alexey Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Background information is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/84 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act We had some questions come up in another thread about the Paycheck Fairness Act. These questions included: Why is the new law needed? Does the law allow for equal job titles, equal job responsibilities, and NOT equal pay of the value of the employee is different? Above links should provide answers to these and many other questions, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act#Justification Please post your questions here for the ES community to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Patricia Arquette wasn't lying. Fix the gap. If you have a man and woman doing the same job why does the woman get paid less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Patricia Arquette wasn't lying. Fix the gap. If you have a man and woman doing the same job why does the woman get paid less? Does she have the same experience? The same skillset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Does she have the same experience? The same skillset? Let's say yes. Same everything except gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 If yes, and she has no intention of getting pregnant, then she should have a fair shot to get paid equally. Yet said woman is inexplicably paid less. Don't try to ignore the gap or claim it doesn't exist. Don't try to claim it's only them "Walmart girls" that are victims. It's a serious issue that HAS to be fixed. Isn't that what equality is all about? People getting paid the same for the same work, regardless of sex or ethnicity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 We always hear about these gaps but are there true numbers out there that show the discrepancies between male and female when factoring in same experience, education and skillset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Interesting point about pregnancy... Although I suppose this can be solved by both men and women taking the same amount of time off for kids. Also, pregnancy can be considered as an education, an experience, as well as a skillset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 We always hear about these gaps but are there true numbers out there that show the discrepancies between male and female when factoring in same experience, education and skillset? yes, it happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 If yes, and she has no intention of getting pregnant, then she should have a fair shot to get paid equally. Yet said woman is inexplicably paid less. Don't try to ignore the gap or claim it doesn't exist. Don't try to claim it's only them "Walmart girls" that are victims. It's a serious issue that HAS to be fixed. Isn't that what equality is all about? People getting paid the same for the same work, regardless of sex or ethnicity? Do you have any evidence of these claims? Theres also a host of other factors not included. Type of experience is important. One person may be useful in producing future business, while another is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Yes, we get it. No two people are exactly identical. Therefore . . . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 If yes, and she has no intention of getting pregnant, then she should have a fair shot to get paid equally. The implication being that woman that want families are less valuable or aren't serious about their careers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Assuming everything is the same except gender, what would keep a company from simply changing the job title in order to change the rate of pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The implication being that woman that want families are less valuable or aren't serious about their careers? Perhaps the implication is that employers think that pregnancy impacts an employee's ability to do the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 You 'hear' it all the time - correct but where are the actual numbers? When factoring in the '77% of what men make' are they taking into account total women working and salary and total men working and salary? If so, you have to look at where the big entertainment business can play a role in inflated numbers. You have billions tied into sports alone where this is 100% men. That alone is going to inflate the numbers. How about industry by industry and position by position breakdown? I'm not saying it's not an issue but people always jump out and say it is without ever providing any numbers and context. Also, you have to look at the top. Leaders and Execs are majority male which is going to inflate the numbers as well. I think the problem lies in the fact that there are less women in leadership roles. You even that out then you start to see similar numbers in terms of overall pay median. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I guess we still see the same type of arguments that were made 50, 75, and 100 years ago to keep certain minorities from being paid equal wages. Sigh. Grow up people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I guess we still see the same type of arguments that were made 50, 75, and 100 years ago to keep certain minorities from being paid equal wages. Sigh. Grow up people. Which is the argument, in this thread, that you see as similar to those on this issue from 1915? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I guess we still see the same type of arguments that were made 50, 75, and 100 years ago to keep certain minorities from being paid equal wages. Sigh. Grow up people. Who's arguing - and if you think it's me then it's not an argument but a request of the information that is being thrown around so much. My opinion, is that the executive and leadership levels weigh the ratios down and here's some numbers that can back that up: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03/07/85457/fact-sheet-the-womens-leadership-gap/ Although they hold almost 52 percent of all professional-level jobs, American women lag substantially behind men when it comes to their representation in leadership positions: They are only 14.6 percent of executive officers, 8.1 percent of top earners, and 4.6 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. They hold just 16.9 percent of Fortune 500 board seats. In the financial services industry, they make up 54.2 percent of the labor force, but are only 12.4 percent of executive officers, and 18.3 percent of board directors. None are CEOs. They account for 78.4 percent of the labor force in health care and social assistance but only 14.6 percent of executive officers and 12.4 percent of board directors. None, again, are CEOs. In the legal field, they are 45.4 percent of associates—but only 25 percent of nonequity partners and 15 percent of equity partners. In medicine, they comprise 34.3 percent of all physicians and surgeons but only 15.9 percent of medical school deans. In information technology, they hold only 9 percent of management positions and account for only 14 percent of senior management positions at Silicon Valley startups. Furthermore… Although women control 80 percent of consumer spending in the United States, they are only 3 percent of creative directors in advertising. Their image onscreen is still created, overwhelmingly, by men. Women accounted for just 16 percent of all the directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors who worked on the top-grossing 250 domestic films of 2013, and were just 28 percent of all offscreen talent on broadcast television programs during the 2012-13 primetime season. When, however, there are more women behind the camera or at the editor’s desk, the representation of women onscreen is better: Films written or directed by women consistently feature a higher percentage of female characters with speaking roles. Again, IMO, when you take a look at the numbers above and the amount of money made in these type of positions then they are going to inflate the numbers in male wages and average earnings. Women don't have these kind of statistics that can boost their median up which is causing it to appear like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Which is the argument, in this thread, that you see as similar to those on this issue from 1915? Can you find me just one case where there are two people, who are completely identical except for race, making different money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Can you find me just one case where there are two people, who are completely identical except for race, making different money? You can find at least 1 scenario any way you spin it. You can find one where the woman makes more, the male makes more, the black male/female makes more, the white male/female makes more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The argument that women are making less because they choose lesser paying professions is the cornerstone GOP argument against this act. It's true in some cases. But it doesn't explain why women doctors and surgeons make 71% of what men make, when controlling for age, race, education, and hours. Or why women lawyers make 82% of what men make when controlling for those same factors. Other professions show similar pay differentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 You can find at least 1 scenario any way you spin it. You can find one where the woman makes more, the male makes more, the black male/female makes more, the white male/female makes more Yep. That was my last job. Technically I had more experience than my female coworker but she made more than me. We had the same job too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The system is still broken (for women). I'm not sure if this bill fixes the problem - but I don't see the negative to passing it. Perhaps I am missing something, but what exactly does the GOP hope to achieve by continuing to crap on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 So pardon my ignorance but this is a private sector problem am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Yep. That was my last job. Technically I had more experience than my female coworker but she made more than me. We had the same job too. Let me guess. You were smarter than the black asian crippled homosexual guy who got into the elite school you wanted to go to also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Who's arguing - and if you think it's me then it's not an argument but a request of the information that is being thrown around so much. My opinion, is that the executive and leadership levels weigh the ratios down and here's some numbers that can back that up: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03/07/85457/fact-sheet-the-womens-leadership-gap/ So, your point is that women aren't the victims of wage discrimination, they're the victims of hiring discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.