The Politics Sexual Assault Thread

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Pay excuses are subjective, right? Who's to say that someone who went to Wharton received a better education than someone who went to a state university? 

That’s tough though. You do expect an Ivy Leaguer to get more of the benefit of the doubt. You’d hope after some time pedigree and networking would take a backseat to production. Mind you, we also know it often doesn’t. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Pay excuses are subjective, right? Who's to say that someone who went to Wharton received a better education than someone who went to a state university? Trump went to Wharton and he's squandered his education, apparently didn't learn anything. His methods of bilking his subs, constantly filing bankruptcy aren't standard business practices.

 

These excuses are so ingrained that people can't see that they are discriminatory.

Okay I'm really trying to have a discussion but you seem to be resisting it.  I don't care about Trump in this context.  I could certainly understand If John went to a better school than Sara, him getting better pay.  Otherwise why would anyone spend the money for MIT?  

 

If you can explain to me how it is discriminatory, I will listen.  But you just saying so doesn't make it so.  

UPDATE:  So I sent my wife the post @Burgold made and asked her if it happens, wouldn't they get sued, etc.  This is her response:

 

Quote

Totally happens. A big part of why women get offered less money than men is because they're expected to either leave for maternity leave or child-rearing or something similar. It happens all the time. Yes a man and woman otherwise equal typically results in the man making more money, sometimes substantially. It's gotten a lot better in the modern era, but it still exists - especially in male-dominated careers.

 

And yes. If proof, they could be sued.  But have you watched the news lately ?

Have a great day,

Amanda


-Please excuse misspellings - it's a smart phone, but the user isn't-

 

Edited January 7, 2018 by TheGreatBuzz
choose a better school for my example

[Burgold]

Surprised me too, Buzz. Not necessarily that it happens but how overtly it happens. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Just because someone went to a better school doesn't automatically make them the better candidate. I have two associate degrees, but I have been hired to clean up proposal messes made by Ph.Ds. 

 

So just having a supposedly better education doesn't make it so. I have known people who didn't go to school and were self taught perform better than those who went to school. 

 

That's why I postulate that most of these job practices are discriminatory, unless there are requirements that are directly applicable like CPA license, or PE license.. 

 

Since you aren't a woman, you have no idea what women face in the working world. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Since you aren't a woman, you have no idea what women face in the working world. 

This is an odd argument from someone who likes to say how much better men have it.  Since you aren't a man, I will now dismiss anything you say about things involving men in the workplace.  You have no idea because you aren't a man but the struggles are REAL!!!  (Doesn't make much sense, does it?)

 

Anyways, I would argue that you really don't know anything about the person until they have worked for you for a while.  They may have a more presitgous diploma, a certain certification, a bunch of fluff on their resume, or even a recommendation letter from some big wig.  But you still don't know if that person is really worth it.  BUT those things hopefully give you a better CHANCE of having a good experience with that employee.  Who would you rather argue your discrimination case, the Harvard Law grad or the one that went to Charles County Community College for their degree?  (Here we see if you are capable of an honest argument)

[LadySkinsFan]

I will look at the lawyer's win record in like cases. 

[Burgold]

I'm going to side with Buzz a little bit on this aspect. If there's an Ivy leaguer and a state college with the same GPA, I don't think it's necessarily discriminatory (though classism may come into play) that the Ivy leaguer is viewed more favorably. The state school person (male or female) may be impacted by two things here... the reputation of the school lending artificial credibility and the greater weight that networking has as with certain companies HR develops more of a relationship with deans or profs and may trust their recommendation.

 

Now, I think we both are with you in saying that the Ivy Leaguer might turn out to be a worse employee, but I can understand the sway a prestigious institution might have if all else is equal. I certainly don't think that's a sexism problem in any case. If anything, it probably impacts minorities more as their numbers at Yale, Harvard, etc. are probably lower because of numerous factors.

[TheGreatBuzz]

26 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I will look at the lawyer's win record in like cases. 

You are the first case for both of them.  But they are the only two available to you.  Can you really not admit that going to a higher end school gives an employee more credability (or whatever term you wish to use)?  

