Thursday, July 22, 2010


Think of all the people who do the same job as you.  Not almost the same, not practically the same, but the same.  Same job, same place, same amount of experience, same cost of living, same circumstances, and same track record with the same manager/owner. 

Ok, got the list?  Raise your hand if the number you came up with was zero.  Ah, almost all of you.  So it should come as no surprise that all of you are paid different amounts, even if the work you do is almost, but not quite, the same. 

Ok, now think of the wildly different amounts that you may have paid babysitters.  Or if your lawnmower has needed repair more than once, think of the dissimilar amounts that you have paid others to mow your yard.  Remember the different prices that you've paid for hamburgers?  Dishwashing liquid?  Hell, think of the different amounts you have paid for identical, absolutely identical, gallons of gasoline. 

It's unfair, isn't it? 

The Obama administration wants to end this gross unfairness with something called The Paycheck Fairness Act, also known as REASON NUMBER 5,729 TO DO ALL MANUFACTURING IN CHINA. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act is described as follows:
A much needed updated of the 45-year-old Equal Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act is a comprehensive bill that would create stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, empower women to negotiate for equal pay, and strengthen federal outreach, education and enforcement efforts. Championed by longtime AAUW friend Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the bill would also deter wage discrimination by strengthening penalties for equal pay violations and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who ask about employers' wage practices or disclose their own wages. Together with the Ledbetter bill, this critical piece of legislation can help create a climate where pay discrimination is not tolerated, and give the new administration the enforcement tools it needs to make real progress on pay equity.
In other words, if you've been busting your rear end on the job, don't bother asking for a raise.  Because if they give you a raise, they have to give a raise to everyone whose job description is similiar to yours, and it just ain't going to be worth the hassle. 
The burden of proof will be on the employer to show that any increase in compensation is NOT due to sex discrimination. 
If there's a lawsuit against your employer, the potential for punitive damages will be more or less unlimited. 
If there's a lawsuit against your employer, you, as an employee, will automatically be part of any class action lawsuits unless you opt out. 

This thing is a feast for lawyers, a feast for federal employees, and a feast for anyone wanting to play the Victim Card.  In other words, this bill was written to appeal to Obama's support base. 

Anyone who hires anyone within our borders needs his head examined. 

And people wonder why the unemployment rate hasn't improved.  Barack Obama and Congress would have to study hard for ten years to rise to the level of "Economic Idiots". 

End of rant.


Obnoxio The Clown said...

Hm. Cameron's just been round to see the big O, hasn't he? So I expect we can see this shit here, soon.

J H P said...

Who is John Galt, anyway?

The Whited Sepulchre said...

I though we were imitating you people, since you were widely lauded as having the best healthcare system, best social services, etc etc etc.
I guess not.

John Galt is sitting on his ass in Galt's Gulch, giggling.

Hot Sam said...

Francine Blau, a renowned labor economist and eminist has shown that 88% of the variation in income between men and women is explained by factors other than gender.

This does not mean women should be earning 88% of male pay. It means 12% of the variation is unexplained.

Women, on average, enjoy more comfortable work environments, safer jobs, better job security, and more flexible hours. They are more likely to be on salary than commission, less likely to travel, have shorter commuting distance, and more flexible hours.. They are less likely to be in a union. The lower pay has an important perk: their unemployment rate is lower than men.

Why don't we have an Equal Employment law and replace women with men until their unemployment rates are equal. Why don't we have an Equal Risk law and put women into dangerous jobs until their death rate equals that of men (who account for 90% of workplace fatalities).

We have equal pay for equal work in the military. They even pay equal wages for entirely different jobs based on pay grade. But promotions are generally slower where there are an abundance of qualified people. And bonuses make up the pay differential. Hazard pay and specialty pay add more flexibility. The military has constant problems keeping the best qualified people.

"Comparative Worth" is a 40 or 50 year old worthless policy. I cannot believe anybody still takes it seriously. One course in microeconomics is enough to completely debunk the notion forever.

We wonder why bills are thousands of pages long? The liberals have been pulling old policies out of their file cabinets, dusting them off, and calling them fresh ideas. They want to pass as many as they can in the brief period during which they still hold power.