woman, you are NOT being paid less than a man for doing the same work.
If the case arises that you are being cheated because of your gender, Federal law backs you up. That not only applies to you but to any other woman that works for your company and any other woman that works for any other company.
The femenist lie is that American women, solely because of their gender, earn "earn 76 cents for each man's dollar" in the U.S.
That is total B.S. and your particular case is demonstrates that U.S. law does not allow such a practice.
First of all, I never claimed to be a woman making less than a man. Go back and read my claims. My company told me I was making less than men. Prior to that adjustment, I never had access to anyone's salary. Now that I am a manager, I can see the descrepancies and I also can note that men get the higher level jobs at entry and women get the lower positions. There are many tricks that can be used that are hard to prove in a court of law....but then you probably already know those tricks and probably use them yourself, don't you?
I posted a newsweek article that agreed with me that many women ARE IN FACT being paid less than men. You can take in all the factors that they work at home part of their lives, they weren't the ones in the family that got to go to college, etc. but you also need to factor in that the big boys don't let any women into the boardrooms. There are plenty of statistics that point that out. Also, they took their business to the golf course to discuss, at least until women learned to play golf and asked to join them. So then they took their business discussions to the strip clubs. Go figure.
I think it is fascinating to read your rants because you are revealed for what you are all by yourself. The terms you use to describe women tell it all: bitch, harpy, semi-literate,
And of course the most telling is that you think that if the woman is the boss, then she must have gotten there by illegitimate means....note your long list of the possibilities. None mention that I might be more competent and smarter.
Says a lot about you.
You've already gone to your list...All.
I guess as you become old and demented, you forget things.
You claimed that "my company had to adjust my salary to not be subject to the law you are referring to". What are you saying then? You can't have it both ways. Did the law apply to you or did it not?
Now that I am a manager, I can see the descrepancies and I also can note that men get the higher level jobs at entry and women get the lower positions. There are many tricks that can be used that are hard to prove in a court of law....
That statement is as devoid of value as my prior example of the fact that, on the average, bald men (older and more experienced) earn larger salaries than men with acne (young and inexperienced).
Who are you comparing? Are you comparing a man with an MBA entering the Marketing Department with a woman in the Housekeeping Department?
If it really is a matter of individuals with exactly the same education, exactly the same qualifications, exactly the same experience getting different salaries only because of gender, then you, as a "manager", are also in violation of Federal law.
YOU as a manager claim to see these alleged injustices in your own company and yet YOU as a manager do nothing except whine about them on an Internet Forum instead of filing charges with the Feds.
You want to portray yourself as a "manager" while, at the same time claiming to be a helpless victim that can only stand be and helplessly watch the other women in your company be cheated.
If the accusations you are making against your own company are actually true and you are just sitting on your rump doing absolutely nothing about it, then YOU, as a manager, are just as guilty of violating Federal Equal Pay laws as your higher ups.
There are many tricks that can be used that are hard to prove in a court of law....but then you probably already know those tricks and probably use them yourself, don't you?
I guess the other posters were right. You can't debate without resorting to personal insults.
Let me give that a try, "You probably got your job as a manager by (insert insult here)".
Such a tactic doesn't win you any debate points. It just makes you look immature.
No. Unlike you, I am not afraid to tackle what is hard to prove in Court.
I am the sole owner of my own medical practice and I became the sole owner in a lawsuit against my old corporate partners after they started playing with the financial books. The local attornies advised me to settle because they never knew of any such case that had ever been won but I sued and I won.
When I did win, I won one of the old corporate branch offices that was left in my geographic area. The employees were all women except for one man, the mamager, that was a problem employee. When I took over, I fired him. I replaced him with a woman manager, not because of her gender but because of her value as an employee.
I posted a newsweek article that agreed with me that many women ARE IN FACT being paid less than men.
Newsweek is a libral rag that will put spin over substance. Like CBS (n Memogate) and the New York Times (in the missing explosives case), they will publish lies in order to advance the Democrat agenda. Did Newsweek adjust for education, experience, seniority, taking years off at a time to play Mommy?
I can just as easily write an article proving that bald men earn higher salaries than men with acne.
The law applied to me. It wasn't being followed. The company because of other lawsuits adjusted those that were being discriminated against on their own -- without my need to file. Had I known that I was being discriminated against (which is why they keep the salaries secret by the way), I might have filed.
By the way, many of your arguments are also devoid of value. I, as a woman, have so declared it.
Hello, I'm comparing women in my dept. with men who report to me also. Same number of years of experience, doing the same job. I don't know why I keep having to repeat that to you and others who don't have reading skills.
Discrimination is very difficult to prove...there are always ways to get around it.
YOU have obviously never worked for a large corporation. YOU have never been in a woman's position so until you are, your opinion means little to me. YOU live in a dream world.
