Paycheck Fairness Act
 

As referenced by azgz in that other thread:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1571413.html

What are the supposed pros AND cons of the Paycheck Fairness Act? What say you, GCers?

I'm sure azgz would like to cuss someone out right about now.

The pros are obvious... I would actually make as much as my coworkers.

I can see how the cons might actually be greater than the pros. Yes I do just as good of a job as the guy sitting next to me so I should be paid comparable to him. Although there are women in our office who are bad at their job, why they still work here is another topic. I believe they should NOT be paid equally to the guys they work with because they are not as good. So it is a fine line to say that all women should be paid equally to the men they work with.

Really? Is it just that cut-and-dry?

For example, having a Living Wage has not worked in every place that has attempted a Living Wage.

This smells like the typical response to anti-discrimination, affirmative action, and EEOC claims from (in general) white people and men. Why would bad employees suddenly be an issue just because we are talking about women? Is it okay for men to be horrible employees (as well as the majority of employees) who are paid more? LOL.

Bad employees is a different topic. That should be covered by individual employers rather than being a state and federal concern. If these employers do not give a darn about bad employees before the Paycheck Fairness Act (i.e., reprimanding or firing them), then they should not give a darn about bad employees after the Paycheck Fairness Act.

azgz might never come but it is ok if agzg weighs in? :p

If their job codes and duties are the same, with the same or similar duties, and the same or similar education/time with the company, then yes, they should be paid the same. Although the ones that suck should be weeded out. That has nothing to do with gender. But if they are doing the same things, yes, they should be paid the same (merit raises not included, although merit raises may add another layer because how do they demonstrate that merit raises aren't determined taking gender into account).

It's frustrating, to me, that basically this same bill keeps getting voted down. I believe a same or similar bill was voted down last year, maybe the year before. However, I'm clear on the fact that regardless of the legislation women will still be (statistically) paid less than men due to societal perspective of the value of women in the workforce.

I hear "women are more of a risk because pregnancy!" arguments all the time, mostly from boneheaded idiots who should be taken out back and shot because they're a drain on me and society in general. These perceptions will change over time and I do think eventually just through social change women will start to be paid on par with men (as a whole), but it's going to take a very long time and I'm sad to say I'll probably be dead.

But, I will say that often these laws do not take into account other intersecting demographic information, so there's that. Where race and gender mix (or sexuality and gender, or able v. disabled and gender) mix are additional complications to what seems "cut and dry" when you ignore them.

They also don't take into account that folks find discussing their pay tacky in general, something companies would continue to take advantage of even in the event one of these passed.

But, one of them won't pass, because it's an attempt to give teeth to what is now largely seen as a "good will" act to keep the women from rioting.

Equal pay for equal work sounds like a good idea but in reality I can see a lot of cons to this proposed bill especially if this covers more than just new hires.

Also, how are employers supposed to "demonstrate" that their salary decisions aren't based on gender and who's to say that small businesses just say "fuck it" and stop hiring females all together so they have one less government regulation to deal with?

Documentation, really.

I mean, most employers have to have a strongly documented case for dismissing an employee already. Why not start documenting the successes of an employee? The information's already there. Often times it is documented in performance evaluations, or progress toward goals. They have to use it for other things, like promotions or deciding who gets laid off.

I think the tricky thing is that a lot of times it's not a company going "We're going to pay the men 60k, and we're only going to pay the women 45k". I think a lot of times women may not be as aggressive as men in asking for raises or asking for a higher starting salary. Typically, girls aren't raised to be as aggressive as boys. I know I was kinda raised that way, and I know I'm not as aggressive about promoting my own self-interests and my own career ambitions as I could be.

And in my experience with job hunting, very few companies list the salary in job postings. Instead, they ask applicants to state their salary requirements. You can research online and find salary ranges for the type of position you're applying for. But if, for example, the salary range is 45k-60k and I'm not self-confident and self-assured enough to ask for more the minimum (45k), the company probably is just going to give me 45k. They're probably not going to say "Oh, well, we budgeted 60k for this position, so that's what we'll give you." Whereas If I had been very confident in my self, in my skills, and in my worth to ask for 60k, I would have gotten 60k in the scenario.

