Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 11/16/2010 10:12:16 AM PST by FreeManDC
Women didn't vote for Democratic candidates in the November election in the numbers expected, so President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want to woo them back into the fold by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) in the lame duck session. We don't need this: It's a job killer, not a job creator.
The Paycheck Fairness Act (S.3772) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Those laws have produced fair results for many years.
Under current law, Title VII entitles an employee to win back pay if the employer intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices. PFA would allow unlimited compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded by judges and juries, even without proof of the employer's intent to discriminate.
The Equal Pay Act currently requires that meeting the test of equal pay for equal work requires that the employees being compared work in the same physical place of business called an establishment. The PFA would redefine the word "establishment" to mean workplaces in the same county or political district.
The PFA would invite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to develop "rules of guidance" to define "establishment" even more broadly. This leaves the door open for the EEOC to compare and force the equalization of pay for a woman's job in a rural area with a man's job in an urban area where the cost of living is much higher.
That obviously would increase employment costs in lower-cost areas. Fewer people would be employed, and some of those jobs could be shipped overseas.
The PFA would eliminate the proven successful, Supreme Court-endorsed system for determining pay discrimination, known as the Interpretative Standards for Systemic Compensation Discrimination. The PFA would replace it with the Equal Opportunity Survey, which has been proven to be highly inaccurate.
The PFA would vastly increase the number of class-action suits against employers by automatically including employees in class-action suits unless they affirmatively opt out. At present, an employee can join a class-action suit only by choosing to participate.
Increasing class-action business for trial lawyers means the Democrats are pandering to their important donors. These additional costs imposed on employers will also result in shipping more jobs overseas.
Elaine Chao, secretary of labor under President George W. Bush, correctly called the PFA a "job killing, trial attorney bonanza." She said it would encourage employers to view female applicants as instigators of lawsuits instead of contributors to productivity.
The radical feminist movement has been agitating for this PFA-type legislation for nearly three decades. Sometimes they call it "pay equity," and sometimes they call it "comparable worth," but those terms are euphemisms for government wage control.
The feminists want federal law to replace "equal pay for equal work" with "equal pay for equal worth." And they want "worth" to be decided by feminist bureaucrats and judges.
"Equal work" can be judged by objective factors such as experience, time in the labor force, hours worked per week, working conditions and the work actually done. "Worth" is a very subjective concept. Most people probably think they are worth more than they are being paid and deserve a raise.
The Obama feminists recite the tiresome mantra that women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. That's completely false because it doesn't take into account that men take many high-risk and unpleasant jobs, suffering 90 percent of occupational fatalities, so they should earn more.
Each of us is paid a compromise between what we think we're worth and what someone is willing to pay. Those millions of decisions add up to what we call the private enterprise system and the free market economy.
Why are football and baseball players paid more than the president? Lawyers more than ministers? Rock stars more than musicians in major symphony orchestras? Should government decide what people are worth and bias the pay scales based on gender?
If it were really true that businesses pay women less than men for the same work, then cost-conscious bosses would hire only or mostly women. Since that doesn't happen, there must be other factors.
The proper role of government is to provide equal opportunity, not preferential treatment based on warped social theory, especially when the feminist arguments are so demonstrably false, and their demands will increase unemployment.
People who work longer hours earn more, and they should, yet government statistics are based on a 35-hour work week even though many, especially men on average, work longer hours. Equal pay for everyone is a Marxist notion -- we believe in equal pay for equal work.
When I read about Obama efforts like this, I think of it like this.
Obama has his limo driven over to the nearest sex shop. After browsing all the goodies, he finally picks up two or three items.
The next day he tries to use them on the nation, without consent.
This “wage discrepancy” thing is sheer crap based on misleading information. Women notoriously drop out of the working world to be mommies thus hurting their “career path” and lowering their potential for income earning. In addition, they don’t take on hazardous and dangerous jobs generally speaking. This pretty much sums up the “difference” in pay. It’s like saying you’re more likely to be shot and killed running through the inner city than walking through the country; therefore you should walk at all times. All based on false premise.
P.S. of course I live in upstate NY so I’m doomed as Chuck U. and Gigglebrat will vote for this garbage hands down.
How many disguises does big government wear? How many different Trojan horses do they use? How many stealth bombers? Big government always creeps in silently and deceptively, like a thief in your house disguised as a good guy until he holds you up and takes you for all you have.
As Reagan once said, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'."
“I have two sons. I want my little men to have a decent world to grow up in, and a fair shot at making a big name for themselves. All this horsecr*p legislation is designed to kill their chances.”
As a father of sons myself, I understand. Affirmative action and similar laws/policies will have the unintended consequence of creating generations of Timothy McVeighs, who are legally excluded from hiring, promotions, education, etc.
