The next general in the war on men’s pay

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2013-07-21 02:59

Article here. Excerpt:

'Having skewered Republicans in 2012 with accusations of a conservative “War on Women,” President Obama is marching ahead to expand government’s reach, particularly in the name of protecting women and promoting “gender pay equity.”
...
OPM is the government’s chief human resource agency, and as such, can be a powerful weapon in laying the groundwork for greater government oversight over compensation practices. Men struggling economically should take note: They may be among the collateral damage of government’s campaign to build a more “equitable” economy.

The OPM’s primary responsibility is to oversee the compensation system for the 2.7 million member federal civilian workforce. Currently, however, the OPM is also developing a government-wide strategy for advancing “pay equity,” a task Archuleta will take over if confirmed.
...
Ms. Archuleta who was the chief of staff at the Department of Labor from 2009-11 should be familiar with this type of analysis, and the studies that show that, at a minimum, the 77-cents-on-the-dollar is a gross exaggeration of sexism’s role in impacting women’s earnings.
...
This isn’t about rooting out discrimination. No, the purpose is simply to make the statistics work so that the average working women earns the same as the average working man, regardless of whether differences in pay were based on legitimate factors.
...
It’s easy to imagine how this “guidance” will quickly spill into the broader economy, first as a condition to be eligible for any government contract and then as outright regulations and mandates.

The end result won’t simply be higher pay for women and lower pay for men. The real outcome will be a less flexible, less dynamic workplace as government moves further into regimenting the compensation practices of American employers.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I think ultimately the end result will be employers becomimg *less* likely to hire women. If you have to pay someone for 30 hrs. of work the same way you pay someone for 40, will you be inclined to hire them?

Another way I suppose this could play out is businesses raising compensation for women categorically who make less money per wk. due for example to them working fewer hours, than men who work more hrs./wk. by raising the part-time woman's hourly rate but then lowering the man's too. But again, perhaps an employer would be less-inclined to hire a woman in the first place b/c he or she would see it as a greater cost than hiring a man part-time but at the lower rate. What I mean is, if a job pays $10/hr. and to make the "pay equity" thing come out right, you'd need to hire a P/T 32-hr./wk. female worker at $11 but can lower the F/T 40 hr./wk. male worker's wage to $8.80 so now their gross weekly pay is the same, then why not just hire another male F/T worker instead? Or another male worker P/T but at the same $8.80/hr. rate?

Whole thing's nuts. This is what happens though when false facts and ideology instead of practicality drive gov't policy-making.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2013-07-21 03:35