Republicans propose repeal of fair pay laws for women

Weird how all but one sponsor are men. Wonder if the speaker is on board?

So, they’re going after gays, women, workers, any any other demographic that doesn’t overwhelmingly vote Tea Party?

There are no words.

Finally they are doing something to create jobs! Oh, wait…never mind.

Here’s a novel idea. Why don’t we simply have government pay the market value for specific skills and experience level, regardless of race or gender?

You know, like they do in the real world?

And if we’re going to have a law that supposedly protects minorities in the labor market, then it should be protecting men, not women, since men are now in the minority according to this article.

Hey Dennis, how can I get a job as a paid commenter?

Ask Andy.

Funny how men are in the minority according to Dennis, but STILL get paid more than women.

What year are we in again? This is 2011, yet here we have Republicans calling for the repeal of laws that guarantee equal pay for women. These guys basically are trying to turn the clock. Are they serious? Well, America, you are to blame; you voted for them and will vote for them again in 2012 to keep repealing laws that make minorities matter in this country.

Because Dennis, employers have never paid market rates regardless of race or gender. The market tolerated discrimination until discrimination was outlawed. The market is people, so that really shouldn’t be a surprise that biases were more important than market value. Given the conservative view of the flaws of human nature, I’m surprised you’d miss that.

White patriarchal power dominance. Wait, we already have that.

… back to the 1950s! Talk about regressive!

[...] 1, 2011 by Joel Portman Leave a Comment Read the article below from the Minnesota Independent.  This is crazy.  Any study of the history of wages shows that [...]

Actually, republicans are trying to move forwward, to a world where people are not members of a protected class even when they are in the majority.

Because nothing screams “2nd class” as much as “protected class.”

Dennis –

So now you are saying women are “second class”?

Dennis-
Ever read the U.S. Constitution?

Yeah, why? Which constitutional provision allows the federal government to classify people as members of a protected class?

Dennis,
Here’s a quote from you on another article: “Without being a constitutional republic that protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, “democracy” is nothing more than mob rule.” Tell us why this quote isn’t appropriate here. Where’s your consistency?

Women are in the majority. They represent 51% of the population. No society should provide greater protection of the majority over the minority.

Like I said.

“Funny how men are in the minority according to Dennis, but STILL get paid more than women.”

Maybe we’re worth more. Your labor is only worth what other people are willing to pay for it. Why does your female boss get paid more than the men working for her?

Now I know Dennis is also certifiable as a twisted logician.

Until women are equally represented in government and in business, they will continue to be treated as a minority. Women are still routinely discriminated against in the workplace; if you think they aren’t, it’s probably because you’re a man.

Dennis – You have it backwards. Classes are protected because they have been traditionally held in second-class status through discrimination.

Well now, Katie, when does “tradition” formally end? When the president is a woman? Or black?

@Dennis

When we don’t have groups of people trying to indoctrinate others into extremist lives.

And exactly what “real world” are you talking about?

As soon as discrimination isn’t in the work place thats when.

When women are treated equally for their equal work, which they are not still.

Its a cowards life to call yourself a “conservative”. It takes a brave soul to call for justice, equality and social civility and to stand up for it. It takes a brave mind to say I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t know it all. It takes a very small mind to say my way is the only way.

Pick up a Science book for a day, go see the Hubble, or walk through a museum. Remember the world isn’t flat!

Why are you so mean-spirited, marie?

People are naturally born liberals. The tenants of liberalism are what you learn in kindergarten. Share everything. Play fair. Don’t hit people. When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together. Think about it. Your belief systems are the same as those of a five-year old.

Some of us evolve. Self-reliance is a virtue. Competition breeds improvement. A free society is morally superior to a managed society. And my political opponents are neither stupid nor evil. Just inexperienced.

Oh pffft.

Yes, Dennis, some of you evolved from share everything to take everything, from play fair to screw everyone, from don’t hit to the lower the blow the better. You’ve evolved to don’t hold hands – call names, don’t stick together – tear apart. This is your superior society? This is your CHRISTIAN society? What crap.

