+- SFL Forum (http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Politics and Current Events (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Paycheck Fairness Act (/showthread.php?tid=4823)
Paycheck Fairness Act - Darrell - 06-05-2012 09:14 AM
The vote is today.
Thoughts?
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - C_Fresh - 06-05-2012 09:20 AM
I've not even heard of it. I can make some comments based off of the Act title though.
I think its good for people to make the same pay for the same work. There are flaws with this though when everybody just makes the same amount. That's how it is where I work. We all make the same amount based on our job. No raises unless they come from the required rate being changed by congress. There is no external incentive to do a good job because it means nothing. I make the same as the guy who does half the work I do in a day.
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - Darrell - 06-05-2012 09:31 AM
I think ultimately it would mean that companies will hire fewer women because of a fear of litigation based on real or perceived pay disparities.
I also have to wonder why it is that companies hire men at all if hiring women can save them that much money.
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - C_Fresh - 06-05-2012 09:42 AM
Wasn't there just a report out recently about The Whitehouse and Democratic female staffers being paid less? Not that I'm saying the R's are innocent...
I'm curious to know the criteria used in these studies. Saying Group X makes less than Group Y without parameters, or ignoring other parameters gives flawed data. For example if part of the reason Group X makes more money than Group Y is because of senority, experience or even job function.
A construction worker is going to make more than a fast food worker. Even two construction workers may make different amounts because of their abilities.
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - dramaturge - 06-05-2012 10:12 AM
That report was disingenuous with regards to the White House. When you actually go look at the interactive chart and sort the staff members by job title, everyone of a certain job title makes the same regardless of whether they are a man or woman. The report noted that average salary of women is lower, but that has to do with the spread of jobs across the spectrum. A few more men in higher paying jobs than women immediately skews the average salary data. Men and women in the same job make the same salary at the White House, though.
As I understand it, studies that discuss women making lower salaries are discussing women's salaries in relation to men in the same job. For example, a male CPA making more than a women CPA when everything else is equal.
I'm a fan of the Act from everything I know about it. While I appreciate that some may feel there is less incentive to do a better job when pay is assigned by job title/responsibility/qualifications (ie a set salary increase for both men and women for attaining a further degree would fit under qualifications), there seems to be some fairly significant evidence that pay as an incentive is a far more complex issue than just "work better, I'll pay you more." Performance incentives can come in a variety of forms that work better than just more money. At any rate, I think it's very important at this point to eliminate the pay disparity that exists solely because of sex and work out dealing with incentives in a separate way.
This is an intriguing video discussing incentive:
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - C_Fresh - 06-05-2012 10:36 AM
I would agree that paying someone else less for the same work because of gender is wrong. I'd also agree that incentives aren't a fix-all for work ethic. The problem is that there are always going to be lousy employees and bosses. Large scale disparities should be worked on but I think making a completely equal playing field (though a good goal) is unrealistic. Performance based pay won't do it, nor will equalized pay. Equalizing one thing will throw off another. I'm speaking generally, not specifically about male/female pay disparity.
Sometimes people just feel entitled. I know one of the people in my area was miffed she didn't get a 5 (out of 5) on her review. I think she was demanding it be increased but don't know if she got it. Her reasoning was that she passed the class she had just attended. The class the she was REQUIRED to pass to be able to do her JOB. That's not 5 worthy, its a 3. If I had failed that class I would have lost my job. I actually got the job because the person before me failed it.
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - EmilyKing - 06-05-2012 11:22 AM
I don't think it will solve anything either way. I personally have never held a job where the gender determined pay. What bothers me is many of the studies I've seen haven't seemed to account for men spending more time in the same job. Women are more likely to take a leave of absence to raise a kid, and then re-enter the workforce. If a female was out of the job following pregnancies, she wouldn't have the same amount of time at work as a male, even if both had been at a company 5 years. Women are also more likely to take lower-paying, but 'family friendly' jobs. Why should she be paid the same, when she hasn't contributed the same amount?
I think this will just make employers more reluctant to hire women, rather than solving a problem.
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - EmilyKing - 06-05-2012 11:35 AM
I believe that if woman want equality, it should truly be equal. I don't even think there should be separate physical fitness requirements for genders joining the military. Allowing women to not live up to the same standard is not equal. If someone wants into a job, they should be required to perform to the same degree, regardless of gender. If one person has an output of 8 and the other outputs a 10, the person who outputs a 10 should be allowed to get a larger paycheck.
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - exOBCstudent - 06-05-2012 11:44 AM
(06-05-2012 11:35 AM)EmilyKing Wrote: I believe that if woman want equality, it should truly be equal. I don't even think there should be separate physical fitness requirements for genders joining the military. Allowing women to not live up to the same standard is not equal. If someone wants into a job, they should be required to perform to the same degree, regardless of gender. If one person has an output of 8 and the other outputs a 10, the person who outputs a 10 should be allowed to get a larger paycheck.I think you're going to have issues with that though unless you change the PT events to more "neutral" events that would be just as difficult for either of the sexes. We just did an APFT this last weekend and I can assure you ALL of the females had MUCH difficulty cranking out a decent amount of pushups for their minimum which would be fairly easy for the males to attain.
You'd have to lower the male standard or raise the female standard which clearly gives males an advantage (most cases) either way. You're correct though in that the military standards aren't technically "equal".
RE: Paycheck Fairness Act - dramaturge - 06-05-2012 11:46 AM
(06-05-2012 11:22 AM)EmilyKing Wrote: I don't think it will solve anything either way. I personally have never held a job where the gender determined pay. What bothers me is many of the studies I've seen haven't seemed to account for men spending more time in the same job. Women are more likely to take a leave of absence to raise a kid, and then re-enter the workforce. If a female was out of the job following pregnancies, she wouldn't have the same amount of time at work as a male, even if both had been at a company 5 years. Women are also more likely to take lower-paying, but 'family friendly' jobs. Why should she be paid the same, when she hasn't contributed the same amount?
I think this will just make employers more reluctant to hire women, rather than solving a problem.
Well, the Paycheck Fairness Act isn't saying anything about average pay over all fields. Most pay disparity studies take all of the things you mentioned into account, yet women are still paid less for doing the same job all else being equal. A "family friendly" job should still pay the same regardless of the sex of the employee. Even considering taking 6 months off for a birth, the salary of the woman should not be less than a man in her position. Her income that year may be less due to taking a leave, but that isn't what's being discussed by the Act or by pay disparity studies. The problem here is that salary is unequal even after taking all else into account.
Edit: I think the use of the term "income disparity" can cause some confusion. It isn't technically actual income that usually being analyzed, but salary. Actual income can, of course, be affected by things like medical or family leave for either sex, and that's understandable. Salary difference for equivalent jobs and experience is what's meant to be corrected with this.