Obama Signs Equal Pay Act.

[Plecostomus]

The war on workers....please. ALl this will do is make it easier for lazy and incompetent employees to sue their employers.

I take it then you have never been fired because of your age? I mean seriously now I was fired from a decent job when things got slow because "you are still young enough to move back in with your parents until you find another job." Yeah I *look* young but I'm older than most of the people they retained.

I take it you've never worked alongside your wife who has far greater qualifications than you do and more experience in a given field AND more time in at the employer, then gotten your first paycheck and realized hey you are making $200 more a week than she is?

And for sure you've never been fired because you didn't attend a Republican fundraiser (voluntary-mandatory attendance), because you are of French decent (nevermind how they found THAT out, which was illegal too), or because you aren't ex-military?

Honestly I hope over the coming months and years you go through Employment Hell like some of us have had to. And I honestly hope you learn that while there *are* laws in place to "protect" workers from these situations... The state and Federal governments aren't going to bite the hands of the corporate donation-feeders.

We have laws in place to protect people but they are blocked by foolish requirements that place an enormous burden on the worker to prove their case. Employers sit back and complain how "easy" it is for a worker to sue them, but I can honestly tell you, it is not.

I got the back wages that were owed me, it wasn't easy... in fact New York State did everything it possibly could to protect the employer even when it became obvious that they had a long long history of bilking workers out of earned income.

If anything, we need much much stricter laws in place, and we need far greater oversight of employment practices... sharp restrictions on Temp-Employment practices... equality in wages for everyone, and clearly defined laws that exclude no one (age discrimination only applies to people over 42? Teh fuck?).

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

^^^ Well it certianly seemed like a sexist sarcastic remark.

The bit of clarification would have been helpful on the original post.

This place is built on sarcastic remarks. There are posters here don't contribute anything else.

Fact is, a lot of managers won't hire a woman or will pay her less because they think she'll get pregnant five minutes later and they'll have to pay her and her temporary replacement. Giving men equal parental leave by law means it's just as much of a "risk" to hire a man knowing his partner might get pregnant and it gives that man more time with his child.

It's win-win.

Not to mention that children need their fathers every bit as much as they need their mothers. So the child wins, too.

 

[Hermiod]

Not to mention that children need their fathers every bit as much as they need their mothers. So the child wins, too.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[TheBrew]

This is a bad idea.

Employers should be free to pay workers what workers are willing to work for.

Yep, just another constriction on business.

When you consider taking a position only a fool would not know the pay they are being offered. If you don't want to work for that pay, don't take the job.

Wow. You must really have a God-complex. It is not about about how much a job is worth in absolute terms, but in relative terms. If women across the board are as productive doing the same jobs as men, they should get payed the on the same scale. The fact is that is not true. If fact, career minded women feel that they have to work harder just to be seen as on par with their male colleagues. If you believe the inferiority of women, then go ahead make them work harder than men for less pay. Doing so will just reveal your bigotry.

 

[kimc]

I've read studies in the past (don't have link) that women tend to take more sick days and miss work more frequently than men.

I had a male co-worker who took time out for two paternity leaves plus a hip replacement operation (perhaps he should have been going easy on the baby-making) in the three years I worked with him.

During that same period I didn't take a single sick day. I'm lucky like that.

Those studies aren't worth he paper they're printed on.

Besides which, if a company has two people wanting a job, one is willing to work for 25 thousand a year and another wants 35 thousand, why can't the company hire the 25 thousand one?

No one walks into an interview and says they want $10,000 less than the other interviewees. It's the secrecy surrounding salaries that allow companies to get away with this kind of behavior.

Frankly I'm not sure what this bill can do. If you don't know you're being hired at a lower rate than the man hired on the same date you were then there's not much you can do unless you can get your co-worker to confess his salary over coffee.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

The war on workers....please. ALl this will do is make it easier for lazy and incompetent employees to sue their employers.