While legislation to prevent companies from discriminating is good, I think part of closing the pay gap is going to involve teaching girls to advocate for themselves. I think a lot of girls are taught to be empathetic and to think of others, care for others, and nurture others. But I think we also need to teach girls to think of themselves, and that it's not a bad thing to promote one's own self-interests.

This article kinda explains what I mean.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcen...g-skills_N.htm

Um, no, you can't just stop hiring females altogether. That would be a giant FAIL.

The fact of the matter is that this is less about the salaried workforce and more about wage-earners, where there is far less difference from person to person.

I think SOPi makes a very good point. My mom has a job high up in her company where she hires people all the time. She's told me stories here and there about funny or strange interviews, but the one more serious thing she says about the women is how they're generally not aggressive (when asing questions/making salary requests, etc.) and/or they're too "womanly".. With gentle handshakes and lilting giggles.

That's not going to earn you a higher salary.. And in some cases, possibly little respect from interviewers.

I shall wait for azgz. :o

******

Whatever the excuse that people have for inequality in pay based on gender (and race and ethnicity), the outcome is the same. We can spend all day rationalizing it and examining the history behind it. We know what there is to know about that. Nothing new will come of that which is why that diversion tactic has hopefully expired in the 21st century. It is common for these discussions to turn into "what (insert minority group) is NOT doing correctly which explains their circumstances."

1. Many women have babies and assume (whether through choice or gendered force) most of the responsibility for raising the babies...CHECK.
2. Most women have been socialized to be less aggressive...CHECK.
3. In contrast, most men have been socialized to be aggressive in this patriarchal and sexist society...CHECK.
4. Patriarchal societies revolve around men therefore everything is judged based on what men do and therefore what women should do in order to be taken seriously...CHECK.

Now that the nonsense has subsided, the reality of the matter is that even aggressive women are often not met with rainbows and ponies. Basic probability statistics show that men will be the majority in most companies. There will be a few women (tokens or not) who are allowed up the gendered glass ceiling. Even aggressive women who get to higher pay and higher status positions will often be gendered in a similar fashion as racial and ethnic minorities in higher positions are often reminded that they are "an exception" and/or are being done a huge favor.

Meanwhile, women deserve the same pay as men with comparable qualifications and positions in the workforce. Employers have no problem with leveling the costs for time away from the office, insurance, etc. Smart employers (some have already done so) will make this investment in both women and men employees in order to receive more commitment and labor from the employers. Happier employees=better employees=company profit. That is basic economics and capitalism.

Don't forget being categorized as a bitch if she's aggressive.

Anecdote: I made acquaintance with a woman (through work) who was pretty successful, in fact, one of the youngest people at her management level. Highly qualified and competent, very good negotiator. Watching her "dance the dance" in meetings was amazing.

The first word people used to describe her? "Bitch." Then they qualified it with a "but..."

If you're going to acknowledge what we already know, acknowledge all of it. ;)

Preach!

Question: What do you call an accomplished and highly regarded person in their field who is a woman?
Answer1: Bitch
Answer2: Lonely Bitch
Answer3: Token
Answer4: Nonexistant

The exciting part is that accomplished and highly regarded women are often asked to do tasks like make sure everyone gets coffee, coordinate company celebrations, decorate, etc. This is a way of making sure these women do not get too big for their gendered britches. Congrats on becoming COO of the company--now can you make sure the janitors clean the restroom? Or...clean it yourself...you know how women are naturals with this stuff...we men are clueless. Thanks!

I was under the impression that this was more about small business and/or salaried, not necessarily the big corporate hourly employees (Best Buy, McDonalds,etc). I'll admit I'm not too informed on the details of this bill other than thats where the opposition has issues with. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because I think back to some of the other bills I've read and yeah... It's funny how something so common sense or innocuous sounding can turn into such a hot mess once politicians get their hands on it.

I also don't think it would be that out there to think that some smaller business (under 15 employees) owners may stray from hiring females in order to escape some added regulations.

IIRC, the bill covered all types of employment, or at least most, but many who voted it down said it would be too burdensome on "small business" because "litigation."

Please stop referring to women as "females." No one is hiring female dogs or female kangaroos.