Even YOU realized that the incompetent man was the problem. My question, you have the woman the responsibility but did you give her the guy's salary or did you keep her where she was?
Then why did you write in a previous post "I never claimed to be a woman making less than a man." Your story, like Kerry's stories, keep changing.
By the way, many of your arguments are also devoid of value. I, as a woman, have so declared it.
In serious debate, you must put forth the reasons why an argument has no value. I did that. You have not. As before when you resulted to insults as a substitute for substantive argument, you are again merely demonstrating immaturity.
Hello, I'm comparing women in my dept. with men who report to me also. Same number of years of experience, doing the same job. I don't know why I keep having to repeat that to you and others who don't have reading skills.
Exactly. I acknowledged that and asked, if that is the case, why are you, a "manager" just simply sitting on your rump instead of filing a complaint with the Feds.
I wrote:
***********************
If it really is a matter of individuals with exactly the same education, exactly the same qualifications, exactly the same experience getting different salaries only because of gender, then you, as a "manager", are also in violation of Federal law.
YOU as a manager claim to see these alleged injustices in your own company and yet YOU as a manager do nothing except whine about them on an Internet Forum instead of filing charges with the Feds.
You want to portray yourself as a "manager" while, at the same time claiming to be a helpless victim that can only stand be and helplessly watch the other women in your company be cheated.
If the accusations you are making against your own company are actually true and you are just sitting on your rump doing absolutely nothing about it, then YOU, as a manager, are just as guilty of violating Federal Equal Pay laws as your higher ups.
Discrimination is very difficult to prove...there are always ways to get around it. YOU have obviously never worked for a large corporation. YOU have never been in a woman's position so until you are, your opinion means little to me. YOU live in a dream world. Even YOU realized that the incompetent man was the problem. My question, you have the woman the responsibility but did you give her the guy's salary or did you keep her where she was? ***********************
You seem to be the one who can't comprehend what you read.
Your statement is a non sequitur in this debate.
What I have told you, again and again is that it is YOUR responsibility to file a complaint with the Feds if your charges are true.
"Poor me! It's hard to prove. Why even try. Whine.....Whine....Excuses ....Excuses".
You'll never get very far in life with that attitude.
If the charges against your company are true, then get off your butt and do something about it. As a manager, that is YOUR responsibility to YOUR subordinates.
Even YOU realized that the incompetent man was the problem. My question, you have the woman the responsibility but did you give her the guy's salary or did you keep her where she was?
When I took over the clinic, nobody got the same salary as they did before. Everybody got a 10% raise. So, no, she did not get the same salary as the man I fired. She got 110% of his salary.
Okay let me use very simple language to explain it to you.
Some old geezer accused me of those things. I was saying that he inferred incorrectly...as usual.
For the last time, I didn't realize I was even being discriminated against THEN. Hello, get that?
Yes, I agree you must put forth reasons. Not male-enhanced theories, never having been a woman yourself. Exactly!
Then the "rump" and "whining" rhetoric starts. Women bitch; men argue. Women whine; men state facts. blah blah blah
Why don't you ask the women who work for you what they think of you. Let it be anonymous to an outsider without fear of retribution. I'll bet they will have a far different opinion of you than you do.
So you finally paid the woman the man's salary plus a bonus for her being more qualified than the man. Well, aren't you just a big ol' sugar daddy. Why wasn't she in charge in the first place? huh? Why weren't the women's salary high enough. By your trying to act like a hero, you are admitting that these conditions existed. Maybe you should have provided the link to THESE women instead of to me. They sound like they were/are getting paid chickenfeed.
No, I don't "get that" and I am sure that nobody else on this Forum has any idea what you mean by those incoherent sentences you just wrote.
This thread deals with "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Your reply is a meaningless babble about an "old geeezer" accusing you about "those things".
Then the "rump" and "whining" rhetoric starts. Women bitch; men argue. Women whine; men state facts. blah blah blah
I must admit that I did use the term "rump" because you were a woman.
I will now address you exactly as I would have if you had been a man.
******************
If it really is a matter of individuals with exactly the same education, exactly the same qualifications, exactly the same experience getting different salaries only because of gender, then you, as a "manager", are also in violation of Federal law.
YOU as a manager claim to see these alleged injustices in your own company and yet YOU as a manager do nothing except whine about them on an Internet Forum instead of filing charges with the Feds.
You want to portray yourself as a "manager" while, at the same time claiming to be a helpless victim that can only stand be and helplessly watch the other women in your company be cheated.
If the accusations you are making against your own company are actually true and you are just sitting on your @SS doing absolutely nothing about it, then YOU, as a manager, are just as guilty of violating Federal Equal Pay laws as your higher ups.