These laws make it dangerous for any firm to hire anyone on the “preferred American” list (minorities, women, perverts). While people should be paid equal money for equal work, there are numerous factors involved (hours worked, degrees/certifications, actual performance/effectiveness) that can’t be removed from the formula. I know too many women who come in fifteen minutes late, and have to run out ten minutes early to deal with family matters (or even pets), and a blind eye is turned to them “because they might sue”; anyone stuck with these on the payroll will end up wishing they had union slobs instead. At least then there is a formal policy for how to deal with problem employees; now these pseudo-employees underperform under a legal cover that guarantees inadequacy. If you don’t pay them more than they are worth, you lose a court battle based on hollow numbers that don’t tell a whole story.
Smaller firms already know this, and hire/pay strictly based on merit; they are small enough to stay under the radar and therefore can be effective.
“This “wage discrepancy” thing is sheer crap based on misleading information. Women notoriously drop out of the working world to be mommies thus hurting their “career path” and lowering their potential for income earning. In addition, they don’t take on hazardous and dangerous jobs generally speaking. This pretty much sums up the “difference” in pay. It’s like saying you’re more likely to be shot and killed running through the inner city than walking through the country; therefore you should walk at all times. All based on false premise.”
You’re absolutely correct; I worked at a place where they had an unofficial policy (that they were quite candid about) where they wouldn’t send women into the worst neighborhoods (in northern NJ). The risk was borne by men alone, and somehow that was acceptable. The natural consequence? The men moved on to better things (this was back when we still had jobs here), leaving all women; those neighborhoods were simply ignored going forward. Also, the accomodations companies are expected to make for maternity leaves are simply too burdensome once companies had been reduced to skeleton crews; I’ve hired several women, but most beyond child-bearing age.
I understand your concern about how your NY senators will support this; on a positive note, it will drive out the few remaining jobs there anyway. /s
-—The proper role of government is to provide equal opportunity, not preferential treatment based on warped social theory,...-—
Such a simple and truly American concept. It hurts to recognize how far we’ve fallen.
“Smaller firms already know this, and hire/pay strictly based on merit; they are small enough to stay under the radar and therefore can be effective.”
There in a nutshell is why we keep our employee count under 10. We are particular about who we hire, and the process takes time. We took on an apprentice last year, and I wanted to meet the young mans parents as part of the final decision making process. It worked out well.
As a side note, I was sued a few years ago by one of our applicants for a job, because we did not have adequate handicap access, which, in his case, prevented him from being hired, which, he claimed was a form of discrimination. We are a heating and air company, and we spend much time on ladders, rooftops and in very confined spaces. A man who had only minimal use of his legs was of no use to us, though I wished him the best of luck. We have only one clerical worker, my wife.
We were soon after hit with a discriminatory lawsuit (A shakedown), which ate up our entire years profits (I refused to settle out of court). What was not admissible, what the judge would not even hear, was that our attorney found he had levied no fewer than a dozen such cases over a dozen years at various companies. He was apparently in the business of going on job searches then shaking down smaller firms like ours.
We learned the hard way, to never advertise to the public when hiring, and now we hire only through word of mouth. We would rather work short-handed, then hire the wrong person, or even have the wrong person apply! (this is not a problem now with so many unemployed, but at one time, it was hard for us to find help).
As far as pay, as a non-union trade shop, we stay above the union scale, and we give merit bonus monthly, and also a commission to our guys if they upgrade a system or sell anything, but its not all roses, we expect our guys to be on-call (rotating), we expect them to fix their mistakes at their own cost, we expect them to be team players, we expect them to be good people all around.
I know some may question that last part, saying I have no business telling an employee that they have to be good family men, or that they have to be involved in the community socially, but since it is our company, and since we are small, it is the way we do business, and it has worked out fine for us.
ping
That is really a shame with that swindler; that litigious atmosphere is strangling this country. I had a similar situation with a car accident years ago, where I literally “tapped” a car in front of me. The driver sued, was given an award through arbitration (even though there was no damage to either vehicle, and her last accident had been a solo against a tree), but my insurance never increased because my insurance company (which happened to be the same as hers) said they treat any accidents with total damage (to both cars combined) of $0 as insurance fraud. There wasn’t even paint damage...
This is why NJ has the highest auto insurance in the nation.
If you’re company is allowed by law to operate in the manner you describe, then to hell with anyone who disagrees with how you run it. I guess the government wants to turn larger firms into wealth redistribution centers (hire x number of ethnic minorities, y number of females, etc., with no actual work expectiations); I know housing laws are similar. As I understand it, many laws regarding housing discrimination only apply to buildings of more than 2 units, and even then may not apply if the owner lives in a unit himself.
