- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
that is what labor and ED lawyers refer to as "similarly situated employees"
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.
you mean she should be paid as much as the guy who actually was at the work place working while she was home. Or who know has say six more months of seniority or put in 500 more billable hours than she did?
I understand this, but my understanding of this bill isn't outlawing pay discrimination, it's preventing employers from dismissing employees for discussing their pay and requiring public knowledge of pay.It's already illegal to discriminate in pay based on sex.
Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?LOL and being paid less due to your gender when you do the same work is gender DISCRIMINATION
try a few dozen Title VII cases as I have, and then I will listen to you tell me about a subject I was a recognized expert in
I understand this, but my understanding of this bill isn't outlawing pay discrimination, it's preventing employers from dismissing employees for discussing their pay and requiring public knowledge of pay.
So how does this bill give people more ability to sue, if pay practices are not discriminatory?
Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?
You're not answering my question. It's a simple question that I'll ask again.1) the government doesn't have the proper power to prevent businesses from firing those who discuss salary
2) why does every pro business legislator oppose it while all the anti business legislators support it?
Read more @: Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time
The GOP stopped supporting equality in the 50's. The party of pitty. The party that represents inequality. [/FONT][/COLOR]
I understand this, but my understanding of this bill isn't outlawing pay discrimination, it's preventing employers from dismissing employees for discussing their pay and requiring public knowledge of pay.
So how does this bill give people more ability to sue, if pay practices are not discriminatory?
Could you explain how this bill screws over employers, as you claimed?
The bill is just creating transparency. It doesn't matter if it's illegal if no one is aware it's taking place.
Honestly all salaries should be public information for all individuals. If anything it would lead to a truly fair and competitive labor market.
But this bill isn't about industry averages, it's about the individual corporation's average. If this was designed to force employers to give raises based on industry/profession averages, then it not only goes too far, it goes WAY, WAY, WAY too far.
Please post your salary and your name so we can verify the info. Or are there serious flaws you can recognize in your idea?
I don't agree what you posted would happen (or, at least, that it would happen more often), but I do appreciate you at least explaining the theory behind it.Unless one decides that all employees (in any given position) are equally productive, dependable and likely to seek other employment then it makes sense for their pay to vary accordingly. Many seem to have no problem with seniority pay, which I find ridiculous, but I do not have a problem with paying differently based on actual job performance. If the salary information is to be made public then why not all personnel evaluations and attendance records?
Paying people who perform (the same job) differently is not discriminatory but disallowing an employer to keep individual pay, performance or attendance records private is. If the only information required to be made public is salary then that would encourage lawsuits. Sometimes personnel matters are, in fact, personal. Forcing employers to disclose individual employee pay information but not the basis for it does, indeed, invite more lawsuits.
Here you go: 2012 Missouri educators' salaries : NewsPlease post your salary and your name so we can verify the info. Or are there serious flaws you can recognize in your idea?
It doesn't force employers to do anything. What it does is remove the veil over salaries.
You sound like you want to be able to approach your employer and demand raise based on national averages and have the law back you up in that demand. Yet, nothing beyond the business you work for matters. If you want to go to your employer and show her that you're getting paid 35% less than the national average for your type of profession, that's between you and her, not between you, her and the gov't.
Read more @: Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time
The GOP stopped supporting equality in the 50's. The party of pitty. The party that represents inequality. [/FONT][/COLOR]
I don't agree what you posted would happen (or, at least, that it would happen more often), but I do appreciate you at least explaining the theory behind it.
Here you go: 2012 Missouri educators' salaries : News
I'm not going to tell you my name, for obvious reasons, but you're more than welcome to see what I earn. It's public knowledge. That link is from a couple years ago, so I make a little more now, but you are welcome to the information. Or you can come meet me in person and I'll happily tell you in person.
Not really. Oh, I get the argument you're trying to present, but I don't agree my working to educate your children means I should have less privacy than you. Or I guess it would be more appropriate to say I don't see why working in the private sector should afford you more privacy than me.Do you see a difference between someone working for the government ("You work for us!!"") and a employee of some privately owned company?
I do, but I think you're missing the point here. The post I was responding to was a challenge to "put your money where your mouth is", so to speak. If you're advocating for a law, then be willing to be subject to it. All I'm showing is that I'm happily subject to the idea.Do you see why this law is not needed in your situation since the information is already available?
At first it bothered me, but then I realized it's not that big of a deal. So what if you can see how much I make? Why does it matter? Why should I care?Do you like the idea that anyone can know what you make and if you had a chance, would you prefer that this was private?
Not really. Oh, I get the argument you're trying to present, but I don't agree my working to educate your children means I should have less privacy than you. Or I guess it would be more appropriate to say I don't see why working in the private sector should afford you more privacy than me.
And let's be honest, I don't work for you. I work for my employer. My employer is the school district.
At first it bothered me, but then I realized it's not that big of a deal. So what if you can see how much I make? Why does it matter? Why should I care?
I don't agree what you posted would happen.
Have idea why they really blocked it, or are you going to stick with, "Conservatives are all racists/sexists/homophobes
What the typical BS "oh its anti business"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?