******************
There. I substituted "sitting on your @SS" for "sitting on your rump". I have now treated exactly as I would have treated a man.
The "whine" needs no changes since male whiners are no different from female whiners.
Why don't you ask the women who work for you what they think of you. Let it be anonymous to an outsider without fear of retribution. I'll bet they will have a far different opinion of you than you do.
They think I'm great. We socialize together and they consider me their friend as well as their boss.
So you finally paid the woman the man's salary plus a bonus for her being more qualified than the man. Well, aren't you just a big ol' sugar daddy.
Ummmm.....Genius,....If my first act as the new owner is to give everybody a raise, where do you get the "finally" cr@p?
Why wasn't she in charge in the first place? huh? Why weren't the women's salary high enough.
Because she was hired after I put an ad in the paper advertising for a new manager after I fired the man. She had just moved to Washington State from San Francisco. When I obtained ownership of the clinic, I gave EVERYONE a raise. If a qualified man had ended up with the job, he would have gotten the same raise. The raise was above that that the MAN had been getting.
Other readers of this Forum will note that, instead of having the courage to file a complaint with the Federal agencies regarding the charges of discrimination you claim exist in the very department you claim to manage, you merely throw out the Victim Card, claim that it is too hard to do so and then start throwing out baseless innuendos such as that my employees must hate me or that I use "tricks" to cheat them.
It boils down to character and, regardless of your gender, you have demonstrated very little character other than the character of a whiner that is too cowardly to do the right thing. You prefer to play the role of Professional Victim instead.
If your subordinates are being cheated, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MANAGER to file a complaint with the Federal agencies.
You want to be addressed just as a man would address another man? Fine. Here it goes:
"File the d@mned complaint, you sissy little coward. Do you expect your Mommy to wipe your nose for the rest of your whining life? Sh#t or get off the pot!"
Funny, but I don't have to take any orders from you. I know you can't stand that because you like to think you are superior.
But I'll continue to manage 54 employees (men and women) based on merit and not gender. Luckily I am able to have a very good job and good pay without any advice from you all these years. And luckily I work for a woman who was smart enough to pick me as the manager.
If you were really addressing me as a man, and then called me "sissy", you must really have a problem. You must resent men too. Why don't you just admit you can't work with anyone unless you are in charge. You just might have control issues you need to deal with.
And luckily no one is being discriminated against now because I have reviewed all the records with Human Resources.
I know you are "sue happy" (is your name Edwards?) but sometimes you have to be reasonable to get changes made. The best changes are made from within.
I noticed you couldn't do that.
As far as "All" is concerned, it's entertaining that you are able to read so far back, yet cannot answer the questions I posed in my first post. So answer them, or continue to avoid them and demonstrate the truth of your assertions. Who sees my responses to you is irrelevant to the truth of the matter you assert. That your responses continue to avoid those questions, though you are obviously aware how to find them and where they are, is telling.
I enjoy how you reached so far back in thread this time, grasping at any irrelevancy left, to avoid my questions. It tells me that you simply find the idea of answering those questions nauseating, that you, representative of all things woman, should have to answer any interrogatory from a lowly male, is either sickening to you, or you simply cannot answer these questions in a way that would improve your sorry case.
You may continue to spuriously analyze me as you see fit, but it does not make your case any stronger to insult me. And if, in that analysis, you somehow see yourself as a harpy or semi-literate, or that you speak for all women, I will not stand in the way of the first possibility, but I scoff at you as some spokeswoman for your sex. Most women would be disappointed to find you are pretender to that throne.
RE: you being 'more competent and smarter' than other employees, none mention your smarts because I think we've proven from the discussion here that you are certainly not. Feral cunning and/or dumb luck you may have, but I doubt sincerely that anyone with a method of reasoning such as yours could be all that sharp. I do mention your competence in the last possibility--after all, not showing up would be gross incompetence. I certainly don't question that you could be competent in your work. In fact, pushing the register buttons and speaking clearly into the little drive-thru mouthpiece seem likely to be in your realm of possible accomplishments.
I only vaguely allude to competence or intelligence anyway, because as a 'boss' in the high-powered fry production field, you must know that attitude and affect on team cohesion are important, too. I don't care if an employee is particularly smart--depending on the position, of course--because generally an employee's attitude and ability to get along with coworkers is far more important in most cases than their overall intelligence. A minimum level of competence is important, but far more important is their ability to fit into the team. But you, being 'boss' of the burger line and all, you knew that.
I have mapped your replies into a template by now. I'm looking forward to seeing your response and seeing how it fits into it. Aha! An epiphany! I bet that's why you got to attend Hamburger U! You're predictable!
For those keeping score, note how she immediately throws out the Victim Card.