I take it then you have never been fired because of your age? I mean seriously now I was fired from a decent job when things got slow because "you are still young enough to move back in with your parents until you find another job." Yeah I *look* young but I'm older than most of the people they retained.

I take it you've never worked alongside your wife who has far greater qualifications than you do and more experience in a given field AND more time in at the employer, then gotten your first paycheck and realized hey you are making $200 more a week than she is?

And for sure you've never been fired because you didn't attend a Republican fundraiser (voluntary-mandatory attendance), because you are of French decent (nevermind how they found THAT out, which was illegal too), or because you aren't ex-military?

Honestly I hope over the coming months and years you go through Employment Hell like some of us have had to. And I honestly hope you learn that while there *are* laws in place to "protect" workers from these situations... The state and Federal governments aren't going to bite the hands of the corporate donation-feeders.

We have laws in place to protect people but they are blocked by foolish requirements that place an enormous burden on the worker to prove their case. Employers sit back and complain how "easy" it is for a worker to sue them, but I can honestly tell you, it is not.

I got the back wages that were owed me, it wasn't easy... in fact New York State did everything it possibly could to protect the employer even when it became obvious that they had a long long history of bilking workers out of earned income.

If anything, we need much much stricter laws in place, and we need far greater oversight of employment practices... sharp restrictions on Temp-Employment practices... equality in wages for everyone, and clearly defined laws that exclude no one (age discrimination only applies to people over 42? Teh fuck?).

Nope to all of the above. I'm sorry you had such a shitty deal. But the fact of the matter is many incompetent and lazy employees use some of those examples as amunition to suie their employers and get a free ride.

The employment laws are the way they are so that free loaders cannot take advantage of the system. That being said, someone with a legitimate claim should have redress. I'm just saying that easing the burden of proof is going to help those who don't need it more than those who actually do.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

If anything, we need much much stricter laws in place, and we need far greater oversight of employment practices... sharp restrictions on Temp-Employment practices... equality in wages for everyone, and clearly defined laws that exclude no one (age discrimination only applies to people over 42? Teh fuck?).

I didn't see this before. Can I ask what kind of job you had where you had all these problems?

If you have an at will position, you can be fired for ANY REASON. That being said, they cannot fire you for being black, gay, etc.

And the age discrimination rule is a sound one. The job market for someone under the age of 42 is not restricted like it is an older person. You can do any manner of jobs. Older people cannot.

 

[JoeZhang]

Nope to all of the above. I'm sorry you had such a shitty deal. But the fact of the matter is many incompetent and lazy employees use some of those examples as amunition to suie their employers and get a free ride.

You still haven't answered this - how does the principle that Person X should be paid as person Y if they are doing the same role and have the same experience/qualification have any connection to "the incompetent and lazy"?

How would an incompetent female employee use this to their advantage?

How does it prevent a company getting rid of that employee due to their incompetence?

 

[Plecostomus]

If anything, we need much much stricter laws in place, and we need far greater oversight of employment practices... sharp restrictions on Temp-Employment practices... equality in wages for everyone, and clearly defined laws that exclude no one (age discrimination only applies to people over 42? Teh fuck?).

I didn't see this before. Can I ask what kind of job you had where you had all these problems?

If you have an at will position, you can be fired for ANY REASON. That being said, they cannot fire you for being black, gay, etc.

And the age discrimination rule is a sound one. The job market for someone under the age of 42 is not restricted like it is an older person. You can do any manner of jobs. Older people cannot.

I work in manufacturing and over the last 10 years I have been fired from positions when things slow down for every variety of reason, most of them illegal. See, you can SAY whatever you want when you fire someone and you can get away with it by sticking a note in the file that says something else.

Trick is proving my case in these situations. They told me I was being fired because I didn't attend the fundraiser, but they put "laid off, lack of work" in my file. They told me I was too young to work at another place, despite being in my early 30s. They kept on people in their early 20s though... put "lack of work" in my file.