But this is a double-edged sword for folks like me, too.
I'm presently earning $15K a year less than my counterparts across the country, based on the latest salary survey. Am I upset?
Heck, no!
I have the flexibility to make my own hours. In exchange for lower pay, I can, like you said, attend to the needs of my family and be there for my kiddos (my babies came late in life and they are my top priority).
In return, if it means working until 2:00 AM to get the job done, I do it. If it means giving up weekends to be there for a famiy event during the week, I do it. If it means some weeks are 80 hours a week and others are 30, no problem.
But that is my choice. It works for me, my family. And since I love my job and the people I serve, I always give my best. My board is very happy with my performance: eleven national awards, explosive growth, fiscally sound year after year, and being recognized as one of the best in the country by my peers based on quantifiable results.
If my board was forced to give me the same amount of money, I would lose the flexibility that I so love about my job. I would be forced to hire people to shuttle my kids to school and watch them afterwards. That money would go to daycare and taxes, and not increase the quality of my family's life on IOTA.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID law!
But this is a double-edged sword for folks like me, too.
I'm presently earning $15K a year less than my counterparts across the country, based on the latest salary survey. Am I upset?
Heck, no!
I have the flexibility to make my own hours. In exchange for lower pay, I can, like you said, attend to the needs of my family and be there for my kiddos (my babies came late in life and they are my top priority).
In return, if it means working until 2:00 AM to get the job done, I do it. If it means giving up weekends to be there for a famiy event during the week, I do it. If it means some weeks are 80 hours a week and others are 30, no problem.
But that is my choice. It works for me, my family. And since I love my job and the people I serve, I always give my best. My board is very happy with my performance: eleven national awards, explosive growth, fiscally sound year after year, and being recognized as one of the best in the country by my peers based on quantifiable results.
If my board was forced to give me the same amount of money, I would lose the flexibility that I so love about my job. I would be forced to hire people to shuttle my kids to school and watch them afterwards. That money would go to daycare and taxes, and not increase the quality of my family's life on IOTA.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID law!
That is good that you can have the work/life balance that every company talks about but few actually deliver; I would take salary surveys with a grain of salt as well (they’re not very precise).
Good luck!
Cost of living isn't really a raise, it's an adjustment so you can buy the same amount of food, fuel, clothing and so on, that you bought last year for the same number of hours of work. If they didn't give it to you, it would be a pay CUT. Now anything in excess of inflation should be earned as you note, I agree.
Or only hire for tasks that can be compensated piece rate. That's the way I do it and it keeps everyone's incentives neatly in their own box. If someone is naturally very talented or wants to invest a lot of money in tools and produces a lot more, I have no problem paying them more per hour than what I make myself. Why would I, I set the rate? And it prevents friction between employees, because the nominal part of the equation, the piece rate, is the same for everyone. How can you complain because Jose made more money than you did? Obviously he worked harder or did his work more efficiently. I realize there are a lot of businesses and a lot of jobs where you can't take this approach, but I feel fortunate that I'm in one where you can.
AND it allows me to hire a broader range of people. If one guy is lazy and doesn’t get much done per hour I don’t care, as long as he’s not SO slow he’s holding up the whole operation. If it weren’t for being paid in that way, I’d be angry at him, his co-workers would be angry at him AND at me, and I couldn’t even hire him in the first place because there’s a more cost-efficient way to get the same amount of work done.
Eh, if I were the CEO, I’d pay her the wage of a Mumbai-based Indian data entry technician. And when she complained, I’d say she’s of equal worth to the other.
And if she disagreed, I’d file a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the slightest Indian data entry technician against the employee (cause she’s racist for implying that she’s worth more than an Indian).
Heh heh heh.
:-P
Make that the ‘slighted Indian data entry technician’... not slightest.
First, I don’t buy the “pay gap” between men and women to begin with. Maybe overall there is a gap, but that population measure that generates the general statement does not take into account many different variables. For example, how many of the women respondants took significant time off from the work place to nurture their children in the home? This would clearly effect the pay of that particular woman when compared to a man that was consistently in the same career.
Second, is the general statement regarding the pay gap more realistically a reflection of the negotiation styles for men vs. women?
Legislation such as this is nothing more than an attempt to continue to eliminate the notion of individuality. They are trying to equalize outcome by eliminating individual considerations for making certain choices.
Or, as Rabbi Lapin said earlier this week, tyrrany always tries to “build bricks” (everyone is the same) instead of working with “rocks” (everyone is unique.) That discussion was with Beck and was in reference to the “Tower of Babble.”
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.