[News] Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Measure for Women
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Necronic
Staff member
The problem I had with this legislation, more than anything else, was that it wasn't just trying to fix issues with the old laws, it was adding a BUNCH of new ones. It over-reached (see Adamom's post). I would go so far as to say that it intentionally over-reached just so that it would be rejected so then the democrats could point and say "Oh look at what THEY did!" The dems knew they couldn't pass this. They also probably knew that if they scaled it back they could have passed some of it.
But they didn't. They chose to take a legitimately important issue and instead of thinking of their constituents they only thought of the upcoming elections. It's cheap politics and what it says to me more than "Republicans hate women" is that "Democrats will use women". This issue has turned me off of democrats more than anything I've seen in a while, last thing of this magnitude was claiming we would leave Iraq immediately if we elected a Democrat to the presidency, which was as dishonest as it would have been irresponsible if it was true.
And as for the "77c on the $" stat, that is a completely worthless statistic that ignores SOOOO much, only looking at median income. Not career length. Not race. Not age. Not education. The numbers, when you take that into account, still show a significant wage difference, but when you START with a lie its hard for me to care about the rest.
Since you quoted me...
An American Association of University Women study done in 2007 found that taking into consideration college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours, work experience, education, GPA, age, race/ethnicity, religion, marital status and number of children, there is still a 5% wage disparity between men and women just one year out of college and it increases to 12%, which cannot be explained by those factors.
An American Association of University Women study done in 2007 found that taking into consideration college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours, work experience, education, GPA, age, race/ethnicity, religion, marital status and number of children, there is still a 5% wage disparity between men and women just one year out of college and it increases to 12%, which cannot be explained by those factors.
I think you and I have seen an entirely different Congress the past 2 years. They wouldn't pass it if it gave all Republican Congressmen a pay raise and the legal right to punch Democrats in the face.
Y'know what always gets me? Replace "women" and "girls" in this kind of bills with "men" and "boys", and suddenly you'd have thousands of self-styled feminists flaming and attacking it. Women are a majority - give it time and they'll be fine as long as some people don't cling to outmoded ideas.
Yes, there's a wage gap. As has been state before, this can largely be explained (but not entirely) by non-discriminatory means (such as maternity leave, shorter hours, etc etc). A study in Belgium and the Netherlands showed that women also pay less attention to pay and more to intangible benefits (ability to leave early, more vacation days, etc etc) when negotiating for their job (not applicable for all jobs, of course). Let's also not forget that, like most of those bogus comparisons like "only 25% of top managers are women! We're SEXIST!" ignores age - most top management is 45+ with 20+ years of experience. People in the '80s were more sexist than we are today - lower management is closer to 45%/55%, which is perfectly acceptable. Those numbers won't translate completely up the ladder (because women stay at home more often for kids and pregnancy etc etc), but it'll improve.
Same logic forced Belgian political parties to ahve 1/2 of their lists be female. I can understand the sentiment, but in practice it meant that a whole lot of men with experience and a passion for politics lost their places and a whole bunch of wifes-of and friends-of others suddenly got bumped on a list somewhere while they couldn't care less. Which, of course, means most of those women were less active/less willing to sacrifice their personal life/less experienced, which again helped to reinforce the prejudice of "women can't do politics". Which is the exact opposite of the intended goal. Patience is something people don't seem to understand.
Anyway, the ever growing connection if the church with politics in the US is what concerns me most - it's odd that the republicans, supposedly fighting for freedom of thought - are the ones coming ever closer to reintegrating church and state. A country run by fundamental christians is as dangerous and unfree as one run by fundamentalist muslims, don't doubt it.
Yes, there's a wage gap. As has been state before, this can largely be explained (but not entirely) by non-discriminatory means (such as maternity leave, shorter hours, etc etc). A study in Belgium and the Netherlands showed that women also pay less attention to pay and more to intangible benefits (ability to leave early, more vacation days, etc etc) when negotiating for their job (not applicable for all jobs, of course). Let's also not forget that, like most of those bogus comparisons like "only 25% of top managers are women! We're SEXIST!" ignores age - most top management is 45+ with 20+ years of experience. People in the '80s were more sexist than we are today - lower management is closer to 45%/55%, which is perfectly acceptable. Those numbers won't translate completely up the ladder (because women stay at home more often for kids and pregnancy etc etc), but it'll improve.