As for the age thing, as things get tighter and tighter the older workers are in fear of being replaced by younger more agile workers who don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding debt, a home to pay for, a car to pay for... so they use excuses like "but you are still young you don't have the responsibilities Bob does" or "you are still just a child, you can move back home with your parents. Karen has three kids to take care of" or the ever popular "it's not the end of the world, there are plenty of jobs out there for a young man of your skill."

I'm not the only one out there who is being let go or turned away by "older workers" looking to protect themselves.

I'd like to be able to carry a digital recorder with me at all times and when I'm called into the office I would like to be able to record conversations, and have them hold up in court.

All I want is to be able to hold down a job, same as anyone else... and if I am being let go because I made a mistake for the love of fucking God tell me. Don't be clever with your excuses.

The worker protection laws need a SERIOUS overhaul in this country. It's the WORKER that allows you to accumulate your vast wealth. Keep stomping on them soon the whole system goes to pieces and NO ONE is making any money.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

If anything, we need much much stricter laws in place, and we need far greater oversight of employment practices... sharp restrictions on Temp-Employment practices... equality in wages for everyone, and clearly defined laws that exclude no one (age discrimination only applies to people over 42? Teh fuck?).

I didn't see this before. Can I ask what kind of job you had where you had all these problems?

If you have an at will position, you can be fired for ANY REASON. That being said, they cannot fire you for being black, gay, etc.

And the age discrimination rule is a sound one. The job market for someone under the age of 42 is not restricted like it is an older person. You can do any manner of jobs. Older people cannot.

I work in manufacturing and over the last 10 years I have been fired from positions when things slow down for every variety of reason, most of them illegal. See, you can SAY whatever you want when you fire someone and you can get away with it by sticking a note in the file that says something else.

Trick is proving my case in these situations. They told me I was being fired because I didn't attend the fundraiser, but they put "laid off, lack of work" in my file. They told me I was too young to work at another place, despite being in my early 30s. They kept on people in their early 20s though... put "lack of work" in my file.

As for the age thing, as things get tighter and tighter the older workers are in fear of being replaced by younger more agile workers who don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding debt, a home to pay for, a car to pay for... so they use excuses like "but you are still young you don't have the responsibilities Bob does" or "you are still just a child, you can move back home with your parents. Karen has three kids to take care of" or the ever popular "it's not the end of the world, there are plenty of jobs out there for a young man of your skill."

I'm not the only one out there who is being let go or turned away by "older workers" looking to protect themselves.

I'd like to be able to carry a digital recorder with me at all times and when I'm called into the office I would like to be able to record conversations, and have them hold up in court.

All I want is to be able to hold down a job, same as anyone else... and if I am being let go because I made a mistake for the love of fucking God tell me. Don't be clever with your excuses.

The worker protection laws need a SERIOUS overhaul in this country. It's the WORKER that allows you to accumulate your vast wealth. Keep stomping on them soon the whole system goes to pieces and NO ONE is making any money.

Was attending the fund raiser a requirement for employment?

Did you have any performance issues in the past?

Not that it matters, but like I said: they can terminate you for any reason they want to.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Nope to all of the above. I'm sorry you had such a shitty deal. But the fact of the matter is many incompetent and lazy employees use some of those examples as amunition to suie their employers and get a free ride.

You still haven't answered this - how does the principle that Person X should be paid as person Y if they are doing the same role and have the same experience/qualification have any connection to "the incompetent and lazy"?

How would an incompetent female employee use this to their advantage?

How does it prevent a company getting rid of that employee due to their incompetence?

It doesn't. I was commenting on his statement that employment laws offer too much protection to the employer.

 

[Plecostomus]

Was attending the fund raiser a requirement for employment?

Apparently. Department supervisor asked me if I wanted to pay $50 and attend a dinner put on by the owner of the company, the money was going to be donated to the Republican party. I told them that I really wasn't interested in donating money to the Republicans, that I am a registered Independent.

About six hours later I was called into HR and told that I was being let go because there wasn't enough work to justify my employment.

Two days later, an ad in the newspaper ran seeking someone to fill my position.

Did you have any performance issues in the past?

