• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP shuts down paycheck fairness act

jambalaya said:
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.
Click to expand...

How a non-tenure pay-increase system works (well, how my old system worked anyway) varied slightly:
Every year an employee was reviewed - if review was high - then a pay increase would be given.
Pay increases would also be factored in if an employee took on more than their basic responsibilities.
If the starting pay (say, $8.00 an hour for new employees) increased by any amount then everyone else's pay would increase likewise.

An employee that was a GOOD employee would always get an increase based on performance at set-intervals (once a year for me but other companies would do it maybe twice a year or what not).
The only time in which a 5-year employee would earn the same as a one-year employee is if the 5-year employee had issues and they didn't receive performance-based increases. .. so they worked there longer but their performance was lacking a little.

But that's retail - where there aren't many *job skills* necessary (stock, cashier, clear) and turnaround is high. . . tenure doesn't actually matter quite so much in that type of work environment because years on the job doesn't = a more fine-tuned ability to do the job. After a time of being on the job then an employee might be given more job responsibilities since they've proven they're capable of handling their job - and then some . . . Which would result in a pay-increase. (Such as: being given a supervisor or advisor position).

Being on the job for years would mean that the individual respected the work-basics, more, and was a good employee overall - thus would be given slack in future issues (more paid time off, more sick-leave, etc) as well as dibs on holidays and other such things.
In this way their loyalty is honored - but job-performance is what would result in a solid pay increase.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

utter bull****. please explain how the same thing would happen. my company has very few minorities, we don't get sued. we hire whoever is qualified. we have no quotas to make, neither do most companies. again, how is receiving equal pay for equal work an advantage for women? jeez.
 
"7/31/2008--Passed House amended. Paycheck Fairness Act -
Section 3 - Amends the portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) known as the Equal Pay Act to revise remedies for, enforcement of, and exceptions to prohibitions against sex discrimination in the payment of wages. Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience. States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (3) is consistent with business necessity. Avers that such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential; and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice. Revises the prohibition against employer retaliation for employee complaints. Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer. Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages. States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent. Authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages in a sex discrimination action."


H.R. 1338 [110th] - Summary: Paycheck Fairness Act (GovTrack.us)


Reads sort of like a lawyer's dream law. The burden of proof seems to be on the employer to prove they aren't discriminating....;)



.
 
Cole said:
Reads sort of like a lawyer's dream law. The burden of proof seems to be on the employer to prove they aren't discriminating....;)
Click to expand...

Well that is the case with any kind of legislation like this, implicity or explicitly.
 
liblady said:
utter bull****. please explain how the same thing would happen. my company has very few minorities, we don't get sued. we hire whoever is qualified. we have no quotas to make, neither do most companies. again, how is receiving equal pay for equal work an advantage for women? jeez.
Click to expand...

I just explained it to you! Don't respond with just some anecdotal evidence. Companies deliberately hire minorities even if they are less qualified just to avoid a lawsuit.
 
liblady said:
utter bull****. please explain how the same thing would happen. my company has very few minorities, we don't get sued.
Click to expand...

do you have enough money to make suing you profitable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom