Obama Signs Equal Pay Act.

[Alpha Romeo]

Am I the only one who finds this HILARIOUS? IIRC, AR is a fireman. He has a union job, and is pretty much guaranteed employment for life unless he fucks up in a VERY serious way.

And yet here he is, telling people who do not have the protections that HE enjoys, "tough luck, your boss can fire you anytime he wants"

Tell me AR, would you be so lackadaisical if YOU were fired without cause? Because I have a feeling that you'd file a grievance before you left the building.

Must be nice to be able to ask others to put up with that which you will never have to personally confront.

Actually I'm an attorney. My position is at will.

I'm a volunteer firefigher. Before you sling mud, get your stories straight.

Ahh, so you`re a SCAB fireman!

There are no union firefighters in my department. I take offense to this regardless however.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Ahh, so you`re a SCAB fireman!

Hopefully this was intended to be in jest; given the contentious nature of this Thread, however, it would be best to stay away from this type of humor lest it be considered Flaming.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

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?

Or the company can ship out and move to a state where the minimum wages per hour are extremely low and refuse to accept Federal standards. New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, Wyoming are some of the states that pay people peanuts.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

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?

Or the company can ship out and move to a state where the minimum wages per hour are extremely low and refuse to accept Federal standards. New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, Wyoming are some of the states that pay people peanuts.

If somebody's not paying the federal minimum wage, it doesn't matter what state they're in...they can be sued.

 

[Augustus]

I kind of think tackling the laissez-fairez crowd from the angle of discrimination being unfair won't work. To them employers being assholes is a lesser evil than Big Government telling people what to do, and they often have rosy notions of people having freedom to just go find an employer who isn't an asshole.

Actually you speak correctly. I don't understand how big government telling companies how to run their business is in any way their job.

no one here, no matter their political or economic philosophy condones or encourages discrimination against women.
And for those companies that do this outright are in the wrong. But there are several important factors.

1) A woman is just as free as a man to choose her job and negotiate salary when accepting offers.

2) This is certainly not always true, but in many cases, the woman's salary is supplementary income and not the main household income for a family. The family may not rely on that paycheck as some house hold do a man's.

3) Also, I used to work for a semi-conductor company, one of the department heads was a lady, very good at what she did, but I would be surprised if she got paid as much as the guys who were her equals.
Why? because she was pregnant, missed a lot of time and would leave early quite often. She had a lot of special privileges in that regard.

My point is that business operates in the real world. And Obama's attempt to tell the private sector what is fair and not fair simply isn't right.

 

[Red Ranger]

I kind of think tackling the laissez-fairez crowd from the angle of discrimination being unfair won't work. To them employers being assholes is a lesser evil than Big Government telling people what to do, and they often have rosy notions of people having freedom to just go find an employer who isn't an asshole.

Actually you speak correctly. I don't understand how big government telling companies how to run their business is in any way their job.

no one here, no matter their political or economic philosophy condones or encourages discrimination against women.
And for those companies that do this outright are in the wrong. But there are several important factors.

1) A woman is just as free as a man to choose her job and negotiate salary when accepting offers.

2) This is certainly not always true, but in many cases, the woman's salary is supplementary income and not the main household income for a family. The family may not rely on that paycheck as some house hold do a man's.

3) Also, I used to work for a semi-conductor company, one of the department heads was a lady, very good at what she did, but I would be surprised if she got paid as much as the guys who were her equals.
Why? because she was pregnant, missed a lot of time and would leave early quite often. She had a lot of special privileges in that regard.

My point is that business operates in the real world. And Obama's attempt to tell the private sector what is fair and not fair simply isn't right.

The problem with a capitalist democracy is that democracy needs checks and balances, and too often, corporations are run like dozens of petty little dictatorships, by fiat. Discrimination and other unsavory practices are condoned in the name of "free enterprise" -- an oxymoron -- as those practices trample on the rights of others in favor of business interests.

There aren't enough checks and balances on business, and that has been especially true in the past eight years during Bush's reign.

The reason you gave above about how a woman's income may be supplementary is an outmoded attitude, and not supported by reality. And frankly, if you believe in a laissez-faire economy, wouldn't it actually benefit firms if women made as much as men, as they'd have more disposable income, could afford to pay for better health insurance, helping to lower costs there? You know, help drive the economy!

And the female department head you referred to, a woman, isn't going to be pregnant forever. Bloomberg, LP was sued because its managers had similar prejudiced attitudes that you espouse. Be careful, pal! Hope you're not some woman's manager, frankly!

Red Ranger

 

[Augustus]

During Bush's reign? Any particular things that Bush did that drove unfair business practices???
So now I have prejudiced attitudes for thinking this isn't the government's business???