Coming on the heals of a performance review in which I earned a ninety-cent raise I would have to say no. Perfect attendance, no warnings, no writeups, always made quota, always came in way under the scrap allowance.

Not that it matters, but like I said: they can terminate you for any reason they want to.

And this is what I seek to change. Companies cloak illegal behavior with the At Will laws. Make them accountable.

Ever stop to wonder how many times people have been let go because they aren't "cool" enough? How many supervisors use these laws to surround themselves not with performing workers but a ring of like-minded suckups? How many people have been fired over the years simply to make room for the boss's newest drinking buddy/lover/poker buddy?

Getting rid of the At Will laws would be a good start, or if you MUST keep them on the books, allow the workers the ability to record conversations during termination proceedings. That and that alone would offer enormous protection and prevent nonsense like I've encountered.

 

[Worf412]

I've read studies in the past (don't have link) that women tend to take more sick days and miss work more frequently than men.

I had a male co-worker who took time out for two paternity leaves plus a hip replacement operation (perhaps he should have been going easy on the baby-making) in the three years I worked with him.

During that same period I didn't take a single sick day. I'm lucky like that.

Those studies aren't worth he paper they're printed on.

No, kimc, you misunderstand.

When Dayton says "I've read studies in the past (don't have a link)", it really means "I imagine this is the case (nothing to base it on, though)".

Don't feel bad for not knowing. I only know from modding TNZ when Dayton was at his prime.

 

[Captain X]

The real question is why this wasn't a law already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBm5ZSWbD14

You know, there was a Democrat who was President before W.

This is a bad idea.

Employers should be free to pay workers what workers are willing to work for.

So you mean women deserve to be paid less just because they don't have a penis?

I had no idea you could lift things or type with it.

Taken on the surface, it doesn't look like that's what he's saying, based upon the last sentence.

You're talking about a guy who insists shows are better when they have an all male cast.

Sure, but then men should get equal parental leave too.

I like that idea too, personally. But then I abhor double standards and socially-defined gender roles.

 

[paudemge]

This law makes it riskier to hire woman, it most likely will not move wages up, but down and move employers to use more temp services so that they are not responsible for the actual pay of the workers.
It would have been better to just extend the statue of limitations to 2 years.

 

[Plecostomus]

... but down and move employers to use more temp services so that they are not responsible for the actual pay of the workers.

That's another long and dragging rant. These "temp services" need to be brought to heel, restricted and regulated. Either hire your own damn workers and keep the payroll in-house or go out of fucking business. They add yet another layer between the American Worker and justice/equality.

 

[paudemge]

NO!!! That is the problem too many regulations.

Companies are in the business of making money and if they can not hire and fire employees at will it will reduce there effectiveness, make it more likely to go offshore.
Most of these type of laws and rulings have unintended consequences.
"We used to bring in contractors to help pick up slack or special projects and if they were good, we might move them on to another project or job and they might end up being with us for a long time, but because of a ruling against Microsoft we will not keep contractors more than a year no matter how good they are."

 

[Alpha Romeo]

... but down and move employers to use more temp services so that they are not responsible for the actual pay of the workers.

That's another long and dragging rant. These "temp services" need to be brought to heel, restricted and regulated. Either hire your own damn workers and keep the payroll in-house or go out of fucking business. They add yet another layer between the American Worker and justice/equality.

 

[indranee]

better late than never.

 

[kimc]

I've read studies in the past (don't have link) that women tend to take more sick days and miss work more frequently than men.

I had a male co-worker who took time out for two paternity leaves plus a hip replacement operation (perhaps he should have been going easy on the baby-making) in the three years I worked with him.

During that same period I didn't take a single sick day. I'm lucky like that.

Those studies aren't worth he paper they're printed on.

No, kimc, you misunderstand.

When Dayton says "I've read studies in the past (don't have a link)", it really means "I imagine this is the case (nothing to base it on, though)".

Don't feel bad for not knowing. I only know from modding TNZ when Dayton was at his prime.

Thanks for letting me know.