Suggesting that, if she is being discriminated against, she should stop whining and file a complaint with Federal agencies is twisted around by her to mean that a bigotted male who thinks he is "superior" giving her "orders".
But I'll continue to manage 54 employees (men and women) based on merit and not gender.
Stop the music. Stop the music.
Before, you had claimed that, in your own Department, there were women getting paid less than men for doing the same job with the same level of experience.
Yet, you refuse to file a complaint with Federal agencies because you claim that it is "too hard" to prove such charges in Court.
How can you be managing your 54 employees based on merit if you won't even have the courage to stand up for their legal right?
And luckily no one is being discriminated against now because I have reviewed all the records with Human Resources.
So, your story changes yet again.
The truth has finally come out.
AT YOUR COMPANY, MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOW PAID THE SAME FOR DOING THE SAME WORK.
Before, you claimed that it could not be done.
In which post were you lying?
I know you are "sue happy" (is your name Edwards?) but sometimes you have to be reasonable to get changes made. The best changes are made from within. I noticed you couldn't do that.
Every company is different. I was threatened by senior partners with a lawsuit unless I allowed them to cheat myself and two other partners. I sued first and won.
That is why, today, I own my own corporation while you are reduced to whining...."Discrimination is very difficult to prove...there are always ways to get around it. YOU have obviously never worked for a large corporation. YOU have never been in a woman's position......"
I didn't have to read so far back. I happened to notice it and remember it. Old geezers have no memory I guess. So sad for you.
I don't have to answer your questions. You don't get it. I don't work for you nor am I married to you. If I wanted you to have the answers, I would have told you. You do not control me even though you think men should control women.
I find it interesting for you to even presume to know what women want after calling me a "bitch" because of my gender. You also continue to think that women can only have low paying jobs. Maybe that is true of your wife who obviously doesn't have much intelligence judging from who she married, but not me. Nice try.
I love how LONG the spin is getting from you and your gender comrade.
LONG responses = no arguments
Wow, the old "I own my own corporation argument" probably because no one can get along with you. Goes back to your control issue. You are trying to do the same to me, without success.
My arguments are there for everyone on the Forum to read.
You have yet to counter a single one of them. All you offer is childish insults.
Another childish insult.
Geez, you're getting funnier every post, troll. Will you next identify me as a petit-bourgeois shopkeeper?
Thank you for adding to my prayer list--I shall thank God daily for the fact that a woman like you is neither working for me nor married to me. I do not think men should control women. You continue to speak untruths in an attempt to avoid answering the questions.
But by not answering the questions, which go to the heart of your example, you avoid the issue, which is that you claim your example demonstrates that women are paid less than men. And your avoidance speaks volumes.
I think that you have proven what you are here by your regular insults and attempts to attack my 'wife,' and 'mother,' when you know nothing about either, or even whether or not I have a wife. I have only stated clearly and concisely what your words indicate.
And I don't think all women can only have low paying jobs. I know many smart, educated women who have earned good money as good managers, lawyers, accountants, and engineers. No, I'm sure that there are plenty of women who earn VERY good money in those good jobs. I'm just sure you won't be counted as one of them.
But you clearly don't know me. You don't know what I think except about you. Frankly, you don't UNDERSTAND what I think about you, as you continue to believe somewhere that I am "calling you bitch simply because of [your] gender." Nothing could be further from the truth. No, I called every single woman who whines without cause, assumes she has an ability to argue without actually having one, makes unfounded assertions, can't read, acts like a liberal in defending a losing cause, and is happy about affirmative action a bitch. That is high qualification. In fact, an extremely small number of women exhibit those tendencies named above in combination at all. You just take it personally, because the appellation is so appropriately applied in your case.
And you simply can't address my questions concerning your weak, lonely little example, because you have no facts to back up your example other than two numbers, when context is hugely important to those numbers. Thus your argument continues to fail for lack of support.
It is not only a matter of avoiding the substance of the debate but also the matter of her flat out lying.
On Post 10, she stated:
"I see it every day when I compare men's salaries to women's at the company I work for."
When I challenged her, again and again and again, as to why she did not file Federal charges if she was a manager and if that was true, she avoided the issue as long as she could with insults. Finally, she then stated in Post 91 that she did not have to file such charges because:
"Luckily no one is being discriminated against now because I have reviewed all the records with Human Resources."
So, which is it with her company?
"Every day" as claimed in Post 10 when she believed she would not be held accountable as a helpless victim or "Not now" as claimed in Post 91 when she was being held accountable as a manager?
Was she lying in Post 10 or was she lying in Post 91?
Her pattern of behavior is classic for the Professional Victim: First throw out an unsubstatiated charge of discrimination and then, when challanged for the facts, throw out the Victim Card and the insults.
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.