GOP shuts down paycheck fairness act

[Aunt Spiker]

The Conservative strategy of effectively shutting down the ability of the government to get things done is dangerous. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that Senator Kyl's stalling on the treaty with Russia borders on treason. These Republicans would actually endanger the country in order to get Obama out of office.

What - and Obama's supporters didn't endanger the country just to put the first black President in office?

You know - he wasn't the only one going for the Presidency on the Democrat side. They put an idiot in the seat partially or completely because he was black - nevermind that Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd had their toes in the ring. Sure, Obama being black wasn't his ONLY qualification to many - but quite a few addmitedly got involved and supported him in part of in full for this very reason.

All of these others, in my opinion, have had more necessary experience, the cahonez and reasonability to be president than Obama - what was wrong with them, then?

It was actually every 2 weeks (instead of the Bush taxpayer rebate of 1 time $250.00 checks)...did ya FEEL the love?

Thanks!
and no - I didn't feel the love.

 

[VanceMack]

The Conservative strategy of effectively shutting down the ability of the government to get things done is dangerous. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that Senator Kyl's stalling on the treaty with Russia borders on treason. These Republicans would actually endanger the country in order to get Obama out of office.

Well...we shall see...but my guess is you will have similar concerns which im sure you will express next year when the dems are in the minority in the house (and 2012-when the dems lose the senate). Not to worry...Obama will still win the presidency.

 

[UtahBill]

The Conservative strategy of effectively shutting down the ability of the government to get things done is dangerous. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that Senator Kyl's stalling on the treaty with Russia borders on treason. These Republicans would actually endanger the country in order to get Obama out of office.

Power corrupts....

 

[VanceMack]

What - and Obama's supporters didn't endanger the country just to put the first black President in office?

You know - he wasn't the only one going for the Presidency on the Democrat side. They put an idiot in the seat partially or completely because he was black - nevermind that Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd had their toes in the ring. Sure, Obama being black wasn't his ONLY qualification to many - but quite a few addmitedly got involved and supported him in part of in full for this very reason.

All of these others, in my opinion, have had more necessary experience, the cahonez and reasonability to be president than Obama - what was wrong with them, then?

ya know...people think Im crazy (OK...obvious opening)...but I would have voted for Hillary. I just think she is smarter than Obama. I think she recognizes the politics game better and would have been a better choice than McCain.

 

[Barbbtx]

but is the GOP openly saying that "nothing will get done"...until they get their way. They will take their balls and go home if they don't like the way the game is going..

Well the Dems are too deaf and dumb to listen the people. Someone has to get their attention, so they wrote a letter saying we need to get this done for the people and it comes first. What's the big deal? Americans need them to take action now, not next year.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Paycheck Fairness Dies in the Senate | The Nation

Note that not one republican thought this act was worthy of a yes vote....

Good, bad bills don't need to pass.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Well the Dems are too deaf and dumb to listen the people. Someone has to get their attention, so they wrote a letter saying we need to get this done for the people and it comes first. What's the big deal? Americans need them to take action now, not next year.

The issue, here- is that quite a few KNOW that what the Dems have done/are doing won't HELP us out - now OR in the long run.

The AACHA (healthcare act) for example: the Dems argued that it will "net a profit in the first 2 decades" (paraphrasing) - but according to the CBO reports AFTER that initial profit-phase is over with it will run a deficit in the millions each year because the payOUTS will undercut the payIN from the premiums.

:shrug:

Our SSA is a huge sucker of our tax-dollars and a major canker sore in our mouths because when they STARTED it they KNEW that it would cost us a sigificant amount of money each year - and they knew it was NOT sustainable, either. But did that stop them, no. It did not.

People are seeing the result of what happens whne the government pushes certain agendas without considering the future implications. And many of us are living with the afermath of those same decisions and really not approving of doing that again and again to our future-generations.

 

[liblady]

Great. This bill is about more political power than it is about fairness. In my opinion the pay gap issue is highly, highly exaggerated. This is about women wanting an advantage over men not equality. It is just another show issue. Give it a nice sounding name so people say awww! and Democrats can cry about what meanies Republicans are.

care to explain how giving women equal pay is an advantage?

 

[Boo Radley]

care to explain how giving women equal pay is an advantage?

It gives them the advantage of equality.


:shrug:

 

[liblady]

I'm not sure, but maybe this is what happened.
I heard one of the Republicans yesterday, I think, Saying they weren't going to work on anything in the lame duck until the Tax Extentions were settled.

right, because the stupid ****wads don't give a **** about anything but their agenda to **** the middle class.

 

[liblady]

It gives them the advantage of equality.


:shrug:

how horrifying.

 

[phattonez]

care to explain how giving women equal pay is an advantage?

It's just like how the EEOC gives minorities an advantage. If companies don't hire enough blacks and hispanics, even if they are less qualified, they will get a suit on their hands. Companies will hire minorities then just to play it safe. The same would happen for "equal pay for equal work" in gender.

 

[phattonez]

It gives them the advantage of equality.


:shrug:

Equality and equity are not the same thing. In fact they're opposing terms.

 

[UtahBill]

Any guesses on what percentage of female voters will vote for the party that wants them to do equal work for less pay?

 

[phattonez]

Any guesses on what percentage of female voters will vote for the party that wants them to do equal work for less pay?

