New York: Governor Cuomo proposes changes to equal-pay provision

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2013-01-21 07:36

Article here. Excerpt:

'Women working full time in this state earn 84 percent of what men earn according to the state Labor Department. Nationally, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, women in 2010 earned 77 cents for every $1 men earned in full time work. In 2011 the median full-time working woman made 81.6 percent of the wages of the median full-time working man.

The number of hours worked per week varied the statistic, though. Among men and women who work 40 hours per week, women earned 87 percent of what men earned.
...
Under the current law people who prove discrimination in wages can get back pay to make up the difference for what they would have earned if they were paid equally to their peers. This means a successful plaintiff in a wage discrimination case is entitled to 100 percent of the back wages due.

Cuomo proposed increasing that to 300 percent of back wages.
...

Other womens' groups, such as the right-leaning research institution Independent Women's Forum, take the position that the wage disparity is the result of choices women make in how many hours they work and what jobs they choose.

"Feminist groups disserve women by promoting the false idea that the U.S. workplace is overwhelmingly sexist. It encourages unnecessary meddling from the federal government, which could limit women's job opportunities and workplace flexibility, and discourages women from fully pursuing their ambitions," according to a publication by that organization on the wage gap. "Women are better off understanding that it's the decisions they make -not systematic sexism - that determine how much they earn."'

---------------
Also see: Urban Single Women Under 30 Earn More Than Their Male Cohorts

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

That phrase again... used not in the main article but the one off-linked at the bottom of the MANN entry ("Urban Single Women Under 30..."). Here it is:

"But the problem of excess males has been around much longer than just this post-modern information age.   Ever since the agricultural beginnings of civilization, and the ability for one worker to produce a good deal more food than he could eat, there have been problems with excess, unemployed and unemployable, males."

"Excess males". Like "excess dirt," left over after an excavation. OK, let's think about this. What causes a person of either sex to be considered "excess"? Well, I'd like to posit that no person can be counted as being inherently "excess". People can be adjudged to be "scarce" or "excess" based on the relative demands of other people. So who would be those people and just why is their opinion so much more important than those who are adjudged to be "excess people"? Immanuel Kant concluded that men (he was referring to people generally) were "ends unto themselves," thereby establishing the basis for the modern concept of human rights. Some people have objected to this idea because it seems to reduce the relevance of other ideas they may value (religion, etc.), but ultimately, if people are not considered ends unto themselves, then really any right, even fundamental human rights, stop being inalienable. When this is admitted, any atrocity is imaginable with whatever justification some people can come up with: slavery, torture, and hmm, let's see, what else... restricting educational opportunities based on sex, restricting job opportunities for same, etc.-- all things happening to men here in America these days. That's because, well, there's just too many "excess males". Or maybe there are so many "excess males" because of the anti-male discrimination men have been enduring in education and employment these past 30 years?

But I notice the author seems to suggest females never get counted as "excess" because they're the ones who have kids. Really? Last I checked, the number of kids women were having these days was pretty limited. But really, that doesn't matter to me either way since I think women by and large shouldn't be reproducing at all, given the massive overpopulation we humans are inflicting on ourselves and the planet. See, in my opinion, we don't have an "excess male" problem in America. We have an "excess female" problem. After all, there's 100 women for every 97 men in America. Maybe like the author intimated, instead, we could put the extra 3 in 100 to work building pyramids or terra cotta soldiers.

"Excess males," indeed.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2013-01-22 04:54

Here's his equality plan for women:
1. Protect a Woman's Freedom of Choice by Enacting the Reproductive Health Act

2. Achieve Pay Equity

3. Stop Sexual Harassment in All Workplaces

4. Allow for the Recovery of Attorneys' Fees in Employment and Credit and Lending Cases

5. Strengthen Human Trafficking Laws

6. End Family Status Discrimination

7. Stop Source-of-Income Discrimination

8. Stop Housing Discrimination for Victims of Domestic Violence

9. Stop Pregnancy Discrimination Once and For All

10. Protect Victims of Domestic Violence by Strengthening Order-of-Protection Laws

One thought: giving women more rights to sue employers might result in employers not hiring women. They'll be sneaky about, but why should an employer hire a woman likely to sue him when he can hire a man instead, who is far less likely to sue him over, say, "sexual harassment"?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Tue, 2013-01-22 16:00