The Paycheck Unfairness Act (FReepers

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.

I understand this..but it is nonsense to give raises to keep up with inflation. This is no different than subsidizing industries. It is another entitlement which the employeer is obliged to give rather than the determination to award those who are productive. If one feels the crunch in a "pay cut" because the cost of living has risen, then they need to consider what they can do to change this equation...put out more and ask what the requirements are which the management wants to see in order to compete and earn more. Otherwise...move on to another company who does reward performance.

I understand this..but it is nonsense to give raises to keep up with inflation. This is no different than subsidizing industries. It is another entitlement which the employee is obliged to give rather than the determination to award those who are productive. If one feels the crunch in a "pay cut" because the cost of living has risen, then they need to consider what they can do to change this equation...put out more and ask what the requirements are which the management wants to see in order to compete and earn more. Otherwise...move on to another company who does reward performance.

So you're OK with believing that your pay is in fact the same as long as the NUMBER is the same, even if the cost of goods has gone up, and having to work more, harder, or smarter to eat, dress and drive the same as last year?? Whatever. I figure if I produce more I'm entitled to consume more. That would seem to just be common sense.

Yes, I am ok with that, even if costs go up. It is my responsibility to change that equation not the government to require employers to subsidize cost of living. Employers should be able to determine what they pay and when they determine pay raises as well as how much. If an individual doesn't like what he's paid then it's his responsibility to move on to a company more favorable to what he desires or get the requirements under his belt which would bring a more favorable result. If I am not paid a fair wage as I see it then it's time to go elswhere.

I figure if I produce more I'm entitled to consume more.

"entitled?" ....there it is. If you produce more and are not rewarded for doing so...move on to someone else who recognizes your contribution and is willing to compensate you for that. Otherwise adjust your spending habits to your means. Entitled....nope.

When did I say anything about the government determining anything? I realize this is in a thread about wage regulation, but I was off on a specific tangent and have never said or implied that government should mandate, or should even have the power to mandate, cost of living increases. My point is that as both an employer and an employee, and I have been both, as well as solitary self-employed, I expect pay to stay level in terms of buying power, not numbers. And yes, I’ve been in places that didn’t pay fairly and vote with my feet is what I did. You seem to have somehow got this idea I was in favor of government regulation even though I never said so. Shoot, I don’t even agree with the concept of a minimum wage, but neither do I approve of companies who aspire to pay their employees less every year through attrition of dollar value. That was my point, the right and wrong of how to be employers and employees, not arguing for regulation. There, I hope I’ve said that enough times.

Yes, “entitled” as in I have that coming, as does anyone working for me. Why would I cut their pay for the same work? I have the same attitude on this issue whether I’m the one signing the checks or the one cashing them. Exceptions would be if you’re in an industry where you’re unable to increase your prices even in an overall inflationary environment (and I would agree to this as both employee and employer) or government employees who aren’t creating anything. They’re lucky if we don’t cut their pay in actual numerical terms.

Everything is negotiable, especially wages. One reason unions were attractive in the early days was that many really good workers were lousy negotiators.

Unions pushed too far beyond negotiating what was fair for the good workers to what benefitted the union’s growth and the power and money of its leaders. The result to that was the decline of the unions (in the private sector).

Now in union shops the good negotiator negotiates with the union rep for the best job title and perks rather than with management. And in the vast majority of non-union employers, it is likewise the good negotiator who gets the high wage, not the good worker.

One question that is a mystery is why hiring and promoting managers irrationally pick the good BS artist over the good worker when the choice is very obvious. In my field of IT there is almost no correlation between wages and the value a worker adds to a project or company. In fact, it is most often the incompetent or lazy BS artist who is on the fast track for promotions to AVP.

Where are the companies that have a culture where that is not true?

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.