@Dennis – It’s funny how you refer to evolution without actually considering a result of evolution – i.e. the successful mechanisms of biology. Take an animal cell for instance – even it has a membrane, a “wall”, a layer of protection around the organelles from outside forces. There are “regulations” for determining what can enter and what can’t, and how. Repealing this law would be like taking away the wall, and saying “Organelles, Fend for yourselves!”

Our physical bodies have regulations at every level you can imagine, and that’s how they function well. When regulations are removed, that’s when a body is easily influenced by foreign bacteria and viruses, thereby becoming ill.

Self-reliance isn’t a virtue, it’s a delusion propagated by a capitalist system of corporations profiting upon people’s quest for self-esteem being fulfilled by winning the consumer game. Competition already exists regardless of gender or perceived gender, if a person even chooses to recognize one.

A free society is not inherently opposed to having some regulations. And “morally superior”? Please, morality only exists because we created it to designate what is good for the human species and what is not good for the human species. Ultimately, our sun will go supernova and envelope all of us out to Saturn, what of morality then?

Oh, and referring to your comment to Katie – I presume then that you voted for the candidate for president who is black AND female – Cynthia McKinney – like I did?

[...] Republicans Propose Repeal of Fair Pay Laws for Women. Read more  [...]

I bet you still revere your kindergarten teacher.

I was not surprised to see my state representative Roger Crawford of Mora as one of the sponsors of this bad bill. I emailed him, asking why he would support the repeal of fair pay laws given that pay inequity for women still exists.
—–
His response verbatim:
Thank you for the email. This is a costly mandate for local government. With probable reduced local aid looming in the future, local governments need relief from this and other such mandates. As the father of three working daughters and a working wife, I am aware of the challenges women face in the marketplace. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Roger Crawford
—–
My response:
What kind of a response is this? It is frankly offensive, sexist and misogynistic as well as being downright disrespectful of your working wife and three working daughters.

The issue which you have not addressed in my inquiry is: Why should women receive less pay and benefits for doing the same amount and same kind of work that men do?

I will urge our good Governor Dayton to veto this repeal legislation which is totally wrong on all levels if it should pass both chambers.
—–
This is way beyond UFF DA. Seriously.

Dennis is a poo-flinging troll, plain and simple. He doesn’t seek dialogue or understanding, but still thinks by leaving nutty comments he can win readers to the far right. Given the volume of his comments, my guess is his activism rarely means leaving a computer to actually meet with people that don’t share his beliefs. Sad.

Dennis, did you read Judge Scalia’s statement?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

the only actual right women have is the right to vote.

Yes we may be in the majority as far as population, but until we are represented equally in health, wealth, government, and benefits we are not equal.

We are birth canals and sex objects, and until the United States catches up with the rest of the industrialized world, we are still in the same league as Iran, Sudan, and others like them.

Won’t repealing this bill sort of hurt the local governments in the end too?

If they’re trying to reduce costs by not requiring employers to pay women equally, and then employers stop paying equally (granted the effect will occur over time) won’t those same governments who were trying to save money start losing money from taxes because those women who were being paid more were also paying higher taxes but will eventually not be and therefore tax receipts will also go down?

Have any of these sponsors done the math on this? Ideological or not, you can’t fight math.

Furthermore, whether or not women are in the majority, that value is dependent on WHERE in the workplace they are the majority. Pay scales are directed by market value, position held, AND the person in charge. If women are in the majority in low level positions they don’t have a group think presence to shift how a corporation pays women vs. men because if they’re not in a position to make that decision things don’t change easily. Additionally, the Chartered Management Institute came out with results last August showing that while pay equality has improved for women since the 70s, they estimate that based on the changes it will still take another 57 YEARS before that inequality is gone. Nearly a century. That’s ridiculous. Studies also show that women are apt to make less simply because they don’t have the same self-value attitudes of men which affects their pay when they’re hired. It’s based on sociological mores, but I won’t go into it here.