 

Who do you want building you a robot, someone who went to MIT or someone who went to Phoenix University online?

[skinsmarydu]

I am in no way knocking your wife, Buzz. But her company most likely works for other companies...who not only need HR  advice, but also cover...not the one on your head, the one that saves lawsuits and money. 

Please tell me you follow. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I am in no way knocking your wife, Buzz. But her company most likely works for other companies...who not only need HR  advice, but also cover...not the one on your head, the one that saves lawsuits and money. 

Please tell me you follow. 

I get what type of cover you mean but not how it applies here.  Like that companies hire her so they can do shady stuff and point the finger elsewhere?  Honestly not sure.

[skinsmarydu]

NO, not necessarily for that purpose. But that's what they do, assess liability and whatnot. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

NO, not necessarily for that purpose. But that's what they do, assess liability and whatnot. 

That may be true but I don't suspect so.  A majority of her clients are smaller businesses (>50 employees) who just don't want to deal with the HR side of a business.  She has a few that are large (I know of a couple that are 800+).  I really think businesses find it cheaper to contract HR stuff (payroll, taxes, insurance) to experts who can do it in 1/4 of the time than pay for their own HR department.  But that is just me guessing.  I do know her company is big on making sure their customers are legal because her company can be liable if not.  And if a company isn't legal and won't fix it, she goes out of her way to document them telling the customer that so they won't be liable.  

[skinsmarydu]

I'll drop it. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Stop setting up strawmen arguments. They don't prove anything.

 

I understand your wife's CYA tactics, I used them myself. Advise the lawful ways, and let the client make their own decision. Your wife is smart!

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Stop setting up strawmen arguments. They don't prove anything.

 

I understand your wife's CYA tactics, I used them myself. Advise the lawful ways, and let the client make their own decision. Your wife is smart!

I agree with the bolded part.  As for the "strawmen arguments", you seem to misunderstand how a discussion works.  I honestly don't know enough about this topic.  This is why I asked questions.  I know the things that make sense in my head.  I also know the things told to me by a professional in the field (my wife).  Maybe you missed the part that I posted where she pretty much says you are right.  I've tried to offer up my opinion using hypothetical scenarios for explanation while also offering insight from people working in the field.  You have tried name calling and insisting your point is right without offering up anything.  As far as healthy discussion goes, you have failed.  Good day, ma'am.

[bearrock]

Equal pay act has been the law in US since the 60s, just like it has been the law in Iceland since the 60s.  Iceland's equal pay standard that will be implemented this year still allows discrimination based on non-gender factors, such as experience, education, etc just like the US equal pay act (in the form of statutory affirmative defenses).

 

The central difference will be that Iceland is essentially auditing all above 25 employees companies by requiring certifications.  US leaves it up to individuals to prosecute the offenders (which is obviously much harder, consider the example Burgold mentioned of blatant gender discrimination behind doors).  

 

We could consider giving EEOC or DOL with IRS like powers to conduct at least spot audits or have Equal Pay Certification on products to woo consumers who would vote with their wallets.  You could also give qui tam rights to third party whistle blowers to encourage people to report gender pay discrimination behind the scenes.

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

ST. LOUIS (KMOV.com) -- Governor Eric Greitens on Wednesday night confirmed to News 4 he had an extramarital affair, an admission a months-long News 4 investigation prompted.

In a recording obtained by News 4, a woman says she had a sexual encounter with Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens and that he tried to blackmail her to keep the encounter quiet.

Quote

According to the ex-husband, the recording was made just days after Greitens’ and the woman’s first sexual encounter. And also that Greitens took a photograph during the encounter to use as “blackmail” according to the ex-husband.

During his campaign and while serving in his first year in office as Missouri’s Governor, Eric Greitens has billed himself a family man. During his campaign announcement, he stated: “I'm Eric Greitens, I'm a Navy SEAL, native Missourian and most importantly, a proud husband and father."

http://www.kmov.com/story/37240190/governor-greitens-admits-to-extramarital-affair

What a freaking scumbag.

[LadySkinsFan]

Freak is correct, so is blackmailing scumbag.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by visionary

[LadySkinsFan]

Asshole Deluxe

[visionary]