Comments on: First 100 Days: The mirage of pay equity http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: StewartIII http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-9802 Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:44:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-9802 Michelle, My Belle: NYT’s Rachel Swarns’s Constant Fawning Over First Lady
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters  /2009/03/12/michelle-my-belle-nyts-rach el-swarns-constant-fawning-over-first-la dy

]]>
By: Norm http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-6059 Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:38:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-6059 This is another feminist myth. Check total hours worked to pay – they wages are far more equal than first appears.

]]>
By: Dan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5907 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:40:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5907 I have had many women working for me in the past. They were 10% of the work force, but 90% of my problems. In most cases with laws like this, if the man and women had the same qualifications, I would hire the man. With the man, at least I could be in my office alone with that person. With a women, my policy has always been to have a third party long because of possible sexual harassment claims.

]]>
By: Pete Cann http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5830 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:19:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5830 “If someone is not qualifies [sic] for a given title and position, don’t give them the job.”

Suppose I’m the weakest performer in my department. Then the company goes bankrupt. I need a job. Would I now rather be underpaid or unemployed?

]]>
By: Maggie http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5821 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:28:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5821 Vince — You won’t be sued if you pay people equally. Were you only hiring women so that you could pay them less?

If you had any idea how hard it is to win a discrimination case, you wouldn’t worry. You’d have to be blatantly underpaying a woman to lose a case, or probably to be sued at all. Juries do not sympathize all that easily with people who file discrimination cases, and lawyers lose a fortune if they file a suit that has no chance.

]]>
By: Sarah Wilson http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5801 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:52:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5801 The Paycheck Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not assume choices in education or a humanities major or science major, it is not about that. It is equal pay for the SAME JOB AND SAME OCCUPATION! Other variables such as length of time at the job or performance would have to be considered individually, but not a blockage to this important legislation. To say that “women’s incomes won’t rise”, is cynical,not practical. Your assumptions are off course!

]]>
By: Vince http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5796 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:51:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5796 Makes me not want to hire women now because the chance of lawsuits. As a small business owner, I can’t afford this chance.

]]>
By: Hasta http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5792 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:50:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5792 Sex Discrimination is immoral, and has no place in society. I know I know, economics professors keep saying that economics has no moral considerations.

But this is about fairness, morality and decency.

]]>
By: Steve http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5788 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:59:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5788 Congress doesn’t do well with complex problems. That’s part of the reason they have a 9% approval rating. This is a complex problem. It’s fine to say “equal pay for equal work”, but what if one person has more tenure? What if one person is working an undesirable shift?

The best way to approach this is for a non-partisan commission to give this issue the deliberation it deserves, and then give Congress an up or down vote on their recommendations – just like the Base Realignment and Closure commissions.

Personally, I would like to see much more transparency in pay and benefits, including those for executives. These days, the excesses of executive compensation are a much larger problem than gender pay equity.

]]>
By: Patricia Horrocks http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/21/first-100-days-the-mirage-of-pay-equity/#comment-5785 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:30:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=1376#comment-5785 a job discription is listed and along with it the pay.
four people apply for it. In one year an additional need is found to hire another person. They get hired for a different pay. But the original pay is still listed. It doesn’t matter what the gender both should be paid the listed pay. Thats fair, right and equal. Because water coolers do not exist at most of these jobs how is one to know? Should we blame the lack of water coolers??? People will be so hungry in the next year that they will take what is offered……equality doesn’t have much clout when starvation is at the door. Welcome to 21st Century America.

]]>