Women may be in the majority now, but not where it counts. Dennis may be tired about hearing about people needing to be protected, but I’m tired of hearing from whiny white guys about how things aren’t going their way anymore. Things haven’t gone everybody else’s way for centuries, those groups worked to change it and now the GOP is trying to take it away again… Deal with it. Adapt. That’s what the self-reliant do, right?

oh, and Dennis, your Viagra gets paid for, my birth control doesn’t

and a pharmacist doesn’t protest your Viagra

I emailed Rep Peggy Scott of Andover imploring her to seriously consider the repercussions of repealing LGPEA. Her response: What bill are you referring to?

Why not repeal the law if it wastes needless money that the state of Minnesota sorely needs. If a woman feels underpaid compared to her co-workers who are of the same “title” or job description or whatever she can pretty easily find out if she is not being compensated at the same level and then sue the employer. It is VERY easy to sue someone in this country (not sure if that is a good or bad thing).

I pasted this on my facebook page…Kurt Daudt the representative from our area is one of the sponsors of the bill. Most of the people on our community do not know what this entails- his campaign promise was to listen to the people. What the dickens???? He is following his party and NOT listening to the people. Wonder if he will return my calls as he promised when he was campaigning or since I am a woman if he will have one of his party answer with a usual canned response…which is all talk about what the “other” party is doing with no substantial response to the people that hired him into office asked him to do.

Lane:
I too know Roger the dodger…if the people of your area had watched who went in to vote maybe someone who represented ALL the people instead of just the MEN in your community would have been elected into office. I will strongly support any effort you all make to get rid of this person from office if you help us get rid of Kurt Daudt who also followed like a puppy dog the dictates of Tony Sutton and Pawlenty. Talk about bringing us back to the dark ages. These are the two that were probably not qualified for a job that a women held and they are jealous, that is the only reason why a man would even think of listening to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce -they are all a bunch of old men that want to bring back the ‘good ole boys’ club/era. I will be contacting Governor Dayton to support a veto of the bill.

@ Dennis, when white hetro-supremecist men dont have all the power, thats when.

Well, Wendy, I guess you’re going to be a self-identified “protected class” (2nd class) citizen for quite some time then.

Dennis,
You are nowhere near self reliant. You depend on a stable society for everything you have and do. You work, determination, and luck certainly do help, but the only “self-reliant” person would be someone like Ted Kacinski living out in the woods. You are nowhere near self reliant at all. Calling yourself self reliant just gives you an excuse to be a selfish jerk.

“Self-reliant” in this society means you pay your own way. That what you have in life, you’ve earned from the sweat of your own brow. That you don’t depend on collectives or the kindness of others to get by.

Besides, you don’t know me. For all you know I do live out in the woods.

Still didnt hear what Judge Scalia said did you Dennis?

And you people voted for them 2010 . As the saying goes be carefull what you wish for. Now you got your wish

Dennis, you are an idiot. Majority and minority are irrelevant. Women are a marginalized group that are continually oppressed and discriminated against, and that has nothing to do with how many of them are on Earth.

Laurie, he’s right of course.

The Constitution deals with individual rights, not group rights. You as a woman or minority person or gay person have the same constitutional rights as anyone else, but because you are an individual like anyone else, not because you are a member of a particular group or demographic.

Protect “women” from discrimination and not “men” from the same thing would be unfair and therefore unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

One could argue that the whole “protected class” nonsense is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment. And I say this as a person who theoretically could be considered a member of 3 or 4 “protected class” categories (I’m old, I’m a veteran, I’m non-white, and there’s probably another one that I’m not even aware of).

We”l see about that Dennis. Your whole “group” round-a-bout just invalidated the protection of religion. Now you’re getting somewhere.

Wendy, except that religion isn’t protected under the 14th amendment, but under the 1st.

But thanks for playing.

@ Oh Geez: “Women are a marginalized group that are continually oppressed and discriminated against”

You can’t go to court and say “women” are oppressed and discriminated against, you have to name names. And when you name names, the “women” are now individuals and their case has to stand on its own merit. And we do that. Even though the constitution doesn’t protect anyone from being “discriminated against.”

I have enjoyed this exchange immensely and although I vehemently oppose this repeal, I find Dennis to be a formidable and worthy opponent in the debate, and I think he might just be discovering his gender identity/orientation (see entry at 7:08 a.m.)

RD – I discovered my gender identity/orientation with Lynn Ambrose when I was 12 years old. But thanks for asking.

Dennis,
Funny how this “Lynn” has the ambiguos first name.

TMI ! (apparently I missed the interrogative in my own comment) god bless you Dennis; get some help.

i think everyone should leave dennis alone. seems to me he’s speaking quite a bit of truth. good for you dennis let all those liberals have it! :)

“You can’t go to court and say “women” are oppressed and discriminated against, you have to name names. And when you name names, the “women” are now individuals and their case has to stand on its own merit.”

Apparently Mr. Armchair lawyer has never heard of a class-action suit.

And class-action lawsuits are probably unconstitutional, Alie.

So, let’s say for example that in 57 years women achieve their equal pay with men. Let’s advance another 50 years into the future and hypothetically speaking men could be in the minority as far as pay goes. Does that mean that this law should still be in effect however protecting men?

I do sincerely wish for equality for every human being, unfortunately this is just not the case. We are all born with individual gifts and abilities. Some people can sing great and become rock stars without much effort. Others, who are less fortunate will have to work really hard to overcome the situation they were born into. I guess what I’m getting at is, the freedoms we have as Americans is unique and will allows us to pursue our individual dreams. Maybe it will take another 57 years for women to have equal pay, but maybe the best way to go about it is to work harder than the other guy (or girl) and get ahead.

It is true women are paid less, and do have a disadvantage because of our current culture, but ultimately, a government cannot force people change the way they think.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100269559&gt1=31036

stop feeding the animals

The above link is regarding the rising pay gap in starting pay between male and female doctors -

Oh thats right, us womenz go have babies and lets the menz take care of us

Ever wonder if this “Dennis” is just a plant to get more comments?

To follow up with Dorian57, it is important to distinquish between characteristic and ability / talent.

Equal pay for equal work no matter the characteristic. Extraordinary ability or talent should be rewarded no matter the characteristic.

There is a lot of truth to this old saying “Women have to work twice as hard as men to be thought half as good.” Meh.

Kate, I suspect that Dennis, an older Navy veteran of Yankton Sioux ancestry, is living a lonely life, that he finally cracked under the pressure of years and years of “Minnesota Nice” venting his passive-aggressiveness taking full advantage of the anonomity of the “Dennis” alias to wreak havoc with us “liberal weenies.” Furthermore, I won’t be surprised if he is here because he no longer has his driver’s license to join the other Minnesota drivers on our freeways … Meh.

> To follow up with Dorian57 …

That should be Dorian27 …

Wondering why they don’t reduce the cost rather than repeal the law?

Well, I am speechless.
I can think of no words to say.

“And class-action lawsuits are probably unconstitutional, Alie”.

Lawsuits can’t be unconstitutional.

What a gentleman. I hope “Lynn Ambrose” wasn’t turned off entirely by that encounter.

Yankton? There aren’t any Indians in Yankton.

Lane, you are lowering yourself to Dennis’s level…..dont go there hon

Never fear, Laurie. Unlike Dennis in the basement where hairy spiders and giant centipedes crawl about in, I live in an attic apartment … and I do venture out into the real world almost every day!

We most assuredly may assume the compassionate Republicans assuring women get paid less than the male of the species is assuring women must PAY LESS than the male of the species for the cost housing, food, utilities, insurance, petroleum products, autos….. and any and all other needs one needs sustain life in such a pro-life country.

We The People can not claim we are pro-life unless we provide the ability to sustain life so we can all assume the Republicans are promising lower costs of sustaining life for their passionately detested females and for those females subsidizing the male species incomes due to his inability to support their families!

After all, if one is assured to have a lower income one is assured by the Republicans the despised female work force are to be charged less than their glorified male counterparts for all services and products required to sustain life in the “greatest country in the world,” right?

Most assuredly the party of personal responsibility and accountability will make all vendors comply with lowering their fees for women since that would validate their mantra of being accountable and responsible

Of course ,,,,the Republicans will do so while at the same time insist and inherently choreograph the perfect world so the male of our species make a large enough income to afford the keeping females out of the work force.,,,right?

It is most assuredly a sign of the demotion of all of civilization when an analogy to what should be a rational, thinking, individual ethic is poo-pooed as non-extant, and society is then seen as the clockwork, genetic-work intracacies of cell interactions to a larger organism.

Thus, in this case, liberals throwing darts at Dennis proclaim that we’re all but organelles, and YET at the same time for rather non-equal work in the social beast, are to be assured of equal benefits. Yet curiously no biology book I have on the shelf would seem to indicate that cell membranes are on equal par with organelles, nor on the higher order of things, the brain with the intestines.

Which is just as well, as liberal cosmology and sociology is crap at the core level.

Bereft from the story is any hint of context, and why historically employers pay less in some contexts. This has been answered before, however, and I’ll be curious to see if anyone can make a guess other than the idiotic notion already expressed by some libs that the market cannot deliver “justice” on pay issues better than our new overlords in government, or their notion that those of us who DO sign the FRONTS of paychecks (conservative businessmen, in large measure) are just evil hacks who can’t count money, or are being Scrooge McDuck.

What a world some of you live in. Interesting, cuz it ain’t mine, brother.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/07/us-boardroom-women-idUSN0752118220071107

..and now, the reality of where pay “inquality” really gets into the meat of the matters: Issues of hearth and home, and tradition.

http://independentsources.com/2005/03/23/the-unequal-pay-meme/

People might not like that, and indeed the changing secularist culture is gradually putting such considerations on the back burner now that child-bearing takes a back seat to career considerations, and people might like to debate the efficacy of what is eventually going to become a shrinking demographic in favor of the ONE Designer Kiddie ethic now sweeping Western Europe and soon to be in the US.

So be it. But that’s another debate.

Golly gee wilkers, and gee whiz-bang willikens. For all the outpouring of love for Dennis being but a troll, he seems a fairly good one.

Would that the world of posting forums had more Dennises for trolls.

” Ultimately, our sun will go supernova and envelope all of us out to Saturn, what of morality then?

Then why in hell bother now–if morals are merely some artificial construct based on the very expedient and rather temperol modes and needs of the moment?

Is this latest (acutally old rehash of crap) argument and myth not a form of moral suasion–however infected it may be with myth and evasion?

Nontheless, conservatives talking about self-reliance and the avoidance of Euro-Canadian Nanny-Statism that coddles people cradle to grave, are NOT the only ones talking about this or that “moral” issue.

Else, why even bother?

Dear “Concerned”–

One does not nix an entire notion like “self-reliance”, or even in part, just because you fail to mention that all human life depends on similar contexts, or that context and the concept of what we might call “intentionality” is missing.

It’s like saying that criminals are only dangerous due to the existence of whatever weapon, bad toilet training, a mean dad, bad doggies in the neighborhood, ten thousand other pop-psyche absurdities, and of course the (true) existence of oxygen, food, parents for genetic linkage to the distant past, and the very presence of sunlight for the photosynthetic effects on the plants that said criminal ate the night before the crime.

Naturally, all events have what might be termed metaphysical as well as purely physical and mechanistic causes.

This does not mean, however, that free will in determining proper evaluation of reality is therefore gone, or that the extant condition of food and air are sufficient causations of criminal activity, and that the criminal is not in the plupart the most responsible party for his or her actions.

Likewise, the existence of stable governance, a sound currency (mucked with far more by idiot politicians than the private realm, BTW) and defense, police, and other protective contexts are just throwaway notions.

But some people work, and other sort of work, and others find the current protective confines of modern civilization to be so juicy as to make work a guffawing notion to be mocked, and certainly in a cultural atmosphere the both demonizes businesses of all sizes all the while both chastising them for not doing enough and yet depending on them for rather sumptuous salaries and benefits of the lords of the public sector, where the REAL bounty and loot is to be usually found.

Your take is like saying that the men who gave us lightbulbs, radiation therapy, MRIs, airplanes, computers, rockets, and modern engineered buildings are a “just so” story whose main input is the background performance and stage hands who took the garbage out of the break room are on equal par, or that the lords and masters and governors of the early ages when some of these things first came out had equal or serious or similarly genius input on their part for the mere fact they governed both the ill and the hale and hearty, or both the stupid and the smart concurrently.

Likewise, the existence of stable governance, a sound currency (mucked with far more by idiot politicians than the private realm, BTW) and defense, police, and other protective contexts are just throwaway notions.

Should’ve actually been

“..and other protective contexts do NOT mean notions of free will and personal responsibility are just throwaway notions”

I would like to remind Wakefield of the cartoon where by purposely stopping up the flow, the anus puts all the other self-important organs including the brain in their proper places?

Again, equal pay for equal work no matter the characteristic.

Dennis in his comment posted February 2, 2011 @ 8:38 pm
> Besides, you don’t know me. For all you know I do live out in the woods.

Just go to #1199 at http://minnesotaindependent.com/61236/walz-demmer-post-similar-fundraising-for-the-quarter#comment-63025.

Sigh.

Click on http://minnesotaindependent.com/61236/walz-demmer-post-similar-fundraising-for-the-quarter#comment-63025 where Dennis tells you to go #1199 on the page at http://rontini.com/599crew.html.

This is an EMBARRASSMENT for Minnesota…as is Ventura, Bachman, and Franken. This is what happens when the political process is not taken seriously and fools are elected.

Hey…why don’t we start with that idiot Bachman? Let’s cut her salary and see if she likes it. You stupid…there aren’t enough words…

I am ASHAMED and HUMILIATED by this piece of legislation.

I like Franken, but frankly, the conversation here has been less than satisfactory – distorted by Dennis and Wakefield’s bloviating away from the simple fact that when two persons are doing the same amount and same kind of work for the same employer, they should receive the same pay. But if one is a man and the other is a woman and the woman receives less pay than the man simply because she is female, then that is not right. It doesn’t matter the political philosophy or the “market forces.”

The Strib article at http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/115612684.html “Move to repeal pay equity law is afoot at the Capitol” has a more informative, more focused comment board.

I repeat three comments from there:
“Actually, those were anecdotal illustration based your own perceptions, quite different than actual data. The reason these laws were put on the books was, in part, because of the failure of the equal rights amendment. The fact that woman used to be substantially underpaid (60cents on the dollar) for the same positions in the same fields has been substantiated. What the law did was the raise the bar for pay for woman in the public sector, so that the private sector had to compete for the talent pool. Quite an ingenious market based solution for anyone who cares… But to the broader (no pun intended) point: The pay gap has narrowed, and college educated women earn about 5% less than college educated men, this also holds true when controlling for majors. (from an American Association of American Women study) Whether or not this has to do with gender discrimination or some other factors is probably something that should be answered before tinkering with the laws that have effectively narrowed the gender gap since they were put in place.”

“Just now on channel 4, this topic highlighted a study where resumes were submitted randomly to recruiters as a test — identical except for a man’s name or woman’s name at the top. The recruiters were asked what they would offer in each case, and in each case, the resume with a man’s name garnered higher offers. It was also stated that with newly graduated heart surgeons, women were offered $27,000 less than men. The fact that in among municipal workers in MN such discrepancy continues is demonstrated by the required reporting itself: 96 penalty cases have been resolved over the past 14 years resulting in $1,267,851 in total restitution paid to approximately 1,300 employees for past inequities. Apparently Republicans would like to bury this. We need more transparency, not less.”

“Hopefully there is or will be some type of cost-benefit analysis done. In this article, there is not nearly enough information for readers to decide if dropping this mandate is reasonable. E.g. How much does the report cost the local governments to produce? (Pay equity analysis involves much more work than just a payroll list.) Also need to know if the $ payouts and recipient headcount is trending downward. (By my calculation, average payback was $975 per person.) The reporting mandate results in fixes to inequities but fixing a problem is usually more expensive than preventing one. Are there equitable pay grades in place, are managers sufficiently trained in how to establish pay? Why aren’t the local union more proactively involved in ensuring pay structures are free of gender bias? Eliminating the mandated report most likely means that pay equity will not be actively monitored because I doubt anyone will do it without the mandate. That may be OK if the payouts and number of payees has been trending downward.”

Merit is the only issue that should ever have an impact on pay or raises. One’s gender, race nor orientation should ever be a justification for additional pay, or less pay. To mandate pay within incorporated areas, municipalities or cities is more sexist than the very issues you are striving to overcome. If Minnesotah as unjust community standards, or views a woman as offering lessor value, then the obvious answer is a suit against the employer(s). To assume all women make less , by virtue of sex, is another classic case of discrimination.

Marc, are you suggesting that current (and longstanding historical) pay disparities between men and women are because women aren’t as skilled or don’t work as hard as men (their “merit”)?

Love this comment….

Rep. Kim Norton of Rochester told reporters at the press conference, “The only reason to remove this mandate when we have a deficit like this is to cut the pay of women and save money.”

The issue isn’t the report.

[...] more: http://minnesotaindependent.com/77014/minnesota-republicans-repeal-of-fair-pay-laws-for-women [...]

From Lane
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 12:30 am

I would like to remind Wakefield of the cartoon where by purposely stopping up the flow, the anus puts all the other self-important organs including the brain in their proper places?

Again, equal pay for equal work no matter the characteristic.

Duly noted, and who better to tell us this than our dear liberal pals who fail the world of meaningful metaphors and analogies. And surely we do sorely hope that it was the brain by which you made that connection, and not the posterior. But that would be a guess only.

Also, since I never saw such an absurdist cartoon, I surely can’t be “reminded” of it.

So the butt is on equal billing with brain, eh? Well, hell, son, I guess that wraps all that up. Though, I doubt this is a good analysis of business needs, and certainly not a rational basis for legal status of entire groups. Just buttheadedness, perhaps.

If the unequal pay matra is true, and deliberate, and no other cultural or lifestyle or home considerations need be mentioned, much less considered, then….

Question: If it WERE to be shown true that all people are interchangeable, where you see one green lego block, you’ve seen them all, then why do businesses NOT take the greedy, ever-so-obvious-dirty-trick mode of thinking about how to apply these allegedly solid stats about “x % of $ for every ONE dollar a man earns” (us usually said to be in the range of less than 80 cents on the buck) and just…hire….ALL WOMEN??

After all, ratio-centric linear reasoning would obviously dictate that the cost-savings alone from salary cuts would bring in the really big canasta.

Sounds like champagne cork popping time and high-fives for the investors.

No? So why is the workforce not ALL-female even as we speak? (excepting, of course, that sole proprietorships can hire themselves in essence.) In fact, from Dickens’ time onward, one of the many dubious parodies of business is that it is an emotionless, soulless entity that pays no heed or mind to larger social forces, needs, and realities. The dear president of the world’s most prosperous nation hinted at that just the other day, in fact.

The money saved in such manner would be a bloody king’s ransom, David. And it could still be a relatively all-boys club at the very tippy-top. Just hire all women as employees!

NO?

Why the hell not? Cogitate on that.

Earth to Wakefield:

If pay and benefits as an expense is the overriding concern, it should follow then that what men receive should be reduced to the same levels as women. Why hasn’t this happened?

Because men wouldn’t stand for it. Women do apparently.

Really? The mostly male sponsors as well as those who plan to vote for repeal of this pay equity mandate would do well to be reminded of the women voters back in their districts.

So, is there a protest planned? I have been searching but can’t find one…

Moon Base Alpha from Looney Left land returning Lane’s phone call:

It’s six of one version, vs. about a half-dozen of the other, and a distinction with no real difference. Cost-cutting is just that: Cost-cutting. There are 10,000 ways of attempting this, from cutting back on fuel, travel, more emphasis on teleconferencing, to having idiotic laws like the Form 1099 expanded usage crappola nixed recently, to nixing items on the cafeteria line, to telling people to forgoe paper in the ever-present eternal and yet unfulfilled quest for a “paper-free” environment.