If I was a decision maker when it came to hiring in my company, I would have no problem paying a woman as much as she was worth to the company and if that was the same as a man in a similar position great. If she was especially good, why not pay her even more than I would have offered a guy?

I don't have prejudiced attitudes. In fact, in the two jobs I have had since college, most of my co-workers were female, both above and below me in the corporate ladder.

I will simply never support the government's attempt to interfere on this matter.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

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?

Or the company can ship out and move to a state where the minimum wages per hour are extremely low and refuse to accept Federal standards. New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, Wyoming are some of the states that pay people peanuts.

No they can't. Every state must comply with the fed standard.

 

[Red Ranger]

During Bush's reign? Any particular things that Bush did that drove unfair business practices???
So now I have prejudiced attitudes for thinking this isn't the government's business???

If I was a decision maker when it came to hiring in my company, I would have no problem paying a woman as much as she was worth to the company and if that was the same as a man in a similar position great. If she was especially good, why not pay her even more than I would have offered a guy?

I don't have prejudiced attitudes. In fact, in the two jobs I have had since college, most of my co-workers were female, both above and below me in the corporate ladder.

I will simply never support the government's attempt to interfere on this matter.

Oh, boo hoo! The big bad government, blah, blah, blah!

Nice to know you're in denial about your prejudiced attitudes. You don't even realize most women don't like to be called "lady" anymore, you make a blanket statement, unsupported by any facts, that most women's paychecks are merely supplementary incomes, and you talked a lot about a female manager who was pregnant, as if that justified paying her less, in essence, penalizing her for being a woman. Those are the prejudiced attitudes I'm speaking of. How's that working for you?

Again, we need checks and balances in society, and business doesn't have enough, so that's why the federal government should step in to address these inequalities, esp. when we have a conservative Supreme Court that almost always sides with business, justifying it by claiming "it's what the Framers would do."

Red Ranger

 

[Augustus]

Well I am sorry I typed "lady". I promise you that if we had this discussion in person, the tone of my voice would not have offended anyone. It's not like I used an actual offensive term "broad" or something like that... Lady can be be used in a "talking down" type way, but you also say "ladies and gentlemen"

Also I didn't say most, I said some women have incomes that supplement their husband's income. This would mostly be women who are married with families and may or may not be new to the workforce. Obviously a single woman and still many married women's income is the primary income for a home. But nevertheless, it is a factor.

and third, of course a pregnant or new mom is going to be paid less if she works less!!!!! Case in point, the company I work for now has an assistant manager that just recently had a baby, she works half days only for the next little while, is she getting her full paycheck? I don't know, I am not in accounting, but I doubt it. She isn't working full-time. But the fact that she is very talented in her job and based on comments from the CEO, I think the company would be willing to pay her the full check just to keep her around.

You look for prejudice in my comments, but I honestly don't have any towards women.

And lastly, there are certainly needs for government or federal regulation in the private sector. But forcing an equality issue while ignoring certain business realities is not the answer. This falls in the same category as affirmative action.

You know there is a difference with disagreeing with Obama on this and being prejudiced against women. Just because I don't like Obama's solution doesn't mean I hate women.

 

[Red Ranger]

Well I am sorry I typed "lady". I promise you that if we had this discussion in person, the tone of my voice would not have offended anyone. It's not like I used an actual offensive term "broad" or something like that... Lady can be be used in a "talking down" type way, but you also say "ladies and gentlemen"

Also I didn't say most, I said some women have incomes that supplement their husband's income. This would mostly be women who are married with families and may or may not be new to the workforce. Obviously a single woman and still many married women's income is the primary income for a home. But nevertheless, it is a factor.

and third, of course a pregnant or new mom is going to be paid less if she works less!!!!! Case in point, the company I work for now has an assistant manager that just recently had a baby, she works half days only for the next little while, is she getting her full paycheck? I don't know, I am not in accounting, but I doubt it. She isn't working full-time. But the fact that she is very talented in her job and based on comments from the CEO, I think the company would be willing to pay her the full check just to keep her around.

You look for prejudice in my comments, but I honestly don't have any towards women.

And lastly, there are certainly needs for government or federal regulation in the private sector. But forcing an equality issue while ignoring certain business realities is not the answer. This falls in the same category as affirmative action.

You know there is a difference with disagreeing with Obama on this and being prejudiced against women. Just because I don't like Obama's solution doesn't mean I hate women.