Same logic forced Belgian political parties to ahve 1/2 of their lists be female. I can understand the sentiment, but in practice it meant that a whole lot of men with experience and a passion for politics lost their places and a whole bunch of wifes-of and friends-of others suddenly got bumped on a list somewhere while they couldn't care less. Which, of course, means most of those women were less active/less willing to sacrifice their personal life/less experienced, which again helped to reinforce the prejudice of "women can't do politics". Which is the exact opposite of the intended goal. Patience is something people don't seem to understand.
Anyway, the ever growing connection if the church with politics in the US is what concerns me most - it's odd that the republicans, supposedly fighting for freedom of thought - are the ones coming ever closer to reintegrating church and state. A country run by fundamental christians is as dangerous and unfree as one run by fundamentalist muslims, don't doubt it.
ElJuski
Staff member
For sure, and arguing about this really takes away from what I agree is this new bullshit; I'm just saying, it takes away a lot when you match it with something like, "fuck this place".
But yeah, this equal pay issue, **sigh**.
Don't forget the War on Poverty. That failed miserably too.
S
SeraRelm
Next up, the war on war.
(also, I do get paid less.)
(also, I do get paid less.)
But that's because you're a homosexual. That's still a valid reason to discriminate, right?
S
SeraRelm
Yes.
S
SeraRelm
Sounds about right.
I believe it's watching Glee and decorating their homes. Yeah, that's it.
That coincides with what Dei posted as well. She was just making the point that it isn't a 77 cents on the dollar gap like so many claim.
S
SeraRelm
You guys wound me with your stereotyping.
Don't worry, Charlie will defend you!You guys wound me with your stereotyping.
Don't discriminate, now.
When where they ever a minority?
You don't have to be one to be discriminated against, remember those 1000 slaves the spartans had with them at Thermopile? No, yeah, no one else does either...
ALSO: Hey everyone, ol'GasBandit is back... we missed you little buddy.
GasBandit
Staff member
Thermopylae = Thermoplastic... so i got it wrong either way...
I knew i shouldn't have trusted that auto-correct... but i was too lazy to check wiki...
North_Ranger
Staff member
Who's that? Robin Williams in a wig and a false nose?
Nope, that's Glenn Grothman. Notice how even on the day of this photo he didn't bother to brush his teeth, which is covered in plaque? That's my Wisconsin State Senator.
Except I'm pretty sure it was a requirement that religious employers give their female employees the option of paying a little extra to buy birth control coverage.
Don't you see how that would still offend certain religious institutions, even if they had to pay "a little extra"?
Yes, but those religious institutions are offended that birth control exists at all. I've not bought the argument that requiring employers to give their employees more options that those employees would then pay for with their own wages puts an unfair onus on employers. Seems that these religious institutions don't have much trust in the strength of their employees' faith.
Besides, Democrats didn't manufacture all of the invasive and possibly unconstitutionally restrictive "anti-abortion" bills nationwide nor did they manufacture the right wing punditry's downright vile comments about Sandra Fluke nor did they manufacture Rick Santorum's viability as a candidate. Gas Bandit's thesis, that the democrats manufactured the Republican push against women's autonomy out of whole cloth as a distraction from the economy, is full of shit no matter how you slice it. More than one issue, or set of related issues, can be important to the electorate at a time.
It shouldn't be a matter of a test of faith. Religious institutions, as is their right in this country, should not be forced to even give the option if they choose not to. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely clear on this issue. When you say the employees pay for it--does it mean they completely pay for it with their own wages, or does the religious institution still have to be a small part of it? If the former, then whether the option exists or not is irrelevant. It's paid for completely by the employee either way no matter how it's stated on paper. If the words on the paper happen to offend said religious institution, then why the grumbling about them wanting the wording out entirely? If the former, then I disagree with having the religious institution being forced to pay even a penny. It strikes me as infringing on their rights as given by law. If an employee of a religious institution wants birth control paid for badly enough, they are free to find other work that would provide that particular benefit. Me? I'm a huge fan of birth control, but whether I like it or not has nothing to do with the law.