But it seems–oddly enough–that most employers quite obiously have valid reasons either way for NOT doing what either you or myself have proposed, in jest.

The real world, you see, makes legion demands on employers, not the least of which is the need for a wide variety of skilled employees. Especially in times like these.

See, for example:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080912/news_lz1e12lydick.html

..and then also..

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/calculating-pay-inequity-919/

PS–Meant to add yet more horrible news in addition to the context above about pay inequity. News that, while limited to a currently narrow field, seems to be a growing trend:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/07/us-boardroom-women-idUSN0752118220071107

Only if things were that simple.

We are seeing more and more women entering occupations that traditionally have been male-dominated. We are seeing more and more men opting to stay home and raise kids while the spouse goes off to work. We are seeing more same-sex households with children; those households with lesbian couples often have the lowest household incomes. We are seeing the slow erosion of the glass ceiling in the corporate world.

As for those female directors out-earning their male counter-parts, how much of that is based on performance? If those men have been slacking, then duh.

The equity gap is closing, but is not yet for the most part, completely closed. Until then, there is a need for reporting to monitor this progress or lack thereof.

And we have to be very careful to ensure the reporting is current, credible, defensible and correctly interpreted, too. That’s the tricky part.

As long as women make less than men (currently about 77 cents for every dollar men make), we need to stay vigilant. Removing this requirement would send a message that it’s okay to keep the inequalities.
I did this report for the local school district several years ago and was stunned at the inequities that still exist.

From the White House Projects Benchmark Report 2009

Academia
• Nationally, women are 57 percent of all college students but only 26 percent of full
professors, 23 percent of university presidents and 14 percent of presidents at the doctoral
degree-granting institutions.

• The number of female presidents has not changed in the last 10 years.

• Women account for less than 30 percent of the board members on college and university
boards.

• Female faculty have not made any progress in closing the salary gap with their male
counterparts. In 1972, they made 83 percent of what male faculty made: today they make 82
percent of what male faculty make.
.

So the best I can see from Dennis and Wakefield’s posts is that because women are in the majority they do not deserve to have laws stating that they need to be compensated equaly for equal work. The last time I heard a statement similar to that was when someone else was defending apartheid. Tell me guys, are you defending apartheid against women?

Republicans serve the corporatocracy and Republicans love to attack women. Apparently it wasn’t just Pelosi, but all women are targeted since they resumed trying to screw up our economy even more.

They just loved the 1950′s and that’s exactly where they want to take the country back TO.

Hello,

WOMEN UNITE AND VOTE THE RADICAL RIGHT OUT!!!!!
The GOP is out to destroy the civil rights and labor movement. The WILL destroy America to line their pockets. The KOCK brothers gave $100 million puls are going to give another 88 million to the GOP. It comes from womens pay and it comes from the middle class workers tax rate.It comes from OUR IRA’s on every withdraw. Wake up and UNITE to VOTE OUT THE RADICAL RIGHT!!!

So what? there gonna be women haters now? well then they might as well just slap us around; spit on us; and call us names. geeez

You know, back the 50s, pay inequality almost made sense because when women worked, mostly it was prior to marriage or to supplement income, and the assumption was that the man would be the main wage-earner.

However, that is no longer the case. In the modern landscape, men complain that women get all the options, we can work or we can be stay-at-home mothers, or we can have it all (not really, but that’s a different argument). However, that only holds true if we have the 50s-life-model, which is a nuclear family of 2 parents and 3 kids with a house and dog.

Nowdays, if one spouse loses his job, it is helpful if the partner/spouse can earn enough to help in a meaningful way so that quality of life is not lost. And some men are wonderful fathers, can probably be better at raising kids and being Mr. Mom, but can’t take that because the pay discrepancy doesn’t make it worthwhile. I think we limit men more when we devalue any group of people, be it women or people of color.

..and yet DUMB Eff’n women keep voting for this assholes.