Nice to know you don't feel that way toward women. Still, in your statement about supplementary income, you used the word "many," not "some," which implies a great number. That's anecdotal, not factual. I do want to point out that just as it's possible to not agree with Obama and not be prejudiced against women, the reverse can be true, too. -- RR

 

[Squiggy]

I don't have prejudiced attitudes. In fact, in the two jobs I have had since college, most of my co-workers were female, both above and below me in the corporate ladder.

The same could be said for a strip club...just sayin'.

 

[Augustus]

Well I am sorry I typed "lady". I promise you that if we had this discussion in person, the tone of my voice would not have offended anyone. It's not like I used an actual offensive term "broad" or something like that... Lady can be be used in a "talking down" type way, but you also say "ladies and gentlemen"

Also I didn't say most, I said some women have incomes that supplement their husband's income. This would mostly be women who are married with families and may or may not be new to the workforce. Obviously a single woman and still many married women's income is the primary income for a home. But nevertheless, it is a factor.

and third, of course a pregnant or new mom is going to be paid less if she works less!!!!! Case in point, the company I work for now has an assistant manager that just recently had a baby, she works half days only for the next little while, is she getting her full paycheck? I don't know, I am not in accounting, but I doubt it. She isn't working full-time. But the fact that she is very talented in her job and based on comments from the CEO, I think the company would be willing to pay her the full check just to keep her around.

You look for prejudice in my comments, but I honestly don't have any towards women.

And lastly, there are certainly needs for government or federal regulation in the private sector. But forcing an equality issue while ignoring certain business realities is not the answer. This falls in the same category as affirmative action.

You know there is a difference with disagreeing with Obama on this and being prejudiced against women. Just because I don't like Obama's solution doesn't mean I hate women.

Nice to know you don't feel that way toward women. Still, in your statement about supplementary income, you used the word "many," not "some," which implies a great number. That's anecdotal, not factual. I do want to point out that just as it's possible to not agree with Obama and not be prejudiced against women, the reverse can be true, too. -- RR

you mean it is possible to prejudiced against women and agree with Obama?

 

[Red Ranger]

Well I am sorry I typed "lady". I promise you that if we had this discussion in person, the tone of my voice would not have offended anyone. It's not like I used an actual offensive term "broad" or something like that... Lady can be be used in a "talking down" type way, but you also say "ladies and gentlemen"

Also I didn't say most, I said some women have incomes that supplement their husband's income. This would mostly be women who are married with families and may or may not be new to the workforce. Obviously a single woman and still many married women's income is the primary income for a home. But nevertheless, it is a factor.

and third, of course a pregnant or new mom is going to be paid less if she works less!!!!! Case in point, the company I work for now has an assistant manager that just recently had a baby, she works half days only for the next little while, is she getting her full paycheck? I don't know, I am not in accounting, but I doubt it. She isn't working full-time. But the fact that she is very talented in her job and based on comments from the CEO, I think the company would be willing to pay her the full check just to keep her around.

You look for prejudice in my comments, but I honestly don't have any towards women.

And lastly, there are certainly needs for government or federal regulation in the private sector. But forcing an equality issue while ignoring certain business realities is not the answer. This falls in the same category as affirmative action.

You know there is a difference with disagreeing with Obama on this and being prejudiced against women. Just because I don't like Obama's solution doesn't mean I hate women.

Nice to know you don't feel that way toward women. Still, in your statement about supplementary income, you used the word "many," not "some," which implies a great number. That's anecdotal, not factual. I do want to point out that just as it's possible to not agree with Obama and not be prejudiced against women, the reverse can be true, too. -- RR

you mean it is possible to prejudiced against women and agree with Obama?

Now I don't know what point I was trying to make there! I mistyped -- I mean it's possible to be prejudiced against women and against Obama's solution, I think! I'm confused! LOL! Like Obama, I can admit a mistake, as he did over the whole nominating folks with tax issues to his cabinet. -- RR

 

[Augustus]

ok, haha, I was wondering too what you were trying to say.
Yeah, while I don't like a lot of Obama's ideas in his 3 week old presidency, he does have some endearing qualities like a healthy dose of humility

 

[Colonel Green]

Actually I'm an attorney. My position is at will.

I'm a volunteer firefigher. Before you sling mud, get your stories straight.

Ahh, so you`re a SCAB fireman!

There are no union firefighters in my department. I take offense to this regardless however.

If you choose to take offense to an obvious joke, that's your problem.

Lighten up, you'll live longer.

Ahh, so you`re a SCAB fireman!

Hopefully this was intended to be in jest; given the contentious nature of this Thread, however, it would be best to stay away from this type of humor lest it be considered Flaming.

Sorry, I figured the winking smiley would clearly identify my comment as a joke. My mistake.

 

[T'Bonz]

TNZ fodder