It's all about how ya spin it, baby!
Insurance is meant to spread risk across the entire group. Therefore if the institution made it so the insurance company allowed people to pay extra for a non-risk purchase, then unless they pay the actual cost of their personal birth control, the institution and all its employees, by definition, pay some part of that cost. Therefore the institution is using funds, probably donated in some part by members of that institution, to support a practice they are morally opposed to.
Employees likely won't opt-in when they aren't going to use it, so there won't be a pool of some people using it and some people not using it to spread the cost around. Everyone who opts-in will be pulling out of the funds.
If they make the cost the same for everyone, it's going to cost more than $30 a month for the basic pill, because some employees are going to choose the IUD, depo, nuva ring, surgery, etc. Therefore employees who only want the pill or another cheap method, or who can't afford more than $30/month won't choose to opt-in, they'll get their control from another provider. Therefore the cost will go up because only those employees choosing more expensive options would opt-in. Worse still, some forms are big one time expenses that aren't recurring. So an employee might choose to opt in for a month, or a year, have a $500-$1,500 IUD insertion, vasectomy, or tubal ligation procedure, then opt-out, thus extracting a great deal of money from the insurance without coming close to covering it.
Generally, even if an insurance company doesn't provide the benefit, employees can get the insurance bargained rate at their provider if they ask, so having an opt-in just to get the lower rate doesn't buy the employees anything either.
The only way "insurance" works when talking about regular medical costs is if everyone opts-in, especially those that don't need or use it.
So no, it's a false position to assert that the institution and other employees would bear absolutely no cost or burden for the birth control services, even if there's an "additional cost" and especially if it's "opt-in".
If the employees are happy to bear the costs themselves, they should do so directly with their provider. Insurance doesn't work this way, and to force it breaks the model in a way that ultimately leaves the employer holding the bag.
fade
Staff member
Devil's advocate. What if I have moral qualms about being obligated to pay for a share of bob's 400,000 dollar heart surgery when he doesn't eat right or exercise either? Can I opt out of my premiums going to that, too? That was a lifestyle choice on his part, and I don't feel like my money should support his debauchery. (Not sure if that level of insurance in legally required, but let's say it is for sake of argument.)
You can just not get insurance.
Ah, but heart surgery is a risk, not a regular cost. It fits the insurance paradigm.
Buying insurance for birth control is like buying insurance for beer. There's no risk of buying beer accidentally, you either buy it or you don't. If an actuary has to make a table showing cost vs risk, the risk is 100% for those that choose to buy birth control, and 0% for those that don't. This type of system only works when everyone, beer drinkers and teetotalers alike, are forced to pay into the pot regardless of their consumption.
Buying insurance for heart surgery for an obese person is like buying car insurance for a teenage driver with a cellphone. Chances are good you will need it more than a skinny person, but it's still just a statistical risk that can be calculated and isn't a given. There is correlation, and even some cause and effect, but no guarantee.
Besides, right now organizations can trailer insurance plans according to their own policies. In fact many insurance carriers now have cheaper plans with requirements that employees meet healthy goals. So if your employer opts in to those plans, you may find that you have to take a yearly physical and labwork, and if you don't meet their goals you may pay more than someone who is, according to their tables, healthy, and thus poses a lower risk for expensive health care.
But if an organization was morally opposed to obesity, they could in fact get insurance that doesn't cover certain procedures that would only apply to obese employees. Right now employers have the right to trailer their plans according to their needs and employees have the right to accept or reject an employer sponsored plan and obtain their own health insurance if they deem their employers health insurance unacceptable.
Just because you like in new York doesn't mean you have to buy your groceries there, and it's not new Yorks job to make sure you can get everything you want at the price you want. You can order from an online store, or drive to another city to fulfill your needs.
Your employer shouldn't have to meet all your needs if they choose not to. It's likely that they will miss out on some great employees if they restrict their benefits. But government regulation in this area isn't necessary. Employees have several choices for birth control even if they stay with their employer, and many more choices if they find another employer.
- Status