|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Federal law makes employers liable only for back pay. A proposal in Congress, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would allow women to also recover punitive and compensatory damages."
Does this mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if a woman sues her employer for not paying her enough, then they are only responsible for what they have allegedly not paid. That is the law right now, but someone wants it changes so that not only will they get what is "owed" but also some extra to make up for the "effects" of not getting what they were owed?
Also, I think this was a very good article, despite the commentary of "well, this is only a small percentage of working women." That's the only percentage they've got, but it's important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Also, I think this was a very good article, despite the commentary of "well, this is only a small percentage of working women." That's the only percentage they've got, but it's important."
But it's a large enough number to demonstrate, decisively in my opinion, that the "wage gap" is driven more by women's choices than anything else.
It's important this point is beginning to be made in the media. Women who enjoy this choice stand to lose it if things like pay equity take hold, not to mention the losses in men's income.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 07, @05:05PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I knew it! I have been saying for sometime that the propaganda about women's only being paid 73% of what men get would lead to legislation of some sort and that the advocates of that lie had a real agenda.
Perhaps some Congressman will eventually advocate a "Gender Equity Tax" which would impose a special 5% tax on men for purposes of redistributing wealth to women? It's just a matter of time I suppose.
Note--I take it that the "Paycheck Fairness Act" would also allow men to sue for the same thing? It has to or otherwise it would probably violate the intermediate scrutiny against gender discrimination that has been read into the 14th Amendment.
This would be a tremendous blow to our nation's economy. Employers would face thousands of often baseless lawsuits from any woman (or man) who feels that she is underpaid. This will hit businesses that pay based on subjective factors such as merit and negotiated salaries especially hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I took a quick look at the bill. The House and Senate versions ar eidentical, so it's clear that there's been a lot of collusion. The bill maneds the 1938 Fair labor Standards Act so that it's possible to claim damages over and above the "missing" wages.
The language IS gender-specific, though, so it's not likely that men could use it. On the other hand, it might not stand a constitutional challenge.
The better choice is to see that it doesn't pass. You might pass these thoughts on to your Congressmen and Senators:
Studies done by private agencies and by the Department of Labor have found that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 have provided a legal basis for litigation for retrieval of missed wages due to discrimination. For women who have the same education, experience and performance, and who work under the same conditions, the average compensation differential has closed to within two percent. Enacting this legislation for the benefit of a few is unreasonable, especially when one considers the cost of litigation and penalties to society as a whole. Don’t forget, there will be abuses of this legislation, and they will likely amount to more than the value of compensation to those who benefited.
Companies now avoid hiring litigants, and since women are the most likely litigants under this legislation, women are less likely to be hired. Note that his is a pattern already realized among handicapped and other groups. It is a characteristic that can be called “cost of employment” and it includes wages, benefits and overhead, as well as the likelihood of penalties and litigation in the case of complaints. It will be difficult to measure, especially in small-to medium-sized companies whose total worker population is not easily tracked.
Ultimately, this legislation will dilute wages for all workers, including men, and funnel large sums of money to lawyers, whose income is already staggering compared with the average worker, and it will provide little positive impact to the income picture for the average working woman.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