Who wants that? Don't mischaracterize.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Any guesses on what percentage of female voters will vote for the party that wants them to do equal work for less pay?

We already have several pieces of legislation that address this issue - having been written, passed and enacted.
The Ledbetter Act passed by Obama gives more help to those who feel they have been wronged and want to seek a judgement or compensation of some type.

If what we already HAVE isn't good enough then there's more wrong with this country than I can image.

I see no reason to clutter up the law books even MORE with yet another legislation - it's redundant and moot.

 

[Barbbtx]

right, because the stupid ****wads don't give a **** about anything but their agenda to **** the middle class.

Hey, Boehners having a bathroom built for the women in the House. They've been wanting one forever. They had to walk a long way and the men had one right outside the door.
I'm not sure the cost, but at least it's just a one time expense. I do hope the tea party doesn't get upset though ;-) I think it's for a good cause.

 

[jambalaya]

So women wanting equal pay for equal work is "wanting an advantage over men?"

Fascinating.

I guess your not into details.

 

[UtahBill]

Hey, Boehners having a bathroom built for the women in the House. They've been wanting one forever. They had to walk a long way and the men had one right outside the door.
I'm not sure the cost, but at least it's just a one time expense. I do hope the tea party doesn't get upset though ;-) I think it's for a good cause.

My experience with women is that there is seldom a "one time expense".....:2razz:

 

[Michael418]

I guess your not into details.

I'm only responding to what you said. What details am I missing, out of interest?

 

[Mach]

care to explain how giving women equal pay is an advantage?

The logic being, equal pay for unequal work contribution.
If the primary evidence used to support this, is not attributed to gender discrimination, but to work performance and related discrimination, then it's unfair. (Goshin's post first page)

And if your'e giving an unfair advantage to a huge constituency, it's also unfair politically (keeping in line with what's fair and what not).

If you came into my workplace and audited position vs gender, you would likely see an imbalance in male/female. It's not related to discrimination though, it would be tragic to take such a common phenomenon, blame it on gender discrimination. You'd probably end up with more discrimination at hiring.

That's not t say gender discrimination in the workplace wasn't a huge problem historically, and that some of it still persists. But as some point out there are laws in place to pursue real imbalances already.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Sometimes people say things that makes me SEE why everyone hates ___ group.
Aside that comment. . .

The only way I will acknowledge that "this business is biased against women - or towards men" is if MOST people of said gender (or race, etc) are payed less than most of another race or gender - and they *do the same exact work* (unlike in some situations in which there's LESS that women can do - and thus getting paid slightly less is understandable because it's *not* equal work)
And if a manager or other person can be PROVEN to hold bias by their words or direct action (harder to prove, though).

And if one or both of those things are proven true then that's a legitimate issue. . .but that still doesn't need yet another piece of legislation to enforce or help.

I also think it shouldn't go ONE WAY - I've seen men treated poorly and paid less because of the general mysandrist views of their female boss.

Some men and women are sexist and biased - and no amount of legislation is going to dissuade these individuals from acting the way they do. . . so long as someone is willing to pursue the matter - what more is necessary?

I, honestly, feel that such things are almost a step towards capping wages - which I don't approve of, either.

 

[jambalaya]

I'm only responding to what you said. What details am I missing, out of interest?

People are hired all the time who have the exact same job description but do not make the exact same money because of experience and seniority. Companies do and should reward loyalty and hard work. Woman move in and out of the work force a lot more than men do so that is a factor we must consider.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

People are hired all the time who have the exact same job description but do not make the exact same money because of experience and seniority. Companies do and should reward loyalty and hard work. Woman move in and out of the work force a lot more than men do so that is a factor we must consider.

Why do you think that?

In my years of managing the 'job hoppers' were the young and frivolous - gender was a non-subject. But generally the younger or more immature they were the more likely they seemed to skip around and just not show up one day.

I gave a standard staring pay for all employees - this would only go up as federally mandated (if those types of things applied) and after that pay ONLY increased due to loyalty and efficiency - I didn't even consider tenure or clout.

If people proved to be faithful to the company's bottom line - didn't cause a lot of problems - and were honest with me - then I'd reward them by giving them more raise-consideration and first-dibs at special-days and other things like bonuses, etc.

 

[jambalaya]

Why do you think that?

In my years of managing the 'job hoppers' were the young and frivolous - gender was a non-subject. But generally the younger or more immature they were the more likely they seemed to skip around and just not show up one day.

I gave a standard staring pay for all employees - this would only go up as federally mandated (if those types of things applied) and after that pay ONLY increased due to loyalty and efficiency - I didn't even consider tenure or clout.

If people proved to be faithful to the company's bottom line - didn't cause a lot of problems - and were honest with me - then I'd reward them by giving them more raise-consideration and first-dibs at special-days and other things like bonuses, etc.

Let's say you have a job opening for making widgets. You need to hire someone else to help make the widgets. You already have someone who has been a very loyal, hard working employee for five years. After one year on the job, both of these two employees are making the same number of widgets for you and showing up for work every day. Most employers are going to be paying the five year employee more money at this point. It's human nature and it is a reward for 5 years of service. Nothing wrong with it and it happens all the time. You may not do it that way but most people do.