Clerk was wrong to claim sexism in setting pay

Submitted by anthony on Fri, 2009-03-06 23:51

Article here. Excerpt:

'Hartland Township Clerk Ann Ulrich played the "sexist" card at a meeting of the Hartland Township Board of Trustees last month, complaining that a male maintenance worker was hired in at a higher rate than a female worker doing the same job.

After the board approved hiring Dennis Goodwin for $12 an hour and Virginia Toor for $11.50 an hour, Ulrich said, "The explanation does just not warrant it. This looks sexist."
...
The explanation Township Manager James Wickman gave Ulrich and the board was that Goodwin had more experience and better qualifications than Or; therefore, according to township hiring policies, he should get a better offer. Also, Goodwin is intended to be the primary maintenance worker, while Or is considered a substitute in the event Goodwin is unable to come to work. According to resumes submitted to the township, Goodwin lists some 32 years of maintenance experience while Or has 12 years in the field.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

This woman is crying sexism because the other guy makes 50 cents more per hour? She's lucky to get the $11.50 an hour when comparing experience and job description. You'll start seeing similar cases in the US with the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter bill. Eventually employers will simply pay women more money to avoid legal costs and negative press. I think that was the feminist goal all along.

{Cabaret Voltaire}

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by anthony on Sat, 2009-03-07 22:43

Of just avoid hiring them at all. If they fear lawsuits are going to be filed against them for such a non-issue like this, then why would they want to risk hiring them. Yeah Yeah, the risk that they will be sued for sex discrimination is too high for that.

Anyway, isn't the Lilly Ledbetter bill only about increasing the time allowed to sue for alleged pay discrimination? Isn't there already company policies anyway that forbid pay discrimination without the need for governmental laws? I don't think a bill will get passed like the one the femmy ideologues want passed. Call me naive, I know they have a lot of power and political clout, but wouldn't the risk of potential law suits brought against the government for undue profit loss (sorry I don't know the technical term for something like that) by employers that lose money to pay underqualified and underexperienced women make legislaters think twice about passing such a law because Is it too naive to think that common sense mixed with a little foreknowledge will prevail over the wacko idiot ideologues?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Sheldon on Tue, 2009-03-10 17:23